Heard on the Horizon: Calls to Get All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq

[GreenPartyVoter]

WASHINGTON -- The idea is still a relative whisper in the broader American political discussion, but more and more people are raising the idea of withdrawing the 138,000 U.S. forces from Iraq.

It's an idea that President Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, scorn. Kerry has even indicated he might send in more troops to stabilize Iraq. On Tuesday, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz -- one of the architects of the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein -- told the House Armed Services Committee that U.S. forces may have to stay in Iraq for years.

But as American casualties mount, with military deaths approaching 1,000 and with more than 5,100 wounded, analysts have begun talking about withdrawal as a viable option. The idea could become an issue in the presidential campaign, especially since independent candidate Ralph Nader embraces the notion.

"A U.S. withdrawal would be preferable to what we have now,'' University of San Francisco politics Professor Stephen Zunes said Tuesday in Washington, D.C. "The idea that more U.S. troops will improve the situation is wrong. The truth is the opposite.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0623-01.htm

[truthspeaker]

1. side note on Kerry's position

I disagree with Kerry on pulling out, but he's right about one thing: if we're going to stay there to keep the peace, we need more troops. Pulling out all the way or sending more troops in are the only two viable options. Bush's status quo is guaranteed to fail.

[Nevernose]

2. My parenst always used to tell me

"The only thing worse than not doing a job at all is doing it half-assed."

[Jacobin]

5. 550,000 troops couldn't "pacify" Vietnam

Why does anyone think more troops in IraqNam will stop the insurrection when only 2% of Iraqis view the U.S. as liberators?

I don't understand.

:shrug:

[truthspeaker]

7. Like I said, I think we should pull out altogether, for that very reason

[MallRat]

3. I respectfully disagree.

If we leave now without handing off to any kind of international peacekeeping force, the entire Middle East is going to hell in a handbasket. Bush completely upset the delicate balance of power in that region- do you think the Iraqi government would be capable of fending off a renewed attack from Iran?

The neocons have carelessly and negligently created a power vacuum, and now we need to find someone to fill it before we can go home.

Our last hope is for President Kerry to appeal to other nations (maybe NATO, maybe UN) to commit troops to the effort. Then, as international peacekeepers come into Iraq, we can phase out our own forces.

But leaving right now would add insult to the terrible injuries we've already brought down upon the Iraqi people.

-MR

[Soloflecks]

4. Even if that is what Iraqi's want? n/t

[MallRat]

8. Therein lies the big fucking mess Bush got us into.

Politically, militarily, and economically, Iraq is in shambles right now. I don't see how we can't try to clean up the mess we made.

If the Iraqi people want us out so badly that they're willing to risk becoming another Afghanistan, roiled by constant wars and at terrible risk of evenutally becoming a totalitarian fundamentalist Muslim theocracy that actually DOES harbor Al Qaeda, then I honestly don't know what to say.

The sooner the international community can lend legitimacy to the rebuilding efforts in Iraq (good point by the other poster about NATO... maybe the Arab League is a better choice here), the sooner there'll be a light at the end of the tunnel for everyone.

But pulling out now would be a humanitarian disaster, and would put even more blood on our hands.

-MR

[Jacobin]

6. Oh, so we'll get NATO to send troops to clean up our mess

and then withdraw U.S. troops?

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

:-)

Seriously though, while Kerry might be able to get some NATO troops, won't they also be "infidels" in the Iraqi's book? Why would they be any more welcome than the storm troopers we have there now, pissing off Iraqis with their ham-fisted actions?

[MallRat]

9. Why would NATO troops be more welcome?

Because they're not Americans. Germans didn't rape prisoners. French troops didn't hood detainees at Abu Ghraib and tortune them.

That said, I do agree that Arab peacekeepers are highly preferable.

And as far as the world cleaning up the US's mess goes? THAT is the horrible legacy that Bush is going to leave us. We are going to have to pay dearly to re-engage the world in Iraq. Probably the biggest carrot we could dangle is trade concessions. We'll have to sacrifice our economy to save lives- both Iraqi and American.

I don't envy the task that Kerry has waiting for him if he wins in November. He's going to have to make some hard, unpleasant decisions.

-MR

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Kerry's wrong.

He was wrong about voting for the war.

He's wrong about wanting more troops.

It is shameless political posturing in fear of being called "soft on defense".

Out Now.