Q&A With Q&O

Dale Franks from the right and Oliver Willis from the left have a helpful exchange on the merits and likely consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq.  Let me just pick this:

Dale:

First, I'm wondering what you think the result of an American withdrawal would be? And we really have to ask that about two spheres, the internal Iraqi results, and the effect on America's security.

Oliver:

There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation. Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say. But it will be a bloody confrontation without the added carnage of American troops. On the domestic front, it will be better to have our troops not playing - essentially - pattycake with Iraqi forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building. The postwar plans, if you can call them that, thought we would prop up a guy like Chalabi and Iraq would have some kind of democracy (everybody remember Bush's second inaugural speech?). That isn't going to happen. They want Sharia law. They don't want a secular, progressive republic. They'll pick what they want.

One of my questions is, who are the "they" that want Sharia law - a majority of Iraqis, or a majority of the Iraqis with guns?

If the civil war is truly intractable the answer may not matter much, but it seems to be worth knowing whether we failed because we were outfought or outvoted.

As to the notion that we will witness a violent civil war without intervention from Turkey, Iran, or Saudi Arabia - who knows?

Bush has created a disaster and I have no confidence in his judgment as to a solution, but I am not exactly sold on cut-and-run, either.

Comments

[Seixon]

Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say. But it will be a bloody confrontation without the added carnage of American troops.

Because in the end, all that matters to today's liberals is that we don't get killed any more. The Iraqis? Psh, screw the Iraqis. Willis can't say whether or not it will get worse when we leave? Can't, or won't?

Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building.

Yes, nation building, a horrible idea. Why, if we'd carried out such a thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s, we'd have avoided the ascension of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and that would have been truly, as Al Gore would put it, a tragedy.

The Marshall Plan? Horrible idea.

Failed states where we can hunt down al Qaeda like, you know, Somalia, sounds much better. Clinton showed us how well that kind of thing works out.

Who says the liberals haven't learned from the past?

[PeterUK.]

"There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation. Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say..... Instead we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building".

This is the same line we have been getting from the trolls for two years.The first part is hardly soothsaying, the second is nonsense.
What part Marine and Infantry divisions,let alone carrier groups,would play in the hunting of al Qaeda,and where?
Is he saying that a Nation which fought Germay and Japan simultaneously cannot deal with Iraq and a bunch of deranged tribesmen at the same time?

[teri edgar]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

The media got a hold of Dick Cheney's playbook over at the Smoking Gun.
Ohh wait, that's actually the enemies playbook, no wonder the left doesn't want to fight them. They are pure evil, so we must find a deal to bring peace in our time...

I am sure
Chris Mathews will ask Shuster how confident he is this didn't come from Cheney.

[SMGalbraith]

Bush has created a disaster and I have no confidence in his judgment as to a solution,

Well, no and yes.

Pedantry aside, it seems to me that the disaster was unleashed more than it was created ("Whirl is King, having driven out Zeus").

As the Times' John Burns admitted, he overestimated the willingness and ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. To set aside sectarian differences and desire to correct historic injustices and create a trans-sectarian government.

Self government requires the governing of the self. And the recognition that other selves have rights too.

Still, the intervention in Iraq, as Fouad Ajami has stated, has changed the face of the Middle East forever. Whether these changes are good still remains to be determined.

As Eliot said, there are no lost causes since there are no won causes.

SMG

[teri edgar]

The idea that their will be civil war in Iraq is stoopid, of course their will be but who cares. Bin laden will have proven his strategy works. HE WILL THEN USE IRAQ TO BEGIN STRIKES INTO KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA.

Then the Democrats will have us withdraw from there as well.

[abwtf]

I wonder if we'd be able to get Al Qaeda and/or the Iraqis to wear armbands or something so our troops could tell the difference between the groups.

Also, since US troops in Iraq are targets of insurgents as well as terrorists does this mean we wouldn't fire back for fear of attacking non-Al Qaeda?

