Sen. Warner (R) - Start the withdrawal before Christmas

As if there wasn't enough controversy swirling around the upcoming Petraeus Report expected on 9/11, Virginia Republican and former Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner has, based on a newly-released National Intelligence Estimate, called for the United States to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq before the end of 2007.

According to the Washington Post, the interagency report states that "there have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq's security", and predicts that the delicate government in Iraq "will become more precarious".

Politically, this is a tumultuous time. As Hillary Clinton takes heat for giving the war positive consideration, Warner's statement "makes it easier for wavering Republicans to break with the president".

Shall we be cynical and say that Warner is trying to help fellow Republicans repair their public image before the 2008 campaign begins in earnest? It doesn't seem that way. Warner has provided one of the most respected GOP voices on the war in advance of shifting sentiments. Earlier this year, he joined fellow Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in proposing legislation that would have called for the president to develop a troop withdrawal plan by the middle of October. Throughout the war he has worked perhaps more than any other Republican to deal with the necessities of the Iraqi Bush War as well as the political realities at home. I think this call is genuine.

Can we please start bringing our troops home? Please?
_____________________

Notes:

Baker, Peter and Jonathan Weisman. "Warner Calls for Pullouts By Winter". Washington Post. August 24, 2007; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/23/AR2007082302291.html
​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Can we please start bringing our troops home? Please?"

Begging will get us nowhere. We must firmly demand withdrawal as adults and citizen- democrats. We are dealing with a case of severe regression in our neglected government, and until we put them in their place, they will continue and even escalate their rampage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Winter and Christmas are two different things, so should I engage in a salvo of personal attacks now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

-if it makes you happy.

 

Christmas takes place during winter. Make sure you send some of those personal attacks to the Washington Post. Remind them that it's a professional courtesy from one journalist to another, or, rather, another two. And their editors. At any rate, have at it.

 

I'm actually just curious to see which Republican will be the first to attack Warner for wanting to "cut and run". However, given that this development might have a ripple effect among congressional Republicans, it seems wise to at least give them a couple days to respond. In the meantime, I'm willing to ask politely. This is an important milepost as I see it. A couple of days doesn't seem too difficult. By then, either the GOP dominoes will fall, or Warner will be castigated by his peers. In the case of the latter, there will be no point in saying please. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, especially as these couple of days won't make any real difference in the number of troops we lose. (Even if they aim to have some troops home on Christmas Eve, for instance, they'll keep them there as long as possible. I don't foresee, say, a week's difference. And the casualties won't necessarily be those that would be coming home.)

 

All I was doing was pointing out your attempt to paraphrase.

 

And?

 

Well, that's exactly what it is, isn't it? How can anyone see it any other way?

Baron Max

 

I think the reason the GOP has been so hung up on the cut and run bit is that they're like bullies. Bush picked a fight he shouldn't have, and now they're afraid of looking like cowards for doing the smart and right thing. Our soldiers will continue to die for political egotism, and I hope you feel better for that.

We can leave now, or we can leave later. I suppose later is the attractive option, because at some point it's true that there won't be a bloodbath in Iraq on our departure. Of course, that will be at the point when there's no Iraqis left to kill.

 

Tiassa: "I suppose later is the attractive option, because at some point it's true that there won't be a bloodbath in Iraq on our departure. Of course, that will be at the point when there's no Iraqis left to kill"

Even worse, we would have to unleash Total War on more than than just Iraqis to accomplish that damning end, because this has already become a regional war.

 

If by "cut and run" you simply mean retreat, with no other negative connotations, such as cowardliness, than you're right.

Retreating from some battles is not cowardly at all. In this case it is analogous to leaving a Casino rather than risking more to try and get your money back.

Not to mention we were already militarily victorious. It isn't really a military problem now.

 

Remember: If Washington had been too proud to retreat, the early American Revolution would have been decisively quashed by Britain.

 

Which is why the Mujahadeen never gave up in Afghanistan nor will the insurgents in Iraq.

It's all about defending the homeland.

- N

 

That wasn't my point. I was trying to illustrate that military withdrawals can become necessary and prudent. Underestimating the self-sustaining and often fanatical popular will to resist unjustified foreign occupation is another strategic pitfall, that is also true.

 

But he stayed in the fight. What you're suggesting is that the US pull out of Iraq altogether .....which would be the same as Washington throwing down his weapons and going home. That's exactly what you'd have suggested during the War of Independence, right?

Baron Max

 

Huh? Defending the homeland is blowing up your own people? Blowing up so many of your own people that the invaders get sick and go home? Wow, what a neat defensive tactic, huh?

Baron Max

 

Baron Max: "But [Washington] stayed in the fight. What you're suggesting is that the US pull out of Iraq altogether ...

Washington abandoned Long Island and Manhattan. At the scale and mobility of armies of the day, it was a huge event.

..which would be the same as Washington throwing down his weapons and going home.

Not at all. I said nothing about throwing down our weapons. I'm only illustrating that there are times when armies need to be withdrawn. We are faced with such a time now; We're bogged down, and it's getting worse.

"That's exactly what you'd have suggested during the War of Independence, right?"

Wrong. You're twisting the comparison unreasonably. I was simply pointing out that ruling out withdrawal categorically as unthinkable, cowardly, defeatist, etc. is nonsense. There are situations in life and war when the smartest thing to do is GTFO.

 

Baron Max: "But he stayed in the fight. "

If our fight really is for the discouragement of terrorism and the promotion of peace, stability, and democracy, we should immediately back out of Iraq. Prompt withdrawal will best serve these causes, and best allow us to continue the fight.

Our occupaton is increasing incitement and recruitment of terrorists. Our presence in Iraq is bringing malignant, regionalizing chaos, promoting the proliferation of competing militias, and strengthening the hand of fanatics and fundamentalists in Mesopotamia and beyond. Our protracted occupation of Iraq is exceeding the capabilities of our volunteers, equipment, and economy to indefinitely sustain it. We are more militarily vulnerable because the occupation of Iraq keeps our Armed Forces in an overstressed and overextended state.

Washington knew when to pull troops back, and used this wisdom in decisive and defining service to the United States. We should too.

 

Continuing with the analogy of the US War for Independence, are you saying that if the British troops had "cut n' run" from America, the Americans would have returned to being good, obedient subjects of Britian???

Washington only pulled back a little ways, but continued the fight. He didn't pull all the troops out of the country, and give up the fight! One little battle, one little area! Doing what Washington did is not unlike a few US troops in Iraq to pull back from some small area of Baghdad.

Baron Max