Vacuous political goobledegook or intelligent well-thought-out policy?
I don't think we've dissected this yet and this synopsis is a good starting point, albeit a snarky one. The President's recent statements are in bold:
"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."
Here's a news flash -- there is no such thing as surprise withdrawal. You can't sneak 160,000 soldiers out of Iraq in the trunk of a Volvo. One day, America will leave Iraq, and when we do, we will catch no one - no one -- by surprise. Does anyone really think al Qaeda will be looking at empty blockhouses for weeks saying to themselves, "why don't those infidels come out to play?" When we start to leave, it will be broadcast on every station around the world for months in advance and there is not one damn thing anyone can do about that. Whenever any Republican advances the "we can't let them know when we're leaving line," they should follow it with an agonized scream, because stupidity that powerful ought to hurt.
"All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq."
So, knowing when we're going to depart, the terrorists would... settle down and plot while we went on about our business? Has no one noticed that this is exactly what we wanted to happen? If giving a timeline would make the terrorists sit down and check off the days like Ralphie waiting for his Red Ryder, then why not give a deadline on day one? Heck, make it an announcement "Hey, bad guys, we're going to leave in a year. In the meantime, why don't you park it some place while the government gets its act together, we repair a few power plants, get the water running, and get people used to peace."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/4/211815/7482
Can anyone provide an alternative view that logically supports the President's (and the Republican Party's) positions? I'm serious. I am no military expert. Are we all missing something important here in the President's policy? Or does he indeed plan on sneaking all our soldiers out in the trunk of an elasto-Volvo?
- Purpleface's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
I'm guessing there's no
good defense of the President's line forthcoming, at least on this site. And I'm not going to be the one to give it, that's for sure. :)
What's disturbing about the President's line is that it's a formulation designed to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. A statement like "we can't give them a withdrawal time" can be extended and defended from now 'til Kingdom come, although fortunately we get the chance to vote in a different Decider soon.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Since it is the favored set of reasons
of the President and the Republicans, I was hoping that at least one of our Rs would take a stab at explaining this to me.
Absent that explanation, our President looks like a man who believes goobledegook is great military and national strategy. Or maybe he is just an unintelligent partisan hack whose sole purpose in being in Iraq is something other than national defense.
Which by extension would apply to the field of Republican presidential candidates, BTW, because I seem to recall each espousing this set of beliefs.
Given that, it seems rather sad that they fear explaining this strategy to an independent voter.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
What is the point in rehashing this?
Either you understand that telegraphing Osama that you are going to leave is a bad idea or you don't. You guys are smart enough to understand these points (which have been rehashed multiple times in the past). This makes me think that your ignorance is merely a ploy.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So I'm dumb
Explain it to me.
Ok, too terse.
The quotes above describe in adequate detail why it does not seemd to be a valid argument. Can you provide the counter argument?
You don't need to write a long response. A paragraph or two would suffice. I'll ask if anything is unclear.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
You're not dumb.
Very far from it judging from your clever characterization of things above. I see no point in revisiting this ground because I won't change your mind since this issue is not as black and white as 1 + 1 = 2.
I believe that setting a timetable for withdrawal only serves the purposes of our enemy because:
(a) It tells them that they have already won (since we will be pulling up our stakes and heading home [edit: with them still standing]).
(b) Having told them they have won, they will simply wait until we leave to then go about whatever they would have done in the first place (and with less casualties on their side).
(c) Because of (b), we have effectively lost and nothing will have been solved in terms of eliminating the terrorists.
Now I actually do commend you on approaching this topic from a fresh perspective and I can see some merit to your second one (i.e. using the ensuing lull as a time to actually rebuild some infrastructure). I don't, however, believe that the lull would be SO significant as to allow us to actually make substantive progress on any such rebuilding because the terrorists know that this would be allowing us to sow the seeds of good will with the Iraqi people. Good will between us and the Iraqi's is the last thing that the terrorists want.