[seamus]

We have put our troops in an untenable position. They are not cut out to be policemen, politicians, nation-builders. As said very eloquently by commenters here at the site, we're best at blowing shit up...killing lots of people and moving on, using brute force. Doing door to door searches in the neighborhood, hoping not to get blown up by IED's is a terrible use of our troops. A slow motion civil war is raging now. We should not be there trying to referee. It is time to leave. Even if it get worse, at least it will finally be Iraqis figuring out how best to go forward - if it's a Shia theocracy, well, are we all really surprised? Iraqis may have wanted to see Hussien removed, hopefully they are grateful to us, WE WON THE WAR, we are losing the occupation. A case could be made that Iraqis themselves will be in a better position to take on Al Qaeda if we leave. We may have unleashed a bloodbath, but it's better than having Hussein, right?

[BurbankErnie]

Since when has Oliver Willis been taken seriously?
Is this Satire?

[Other Tom]

"...we would be back on track hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates."

Suppose we find large numbers of them in Iraq?

[teri edgar]

The blood bath was already there, the mdeia just decided to start covering it....

[PeterUK.]

Do the good people of Okinawa deserve an infestation of al Qaeda? Because that is where they will go if America redeploys.Wherever there are US bases,the Philippines,Turkey,Kuwait,the terrorists will prosecute their campaign until you leave.

[gmax]

Oliver Willis the gift that keeps on giving. With guys like this steering the boat for the Demos, 2 years in power will likely be quite enough. Just think if they could put forth well thought out and rational arguments.

[gmax]

Suppose we find large numbers of them in Iraq?

We just wont look there. Part of the triple threat, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. For more on the subject look up Edwards, John and recent speech on the lack of any War on Terror.

[seamus]

It al Qaeda is to prosecute the campaign against our troops and us, I do think it's better it not be in Iraq. The on-going civil war there complicates our battle with al Qaeda immensely.

[gmax]

You know Oliver could have sealed the deal if he had just thrown in a Jimmy Carter quote.

[PeterUK.]

So "Doing door to door searches in the neighborhood, hoping not to get blown up by IED's" is a job for "policemen, politicians, nation-builders."?

BTW IED is old hat,what is being used are landmines and EFPs.The vehicle bombs are a speciality of Hezbollah and AQ

[Pofarmer]

Bush has created a disaster

Once again I must ask, compared to what?

Why not blame the Baathists and the Jihadi's, I'd say they had a hand in it.

A case could be made that Iraqis themselves will be in a better position to take on Al Qaeda if we leave

Then make it, but it's hard to see how a failed state in Iraq, with plenty of room around the edges for terrorrists to plot and plan and work benefits anybody.

[seamus]

But Bush won't pull troops out, he's in to the bitter end of his term. And our troops will continue to die with no clear mission. The next president will have to deal with this mess and there won't be a good solution then either.

If Bush were a smarter politician he whould declare victory and bring them home. If he were a better commander in chief, there would be at least five times the number of troops there now doing their best to lock that place down.

Bush will leave it up to some one else to do "the hard work."

[Pofarmer]

It al Qaeda is to prosecute the campaign against our troops and us, I do think it's better it not be in Iraq.

You'd rather it were in Detroit?

[PeterUK.]

seamus,
Exactly where would you fight al Qaeda?

[Pofarmer]

there would be at least five times the number of troops there now doing their best to lock that place down.

From where?

And how does this not just create more targets? You would have more casualties, not fewer.

[PeterUK.]

"there would be at least five times the number of troops there now doing their best to lock that place down."

You don't have five times the troops plush supply train.Make up your mind more troops or run away.

Lock the place down,you are beginning to sound like Jason Leopold.You understand exactly what "locking a country down" means Seamus?

[seamus]

I think the fight against al Qaeda is primarily one of Intelligence and police work, as the British have shown. I also think it would be fruitful to put more resources in Afghanistan, continue the hunt for Bin Laden and his deputies. Shites and Sunnis in Iraq might have a better chance stamping out al Qaeda if we weren't there as a complicating factor. Some of the Sunnis fighting against us might turn their attention to al Qaeda. al Qaeda is exploiting our presence there. I'm not saying it's the best of all worlds, but we have too many enemies in the streets there, even our friends by day turn out to be our enemies by night. We are undermanned, with no clear mission.

