Never! to Cut and Run! Yes! to 'benchmarked redepoyment'!

[Pure]

What do people think. Is withdrawal coming, though under a different name?

Baker signals U.S. exit from Iraq


Toronto Star.
Oct. 24, 2006. 01:00 AM
RICHARD GWYN


It has been reported — and, significantly, has not been denied — that James Baker, the former U.S. secretary of state to Ronald Reagan who now heads the Iraq Study Group charged with proposing policy changes to the president, has called the situation in Iraq "a helluva mess."

This shows that Baker has lost none of his sharpness.

The one criticism that could be made is that his comment is too optimistic. The situation in Iraq is worse than "a helluva mess." It is an appalling, irredeemable mess. For the United States there is now just one strategy option left: how and when to get out. It would be unreasonable to expect Baker to say this. But in his customarily deft way, he has been signalling it.

Last week, Baker showed up on the TV interview shows. He emphasized that the Study Group has, as yet, made no decisions. Then he said something interesting. This was that there were possibilities in-between the extreme alternatives of "stay the course" (which is President George Bush's policy) or "bug out," as being demanded by anti-war critics.

One possibility, Baker remarked, might be to resort to the use of "benchmarks," that is, to announce a schedule of troop withdrawals that would be implemented in lockstep with the progressive takeover of security by the Iraqi government.

But, even if the Iraqi government fails to meet its commitments, these withdrawals would still be implemented. In official parlance, this technique is known as a "forcing mechanism." The problem with this solution is not that it is almost indistinguishable from political blackmail; the problem is that it is virtually certain to fail.

The Iraqi government just does not have the credibility, the nerve, or the will to take such decisive action. And the Iraqi armed forces haven't the capacity to take over significant security responsibilities: The police and army are thoroughly infiltrated by the insurgents and religious militia and are feared and loathed by the public.

Baker is far too savvy not to know this. So why is he tossing out the thought?

Politics, of course. The Republicans face serious losses in the mid-term elections. Any hint that they might have a plan to get out of Iraq while holding onto some honour might save them from a rout.

Post-election, an entirely new factor enters the equation.

In a certain way, Bush is to Iraq as Richard Nixon was to China. Just as only Nixon could have got away with extending diplomatic recognition to Communist China, so is Bush best-placed to preside over a "bug-out" — never so called, of course — from Iraq.

It will be excruciatingly difficult to get Bush to do this. Yet the "benchmarks" solution might make it possible for him to do it.
That it won't work is neither here nor there. It will enable Bush to claim that he's leaving on his own timetable rather than that of the insurgents.

Most significant, it will enable Bush to blame his pullout on the failure of the Iraqi government to meet its targets. Again, the fact that the government cannot meet these targets is neither here nor there. This, or something close to it, is going to happen once the mid-term elections are safely over, I predict.

I base the prediction on two factors. While Bush doesn't need advice on how to get out of Iraq (he has lots of experts to do that), Baker is exactly the kind of person who can provide him with a credible cover for getting out.

The other factor is the latest public opinion poll. Not the one that shows that two-thirds of Americans now have no faith in Bush's handling of Iraq; that merely continues a pre-existing trend. Rather, the poll just completed in the South in which only 11 per cent of Southerners say they still feel any "pride" in the war. It is in the South, with its warrior tradition, that support for the war has been strongest. Once Southerners come to regard the Iraq War as a dirty, shameful war, no choice remains for Bush but to get out as fast as possible while clutching whatever cover Baker can concoct so that the president doesn't look too naked — merely because he is, in fact, stark naked.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gwyn's column appears Tuesdays. gwynR@sympatico.ca.

 

[S-Des]

The problem is, whether Bush wants to pull the troops out or not, it will be dictated by the way the next year plays out. I watched a very interesting interview with the president of Pakistan where he openly said he disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, but said the US must not pull out until they are completely prepared to defend themselves. To do so would be giving a great victory (even if only in their small minds) to people who encourage their children to blow themsevles up in order to achieve chaos.

