Is Defeat Now an Option?
by Patrick J. Buchanan (Nov. 28, 2005)

"Is the United States now going to cut and run in Iraq?" asks Bronwen
Maddox, foreign editor of the London Times.

While the answer from President Bush remains a defiant "No!" the question is
now being raised by the most hawkish of his backers. And understandably so.
For John McCain's call for sending 10,000 more troops to Iraq has been met
with polite silence, while all signals out of this city point to withdrawal,
beginning in 2006, of scores of thousands of U.S. troops, whether the
insurgency has been defeated or not, whether an Iraqi democracy is assured
or not.

Consider these events of Thanksgiving week:

On Sunday, Nov. 20, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that Gen.
George Casey, U.S. commander in Iraq, had submitted plans for a reduction of
U.S. forces from the present 160,000 to fewer than 100,000 by the end of
2006. When asked if that was possible, Rumsfeld, replied, "Yes, that's
possible."

On Monday, 100 Sunni, Shia, and Kurd leaders from Iraq met in Cairo and
called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Wednesday, the Washington Post led the paper with a story on Casey's plan to
withdraw the 60,000, and Secretary of State Condi Rice told Fox News we need
not maintain present troop levels "very much longer," as Iraqi forces, which
now number 200,000, are "stepping up" to the job. A gradual pullout could
"come fairly soon," said Rice, the number of troops "is clearly going to
come down." She added, "I think that is how the president will want to look
at this."

By Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that troops would be coming home after
the December elections and, if conditions improve, U.S. forces could be
drawn down by 60,000 before the end of 2006. Said Fred Barnes of the hawkish
Weekly Standard, "These events are ominous . they suggest that troop removal
has superseded victory as the primary American concern." Indeed, they do.

Moreover, our principal coalition partners after the Brits are coming out.
Silvio Berlusconi has said Italy's 3,000 troops may be home by the end of
2006. South Korea is pulling out a third of its contingent. Polish forces,
cut from 2,400 to 1,400 in 2005, may soon fall below 1,000.

If no more troops are going in, and the only question is, how many U.S. and
coalition troops are coming out, starting after the December elections, the
conclusion seems inescapable: The United States is disengaging from the Iraq
war before victory is at hand, or even in sight. Hence, a defeat, not of
American arms, but of the U.S. policy in Iraq, is now a distinct
possibility.

The signs America has had enough are everywhere. Bill Clinton now calls the
war a "big mistake," an opinion shared by 60 percent of the nation.
Thirty-nine Senate Democrats voted for an exit strategy, with timetables.
Half the country wants withdrawals to begin. Only a third of the nation
approves of Bush's war leadership, while 42 percent, in a Pew poll, want
America to start minding her own business.

Bush has three years left, but the time is approaching when debate on a new
U.S. foreign policy for the post-Bush era must begin. One lesson from this
war is already clear: Americans will not long support spilling the blood of
their soldier sons in a war for ideals like democracy in the Arab world
unless they are convinced national security or U.S. vital interests are
imperiled.

Months back, as opponents of the war became the majority, I predicted a Gene
McCarthy would rise to lead the antiwar movement. No one expected it to be
Rep. John Murtha, a combat veteran with 37 years in Marine Corps service.
But Murtha's emotional call for withdrawal has proven a catalyst for
Congress and the country.

The argument suddenly seems over and the nation appears to have reached a
consensus: earliest possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, consistent
with the avoidance of a strategic disaster.

But here is the rub: We are not going to get out of Iraq without suffering
terrible consequences for having gone in. And when we come out, we no longer
control what goes on within.

Once we depart, there is no guarantee the insurgents will be defeated, no
guarantee that thousands of those who cast their lot with us will not be
massacred, no guarantee Iraq will remain one nation, no guarantee there will
not be chaos and civil war.

There is no guarantee that after having invested $200 to $300 billion and
the lives of thousands of splendid young Americans, we will not end up with
an Iraq that is a strategic ally of Iran and a Sunni Triangle that is a base
camp and training camp for terrorists larger than the one we destroyed in
Afghanistan.

The impending U.S. troop withdrawals are a roll of the dice, demanded by the
American people and now acceded to by the Bush administration. No one can
know for sure what the dice will deliver.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

http://tinyurl.com/8y5ov

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:46:17 -0500, "yojimbo"
wrote:

Is Defeat Now an Option?

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

http://tinyurl.com/8y5ov


We had to burn the villiage to save it, Sir.

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=939#

Link to a video showing the preparatin for the three car suicide
bombing of Hotels in
Iraq.
Note the production quality, professional, well financed..

Geared toward recruitment.

wrote:

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=939#

Link to a video showing the preparatin for the three car suicide
bombing of Hotels in
Iraq.
Note the production quality, professional, well financed..

Geared toward recruitment.

Gonna join up?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

While most Democrats and some Republicans are calling for near
instantaneous withdrawal, interestingly, Jimmy Carter stated on TV the
other night that he felt that it was essential to hang in there at
least until the nation was stabilized and could be dependably defended
against insurgencies by those opposed to the popularly elected
government. Frankly, while I seriously question our original motives
to go to Iraq, I also think it would be goofy to leave it in its
current state of disarray - I cannot see that it would be to anyone's
good to do this.

I also think it essential for the world to see this, and to lend an
appropriate hand. They can bluster all they want about it being the
U.S.'s fault, but it is now everyone's problem, and many hands make
light work.

Bruce Jensen

"yojimbo" wrote in message
...
Is Defeat Now an Option?
by Patrick J. Buchanan (Nov. 28, 2005)

"Is the United States now going to cut and run in Iraq?" asks Bronwen
Maddox, foreign editor of the London Times.