[seamus]

I think to leave is the better option. Certainly Bush's present course is a failure. Saying it doesn't make me a defeatist. Bush's plan is a plan of failure, a plan of defeat for our troops. If there are no more troops to be had, if we can't deploy our superior firepower, yes, by all means leave.

[Pofarmer]

continue the hunt for Bin Laden and his deputies

Don't follow the news much, do you? There have been several AQ and Taliban deputies rolled up in the last few weeks.

Some of the Sunnis fighting against us might turn their attention to al Qaeda.

Haven't heard the news that a lot of the Sunni Sheiks in Al Anbar have thrown in with the U.S. military to drive out AQ? This way, we get the intelligence, as well. The other way? Not so much.

I think the fight against al Qaeda is primarily one of Intelligence and police work

Huh? They have that luxury, as well as our forces in this country have, because we have a good portion of their leadership and troops tied up "Over there". You leave "over there" and it frees them up to plan for "over here".

Why is this so hard? My 5 year old gets it!

[Pofarmer]

If there are no more troops to be had, if we can't deploy our superior firepower

There is a difference. We have tons of firepower in reserve. We can't lose, we can only quit if we lose the willpower.

Once again, failure compared to what?

[Jane]

A case could be made that Iraqis themselves will be in a better position to take on Al Qaeda if we leave

Then make it. Tell us your plan and be very specific. What exactly would you have the Iraqi's do - starting where, and for how long? What would the result be, and on what date would it happen?

[Roger]

disaster was unleashed more than it was created ("Whirl is King, having driven out Zeus").

The Iraq war was a planned sell off of covert CIA WMD(there is no WMD) during the inspections. Bush was seen as vulnerable to Iraq and CIA because of his father. He was used, as can be told from the speech, to sell off a program not liked by CIA. Bush and Iraq may have actually occured because of the CIA and their covert WMD program not liked by CIA. Later, Plame, covert WMD specialist for Iran and Iraq shows up claiming to be blown again. This is all she does since Ames blew her in 93.' So, the retired CIA agents all support her because that's an assignment. She is really working for 'the team.'

Disaster was created by CIA as they sold out of the covert CIA WMD program that they blame Rice for creating.

Civil war and creating countires out of Iraq is a desireable option for most countries. Jordan passed on this problem(maybe it has something to do with Plame's boss, Foley and the murder of Foley in Jordan) and immediately said they were going to build a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia was immediately accused of picking religious sides. Turkey wants Northern Iraq. Iran doesn't really care.

No one can be fund to take care of the problem. Chalabi got stopped because of the insane nuts who would have everyone attack themselves rather than have him in power. Chalabi wasn't given a chance alot like how Clinton got into and stayed in office. Threats to persons bodies.

If we want to end Iraq, we should go with it's the center of civilization and offer them the same plan Hitler was offered. maybe they'll go with the end of all humans in whole since we aren't anymore anyway.

Anyhow, the war is coming to the US and no one should doubt it. They plan on killing millions of Americans and destroying cities. Personally, I'm thinking bio terror and that lab that was freed by the Iraqi courts the day Plame posed for 'Time.' The new bio terror facility should help, but I don't think they have the cure to new viruses, etc. created in these labs.

Detroit? It's old.

[seamus]

I realize I'm talking to the hard core dead-enders here, but yes, much of the American public has lost the willpower for this particular conflict in Iraq. We are in a long-term battle with al Qaeda but fighting them in Iraq is fighting them on their terms. We are not going to our strength here. We're busy trying to prop up a government, refereeing between Shites and Sunnis, dodging bullets from hostile Shites and Sunnis worried we might be occupying their country for a long term, as well as hunting down and fighting al Qaeda. Declare victory and re-group!

[PeterUK.]

"I think the fight against al Qaeda is primarily one of Intelligence and police work, as the British have shown."

