Calling Again for Troop Withdrawal

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He was right then and he's right now...

------------------------------------------------------------
Calling Again for Troop Withdrawal
Wednesday, October 25, 2006; Page A15

During the years that he led opposition to the Vietnam War, former senator George S. McGovern (D-S.D.) says, he consoled his family with the proposition that the United States would never again commit such a "tragic mistake," as he put it. But McGovern said in an interview last week that America is headed down "the same road" in Iraq.

McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, is out with a new book prescribing what the country ought to do to turn things around. The title neatly summarizes his advice: "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now."


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/24/PH2006102401290.jpg
Former senator George McGovern is co-author of a new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now," calling for troops to be out by June 30. (By Doug Dreyer -- Associated Press)


Co-written with William R. Polk, a former professor and State Department Middle East expert, the 142-page volume calls for a phased withdrawal of 140,000 U.S. troops beginning by year's end and finishing by June 30. The authors say the Iraqi government should request the presence of an international force, including Arab and Muslim troops, to help keep order after the departure of the Americans.

McGovern and Polk call for an aggressive program of U.S. reconstruction aid to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed in the war. Among other steps, the two say the United States should "express its condolences" to the Iraqi people for the large number of Iraqis killed, incapacitated, incarcerated or tortured. "A simple gesture of conciliation would go far to shift our relationship from occupation to friendship," they write.

In a telephone interview from his Mitchell, S.D., home, McGovern cast doubt on the assertion by President Bush that withdrawal would embolden U.S. enemies and create a haven for terrorists in the heart of the Middle East. It is the American presence in Iraq, he and Polk believe, that is fueling much of the violence. Their proposal is based on the conviction that the United States will eventually be forced out. Better to leave "in an orderly way" and "in a manner that will prevent further damage to American interests," they write.

At 84, McGovern remains active in civic affairs, speaking on college campuses and addressing the cause that remains his life's passion: world hunger and malnutrition. Along with former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), McGovern has been promoting an effort to create school lunch programs in developing countries.

Last week, McGovern spent about 50 minutes talking about his ideas for Iraq. Here are excerpts from the telephone interview:

Q& A: George McGovern
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/ycrhy6)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He was right then and he's right now...


Yep.

U.S. death toll in Iraq worst in a year

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20061026/i/r1493695455.jpg?x=200&y=140&sig=gCXBGq0jXCvfeoQkn6tJlg--

AP - 1 hour, 15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of American troops killed in Iraq in October reached the highest monthly total in a year Thursday after four Marines and a sailor died of wounds suffered while fighting in the same Sunni insurgent stronghold. The U.S. military said 96 U.S. troops have died so far in October, the most in one month since October 2005, when the same number was killed. The highest monthly death toll prior to that came in January 2005, when 107 U.S. troops were killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061026113832

[bendog]

It may not fit on this thread, because it is not either in favor, or against, troop withdrawls, but on npr diane rehm had three NOT LIEbral analysts on about Bushii's strategy. Basically, they said bush was following what Gens. Casey and Abiazd (sp) advise, and he sees himself as Truman who did what was politically unpopular but set the tone for the cold war.

Guests
Frederick Kagan, Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration

Ken Walsh, chief White House correspondent for "U.S. News and World Report"
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

if anybody cares, they can listen at the link

[fido]

He was right then and he's right now...


true enough

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It may not fit on this thread, because it is not either in favor, or against, troop withdrawls, but on npr diane rehm had three NOT LIEbral analysts on about Bushii's strategy. Basically, they said bush was following what Gens. Casey and Abiazd (sp) advise, and he sees himself as Truman who did what was politically unpopular but set the tone for the cold war.

Guests
Frederick Kagan, Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration

Ken Walsh, chief White House correspondent for "U.S. News and World Report"
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

if anybody cares, they can listen at the link
I would like to know that for sure or not. I have a feeling he's directing them with advice from DC.

[bendog]

Well, the speakers noted we wouldn't know for years who is doing what, but it is true that Casey has not asked for anything different than he has. Of course, LBJ pretty much set up Westmoreland for the fall. And, Bushii does have a way of getting people to tell him what he wants to hear despite all evidence to the contrary.

However, the thing about the link that got me was that bushii sees himself as a Truman who will lock his successor into remaining in Iraq, and engaged in pressuring muslim govts for more responsiveness to their constituents.

[defenseman]

Sorry boys and girls, they'll be staying a while. Lots of issues still need to be resolved. I'm ready to get out there as soon as possible, however, just don't see it for a bit yet...dman

[bendog]

Oh yeah, we're qWagmired for decade, imo.

[Spider]

STAY THE DAMN COURSE ........
err wait it was never about stay the course ........ Tony Snow said Bush has only said stay the course 8 times ........ Olbermann found over 30 sound bites .........

[Denver Crush]

Yeah, we're ****ed straight up the ****in ass.

[defenseman]

Oh yeah, we're qWagmired for decade, imo.

