Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Let's start at the beginning

Why pull out of Iraq?   We just got there.  Why don't we take a FIFO (First in, First Out) approach.  Lets pull out all out troops from Europe, because those troops have been there the longest.  We can send half home and half to Iraq.  Next lets pull all troops our of South Korea, we can send half home and half to Iraq.  We can post some subs to keep an nuclear eye on North Korea.  Next lets pull troops out of Vietnam (I don't really think we have very many there, but I am just mentioning it here for completeness.)
 
Once we have removed troops from all the places they were before Iraq and relocated them to Iraq, I would support pulling out of Iraq.
 
cube

20 comments:

transientforeigner said...

I am one of those that believes that Congress and the American people were purposefully misled about the aims and reasons for going to war in Iraq. I believe the war has been mishandled for its entirity but I am also one who believes that we should not pull out of Iraq anytime soon. Rushing into a country, toppling its regime and bureaucratic framework, encouraging massive social upheaval, and then leaving before any semblance of order or stability is returned will end in an Iraq that will likely be worse off than it was before the United States came.

I am just going to hope that the "First In, First Out" approach was a joke and that it does not need any serious debate. There are plenty of reasons people have for wanting troops out of Iraq. 1)The cost of war has gotten too high (with both military casualties and civilian). 2) Whether or not we have encouraged more terrorism by our presence is now the debate (as opposed to how many days, weeks or months before the operation can be considered complete). 3)The purpose of our being there is now highly questionable. 4) Large numbers of local people do not want our presence any longer. 5) The war has become more expensive than anyone ever predicted.

The Iraq case is special and people against it and pushing for a pullout deserve some response other than "no", "it is a cowardly retreat in the face of the enemy" or "we have not yet completed our task".

Cubicle said...

"I am just going to hope that the "First In, First Out" approach was a joke and that it does not need any serious debate."

Not a joke, i was pointing out how absurd the left's argument is. If we do not have a good reason to stay in Iraq, we do not have a good reason to be anywhere. And if we do not belong anywhere, then start bringing ALL of our guys home and decomission the entire army, starting with the places we have been the longest.

Cubicle said...

" 1)The cost of war has gotten too high (with both military casualties and civilian)"

I don't care what it costs and any patriot should not care. I am not saying the money should not be spend wisely (because it should), but the temporary costs will be worth it. We did not ask how much defeating communism or Nazi germany. It was obvious that it needed to be done.

I belive that it is obvious that we need to defeat terrorism and it's root casues.

Cubicle said...

"2) Whether or not we have encouraged more terrorism by our presence is now the debate (as opposed to how many days, weeks or months before the operation can be considered complete)."

Yes the flypaper theory. If we have encouraged more terrorism, it has only been in Arab states where the battle should be raged. Their are obvious stragetic advantages to taking the fight to the enemy.

Either we take it to them or they bring it here.

Cubicle said...

" 3)The purpose of our being there is now highly questionable."

No it is not. At least not any more debatable than our presense in any other country in the world.

Secondly, we can always leave and see what happens. It would pain me to see Iraq become worse that it has ever been, but hey at least it is not our country, right.

Cubicle said...

"The Iraq case is special and people against it and pushing for a pullout deserve some response other than "no", "it is a cowardly retreat in the face of the enemy" or "we have not yet completed our task"."

Really, both of those reasons are ture and accurate?

The fact is that nation building is something the democrats belive in, they just can't bring theirselves to get behind bush.

Sandcastle said...

Let me punch a couple holes in your first in first out idea. Most of the troops stationed overseas do Iraq rotations every other year (like me). Second, the reason we maintain 725 overseas bases (not counting Iraq or Afghanistan) is to quickly deploy troops anywhere. There is some debate as to whether or not the US should maintain a global military presence, but at the moment we do. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything in Iraq.

Sandcastle said...

And in your cost comment I think you are missing one of the key points of this war. NO TERRORISTS WERE OPERATING OUT OF IRAQ UNTIL WE TOOK OVER! So, no this doesn't really further our war on terrorism. To the contrary it makes it easier for groups like Al Qaeda to polarize opinion against the US and recruit more terrorists.

Cubicle said...

"This has absolutely nothing to do with anything in Iraq."