On the contrary,the security services buggered up 7/7 completely,it was only after this they tried to get themselves in gear.Simply put there are too many suspects and not enough bloodhounds,only now are mosques being monitored for recruiters and inflammatory sermons.For years terrorist were allowed to stay in Britain providing the behaved here,too late chum the horse has bolted.

[Other Tom]

If one concludes that a "defeat" has occurred because we have suffered fewer than 4,000 KIA in four years, there is not much point in hoping for a victory--it won't occur anywhere. We are toast.

In the hunt for bin Laden, suppose God Himself comes down and discloses to us that he is in Pakistan. What do you recommend, Seamus? Do we invade? (Do you seriously doubt that that's where he is as we speak?)

Should we notify Al Qaeda and the world that we will not hunt for Al Qaeda in any area in which they can persuade us that there is a "civil war" in progress? If we were to abandon the field in Iraq, in addition to continuing to operate there, I suppose they would rightly conclude that they have a free hand in Darfur, right? Perhaps a "civil war" is brewing in Pakistan--if so, does that mean it is ipso facto off limits in our efforts to track down the people who are seeking to murder us?

[PeterUK.]

"We are in a long-term battle with al Qaeda but fighting them in Iraq is fighting them on their terms."

Since they are fighting to get you to leave,how is obliging them by running away not,"fighting them on their terms."

I'm sure they will return the complement by fighting you on the streets of America,you'll just love Third Generation Warfare.

[seamus]

Unfortunately, no one can really define victory either. A peaceful, democratic, friendly Iraq? A peaceful Shia Theocracy? A slow-mo civil war extending for 5 - 10 years? A permanent U. S. presence, peace or no peace? No more car bombs? No al Qaeda? Can we really kill every last one? Is that the mission? Ultimately it is a battle for hearts and minds...unless we can unleash that superior firepower somewhere. Iraq is an open sore, we need to leave and then hope and pray it heals...it's in the cards, but probably will have to wait to Bush slinks off and pats himself on the back for a job well done.

[boris]

no one can really define victory either

We stay, we win.

We run, we lose.

[sbwaters]

Tom: Bush has created a disaster and I have no confidence in his judgment as to a solution, but I am not exactly sold on cut-and-run, either.

Okay, I've been doing my real job and just brushed by this remark w/o getting to the comments yet. But I can't let it stand unremarked.

The disaster was there beforehand. Ask yourself who tolerated it. Bush recognized that what operated inside Iraq was antithetical to society and mestastasizing. Rather than create a disaster, he tried to deal with it.

Democrats in Congress recognize platitudes, but not principles. They have no confidence in their own ideas. They are embarrassed to describe what is worth standing up for. I suspect the reason for that is, misunderstanding the basics essential to all society, they think America is trying to foist itself on the world.

If America had wanted that to happen, Germany and Japan would be states now. In fact, the reverse is true, society's minimum principles were instilled in America, not American principles on the world.

So avoid the false choice of cut-and-run versus endless death struggle. A simple change of mind can travel like wildfire, if compelling enough. We start by recognizing that peace isn't the absence of war, it is the absence of the need to resort to war. Looking to Iraq and beyond, the long-lasting victory will be won on YouTube before Congress, the President, the United Nations, or the schools ever see it coming.

[seamus]

We stay we lose...we leave we lose. That's Bush's legacy!

[Maybeex]

We stay we lose...we leave we lose. That's Bush's legacy!

If we're going to be simplistic about things, then Bush can share his legacy with Clinton.
Clinton's legacy was to leave this choice for Iraq: We don't go in we lose...we go in we lose.

[PeterUK.]

Victory is like money,it's only important when you haven't got it.
Retreat in Iraq will be seen by Iran,Syria al Qaeda and the Muslim world as a defeat.If Vietnam and Mogadishu convinced bin Laden that America is a paper tiger what will the latest Democrat rout bring upon you?

[Jane]

Seamus,

As always you have given us a long list of things you disapprove of, and no plan. Bush looks pretty good in the face of your inability to articulate an alternative.