I'd love to see the US withdraw, but not at the cost of us facing a much bigger problem in ten years. A better solution would be Bush coordinating with other nations to help in Iraq, so the US wouldn't be such a beacon to people who hate us. I don't know if Bush could pull that off, or if it would solve the problem (remember, most of the attacks are by Iraquis or insurgents against other Iraquis, not us), but it would be the best hope for the country to stabalize. Personally, I think that should be everyone's goal at this point. After Sadaam, the war, and now the insurgency, the people have suffered enough and deserve a chance to carve out a life for themselves.

 

[wazhazhe]

I doubt there will be a significant change while Bush is president. As much as he's talked about 'cut and run', I don't think he could stand to be labeled as such.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I think with a Democratic House (more than likely the way I see it) there will be changes. The House controls the purse strings. So far the Republican House has approved some $400 Billion in spending for Iraq. I think the Dems will cut that spending substantially and force a withdrawl over 2007 and 2008 while Bush won't have much choice but to go along with it.

 

[Pure]

i get the idea, jenny; but i don't think the dem's would do it. as with the Vietnam war and Korean War, only the tough guys (i.e., Nixon; Eisenhower) can 'cut and run' without disgrace.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I chose the last option, mainly tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think this administration has any intention of EVER leaving Iraq. At some point, the troops may retreat to some large bases, and then OBL's heirs will have a new reason to plan large terrorist acts. The first ones were planned because OBL and his followers wanted the US out of Saudi Arabian military bases. Seems sort of quaint, nowadays.

Especially since we're now out of Saudi Arabian military bases.

 

[cantdog]

None of your poll choices reflects the reality.

We are going to be there permanently. What do you imagine we went in for?


There are massive bases and an 'embassy compound' the size of the Vatican City in construction. Really massive bases, and the bruit is they will move CentCom up to have it closer to Iran. We are certainly not, repeat not, planning anything like a withdrawal, except as you might call a withdrawal within our bases there such a thing. Seriously, Pure.

 

[amicus]

I would like to expand on the thoughts of Huckleman and Cantdog, if I may...

Although many of our European and wannabe European sympathizers on this forum and in other places, desperately wish to place the United States in the same category as middle age Empires and Colonial nations, such as the British, the French, the Spanish and the Dutch, the US has seldom if ever displayed the emphasis that it wishes to become an Empire.

And unlike Germany and Russia, never exerted the force to institute a Pax Americana across the world.

America has never displayed an intent to rule or colonize the world, not in the sense of past history.

That is so obvious one would think it unnecessary to state.

But the flip side of that coin is curiously interesting for those students of history that consider such things.

Winston Churchill warned the world at the close of the war that Soviet expansion was a threat to peace. The world was war weary in 1945 and desired recluse from conflict; it was not to be.

In context, one must consider, I think, the position of the United States, now a super power, but a fledgling one, unsure of its' position in world affairs apart from military strength.

Where and how to meet the threat of communist expansion? And, please, do not bore me with your doubts about international communism and the intent of the Soviet Union, only the most abject apologists for socialism will adhere to Stalinist propaganda at this point.

The tie-in to this thread is that the United States kept a military presence in Europe and Japan and Southeast Asia after world war two, not as a sense of empire or colonization, but of maintaining peace and order.

While this thumbnail cannot fully describe all that was going on in all places, it is pertinent to note that a half century after the Korean Conflict, which ended in a ]truce' not a victory or defeat, the United States still has about 40,000 American boots on the ground in South Korea. There have also been strategic outposts and waypoints for American forces scattered around the world to support a resistance to any outbreak of aggression in almost any part of the world, Diego Garcia, Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, bases in Labrador, Iceland, Greenland, you name it, Big Mac's are in high demand.

So, yes, the US will have a presence in Iraq for the next half century, through Republican and Democrat administrations regardless.

And soon...very soon, as with the Comintern, the world will recognize that Islamic Terrorism is as much a threat to world peace as was the Soviet Union. I do not fear for the continuing support for human individual rights around the world by the United States of America; I suspect it will wax and wane, but I do not fear it will evaporate into isolationism. That is old history that cannot be repeated....


amicus...