I will say, however, that if you truly believe that announcing a timetable would have the effect that you describe (in your second point) and as a result our casualties would drop to near zero (excepting the normal course of accidental deaths), then why not set the timetable for 50 or even 100 years hence so as to secure peace for the Iraqi's for an even longer period of time?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmmmm. . .
I have no time to respond in full, but a brief read of your comment (". . . if you truly believe" etc.) leads me to infer that you think that the items in the blue box are my words -- they are not. They are from the Daily Kos diary linked to below the box. I used that quote as an illustration of one interpretation. I am seeking the other side's POV and their rebuttal of the Daily Kos interpretation.
If I am wrong, my apologies in advance. I will respond more later.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
OK, point taken.
You were not the original author. So simply assume that my commentary was directed towards whomever was the author and then feel free to chime in however you want.
My response would have been the same regardless of who the author actually was.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm done
GWB: It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing
DailyKos: Why not? You cannot sneak 160,000 soldiers out of Iraq in a day. The enemy will know anyway.
GoRight: Why? Because it tells them they have already won because we will be heading home with them still standing.
Can you rebut the Daily Kos point: Is there any way of withdrawing troops from Iraq without the enemy knowing about it? Because if you cannot, then you and Daily Kos are not talking about the same thing. Instead you are saying that the US military cannot accomplish an objective in a given time frame. You are saying that our military cannot succeed no matter what the timeframe is, "because we will be heading home with the enemy still standing."
But I've given up on this thread with you, because this point just stinks:
I've deleted my thoughts on that because I cannot come up with anything civil.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm there.
The civility thing I agree is difficult.
It is the economy, stupid.
Time for a pootie pic DO NOT REPLY
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Pootie Looks Moody.
Nice kitty kitty!
It is the economy, stupid.
I'll delete the monster
in a minute.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Let pootie stand
and let the G man shine in all his glory!
It is the economy, stupid.
So I have reduced you both to
posting pootie pictures? How pathetic and dkos of you.
I never really understood the whole pootie thing. What is the point? Am I supposed to be all incensed because you have posted a picture of a cat?
Please explain.
Edit:
And what's with the silly posting it and then wanting to delete it? What was the point of that?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you don't understand pootie pictures
how can you possibly understand the complexities of the war on terror and our precarious situation in Iraq. Which involves not just Iraq, but the surrounding neighboring countries.
The delete, was disgust at leaving soldiers there for a hundred years.
It is costing US tax payers 14 million an hour for all the "success" we have had so far.
It is the economy, stupid.
If you can't even answer simple questions ...
how can you possibly understand the complexities of the war on terror and our precarious situation in Iraq?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
On the nose (n/t)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Sigh
I have attempted to be both fair-minded and civil, but you do not seem to give any real thought to the conversation and are far too free with the personal insults.
Let me give you an example.
How long might it take to move 160,000 soldiers out of Iraq? A month? Six months?
Given that, does that change your assessment of the validity of your points 1 through 7?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Sigh.
Should I interpret this to mean that you don't think I have not?
Excuse me? I have provided more substantive commentary on this topic than you have. I truly have no idea what you are wanting from me, but berating me about being flippant when I am clearly attempting to be responsive to you queries is not the way to get what you want.
Where have I insulted you?
I have no idea and I fail to see why this matters within the context of this discussion. For the sake of discussion I will say six months to execute a full but safe and orderly retreat. Now what?
Not are far as I can tell. Why should it? My points 1 through 7 are predicated on the fact that the enemy would be given advanced knowledge of our withdrawal. Once the withdrawal actually begins and the enemy would otherwise be aware of it, the tactical significance of this advanced knowledge becomes moot.
If you have something that you are driving at I sure wish that you would just put it on the table.
[ Note: My responses are purely focused on your post above. I have not, nor do I intend to, actually read the full dkos diary. If that changes your assumptions about this discussion in any way, please let me know. ]
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What difference does this point make?
What is to debate? The point is obviously correct. It is a true statement that we cannot sneak 160,000 soldiers out of Iraq in a day. So what?
