Redeploying to the periphery...

[phcatlantis]

Instead of just talking about elevating the level of discussion, how about we actually go ahead and do it? We can start by actually taking up a topic that lends itself to more reasoned, substantive analysis than what you'll find in the usual "capitalism v. socialism," "IDiots in Kansas," or "Bush did/said/wants/screwed yada yada" threads.

 

Anyway.

 

It's taken three years, but the opposition is finally coalescing around withdrawal--in one form or another--as their strategic answer to this Administration's adventure in Iraq. Specifics are still hard to come by, but the most serious proposal to date came from Representative John Murtha (D-PA), echoing the outlines of a recent white paper from the Center for American Progression [1]. The strategy's core assumption is that the US presence in theater itself invigorates the insurgency beyond US and Iraqi means to roll it back and that sustained strength in excess of four combat divisions will break the fighting Army in a years time. The plan essentially calls for redeploying more than half of the American strength by the end of the year, with less than half of that number--all active duty--remaining at USCENTCOM's disposal. That, as far as I can tell, is the only strategically coherent point Korb and Katulis actually make.

 

To their credit, Korb and Katulis do not describe this as a plan for producing an Iraq that is free, peaceful and a partner in the global war against terror. At most, they promise their plan will "will minimize the damage to the United States in the short term, mitigate the drawbacks of our eventual withdrawal from Iraq, and secure our interests in the long term." While its not fair to ask them or anyone who feels as they do to disprove the Administration's assertion that victory in Iraq is a victory in the war on global terror, they do concede at several points that withdrawal is a dangerous proposition that will in the short term expose Americans to greater risk.

[ecoli]

To their credit, Korb and Katulis do not describe this as a plan for producing an Iraq that is free, peaceful and a partner in the global war against terror. At most, they promise their plan will "will minimize the damage to the United States in the short term, mitigate the drawbacks of our eventual withdrawal from Iraq, and secure our interests in the long term." .

 

They said the same thiing about the Vietnam war and that America, though we didn't succeed in our mission, we showed that we were willing to fight the spread of communism... how different is the situation today?

[Skye]

I agree with the first phase, a while ago I put forward a plan that was quite similar to this. I think it's necessary to reduce troop numbers in Iraq in order to deactivate the reserves and allow for proper troop rotations. However I disagree with the second stage, essentially a pull out. I think a long term presence in Iraq would lead to a much more favourable nation. The main argument for the pull out is that US troops stirs up the insurgency. I have no doubt that it does, but perhaps the majority of attacks seem to be on Iraqi police and military now. So I'm not sure if a pull out would relieve that tension, not sure enough to take that plunge.

[ecoli]

I agree with the first phase, a while ago I put forward a plan that was quite similar to this. I think it's necessary to reduce troop numbers in Iraq in order to deactivate the reserves and allow for proper troop rotations. However I disagree with the second stage, essentially a pull out. I think a long term presence in Iraq would lead to a much more favourable nation. The main argument for the pull out is that US troops stirs up the insurgency. I have no doubt that it does, but perhaps the majority of attacks seem to be on Iraqi police and military now. So I'm not sure if a pull out would relieve that tension, not sure enough to take that plunge.

 

On this note, how are we insuring that terrorist organizations or other dictators don't sieze power after we leave?

[Skye]

From the article:

 

14,000 troops would be positioned nearby in Kuwait and as part of a Marine expeditionary force located offshore in the Persian Gulf to strike at any terrorist camps and enclaves and guard against any major acts that risk further destabilizing the region.