 

[Pure]

cant, i think that withdrawal to three or four bases would leave the US as at Guantanamo or Subic Bay (IIRC). maybe those bases would adjoin key oilfields or be at key ports. that would mark a withdrawal from most of the land (geographic area) of Iraq. also it would, i think, involve a substantial reduction in number of troops--e.g. 10,000 troops at four bases, would be 40,000, as compared to the present level of 150,000

it's hard even to see a "Korea" situation (with lots of troops for a long time), since in S. Korea, the US installed a friendly govt.

in any case, the presence of such bases would be the world's best recruiting poster for al qaeda even if, in the short run, it kept the US hand on some major oil fields.

 

[cantdog]

Oh, I didn't meant to imply that the policy is wise!

And, the main supply line to Baghdad runs from Kuwait overland! And the Hizb'Allah is Iranian-backed! And the Iranians could trash the Gulf oil infrastructure in their country worse than Saddam did that of Kuwait. There's a recipe for real disaster here, but that is what they seem to be doing, all the same.

There's been some real rebuilding in the far north, but southern Kurdistan on down, there isn't much being built at all, despite the billions earmarked for that use. What is being constructed is this massive 'embassy' and under a dozen strongpoint/bases. The count of them is a little iffy, because, for example, Camp Victory by the Baghdad Airport and Camp Victory North have grown toward each other. Is that one base, or two? That's happened in a couple different places. So everyone sounds very vague about the numbers. There's no doubt about the bases, though. Between six and twelve is the number you'll hear. That is the 'things' that 'are going very very well,' when the generals reply to press and congress. Nothing else can really be said to be going very very well. 120 attacks every blessed day, now.

 

[cantdog]

And they have to attack Iran next, so pulling out is not credible by the end of the Cheney ordeal.

 

[shereads]

Strategery.

 

[shereads]

Since 'cut and run' is unacceptable and 'stay the course' is out of favor, how about one of these?

"Run the course."

"Run, of course."

"Cut and stay."

"Stay, then run."




Unfortunately, we're screwed either way. The one course of action that makes sense as a response to anti-American terrorism by Islamic extremists is, "Don't invade Iraq, you idiot. Use that $300 billion+ you're borrowing from our great-grandchildren to finish the job in Afghanistan, strengthen security at U.S. ports of entry and - if you're seriously concerned about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a rogue nation, check out that scary little dude in North Korea. He insists he has some. Ditto Iran. Just about every dangerously unstable government except Saddam Hussein's is either waving nukes in your face or encouraging Islamic extremism. Pay attention."

Christ, it's frustrating to hear GWB lecture us about the dangers of failure in Iraq. It will turn the country into a terrorist training ground. It will lead to a bloody civil war. Well, duh. Whose fault is it that we're in this position? Who gets to walk away, scot-free, in 2008 and leave someone else to take the heat for failing in Iraq?

Dumbass.

 

[Pure]

benchmarks, it is.

there was more discussion on CNN of 'benchmarks,' including some interviews with Iraqi politicians. the idea, one said, is through a deadline to 'pressure' the Iraqi security forces to stop up to the plate.

this is a bit like the plan to upgrade the S. Vietnamese army so it could take over the fighting. it was hopelessly corrupt, inept, and poorly commanded.

i haven't studied the map in detail, but i don't know if the US, like the Brits did with Kuwait, can break off a little piece of Iraq, like Basra, and stay there forever on a giant base. Guantanamo has about 50 sq miles, but apparently only 17 miles of fence. Each inland base, inside Iraq, of 50 sq miles, would have a 25 mile perimeter at very least.

i think that Pakistan, Kazachstan, and a couple other 'stans will have to do for US bases.