The substantive difference is that they will know NOW rather then when we start.
Why might this difference be significant? What might they be able to do with this knowledge? Here are a few thoughts just off the top of my head:
1) This knowledge could allow them the make preparations to cover our exit routes so as to ambush us on the way out.
2) Knowing that an evacuation is imminent they could choose to conserve their resources (i.e. by holing up rather than continuing to engage) in order to take over Iraq after we leave.
3) If their resources are limited due to the ongoing efforts to dispense with them (and thus their moral is low and they are close to surrendering), this knowledge could bolster their resolve and encourage them to hang on until after we have left.
4) Having this knowledge would clearly provide the enemy with a propoganda tool to further bolster their standing within the region and thereby increase the success of their recruiting efforts (thus helping them by creating more terrorists).
5) Having this knowledge would allow them to increase pressure on representatives of the newly formed government (via issuing threats against their families after the Americans have left and can no longer provide any support in protecting them), and thereby corrupt the democratic process within Iraq.
6) Having this knowledge would allow them to pressure the newly formed Iraqi military and police units into forming alliances with them based on the fact that they will now know that the Americans will no longer be there to support them.
7) The alliances created in #6 could be used to facilitate a "coup de ta" immediately after the Americans leave which will be the point at which the newly formed government is most vulnerable.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but it does establish that there are potential tactical disadvantages to providing this information to the terrorist organizations.
So now that we have established that, what tactical advantages are we likely to gain from providing this information? What are the reasons for giving the terrorists this information?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What Tactical Advantages Are There to Staying
It will deprive the terrorists of targets.
As Zawahiri said in his released video.
{}.....
Adding:
Zawahiri continues to mock U.S. policy, referring to the suicide bombing at the Iraqi Parliament building in the Green Zone, stating:
The terrorists don't even fricking need any information at all, stay or withdraw! The US military is trapped. Getting them out will be dangerous, and leaving them there will be dangerous.
This crapola about timetables is just a ridiculous strawman...... the surrender monkies etc..... making your partisan a** a happy one.
That is actually not the very real problem the forces face Mr. GoRight.
Zawahiri wants the US to stay. He baits the US with his rhetoric and they fall for it everytime.
Unless you want to pay more taxes and start a draft for say 500.000 more men, we better figure out how to safely withdraw most of the US troops, because we don't have Enough military to declare any kind of decisive victory.
And the longer we stay the stronger are our loses.
It is the economy, stupid.
Non-responsive.
You have not answered the question:
What tactical advantages are to be gained by giving the enemy the information that we are giving up and leaving (in advance)?
Answering your question, though, the tactical advantages of staying are (among others):
1) We are fighting them there rather than here.
2) We are drawing them into the region where we can confront them (remember, the democratic position is that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we went there but everyone is in agreement that they are there now). In other words, the flypaper is working.
3) We can aid the newly formed democratic government to maintain order and to help reduce the level of sectarian violence.
4) Every day that we are there we are killing terrorists, continuing the apply pressure on them, disrupting their efforts, distracting them from executing other plans, etc.
America will do what it needs to do to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world and to help insure the safety of both ourselves and the free world.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Boomerang rhetoric
gets quite old.
Do you think we have not heard all these right wing talking points like ten million times by now.
You can repeat them endlessly. We know the drill.
There isn't much point in responding, when you dismiss or ignore little tiny facts, like aforementioned........
Zawahiri welcomes the US to stay forever.
Why, so he has more targets, more target practice and an opportunity to drain the US, and kill more US soldiers.
Zawahiri invite Bush to celebrate his victory
in the recent Security Initiative for Baghdad.
in Iraq, at the recently bombed Iraqi parliament, with
a delicous glass of juice.
This happy talk about D&F is just a day dream.
"Victory" is an acceptable level of violence, as P. Bush stated the other day to prepare the American people for a "victory" that looks like a civil war.
It is the economy, stupid.
I have heard the terrorist propaganda
like 10 million times. You can repeat it endlessly. I know the drill.