I am curious about one thing. Since you believe that fighting al Qaeda in Iraq is fighting on their terms, are you hoping to bring the war to Michigan?

Do you live in Michigan?

[Other Tom]

If we could stay there indefinitely at a cost of fewer than 1,000 KIA per year, we should do so. If we have courage as a nation (not at all certain these days), we can and will outlast these murderers. I believe that time is on our side, and the patience of the Iraqi people for having these people in their midst will wear thin to the point that they will, with increasing determination and with our assistance, ultimately prevail over them.

Did we have to kill every last Nazi? Every last tenacious Japanese warrior? No, we didn't. We perservered, and we killed enough of them that the survivors decided the hell with it. And the Japanese, and perhaps even the Nazis, were every bit as fanatical as these people. What is required is national courage and resolve.

[boris]

Me and Other Tim agree!

[boris]

(With Other Tom)

[PeterUK.]

"We perservered, and we killed enough of them that the survivors decided the hell with it. And the Japanese, and perhaps even the Nazis, were every bit as fanatical as these people. What is required is national courage and resolve."

It must be pointed out that the Germans and the Japanese were a far more formidable foe than the current ramshackle crew opposing us.

[BarbaraS]

Everything Seamus says shows how much he misses pre 911. He sounds very wistful. Things were so much simpler then. If we could all just get along. If we could all sit around the campfire and sing kumbala or maybe the coke song. We used to just give malcontents stuff to keep them quiet. Stuff like money, food, oil and last but not least, nuclear technology (see Clinton). It didn't work.

Well, as much as the media would like to make us forget, 911 did happen and the world will never be the same. Certainly the US won't be. If 19 fanatics could take four airplanes and fly them into inhabited buildings how can anyone think they won't do something just as horrendous again if they can. We have let down our guard because it hasn't happened again. But it hasn't happened again because Bush is vigilant and is keeping us safe in spite of all the left's efforts to the contrary.

The left does not have a leg to stand on. They just make things up just like the scandals they are manufacturing. They do not care if the troops die. Hell, they have celebrated every death. Like Clinton, they loathe the military. And what was it they said on KOS when the contractors were tortured and burned and their bodies hung on bridges, O yes, it was "screw the contractors". They are not fooling anyone. They want us to leave Iraq before we win the thing because they don't want Bush to succeed in the ME. Clinton failed and they don't want Bush to succeed instead. All the new troops for the surge are not even over in Iraq yet, but the left started saying it could not succeed even as the plan was announced and the dims have tried their very best to stifle this effort. The anti war left has even tried to prevent the arms from going to Iraq. These people should have jail terms. It is as if they have to hurry our defeat before we win.

It is amazing how all these righty pundits are jumping ship on Iraq and the war on terror. What in the world is their solution then? Or like the left do they not have one?

[maryrose]

We will stay and we we will win and the last thing the American public will remember is all the representatives and senators who voted against funding the troops in battle in Iraq. It is the reason Kerry and Edwards lost in 2004 and it is why a dem can't win in 08. Watch how Hil and Obama vote on the funding...

[Terry Gain]

"Bush has created a disaster"

It's a disaster alright. For al Qaeda. Their leadership has been decimated and as a result of their tactics of killing innocents (today they bombed a funeral) they have lost support not only among Iraqis, who detest them, but among Arabs in general. It's an unreported fact that support for al Qaeda is in the toilet.

25 of 31 Sunni tribes formed the Anbar Salvation Council to fight al Qaeda alongside American and IA forces.

The al Qaeda stronghold of al Anbar is a thing of the past. This development is being treated as a state secret by the MSM, (one they won't leak it because it bodes well for the war). Al Qaeda has taken refuge in Diyala where they will meet their demise in Iraq.

The Diyala Salvation Council is now being formed. The MSM is at least 3 months behind developments on the ground.

[exmaple]

Is Bush saying AQ will take over Iraq?

what a fool.

If the Americans leave Iraq the Shi'a will genocide the Sunni Arabs. Ironically that will be good for the Assyrians becaue Shi'a don't have problems with Christianity and other minorities.