 

[shereads]

there was more discussion on CNN of 'benchmarks,' including some interviews with Iraqi politicians. the idea, one said, is through a deadline to 'pressure' the Iraqi security forces to stop up to the plate.

this is a bit like the plan to upgrade the S. Vietnamese army so it could take over the fighting. it was hopelessly corrupt, inept, and poorly commanded.

i haven't studied the map in detail, but i don't know if the US, like the Brits did with Kuwait, can break off a little piece of Iraq, like Basra, and stay there forever on a giant base. Guantanamo has about 50 sq miles, but apparently only 17 miles of fence. Each inland base, inside Iraq, of 50 sq miles, would have a 25 mile perimeter at very least.

i think that Pakistan, Kazachstan, and a couple other 'stans will have to do for US bases.

Yeah, I think the idea is that we will reluctantly agree to a timetable imposed by the democratically elected government of Iraq because after all, they have the right to determine whether they need or want a strong U.S. military presence. If it turns out that they aren't as prepared as they thought, we'll be shocked by the carnage but can deny responsibility. (Hey, it wasn't our idea to leave. We were willing to stay and finsih the job, but you guys insisted you could handle it on your own. Tough break.)

The challenge is getting the government of Iraq to impose a timetable. The prime minister has denied having requested one. Damned ungrateful of him.

 

[Pure]

it is fortunate that we have on have hand rummy and cheney who are the most bald faced of liars and bs artists. only these kinda Republicans could pull off --to their own satisfaction--the creative re-labelling necessary.

as Gwyn pointed out, the 'kernel' of the 'benchmark' idea is that the Iraqi's will fail to 'step up,' i can already imagine a Bush speech:

"I say to the Iraqi people, 'we are your friends', but we can't continue to be the main provider of security. that is the function of your army and police; they must step up to the plate. and we intend to see they continue to have the most uptodate training and weapons. we are resolved to help you in all material ways; i hope you show us the will to continue as a strong and democratic state. that will is something you must find. i know you will choose wisely. though your religion may not be just like ours, we, like you, believe in one God, who creates and preserves the Universe: So i'm sure you will understand when i leave you with 'God Bless. God Bless the People of Iraq.' "

 

[Pure]

no timetable, but is there a schedule; no unbearable pressure, just pressure

Bush warns Iraqis that patience has limits

By Steve Holland
Reuters
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; 12:25 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After a protest by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Bush said on Wednesday that American patience had its limits over Iraq but pledged not to put unbearable pressure on the country's leaders.

Tensions between the two leaders surfaced a day after top U.S. and civilian officials in Baghdad said Iraq's government had agreed to a "schedule" of political and security steps aimed at forging a united, stable democracy.


The United States was pressing Iraqi leaders to take "bold steps" to end sectarian violence, and "we are making it clear that American patience is not unlimited," Bush told a news conference in Washington.

Even so, he added, "We will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear."

"We'll push him (Maliki) but we're not going to push him to the point where he can't achieve the objective," Bush said.

Bush, under fire over his Iraq policies less than two weeks before elections on November 7 that could cost his Republicans control of the U.S. Congress, voiced qualified confidence in Maliki.

"We're with him as long as he continues to make tough decisions," Bush said.

Maliki earlier distanced himself from the U.S.-announced "timeline" to end sectarian violence and criticized a raid on a Shi'ite militia stronghold aimed at a death squad leader.

"The Americans have the right to review their policies but we do not believe in a timetable and no one will impose one on us," Maliki, himself a Shi'ite, told a news conference.

 

[shereads]

Bush warns Iraqis that patience has limits

By Steve Holland
Reuters
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; 12:25 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After a protest by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Bush said on Wednesday that American patience had its limits over Iraq but pledged not to put unbearable pressure on the country's leaders.

Tensions between the two leaders surfaced a day after top U.S. and civilian officials in Baghdad said Iraq's government had agreed to a "schedule" of political and security steps aimed at forging a united, stable democracy.


The United States was pressing Iraqi leaders to take "bold steps" to end sectarian violence, and "we are making it clear that American patience is not unlimited," Bush told a news conference in Washington.

Even so, he added, "We will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear."

"We'll push him (Maliki) but we're not going to push him to the point where he can't achieve the objective," Bush said.