Now as for my repeating talking points endlessly, you seem to forget little things like my opening position on this whole topic:
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1184#comment-49656
It was purpleface that insisted on dragging me into this discussion, is it not? Then you began to chime in as well. As I said in my original response, you either understand the points or you don't. There is nothing new to add.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oh yea.
And you have STILL not answered MY question (in spite of the fact that I have answered yours):
What tactical advantages are to be gained by giving the enemy the information that we are giving up and leaving (in advance)?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I already answered
IN other words, I don't think it matters. The US military are sitting ducks timeline or no timeline. Withdrawl date or no withdrawl date.
It is the economy, stupid.
OK.
So you now have a proposal that clearly has tactical disadvantages as I have shown above and here you are articulating that it has no tactical advantages.
Given this, why are you pushing for such a thing? I realize that you are not a military tactician but surely pursuing a course with only disadvantages is not the brightest thing to do, right?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Neither one has advantages
Stay we lose.
Leave we lose.
The second scenario is with the hopes of saving American lives.
It is the economy, stupid.
My final attempt
Let's agree to say it takes six months, and say we begin preparations to remove our troops on January 1, 20XX:
They can begin doing this on January 2. They could begin attacking our exit routes with IEDs and suicide bombers fairly quickly, based on how quickly they seem to be able to make such things happen today. So let's say they begin actual attacks on January 15.
Are they being prudent today in their use of resources? Do they already have more than a six month's supply? Conventional wisdom says Iraq is chock full of supplies useful for making IEDs (which, BTW, is why they're called IEDs, isn't it?). How do we plan on ensuring that Iraq will remain calm after we leave regardless of the manner and timing of our departure?
Possibly. But this is conjecture. We've been battling them for four years. Is their morale low yet? Are they close to surrender now?
Why would this be a greater propaganda tool than the current situation?
Aren't they routinely killing governmental personnel already? And how do we plan to prevent this from occurring after we leave, regardless of when we leave or the timing of our departure?
This is probably happening already as neighborhoods descend into increasing violence. How do we plan to prevent this from occuring after we leave, regardless of when we leave or the timing or manner of that departure?
How do we plan to prevent this from occurring after we leave, regardless of when we leave or the timing of that departure?
The hole in the logic is that all these evils can and probably will happen after we leave, regardless of whether or not we give "advance warning" or if we just begin the hypothetical six-month process of departure. Your arguments do not support the idea that there is an actual military or strategic plan backing up the President's statements. Maybe one thing you are forgetting to factor in is that President Bush's term is up in 18 months; that's the de facto "advance notice of withdrawal" date and I'm sure the terrorists are already aware of that.
The tactical advantage of reminding them our commitment is not forever is the same one Secretary Gates is using: putting the fear of God into weak politicians and making them accept accountablity for their own future. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-gates6may06,1,435909...
But I think the Iraqi government is still planning a two month vacation this summer. It's in their contract. They really want three months off. One might think they didn't think they had work to do or something.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Civility?
Why are you so disturbed by this point? You asked me to respond to the points raised in the dkos quote your provided.
One of those points was that if we announced that we were leaving and if our [the Republicans] assertion is corect that this will cause them to hole up and stop fighting and that this would be a good thing. I am merely pointing that if your [the dkos] assertion is correct that we could extend that good thing for an arbitrarily long period of time by selecting a sufficiently distant exit time frame.
Is this not merely a logical extension of the point that the dkos quote made?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Seems like an odd question
since you glorify yourself as on a mission to "rehash" and "correct" the record on everything that democrats every did "wrong".
It is the economy, stupid.
Now you seem to have a chip on YOUR shoulder...
1) I am not glorifying myself in any way. I am not on any sort of mission to seek retribution for their past deeds.
2) You misunderstand my point, I am not trying to "rehash" and "correct" the record on everything that the democrats ever did "wrong", but rather I am using the same rhetorical techniques as the democrats (albeit on new political topics) and when necessary using their own actions (in terms of employing slimy techniques) as a cover/justification for my own use of the very same techniques under the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander rule".