[maryrose]

SMG:
Is your last name the same as the writer? How cool!

[RichatUF]

seamus says...

We have put our troops in an untenable position. They are not cut out to be policemen, politicians, nation-builders.

How so? US forces have been in the Middle East since what 1807, what makes anyone believe that 2007 will be that glorious year when the Stars and Stripes get folded up. And your second point-the US Army was insturmental in setting up the institutions of government in Germany and it was a close run thing. The same holds true for Japan and South Korea too.

As said very eloquently by commenters here at the site, we're best at blowing shit up...killing lots of people and moving on, using brute force.

I'm always offended by this. I served, was a pretty good marksman, but I always thought and performed my duties knowing my purpose was more than the bullet.

A slow motion civil war is raging now. We should not be there trying to referee. It is time to leave. Even if it get worse, at least it will finally be Iraqis figuring out how best to go forward - if it's a Shia theocracy, well, are we all really surprised? Iraqis may have wanted to see Hussien removed, hopefully they are grateful to us, WE WON THE WAR, we are losing the occupation.

A civil war is when two parties are trying to control the same government (the bureaucracy). I'm pretty sure the institutions as they currently are, are not in keeping with what the Syrians, Iranians, or Saudis want. I'm reminded of the parable of the wine and bottles. Why would the opposition want to put new wine into old bottles?

A case could be made that Iraqis themselves will be in a better position to take on Al Qaeda if we leave. We may have unleashed a bloodbath, but it's better than having Hussein, right?

Its better than the Oil-for-Food program (aka Chriac's slush fund). And how would the Iraqi's fair better against a merciless, foreign armed enemy without training and support from the US. We would just end up with about another 2 million Iraqis living in the US and blamed for not doing anything about the raging war in the heart of the Middle East. Its ridiclous. The US has been in Europe and Japan for over 60 years and in South Korea for over 50. The US will make many promises to leave Iraq and in 2057 Iraq will still have one of the largest contingents of US soliders deployed in the world. Iraq will also surpass Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil exporter by that time.

RichatUF

[exmaple]

"The al Qaeda stronghold of al Anbar is a thing of the past."

Been said before.

It will end two ways.

1. Anbar will declared "pacified" and US troops relocated to other spots. For the secon dor third time things will fall apart.

2. Bush's promises to Sunnis that oil wealth will be shared equally will collapse when the Kurds and Shi'a renege on their weak promise to do so.

As Powell said, America should have "imposed its will". That includes oil.

Bush's mediocrity and decision not to impose anything has cost thousands of lives.

[Terry Gain]

"The al Qaeda stronghold of al Anbar is a thing of the past."

Been said before.
-----
When? By whom? Your post is nonsense. al Anbar has beeen referred to since the beginning of the war as an insurgent stronghold and in the last year as an Al Qaeda stronghold. The situation has turned around completely in the past 6 months.

The vast majority of Iraqs want peace. Those that don't will be eliminated so long as America finishes the mission.

For insight on the role al Qaeda is playing in the continuing violence in Iraq I recommend the website Back Talk.

[RichatUF]

example says...

...As Powell said, America should have "imposed its will". That includes oil...

Yea our esteemed Sec of State who couldn't be bothered to go to Turkey, who huffed and puffed to have the reconstruction a State operation (should have given it to the Treasury Department or Commerce that would have pissed everyone off). Who let the administration twist in the wind over that Plame Wilson crap. Powell-a general of the people-and a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame

RichatUF

[Terry Gain]

"Who let the administration twist in the wind over that Plame Wilson crap."

Good for you Rich. This should be Powell's legacy.

"imposed its will"

Great idea if you want to stay there forever.

"Is Bush saying AQ will take over Iraq?

what a fool."

You are the fool. They are in Iraq because the establishment of a democracy in Iraq is a threat to their plan for a caliphate.

If we leave they will create such havoc that today's relatively low level of violence will seem positively peaceful by comparison -and even if they do not take over the country they will create sactuaries from which to operate. The cost of dealing with them then will be much higher than the cost of just finishing the job now.