Little long in country I'm thinking. However, we'll be addressing the terrorists issues for years and years I'm sure...dman

*At this point I'd be happy with a good start in our country being shutting the damn door on the borders to be honest. I can't help but think the "bad guys" are already in and waiting. Hopefully not many, but I suspect worst case.

[bendog]

I just don't see the Iraqis as being able to even police themselves, let alone control the territorial aspirations of the kurds as well as Iraq's neighbors for many, many years.

[Rohirrim]

This was the Weinberger Doctrine:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

This evolved into the Powell Doctrine:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?

Both of these doctrines combined the lessons of thirty years of history, both military and domestic, and turned the collective wisdom of numerous military and political experts into a cohesive framework for future guidance. These doctrines also expressed the collective historical values of the American people going back to George Washington’s warnings to avoid foreign entanglements.

The neocons, under George Bush, came into office and assumed they were smarter than everybody who came before them.
They ignored the Clinton administration’s warnings about Al Queda.
They ignored Richard Clarke’s warnings about bin Laden.
They ignored the inspectors who told them there were no WMDs.
They ignored the CIA who told them that much of the evidence they were relying on to go to war was suspect.
They ignored Bush 1 and Scowcroft’s warnings about invading Iraq.
They ignored the Powell and Weinberger Doctrines.
They ignored members of the general staff who advised them that 325,000 troops would be required to invade and stabilize Iraq.
They sent forces into Iraq that were insufficient to provide law and order, head off an insurgency, provide the basic amenities of life (power, water, sewage) or even to secure the ammo that has since been used in IEDs to kill hundreds of American soldiers.
They ignored requests for body armor and heavier armored vehicles until many Americans had already paid the ultimate price for such oversight (Who can forget parents stateside sending armor plating and body armor to their sons in Iraq?).

The criminal negligence, arrogance, and incompetence of this administration is responsible for hundreds of Americans being needlessly killed.

The only entities on earth that have profited from the war in Iraq are those that the leading members of this administration, including the president, were connected to prior to their taking office, and no doubt the same entities these individuals will gravitate toward after they leave office, and all of whom have been posting record profits during the Bush administrations’ term of office - to whit: Various oil and energy corporations, Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and various member corporations of the military/industrial complex including the Carlyle Group.

The Bush regime should be impeached for crimes and misdemeanors against the American people.

[bendog]

I'm finding it somewhat amusing to be admiring Kissinger and Kilpatrick, esp., who argued that Carter was naive in pushing human rights because creating a society capable of democracy was hundreds of years in the makings. I think that's correct, though I think Carter was a bit misunderstood if one is lumping him in with this nationbuilding idea. He, I thought, was arguing at least for the least oppressive govt a society could get without anarchy.

Kilpatrick would note that the govts we chastised on human rights (nicaragua and chili) and leftist insurgent movements. However, that was not really the facts. Chile and Nicaragua both had socialist/communists elected. I thought that before destabilizing them, we should give their citizenry the opportunity to vote for their ouster and THEN see whether they'd abide by votes.

[Rohirrim]

I believe that the U.S., as a nation, should follow the same policy that its first president followed: Step down from power. That was the revolutionary act. When George III was informed that Washington had stepped down from the presidency after two terms and returned to Mt. Vernon, the king is reported to have said, "If that's true, then he's a better man than I am."

We should do something really revolutionary and turn our backs on imperialism. Every great empire throughout history has lost its way when it stretches out for empire. Personally, I believe that the ideals that America was founded on are the best that history has offered so far. There's really no need to shove it down anybody's throat. We should spend our energy living up to our ideals and setting the example of those ideals. If others are attracted to those same ideas, we export them and teach them. If not, live and let live. We are strongest when we live our truths. We are weakest when we deny them.

[W*GS]

I agree with Ro - it's long past time to abandon our interventionist foreign policy, and bring all the troops everywhere home. Period.

[bendog]

Interesting. Thinking back to Adams v. Jefferson vis a vis France. The Federalists v. Republicans.

Adams, McCollough argued, was not given his due in keeping us out of the France/England mess.

[Rohirrim]

Interesting. Thinking back to Adams v. Jefferson vis a vis France. The Federalists v. Republicans.

Adams, McCollough argued, was not given his due in keeping us out of the France/England mess.

Yeah, but he sure effed up on that alien and sedition thing. ;D

[bendog]

Time to take a sticky to the behind of Nouri al-Maliki

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061027/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_squad_boss

Actually, way past time.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's Defeated Bluster on Iraq

Fear of a humiliating electoral defeat has now revealed the confusion and incoherence long hidden behind the bluster of Republican war rhetoric. As the White House and its congressional allies face an angry America, the disturbing truth can no longer be concealed. Waving the flag and questioning the patriotism of critics don't distract the public from their failures in military strategy, diplomacy and planning. These shallow politicians have never known what they were doing in Iraq.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601026_joe_conason_defeated_bluster/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/job-done-stickers.jpg

[SPfloppy]

I really do think that they may do a decent sized pullout in the next few years. We will alwys ahve military bases there, always. But 130,000 troops won't be stationed there. I'd say probabily 30,000 or so occupying a handful of bases