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
bin Laden?
You mean the guy in Afghanistan that we've stopped hunting?
Let me get this straight:
It's a bad idea to pull forces out of a country he's not in, even though that front has drained our resources in the country he was in?
?!?!?!?!
Thank God you're not a military strategist.
What I love about this, by the way, is that bin Laden is the perfect bête noire for the Right: he's public enemy number one whenever you want to scare people into submission, but he's conveniently ignored whenever he's unnecessary - remember all the comments arguing that dismantling the bin Laden unit was "no big deal" because he's really only a figurehead?
Then when it comes to setting a sane policy for Iraq, we dust him off a bit and present him to the American people as the bogeyman we all know and fear.
How about pulling out of Iraq, actually doing our job in Afghanistan, and putting political pressure on Pakistan to help us catch the guy that started this whole thing, eh? Since Iraq is not a front on the war in terror unless we're making it one?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Absurdity.
Your point is the equivalent of my saying, Iraq? Bush isn't in Iraq, what are you complaining about?
Edit:
Even so, change my reference from Osama to al Qaeda instead and I will stand by that statement just as strongly.
Second edit:
Oh, and I believe most intel suggests that Osama (assuming that he is still alive) is actually somewhere along the border in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Just to be picky.
Would you favor invading Pakistan now (especially in light of the fact that they have been a good ally throughout all of this)?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Change it once more
to "al Qaeda in Iraq", which is a separate group, then we can get somewhere.
So here's a hypothetical situation to throw at you: let's say we really cannot win this battle, for whatever reason. Maybe the internal infighting is so fierce that it won't stop, or whatever. You realize that even given such a situation, you can still argue for indefinite deployment based on the same reason?
That's why I (and Purpleface, from his diary) react so strongly against it: it's not a military strategy - heck, it isn't a strategy in any sense of the term - it's an empty piece of rhetoric that's being used in the place of any kind of real gameplan.
This was depressing clear in the Republican debate, when candidates laid out impressive plans for propoganda, and only one or two had an actual concrete military/diplomatic idea of what to do in Iraq. Our success or failure in Iraq isn't tied to some chimerical notion of "support" from the American people or towards the troops: it's about using our best diplomacy, our best military defense, our best international supports. Many of us feel we lost the chance to do so years ago, and now we're just on a downward spiral. I don't see any evidence to the contrary, and it's going to take a lot more than a piece of flimsy rhetoric to convince me otherwise.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am curious.
Why do you feel that that the following is significant?
Al Qaeda is a multi-national organization (i.e. it spans national boundaries), yet still has some element of centralized coordination (even though individual cells can act autonomously).
In light of this
, why are you so interested in making this particular distinction?
I do understand that the following (underlined) makes you uncomfortable:
I don't necessarily disagree that this could happen. I am just confident that it is NOT happening right now, nor that there is any intent to stay in Iraq any longer than is necessary to secure a free and stable Iraq. I don't agree with the premise of your hypothetical, in this instance, that things are fundamentally unwinnable. I understand that you likely disagree.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you notice,
my final paragraph addresses the fact that he's in Pakistan right now. And we won't invade Pakistan, because we've been using them to launch strikes on Iran
. Funny how that works, eh?
Hopefully you're starting to see how much an exercise in absurdity this whole war on terror has become, for Bush.
(edit: I just noticed, my first comment did say "in Afghanistan". mea culpa)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I appreciate your taking note.
