Clinton wants all U.S. troops out of Iraq when Bush leaves office

[retiredman]

Like I said, Iranian insurgents are inciting much of the violence. Yes it is a civil war. So what's the solution?

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above

[Gaffer]

yeah....kinda like the town's librarian and dentist and cobbler and grocer and kindergarten teacher standing up to the armed gang of hell's angels that roared into town.

If they don't stand up and the town is taken over and used as a base of operations, then the town is blamed in general. Not doing anything is giving tacit support.

[CSM]

No, only officers are smart enough to have that power. They and the MSM, along with folks like Cindy Sheehan should be the ONLY ones with any say. In fact, we should not allow enlisted personnel to vote either!
then you are saying something I certainly don't agree with

34K Iraq civilians died violent deaths last year. Guess how many violent deaths there were in the US last year!

34K in a country whose total population is 28M. Are you suggesting that, if we had a little sectarian problem here in America...a little north versus south or liberal versus conservative or caucasian versus all the other races.... and that little sectarian problem resulted in 360 THOUSAND Americans dying last year of violent deaths directly resulting from that sectarian conflict, are you suggesting that wouldn't be a CIVIL WAR?

However, whenever anyone suggests that enlisted service folks are stupid or in any way second class or imply such, they need to be taken to task. You need to learn how to read the running context of a thread, buddy. avatar said:
"Obviously the troops think its going well or we wouldnt have record reenlistment. Shouldnt they be the ones who can tell if we are doing well?"

and I suggested that NO...they should NOT be the ones who tell us how to run a war.

Enlisted servicemen and women have every right to their opinion; as much right as every single anti-war protestor and MSM talking head and politician. And yes, even as much right to their opinion as retired Navy commanders! Yes, they even have as much right to vote as any other citizen in this country. I have never suggested otherswise.... I just do not think that we make our determinations as to how a military operation is doing in terms of meeting its objectives or furthering some strategic goal by polling the troops

Nice tap dance, but you know exactly what I mean! The troop's opinions of how well things are going are every bit as valid as those opinions expressed in the MSM. That is my point. I dont see anywhere in this thread where anyone has suggested that the enlisted should be the ones "telling us how to run a war" (as you put it).


I find it interesting that some would dismiss the troops evaluation of their own performance in meeting objectives has no bearing on decision making. I have no idea how things work in the Navy, but in the Army, leaders ignore the troops opinions at their own peril. It is the troops that have to execute the plan. Also, many of those same folks who would ignore the troop's opinions are the first to trot ought the few disgruntled soldiers as being representative of the consensus of the 99% of the rest.

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

Regarding your question about civil war, I am suggesting that if a civil war occurs in today's international political climate, the implications are global in effect. If Iraq were an isolated country and both sides in the civil strife conducted their operations without outside interference, I would be in agreement with you. Unfortunately, the result of this particular confrontation have global implications. I suspect the reason the rest of the world (including the UN) has not interferred in places like Dafur is because the global implications of occurences there are of minimal international impact.

[retiredman]

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

no...Iraq was not embroiled in a sectarian civil war prior to our invasion.

and I never said that their opinion did not count.... only that - at a national, strategic level - "how the war is going" is not a question appropriately answered by the troops.

[retiredman]

If they don't stand up and the town is taken over and used as a base of operations, then the town is blamed in general. Not doing anything is giving tacit support.

so if law enforcement enters the town in search of the morotcycle gang, they should just slaughter everybody.... yeah...that's the American way, isn't it? NOT

If that were the "American way", there would be streets named Wounded Knee and My Lai and Haditha.

[CSM]

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above

I presume that as an officer in the Navy, you know well that plans are debated continually and critiqued constantly. Once the commander decides on a course of action, he continues with that plan unless and until his staff presents him with compelling reasons to change it. Critique notwithstanding, the ultimate decision is his (as is the responsibility).

The Commander in Chief has chosen to execute a plan; criticisms and optional plans are all open to debate, but the final decision is his. You may not agree with it, but that is the reality. You personally may agree or not with the effectiveness of his plan (one "troops" opinion...valueless according to you) the responsibility and choice is his.

[retiredman]

I presume that as an officer in the Navy, you know well that plans are debated continually and critiqued constantly. Once the commander decides on a course of action, he continues with that plan unless and until his staff presents him with compelling reasons to change it. Critique notwithstanding, the ultimate decision is his (as is the responsibility).

The Commander in Chief has chosen to execute a plan; criticisms and optional plans are all open to debate, but the final decision is his. You may not agree with it, but that is the reality. You personally may agree or not with the effectiveness of his plan (one "troops" opinion...valueless according to you) the responsibility and choice is his.

your presumption is correct. And now, as a retiree and private citizen, I can and will criticize the decisions of the commander in chief anytime I think they are particularly boneheaded..... like surging more troops into Iraq.