Bush, under fire over his Iraq policies less than two weeks before elections on November 7 that could cost his Republicans control of the U.S. Congress, voiced qualified confidence in Maliki.

"We're with him as long as he continues to make tough decisions," Bush said.

Maliki earlier distanced himself from the U.S.-announced "timeline" to end sectarian violence and criticized a raid on a Shi'ite militia stronghold aimed at a death squad leader.

"The Americans have the right to review their policies but we do not believe in a timetable and no one will impose one on us," Maliki, himself a Shi'ite, told a news conference.

Being right all the time wouldn't suck so much if it had made me rich.

 

[cantdog]

there was more discussion on CNN of 'benchmarks,' including some interviews with Iraqi politicians. the idea, one said, is through a deadline to 'pressure' the Iraqi security forces to stop up to the plate.

this is a bit like the plan to upgrade the S. Vietnamese army so it could take over the fighting. it was hopelessly corrupt, inept, and poorly commanded.

i haven't studied the map in detail, but i don't know if the US, like the Brits did with Kuwait, can break off a little piece of Iraq, like Basra, and stay there forever on a giant base. Guantanamo has about 50 sq miles, but apparently only 17 miles of fence. Each inland base, inside Iraq, of 50 sq miles, would have a 25 mile perimeter at very least.

i think that Pakistan, Kazachstan, and a couple other 'stans will have to do for US bases.

We are not done. Iran awaits. The rumor is that Bush, the Decider, has a messianic vision of regime change in Iran before he leaves office. So we'll have to stage from Iraq, dude. Won't that be a fine kettle?

 

[rgraham666]

What's he going to use to fight with, cant? I gather most of the U.S. ground troops are currently mired in Iraq.

And after reading Pure's article on Bush's 'patience' I feel the sudden need to send Mr. Bush a copy of 'How To Make Friends and Influence People'.

 

[ishtat]

Some lateral thoughts

Does it matter what any politician American, Iraqi, Kurd ,Iranian, Syrian, Saudi etc thinks.

The current situation is that Iraq no longer exists in real politik terms. Its future forms will depend on which of the leaders of the groups of tribal bandits fighting under the guise(disguise) of various brands of Islam can carve a sufficiently large powerbase to bargain with. 'Real politik' analysis of the situation indicates that none of the "recognised" political powers has any significant control at all.

My own view is that chaos and civil war might be a good result for the West. Our exit will leave the moslem tribal factions fighting each other for control. The only way they can finance their own wars is through the sale of oil(examine the Iraq Iran war).There might be a lot to be said for a long term war adjacent to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.It is people from those areas that are the real problem and a messy war with their neighbors might be just the thing to prevent them causing problems in our back yards.

And if they fight we can sell all of 'em arms

 

[shereads]

What's he going to use to fight with, cant?

Newcewler weapons.

 

[shereads]

And if they fight we can sell all of 'em arms

Are you kidding? Nobody shops retail anymore, except as a courtesy to Raytheon stockholders.

The smart money waits until January when the Russian Mafia and disgruntled Pakistani generals dump their Christmas overstocks of black market Soviet-era nukes and smallpox. If you can't wait, try an e-bay search with keywords like "North Korea," "plutonium," and "impoverished third-world nation."

 

[JamesSD]

Right now I just think the change in Bush administration rhetoric is empty election year talk.

That said, the will of the American people is pretty clear. We don't want another vietnam. We would like to see a stable, democratic Iraq. Our continued presence in Iraq seems to make things worse.

If we're still there by late 2007/early 2008, there's no way anyone who wants to win an election in '08 will be able to support the war.

I expect a gradual withdrawal to start sometime next year, unless the Republicans hold both the house and senate.

 

[elsol]

We'll get out.

North Korea & Iran are both showing the problem with Iraq... the U.S. can't afford to get caught in a quagmire while others are looking for a reason to nip at our heels.

It's either get out or do some serious antogizing to control others... like give South Korea their own nukes.

"Hey, Kim... How do you like them apples?"