I would also seek to highlight (merely as a means of supporting your observation), that the opening phrases of your last paragraph also read:
Hence my apparent confusion on where you were implying/saying that Osama actually was.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
In case you've missed the last few years,
catching bin Laden wasn't our only job in Afghanistan. We don't have an army in there for that reason - in fact, they're not chasing bin Laden there at all. But there is a group called the "Taliban" that we're engaged with militarily, since al Qaeda training grounds were located in Afghanistan and supported by the regime.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Date Certain = Red Herring
Nobody has a fricken clue as to what 'success' is. (or rather everybody has an idea, but nobody agrees)
I have worked on a fair number projects and programs. Most of them had pretty strict schedules and budgets. When things went over budget or the schedule slipped (and they almost always did), we didn't just stop and quit. But we HAD a budget and a schedule and eventually, if you weren't at least moving forward on some of those milestones, the project got cancelled.
The president refuses to actually define what success looks like in any measureable way (Will smell more freedom!) so it is impossible to succeed or fail.
This isn't about there being a "date certain" because if things suddenly turned around, people would accept an extension. But they aren't, they haven't and nobody trusts the program manager anymore. There is a deadline to start making some measurable progress that the people find meaningful. When the program manager goes through his fifth replan, and things still aren't going anywhere towards success, you either fire the program manager (which in this case, is Impeachment) or you cancel the program.
There is one somewhat exception to this rule. One case where "It'll work when it works!" has some validity, which is R&D. It'd be refreshing for the president to admit that this entire boondoggle has been a 'proof of concept' that just didn't work out, but he'd be working on his resignation speech the day after.
I don't think we need such a large
military force in Iraq (160,000), but I don't think we should announce our withdraw date. In fact I don't think we should say we are going to withdraw at all. I favor the alternate of keeping smaller # of troops in-country, and having them stay mostly at selected military bases in Iraq. Only to come out of those bases, preferably by air, to support Iraqi military or assist with other US interests in the area.
I am not crazy about having US troops "secure" neighborhoods in Bagdad. Let the Iraqi troops do that. Or about our troops working on civil engineering or other AID type projects. The country is slowiy dividing along ethnic lines and may break into 3 parts. Best course: lower troop levels (say below 100,000), maintain presence, be there for air and artillary support of the Iraqis.
name the enemy, win the war
So do you think that is the
So do you think that is the reason for the obfuscation -- a fear of openly revealing an underlying intention of not leaving? And is that fear more directed at us here at home or at the people who live in the Middle East?
If that's it, I still don't understand the real risk of revealing that intention. So what if they know we will stay? Does Washington think the fighters are holding back already and things would get worse? I can't see that. As for us at home, since his term will expire, I don't understand the need to hide this plan. The real "withdrawal date" will be revealed in November 2008 and that's self-evident. Short of cutting all funding or impeachment, (neither of which are real risks, IMHO) he gets to call the shots until his successor takes office. Maintaining these "talking points", for lack of a better phrase, seems bad strategy if his goal is to use them as support for a Republican successor. Because as I said, they don't make sense and won't sway the middle. I think people are demanding better answers.
There is something to be said for maintaining a presence in a war-ravaged region. We did so, successfully, after WW2 in Japan and Germany. But I don't think the current situation in Iraq is a good parallel.
Thanks for taking a stab at this sandbox. BTW, if it's not too personal a question, did you pick up your name in the service? You don't have to answer.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Silly Sport's Metaphor
Sometimes it is important to hide how tired you are. Maybe the other guy is about to quit, but when they see that you are also at the edge, they press on.
This doesn't apply in this case of course. The in-country insurgents-against-occupiers will last for many years, but that is the 'logic' of the keeping things secret.
That makes sense
I suppose I overlooked the ego / face factor too.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I like this approach.
I was listening to Rush I think it was, and someone claiming to be a liberal made a very good set of points (paraphrased into my style of verbiage):
1) We went into Iraq to ensure that WMDs did not make their way into terrorist hands by way of Saddam. OK, mission accomplished.
2) We went into Iraq to establish a democracy. OK, mission accomplished.
What we did NOT do is go into Iraq to act as referee for an internal civil war.
So they favored a position that said pull the troops out of the middle of the country and use them to secure the borders to help prevent other nations from interfering and let the Iraqi's solve the internal problems themselves.
I can sort of get behind that perspective as well, which I think is very close to what you are suggesting here.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree