[Bryan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

So should we just up and leave?

[PaidInFull]

Yes we should. That would stop all the bickering and we can just sit back and watch the Iraqi people and see what they do. Why should it be our problem? I think ALL US troops from outside of the US should be brought back to the US. Everyone of them.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Bryan

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

So should we just up and leave?

Well the current administration has left such an irresponsible quagmire that their successors are damned if they do/don't at this point.

[Than]

I think Rep. Murtha was said what he said not so much out of a heartfelt belief that the best course of action is immediate and total withdrawal, but more as a way to send an undeniably clear and firm message that the American public is fed up with the status quo in Iraq from a respected, knowledgable source.

Basically, that we are not happy with the way its being handled and something drastic has to be done immediately. I think it's about time, and if saying that is what it takes to shock this administration into reevaluating their policies to better reflect the will of the public then more power to him.

[BurntHombre]

I'm not clear why this story is getting so much press. This particular congressman has been against the war for a long time. He's certainly not the first to call for a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

[Insane Drummer]

Originally Posted by PaidInFull

Yes we should. That would stop all the bickering and we can just sit back and watch the Iraqi people and see what they do. Why should it be our problem? I think ALL US troops from outside of the US should be brought back to the US. Everyone of them.

Why should it be or problem? Because WE removed the head of state in Iraq... That sort of puts a tiny amount of responablity on us for the future of Iraq.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Why should it be or problem? Because WE removed the head of state in Iraq... That sort of puts a tiny amount of responablity on us for the future of Iraq.

We replaced it with a similar model.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

We replaced it with a similar model.

So... up and leaving will magically fix everything?

[JerryLove]

So... up and leaving will magically fix everything?

So... torturing people picked off the street will make it better?

See? You are not the only one that can respond in a manner unrelated to what was said.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

What's your opinion of withdrawal here? Im curious and will state my opinion out front. I don't see any good exit strategy period here. I see just withdrawing instantly as irresponsible, and staying as a catalyst for more violence. I don't have a clue, but in all this, I see no good options.

[Benny Hicks]

I think it's silly that it's news that House Democrats are calling for us to pull out. This is not news, this has been something they have been calling for basically since we took Saddam Hussein out of power. I'm not sure how I feel about when we should pull out, but I don't understand how House Democrats advocating a position they've held for over a year consitutes news.

[JerryLove]

I don't see a particularly good option either. At the end of the day, I don't see it as benificial to support the government and economy of a foreign state indefinately. The Iraqi army is already larger than the force the US put in to begin with. I see no reason that they should not be able to pick up the task started.

When it comes to withdrawl, it's less about "winnin gthe ongoing war" and more about withdrawing state-welfare. If Iraq is to be free, it must be able to stand on its own two feet; otherwise you are just looking at Vietnam all over again (we spent 30 years trying to artifically prop-up a non-sustainable government). Personally, there's other spots in the world I think we can do more good with less effort (mostly in Africa).

I think we would do better to be the French during the American Revolution than the Soviets during the Afghan Revolution... I think we need to stop looking at the insurgents for our timeline and instead look at the Iraqi government for our timeline. We can support them in perpitude, much as we do in Indonesia and Pakistan; but we need to roll out from doing their job.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't see a particularly good option either. At the end of the day, I don't see it as benificial to support the government and economy of a foreign state indefinately. The Iraqi army is already larger than the force the US put in to begin with. I see no reason that they should not be able to pick up the task started.

When it comes to withdrawl, it's less about "winnin gthe ongoing war" and more about withdrawing state-welfare. If Iraq is to be free, it must be able to stand on its own two feet; otherwise you are just looking at Vietnam all over again (we spent 30 years trying to artifically prop-up a non-sustainable government). Personally, there's other spots in the world I think we can do more good with less effort (mostly in Africa).

I think we would do better to be the French during the American Revolution than the Soviets during the Afghan Revolution... I think we need to stop looking at the insurgents for our timeline and instead look at the Iraqi government for our timeline. We can support them in perpitude, much as we do in Indonesia and Pakistan; but we need to roll out from doing their job.

Sounds good. But I am not sure how that would work.

[Wheatmeister]

I think the best thing to do is phase in some folks from the diplomatic corps--by the plane load, in fact, and reassign the military to militarily appropriate tasks like border patrols. There is nation-building left to do, because we got ourselves in this situation, but I'd feel infinitely more comfortable with folks that have a deep understanding of Iraq in charge of such an effort than the Pentagon which has been in charge.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

What's your opinion of withdrawal here? Im curious and will state my opinion out front. I don't see any good exit strategy period here. I see just withdrawing instantly as irresponsible, and staying as a catalyst for more violence. I don't have a clue, but in all this, I see no good options.

I don't really see any happy way out either. If the US just up and left now, the power vacuum and instability of Iraq would most certainly spread. And since national conflicts have a really bad habit of becoming regional, and then global, I can see how it could get ugly. Fast. The past 100 years are full of examples, from WWI to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They've started something here, and if they just up and leave it, it WILL get ugly. Do we really need to see a repeat of the post-Arusha aftermath?

But on the other hand, the longer they stay, the more they reinforce the thought that they're yet another foreign army come to conquer Iraq, like everybody from Alexander the Great to the Ottomans, and then the British. Yep. The Republicans have really painted themselves into a corner here. On top of that, over the past two years, the image that they've built in Iraq - intended to make the insugrants think twice about messing with them - has reinforced the notion that they're there to take over, and may well be impossible at this point to reverse.

I think the best thing to do is phase in some folks from the diplomatic corps--by the plane load, in fact, and reassign the military to militarily appropriate tasks like border patrols. There is nation-building left to do, because we got ourselves in this situation, but I'd feel infinitely more comfortable with folks that have a deep understanding of Iraq in charge of such an effort than the Pentagon which has been in charge.

They definately need to have people in country who are more sensitive to Iraqi culture, but I'm afraid that their own self-interest makes them avoid such people. From a military perspective, I think that their best bet would be to model the operation more like ISAF. Everything that ISAF is, Iraqi Freedom isn't. ISAF is a 35-nation stabilisation effort, Iraqi Freedom is, for the most part, a completely unilateral occupation. ISAF is under the ultimate control of the democratically-elected Afghan Central Government, Iraqi Freedom is under the exclusive control of Washington, supporting a US-appointed government. ISAF's mandate is to assist the Afghan police and army establish security and order in their country (by incorporating them into their patrols, so that they can learn for themselves instead of having it done for them, as well as training them in all other aspects of military and law enforcement requirements - physical fitness, conflict resolution, demining, etc. etc.), Iraqi Freedom's mandate is still unclear, but the bulk of operations are directly and exclusively carried out by American forces with little if any integration. ISAF has established a relationship of trust with the local population, and attacks are few and far between. This was achieved by interacting with the locals and taking a non-intimidating posture. Iraqi Freedom is set up to try to make the insurgants blink at seeing the cocked fist of the mightiest military machine in the world, but the effect that it's having on the Iraqi public is quite adverse. And consequently, ISAF, despite being under NATO control now, and no longer a UN mission, has been quite successful. Iraqi Freedom is turning into more of a failure each week. But still, the Republicans seem bent on trying to make their ideals Iraqi ideals, no matter how many times it blows up in their faces. They're doing the same thing the same way, but expecting different results. That's just plain stupidity. Unfortunately, by their unilateralism and intimidation tactics, I'm afraid that they've already long closed that door.