Withdrawal may be prerequisite to free and stable Iraq

[dajoki]

San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/06/EDG5TG2CIS1.DTL

EDITORIAL
TO STOP A WAR
Our view: Exit strategy can be a step toward "victory" envisioned by Bush.

Tuesday, December 6, 2005

THE DECLARATION of a "Plan for Victory" does not make it so.

<<snip>>

In times such as this, it's helpful to draw on history and the wisdom of those who witnessed the leader of the free world struggle with the limits of military power and the ambiguous zone between stubbornness and resolve. The essay on the facing page by Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., which first appeared Sunday in the New York Times, should be required reading at the White House and on Capitol Hill. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/opinion/04sorensen.html?th&emc=th Their description of President John F. Kennedy's anguish over what was then the beginning of a slide into the quagmire of Vietnam offers a cautionary tale about Iraq -- as well as the outlines of an honorable exit strategy.

As much as anything, the upshot of the message from Sorensen and Schlesinger, as well as the Nov. 17 clarion call for withdrawal from Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., is that the United States must get beyond the idea that "victory" must precede withdrawal of troops. Their contention is that withdrawal will actually help advance the "victory" defined by Bush. As Murtha put it so pointedly, "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence."



It's time for U.S. policy to recognize reality: The "terrorists" and "Saddamists" and "rejectionists" described by Bush are not waiting for us to leave -- and may not even want us to leave. The presence of U.S. troops is giving them convenient targets as well as their best recruiting tool.

Americans should not have to wait for "victory" to get their 160,000 sons and daughters out of daily peril in Iraq. Withdrawal of U.S. forces does not undermine Bush's vision for a free and stable Iraq. It may even be a prerequisite.

[aquart]

1. We've created chaos. We will leave chaos behind.

Does chaos lead to a "free and stable Iraq"?

We are so desperately trying to evade guilt for our crime. And punishment.

What we have done is so egregious it may not be mended in a century. We did it. We harmed those people beyond any power to repair the damage. We did it.

But who can run on a ticket of Guilty, guilty, guilty? So we are casting about for the most plausible, most convenient lie.

I don't care what lie we use, we've always been comfortable with self-deception. We need to get out NOW. Then maybe we can save ourselves. We can never save Iraq. Maybe someone else can.

[dajoki]

2. read the 2nd link...

just to check out the different thought processes, astonishing.

[Neil Lisst]

3. You can't be riding in the backseat and also be in charge.

They can't run it until we get out.

ALL of this same play has been done before, and it was called Vietnam. I swear, every single thing the Bush administration has done is straight out of the Vietnam era playbook. All the bogus news stories, all the happy talk, the schools opened, the villages helped, the happy people so glad to see GI, and especially the old "look, they're becoming democratic, just like us!"

Ask a vet from Vietnam to tell you the joke about the ARVN rifle.

[dajoki]

4. check...

2nd link!!