No it has everything to do with Iraq. If we do not have a good reason to stay in Iraq, we don't have a good reason to be anywhere.

Cubicle said...

"NO TERRORISTS WERE OPERATING OUT OF IRAQ UNTIL WE TOOK OVER! So, no this doesn't really further our war on terrorism. "

They are now, so defeating them in Iraq does further the current war on terror. you can argure wheather it is our fault or not that they are in Iraq (I do not belive it is our fault or the Iraqies fault, it is the fault of the terrorists.)

transientforeigner said...

There are several additional problems with your ideas and arguments.

"I don't care what it costs and any patriot should not care."
If by patriot you mean "someone that will unquestionably follow the orders and policies of his/her government leaders and execute them to the most capable extent" then yes I will agree, you probably do not care about the "cost of war". However if you believe whatsoever that at least one of our goals was to liberate and protect innocent people, then the mounting numbers of civilian casualties needs be considered. At some point the cost is too high. I do not claim to have the perfect number figured, perhaps we have already reached it, perhaps we should permit it to get 10x higher; but to "not care" at all is to state rather boldly that freedom and protection from death are not among the goals of our presence in Iraq.

"We did not ask how much defeating communism or Nazi germany."
This is the first time I've heard anyone attempt an analogy between terrorists and Nazi Germany, and I think there is a reason for that. A more closer analogy would be that of terrorists and Americans in Iraq to Native Americans and early American Pioneers. American Pioneers came for many reasons, some to colonize, some to get land, some to find gold, some to trade and some to Christianize. Some Native Americans, in turn, fought back, some in straight forward war, others in more guerilla tactics on villages and travelers. Our response to Iraq today is much the same as it was to the Native Americans way back then: Do what we tell you and trust us that we have your best interests in mind. Then, as now, those that went along lived (or at least did not die at the gun of soldiers) and the others died. So really your weak attempt at an analogy is nothing more than an attempt to connect today's questionable campaign to one of the more horrific and dangerous groups in modern warfare and then to justify it by labelling them bad guys.

"If we do not have a good reason to stay in Iraq, we do not have a good reason to be anywhere."
For this logic to work, the reasons for our having bases other than Iraq have to be the EXACT same. Then, and only then, would that argument be true. Sandcastle concisely pointed out that this is not the case.

"If we have encouraged more terrorism, it has only been in Arab states where the battle should be raged."
Really? How does one label the subway attacks in London then? The foiled plot on the nuclear plant in Australia? The number (12 was it?) of foiled attacks the United States has stacked up since Sept. 11th? Arab States that had enjoyed calm are also re-engaged, the hotel bombings in Jordan were a sudden break in the norm as well.

"no", "it is a cowardly retreat in the face of the enemy" or "we have not yet completed our task"."
..."Really, both of those reasons are ture and accurate?"

The "it is a cowardly retreat in the face of the enemy" argument is akin to a childish taunt with no possibility of real evaluation. At what point could we EVER end this war and be able to say that we did not retreat or leave the job unfinished? The ONLY time would be when all terrorists in Iraq or concerned with Iraq are killed, all extremists are pushed out of the country and democracy is flourishing throughout the land. I do not believe even the most optimistic war strategizers or state builders believe any of those, much less all of them to be realistic goals. Opponents within the Likud and outside it, opposing the Gaza pullout in Israel argued the exact same thing and have argued it for years and years. The biggest obstacle to peace in Israel is that argument simply because of the reasons noted above: it requires eradication of anyone who could possibly be an enemy. The pullout has not solved all problems but it looks to have brought Israel and Palestine closer to peace than they have ever been.

But there is a point I agree with you on:
"The fact is that nation building is something the democrats belive in, they just can't bring theirselves to get behind bush."

The political divisiveness is discouraging, though it is unfair to pass it all off as that, there is a serious disagreement in this. There is seriously no end in sight to this war. There isn't even a goal anymore. Is it to finish the constitution? Have elections? Rid the country of terrorists? Keep another strong Arab base? Policy-makers don't know. It makes perfect sense for them to ask Bush for his exit strategy. Bush has refused to give it, a sure way to irritate people, who being responsible to constituents must remind the president that he is also accountable. That is how the debate over an exact date of the pullout came about. Bush has a problem now, because he is actually right about one thing: you cannot give a date because insurgents will then just wait until that date and then restart the fight. So either Bush has to swallow some pride, admit he was being stubborn and acting unaccountably, giving at least the Defense Committee a look at some exit strategy or the Democrats have to back down from their requests and just hope Bush gives them what the country really needs: a goal.