And this notion that you can deal more effectively with al Qaeda by special ops is clueless.

You need intelligence to deal with al Qaeda. How much information do you think will be imparted to American forces by Iraqis whose safety has been abandoned to al Qaeda? The more likely scenario is that these special forces will be led from trap to trap as Iraqis throw in with those who have demonstrated staying power. Wouldn't you?

[JM Hanes]

There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation. Whether that It will be far, far bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say according to every knowledgeable observer. But so what if it will be a bloody confrontation genocide without the added carnage restraining presence of American troops. On the domestic political front, it will be look better to have our troops not playing - essentially - pattycake with risking their lives anywhere with Iraqi insurgents army police forces who would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track hunting down fruitlessly for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and ignoring their affiliates everywhere else like we used to instead of trying to win any hearts & minds nation building. The original postwar plans, if you can call them that, thought we would prop up a guy like Chalabi and Iraq would have some kind of democracy (everybody remember Bush's second inaugural speech?). That isn't going to happen are completely irrelevant now. So is the once sacrosanct credo formerly known as Powell's Pottery Barn Rule.. Muslims Islamists Iraqis They want Sharia law. These people aren't worth the dirt on our democratic boots. They don't want a secular, progressive republic. We can just get out of the way and tell ourselves that they'll pick what they want. They can wave those purple fingers, but it's not like they've never voted before. They elected Saddam, didn't they? We're the ones who threw him out, more's the pity.

[JM Hanes]

seamus:

"Iraq is an open sore, we need to leave and then hope and pray it heals."

Now there's a plan! Why didn't the Democrats think of that? Oh wait...

[BarbaraS]

Here's the dimocrat plan. We leave Iraq now. Take all our soldiers out. If we can get them all out. Deploy them to Okinawa They haven't made up their minds whether to go across the Atlantic, the US and the Pacific which is the long way but safer or the short way across China. Of course, China is pretty big and probably would object to 150,000 troops of another country coming across their territory. It will be as nothing to transport 150,000 troops to an island in the Pacific that has been negotiating for years to reduce our military presense. That ought to really piss the people of Okinawa off. So there they are sitting on Okinawa. BTW, is Okinawa big enought to hold 150,000 troops? They sit there for a year or so.
The ME goes up in flames but somehow the dims are in power (their wet dream). They go into the ME and bomb the crap out of it. Collateral damage is astonomical, but hell, these arn't voters so they don't matter. There are approximately 40,000 deaths in the military but that many people die on the highways in US so that's not so bad. The US wins. And all because of the dims and the electorate put them back in power for the next fifty years. This is the rest of their wet dream. The media and the left never mention the 3,000 deaths in Iraq ever again. That's in the past and no longer matters. The important thing is not winning in the ME. The only important thing is that Bush lost.

[Rick Ballard]

"Bush has created a disaster and I have no confidence in his judgment as to a solution, but I am not exactly sold on cut-and-run, either.", he said, with the absolute clarity that hindsight brings.

Iraq is just one battle and there is no better place to be fighting in the ME. A state sponsor of terrorism has done the short dance after having lost his demesnes and at least some of the other petty muslim tyrants are playing close attention.

The best result so far is that Americans are realizing that islam = death/slavery and the worst error made by the President was his spouting of the RoP claptrap.

If he follows up with a brisk reduction of the Iranian nuke program via air power, accompanied by a promise to let the Iranians sort out the aftermath all by themselves, then the entire exercise will have been well worth it.

Barbara - the Japanese just appropriated the funds necessary to pay to move American forces from Okinawa to Guam. No more Marines in Okinawa within a very short time period. Somebody will have to show Abscam Jack where Guam is. Not that he'll be able to remember the day after he's shown.

[abwtf]

Ok,

A slow motion civil war is raging now. We should not be there trying to referee.

and then a few posts later

If he were a better commander in chief, there would be at least five times the number of troops there now doing their best to lock that place down.

So 150,000 US troops should not referee an Iraqi civil war, 750,000 US troops should?

