What exactly is the point of 'get out six months from now'?

[Warren Stupidity]

Or eight months or twelve months, or whatever timeframe the rev. 3.0 course-stayers are proposing. I really don't get it. What exactly is going to be different, other than 30-60,000 more dead Iraqis and 500 or so more dead Americans, six months from now? Can anyone explain this?

[madokie]

1. I don't think it can be explained in a way that we would accept

wrong is wrong nothing more nothing less

[IndyOp]

2. I can't explain it. I can hope that what it means is that if they begin leaving NOW

then they will complete their exit within 6 months. That is the best I can imagine is meant by '6 months'.

:(

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Actually I think the only safe maneuver is a two week exit.

I don't think we can safely draw down our forces over a prolonged timeframe. Instead, and I am certainly no expert, given the instability of the situation, I think a more classic load it up and roll it out back down to kuwait in force, an orderly retreat with full ground and air support, is the safest way out.

[MadHound]

3. Oh, at least another 30 billion dollars,

After all, the corporate kings of the military industrial complex have to get as much blood money as possible. Besides, six months from now is six more months allows them that much longer to figure out a reason why that six months should turn into another six months.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Yes that would be the Baker proposal:

milk the tax payers right up to the 2008 election and then blame the incoming Democratic president for the disaster. I get that plan.

[The Straight Story]

6. Well first off, there will still be Iraqi's killing each other when we leave

It just won't make news here probably. Those death tolls would probably rise when we leave - so leaving could lead to more deaths (paging the UN like we should have done long ago....).

Second: Our actions were planned out, went bad, and contributed to this mess. I would not say we are solely at fault as many of the innocents being killed now are by fellow Iraqi's (possibly with Iranian help, much like we help Afghans back in the day). If we are to leave there should be a plan as well, but I agree it should be much more quickly and with world aid - for the sake of the Iraqi people (who we never had a bone with, it was just Saddam and his army).

We opened a pandora's box, for our own needs, and we should help close it - and that requires planning.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. So we should stick around developing a plan to get out?

And what exactly do you think that plan will be? I'm serious here, what exactly do you think is going to happen after all of this careful planning in six months that is going to materially alter the current situation?

I have a couple of minor problems with some of your assertions.

"Our actions were planned out, went bad, and contributed to this mess."

As far as I can tell, and I've read about everything that has been written that is not classified on this subject, we had no plan for the occupation. We were the Underwear Gnomes of world conquest. Step one: topple Saddam. Step three: Democracy and Oil!

We did not just 'contribute to the mess' we caused it. We are solely at fault for everything that has happened since we destroyed the Iraqi government. An arsonist who sets fire to a warehouse that happens to contain a lot of explosives didn't just contribute to the massive explosion that occurred, he caused it and is entirely to blame for it.

"If we are to leave there should be a plan as well" indeed, but the plan's principle component is us getting out and getting our quickly, not somehow miraculously fixing the situation.

[Texasgal]

8. I'm thinking...and HOPING

That the six months is just a chosen number. We have tons of military equipment there, bases that will need to be torn down, etc.

It sounds easy to simply say two weeks, but that is not plausible? Maybe? I dunno... just thinking out loud here.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Well I keep insisting that these plans actually exist

and that it is entirely plausible. It took about two weeks to get in, and that was while carefully moving against what was once the well organized Iraqi Army. Getting out ought to be a logisitical problem of a somewhat lesser degree of complication. Our army is really good at developing and executing just this sort of tactical operation. I have complete faith that we could do an orderly bug out in two weeks or so.

[Texasgal]

10. IT may have taken two weeks to get in

but since the years we have been there we have sent more and more equipment and built more and more bases and barracks. All of this done over a several year span.

I would LOVE to get out there in two weeks... trust me. I am just not sure it can actually happen.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. I believe the general idea is that you blow up

everything of value that you cannot take out. But heck we had no problem leaving tons and tons of military equipment in vietnam. Oh well..

Look at it from another angle. The Pentagon sits around and makes contingency plans for everything. You think they do not have a workable plan to bug out on short order? I think they do. I've plucked two weeks out of thin air. It might realistically be four weeks, or two months. The point is that the plan to get out in short order exists and is good to go. Why not put it into effect?

Instead we will do nothing for another six months, and then six months from now we will be right where we are today, not one convoy closer to exiting Iraq. I insist that this is pointless. We should execute the bug out plan immediately.