Cubicle said...

"At some point the cost is too high. I do not claim to have the perfect number figured, perhaps we have already reached it, perhaps we should permit it to get 10x higher; but to "not care" at all is to state rather boldly that freedom and protection from death are not among the goals of our presence in Iraq."

That is a week argument. Only by completely defeating the threat can you have protections and freedom from the threat. If it is out goal gain freedom and protection from the threat, then we must defeat the threat. To defeat the threat you must do whatever is neccesary, because the cost of failure and inaction is always more than the cost of action (both in human, social, and econmic tersm).

Cubicle said...

"So really your weak attempt at an analogy is nothing more than an attempt to connect today's questionable campaign to one of the more horrific and dangerous groups in modern warfare and then to justify it by labelling them bad guys."

That is nonsense. For any person of right mind i should be fairly simple to see that the terrorist are bad guys and america are the good guys.

As to Iraq, it is fairly simple to see that they are caught up in a vicisous tribal warfare cycle that can only be ended by action from the outside.

It worked out for the indians (gambling) and it will work out for the Iraqies if they rid theirselves of the bad guys.

Cubicle said...

"If we do not have a good reason to stay in Iraq, we do not have a good reason to be anywhere."

"For this logic to work, the reasons for our having bases other than Iraq have to be the EXACT same. Then, and only then, would that argument be true. Sandcastle concisely pointed out that this is not the case."

No, they don't have to the EXACTLy the same. What i am saying is that if their are no good reasons to have troops in Iraq (where the enemny is and fighting) then we have no good reason to be anywhere. If they army is not fighting the enemy, they they are useless and a waste of money.

Cubicle said...

" At what point could we EVER end this war and be able to say that we did not retreat or leave the job unfinished?"

When Iraq is a stable demoracy, with a strong nationalitic sense of pride that casues them to rise above sectairan differences. When Iraq is fighting and killing their own terrorists by theirselves.

Once that happens, we can take our army and take and stablize some other country.

You are right we can never declare total victory, but we can create allies, and with those allies we can come much closer to winning than we can by ourselves.

Cubicle said...

"Bush has refused to give it, a sure way to irritate people, who being responsible to constituents must remind the president that he is also accountable."

not really, he can never run for president again.

Cubicle said...

"So either Bush has to swallow some pride, admit he was being stubborn and acting unaccountably, giving at least the Defense Committee a look at some exit strategy or the Democrats have to back down from their requests and just hope Bush gives them what the country really needs: a goal."

You mean this.

"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Oh here is another one...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html


The democrats have their goal, they just don't seem to like it.

Cubicle said...

"There is seriously no end in sight to this war."

you have a choice. You can either fight this war (iraq, afganistain, war on terror) or you can choose not to fight.

If you choose not to fight you loose.

If you choose to fight, and quit you loose.

If you choose to fight, you could still lose, but only by fighting do you win.

Sandcastle said...

You think that there is some sort of set number of terrorists in the world and we are sucking them all into Iraq. Congratulations you have been brainwashed by Fox News. The truth is that every time we invade an Arab country on evidence that never shows up or accidentally bomb the wrong building or shoot the wrong guy we are making more terrorists. Also, where do you think all of these bombs came from? They used to belong to Saddam. Some of them are weapons caches that he left open and others are AHAs that we failed to secure after we took them.

Cubicle said...

"You think that there is some sort of set number of terrorists in the world and we are sucking them all into Iraq."

Well isn't there. There has to be. There are a set number of people in the world. Let's say there are 6 billion people in the world. There cannot be anymore than 6 billion terrorists.


"The truth is that every time we invade an Arab country on evidence that never shows up or accidentally bomb the wrong building or shoot the wrong guy we are making more terrorists."

Ture, but everytime they are bombing a mosque, school, market, trian, subway, they are making more anti-terrorists.

I somehow think that we will still win.