When you find yourself in a hole.... you quit digging, you don't throw 21.5K more folks with shovels into the bottom of the hole

[CSM]

If those 34,000 + deaths are the result of secretarian violence, then they would have (and did) occur whether or not there is a US presence in Iraq.

no...Iraq was not embroiled in a sectarian civil war prior to our invasion.

Yeah, Hussein did keep a good lid on that. Gassing them Kurds was a good thing, eh?

and I never said that their opinion did not count.... only that - at a national, strategic level - "how the war is going" is not a question appropriately answered by the troops.

Unfortunately, you did not articulate "at the national or strategic level" in your statements. Strategy, however, is fully dependent on tactics. Poor strategy can survive given good tactics; the reverse is not true.

[retiredman]

like it or not.... Saddam did three things much better than we have been able to:

1. keep a lid on sunni-shiite sectarian carnage
2. keep islamic extremists OUT of his county
3. act as a regional foil against Iranian hegemony.

Saddam was a bad bad man...but the value of doing those three things well is growing in retrospect

[CSM]

your presumption is correct. And now, as a retiree and private citizen, I can and will criticize the decisions of the commander in chief anytime I think they are particularly boneheaded..... like surging more troops into Iraq.

When you find yourself in a hole.... you quit digging, you don't throw 21.5K more folks with shovels into the bottom of the hole

Yup, you are absolutely free to do that. Others are free to take an opposing view.

What is the crux of the debate is whether the US is "in a hole" or not. Some do not think so.

[CSM]

like it or not.... Saddam did three things much better than we have been able to:

1. keep a lid on sunni-shiite sectarian carnage
2. keep islamic extremists OUT of his county
3. act as a regional foil against Iranian hegemony.

Saddam was a bad bad man...but the value of doing those three things well is growing in retrospect

"..in retrospect" are the key words.

I do believe that if the US military was allowed to implement the same (or worse) measures as Saddam did, then the secretarian carnage would cease. The same is true of the other two points you make.

One could infer then that such measures are a viable option for the US and you would agree with them as being effective (not talking morality, simply effectiveness).

[retiredman]

"..in retrospect" are the key words.

I do believe that if the US military was allowed to implement the same (or worse) measures as Saddam did, then the secretarian carnage would cease. The same is true of the other two points you make.

One could infer then that such measures are a viable option for the US and you would agree with them as being effective (not talking morality, simply effectiveness).

Because totalitarian regimes are effective, do I think that America should enact similar tactics? hell no.

And really...if you suggest that we should enact those tactics in Iraq, why not enact them in Chicago and Detroit and New York City while you're at it?

Or...conversely, if you are suggesting that America has some "moral imperative" to throw our young men and women into the breech anywhere anytime around the globe wherever people do not have human rights and freedoms equal to Americans, I would suggest that such a proposition is... inaccurate.

[Pale Rider]

Either they make a political deal or blow each other up. Solves the problem.

I'd like to see that.

[Pale Rider]

let me repeat myself:

I realize that I may not have articulated it HERE, but I have been asked that exact question dozens of times around the net....I give the plan... and republicans have one of two responses:

1. they pronounce that the democrats plan is either silly or won't work

or

2. they wait a few days and then complain that the democrats don't have a plan.


don't act like there are a number ov viable alternative plans out there. I have typed them all a number of times and I have no doubt that you have read them from me or from someone else.... so, basically, go look it up. I refuse to feed it to you again only to have you pull one of the two stock responses noted above

I've never seen "your plan", here or anywhere else. If I had, how could I possibly say "you don't have a plan"?

I don't fit into many molds or follow many trends. I also support the Hells Angels.

[CSM]

Because totalitarian regimes are effective, do I think that America should enact similar tactics? hell no.

And really...if you suggest that we should enact those tactics in Iraq, why not enact them in Chicago and Detroit and New York City while you're at it?

Or...conversely, if you are suggesting that America has some "moral imperative" to throw our young men and women into the breech anywhere anytime around the globe wherever people do not have human rights and freedoms equal to Americans, I would suggest that such a proposition is... inaccurate.

Ah, we are now cruising toward middle ground...bravo!

Of course, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, all strategic plans tend to look great right up until the moment one begins to apply the tactical slant necessary to support such plans. That is true of whatever plan one can examine (the democrats/libs/neocon ad nauseam). Then of course, everyone gets to "vote" on the plan almost before it is even made public. Whether you espouse immediate withdrawal or "staying the course" and anywhere in between, each plan has the possibility of success and an equal possibility of failure. Each plan is dependent upon the price the US and its citizens are willing to pay.