While the answer from President Bush remains a defiant "No!" the question
is now being raised by the most hawkish of his backers. And understandably
so. For John McCain's call for sending 10,000 more troops to Iraq has been
met with polite silence, while all signals out of this city point to
withdrawal, beginning in 2006, of scores of thousands of U.S. troops,
whether the insurgency has been defeated or not, whether an Iraqi
democracy is assured or not.

Consider these events of Thanksgiving week:

On Sunday, Nov. 20, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed that
Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Iraq, had submitted plans for a
reduction of U.S. forces from the present 160,000 to fewer than 100,000 by
the end of 2006. When asked if that was possible, Rumsfeld, replied, "Yes,
that's possible."

On Monday, 100 Sunni, Shia, and Kurd leaders from Iraq met in Cairo and
called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Wednesday, the Washington Post led the paper with a story on Casey's plan
to withdraw the 60,000, and Secretary of State Condi Rice told Fox News we
need not maintain present troop levels "very much longer," as Iraqi
forces, which now number 200,000, are "stepping up" to the job. A gradual
pullout could "come fairly soon," said Rice, the number of troops "is
clearly going to come down." She added, "I think that is how the president
will want to look at this."

By Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that troops would be coming home after
the December elections and, if conditions improve, U.S. forces could be
drawn down by 60,000 before the end of 2006. Said Fred Barnes of the
hawkish Weekly Standard, "These events are ominous . they suggest that
troop removal has superseded victory as the primary American concern."
Indeed, they do.

Moreover, our principal coalition partners after the Brits are coming out.
Silvio Berlusconi has said Italy's 3,000 troops may be home by the end of
2006. South Korea is pulling out a third of its contingent. Polish forces,
cut from 2,400 to 1,400 in 2005, may soon fall below 1,000.

If no more troops are going in, and the only question is, how many U.S.
and coalition troops are coming out, starting after the December
elections, the conclusion seems inescapable: The United States is
disengaging from the Iraq war before victory is at hand, or even in sight.
Hence, a defeat, not of American arms, but of the U.S. policy in Iraq, is
now a distinct possibility.

The signs America has had enough are everywhere. Bill Clinton now calls
the war a "big mistake," an opinion shared by 60 percent of the nation.
Thirty-nine Senate Democrats voted for an exit strategy, with timetables.
Half the country wants withdrawals to begin. Only a third of the nation
approves of Bush's war leadership, while 42 percent, in a Pew poll, want
America to start minding her own business.

Bush has three years left, but the time is approaching when debate on a
new U.S. foreign policy for the post-Bush era must begin. One lesson from
this war is already clear: Americans will not long support spilling the
blood of their soldier sons in a war for ideals like democracy in the Arab
world unless they are convinced national security or U.S. vital interests
are imperiled.

Months back, as opponents of the war became the majority, I predicted a
Gene McCarthy would rise to lead the antiwar movement. No one expected it
to be Rep. John Murtha, a combat veteran with 37 years in Marine Corps
service. But Murtha's emotional call for withdrawal has proven a catalyst
for Congress and the country.

The argument suddenly seems over and the nation appears to have reached a
consensus: earliest possible withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,
consistent with the avoidance of a strategic disaster.

But here is the rub: We are not going to get out of Iraq without suffering
terrible consequences for having gone in. And when we come out, we no
longer control what goes on within.

We promised sovereignty according to Bush. With sovereignty you don't get
guarantees.


Once we depart, there is no guarantee the insurgents will be defeated, no
guarantee that thousands of those who cast their lot with us will not be
massacred, no guarantee Iraq will remain one nation, no guarantee there
will not be chaos and civil war.

Yup. Or we could just stay forever and be looked on as Western invaders.


There is no guarantee that after having invested $200 to $300 billion and
the lives of thousands of splendid young Americans, we will not end up
with an Iraq that is a strategic ally of Iran and a Sunni Triangle that is
a base camp and training camp for terrorists larger than the one we
destroyed in Afghanistan.

Uh, maybe that should have been considered _before_ we went in.


The impending U.S. troop withdrawals are a roll of the dice, demanded by
the American people and now acceded to by the Bush administration. No one
can know for sure what the dice will deliver.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

http://tinyurl.com/8y5ov

BpnJ wrote -
" I also think it essential for the world to see this,
and to lend an appropriate hand. They can bluster
all they want about it being the U.S.'s fault, but it
is now everyone's problem, and many hands make
light work. "

A Stable Iraq would generally mean Stable and Lower
Oil/Fuel Prices World Wide.

Note - Europe is more 'dependent' on Middle-East
Oil then the USA is; and it is in Europe's Political
and Economic 'interest' to see that the USA leaves
Iraq when there is some assurance that both in the
short term and the Long Term the Government and
Nation of Iraq is Peaceful and Stable.

Both China's and India's growing economies need
Stable and Lower Oil Prices to maintain their Growth.

Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other Member Nations
of OPEC could benefit from an un-stable Iraq and
Higher World Wide Oil Prices.

so say i - my opinions stated as facts ~ RHF

On 28 Nov 2005 12:43:23 -0800, "RHF"
wrote:


A Stable Iraq would generally mean Stable and Lower
Oil/Fuel Prices World Wide.

This is why there'll never be a ''stable Iraq''.

FDR wrote:
Right now we should be handing this off to the UN. Where is there effort to
get this done? Could it be that after we thumbed our noses at the
organization, that member nations are thumbing it right back?

If that's all that's going to come from the UN, perhaps the USA should
seriously consider withdrawing from that corrupt ultraleft body.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.