Even better:

Ultimately it is a battle for hearts and minds...unless we can unleash that superior firepower somewhere. Iraq is an open sore, we need to leave and then hope and pray it heals

So in the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis it is recommended we go home to hope and pray? Brilliant! You didn't happen to work on Bush Sr's plan to remove Saddam did you?

[PeterUK.]

It would seem that the main problem of the liberal left is short term comprehension,if policy does not conform to the news cycle,the span of a feature film or TV mini-series,it is beyond their imagining.Certainly,they cannot comprehend anything which exceeds heir life span.
With this attitude the Pyramids,the cathedrals of Europe,the construction of America itself would not have taken place.
Sadly the Islamists think in the long term,if the Caliphate takes generations to build,so be it.
Secondly,a great power cannot afford to run from a terror group,it simply invites more attacks.

[boris]

Bush has created a disaster ...

I challenge using this logic:

Consider an alternate reality where Gore won the 2000 election and the situation in Iraq is essentially the same. I would certainly be (bashing) critical of the delay in the UN before going into Iraq and lack of serious pressure on Iran and Syria for their interference. Still, I would not be calling this situation a “disaster”, and would consider over all it pretty good for a dimorat.

Of course domestically:

• The MSM would portray the glass half full rather than bone dry empty;
• Abu Graib would have been dismissed as juvenile pranks and hazing;
• The terrorist wiretapping and financial programs would still be secret;
• Gitmo would be far better treatment than terrorist captives have any right to;
• Valerie Plame would be as secret and covert as she ever was.

Would TM describe it as Gore’s disaster? Doubt it. If anything TM is far less partisan than I am.

[boris]

One more:

• Republicans wouldn't be encouraging the enemy by using cut and run politics

[Jeff Dobbs]

I am actually much too modest to point this out; however, since it has now reached instapundit in the form of an email from Michael Yon, I fear I must:

In addition to basic services being restored, the city of Hit has rebuilt its library. Citizens had stored away the books during the war here. They are preparing to re-stock the library. Glenn, you know that I do not hesitate to deliver bad news. I have no bad news to deliver today. The town of Hit clearly is doing much, much better. "Anbar the impossible" might be possible after all.

Yes. The Iraqis named a city after me.

[Sue]

Yes. The Iraqis named a city after me.

::grin::

[Jeff Dobbs]

Well. They denied my request to rename the Tigris river to Hit and the Euphrates river to Run.

[PeterUK.]

Then there was the Hittites.

[PeterUK.]

For all our liberal leftists al Qaeda torture manual found. Shock horror,they don't use water boarding.

[PeterUK.]

There were no US troops in Vietnam when the Democrats pulled the plug.Worthwhile remembering when the little liberals call for the Iraqification of the conflict.A Euphemism for run away.

[Pofarmer]

Boris

I think where your analysis fails in assuming that Gore would have done anything at all like Bush. He would have had a cadre of Generals saying we needed 1,000,000 troops to go into Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the most Gore would have done would have been to fire a few more cruise missles into empty tents. Although I suppose we'll never know.

[boris]

assuming that Gore would have done anything at all like Bush

Well not the Algore in this reality anyway. Algore did say in 2002 ...

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, 2002.

So I address your valid concern by supposing in the alternate reality that Algore was born with something like a spine, he generally means what he says, and he won his home state in 2000.

[cathyf]

assuming that Gore would have done anything at all like Bush

Well not the Algore in this reality anyway.

I wouldn't be so sure at all about Gore. Taranto once pointed out that the one time which we saw Gore utterly comfortable in his own skin, brilliant and statesmanlike, was when he was (finally) giving his concession speech in 2000. I think that Al Gore does not want to be president. I've certainly said enough times that one of the problems with modern day politics is that we can only have crazy people as president because you have to be crazy to want to be president -- I wonder if Gore as president wouldn't have simply decided not to run for a second term on 9/12, and freed from any need to pander to anybody, turned out to be a great president.

Oh, well, obviously idle speculation. Maybe he really is as craven an empty suit as he has spent the last 5-6 years or so behaving as.