It’s quite clear that the GOP talking points on the Iraq War and potential withdrawl of troops comes down to this;

“We’ll lower troop levels slowly if we deem is reasonable and prudent.”

Which is to say, “We’re going to keep on keepin’ on.”

The GOP wants it both ways. They want to be able to say that they’re bringing the boys home AND that they are “staying the course” and making Iraq safe for democracy.

It’s total and complete bunk of course, but that’s the talking point….so get ready to hear a lot of it.

Pilt

Is this having your cake and eating it too? They just can’t bring themselves to say, “change strategy, bring troops home”. It’s as if they now recognize that the Democrats have been right, but they can’t say it out loud.

I don’t think it’s the concept of “breaking with the pack” that frightens Dent and Gerlach. Both Republicans voted with Dems on several key pieces of legislation during the last session. Here’s a concept: maybe timelines are just a bad idea, no? Even Dem stalwarts like Joe Biden don’t support placing a specific timeline on American withdrawal from Iraq. In truth, I’m not the war’s biggest proponent. However, I do see the logic in not giving our enemies a heads-up on when exactly our troops we’ll be packing up. It’s lunacy to believe such a timeline wouldn’t hand our enemies a huge advantage in future planning and strategy. I know I’ll be accused of donning rose-colored glasses, but by most accounts, the “surge” is beginning to see verifiable results in Iraq (an increased deployment which should’ve happened much earlier than this summer). I don’t pretend everything is over there, but I do believe we are beginning to see a foundation for progress forming. Here’s a hypothetical I put to my KP friends (and I’d like an honest answer): as Americans (which we all are, regardless of our feelings on Iraq), if someone told you if we stuck it out in Iraq for another year, maybe two, the Iraqi government would become strong enough to sustain itself. We would have denied al-quida an operating base and resisted expanded Iranian influence in the region. Would the gains outweigh the costs? I ask this because I feel the international “big picture” has been lost amongst the domestic political brawling. I don’t believe those who advocate an immediate retreat from Iraq realize the gravity of the action they propose. Not only will the Iraqi government implode, the Iranians will become the true kingmakers of the region (which isn’t exactly a comforting thought). Moderate Arab states will be strained, if not overrun themselves. Iraq will become a cesspool of terror and fundamentalism, with Iran pulling the strings. The Iranians will have no reason to fear the United States or it’s allies as it continues building nuclear weapons (“Hey, look what happened in Iraq!”). Again, I’m not a fan of the way this war has been conducted (or, frankly, the circumstances under which the war began). However, the means shouldn’t overshadow the ends. Retreating from Iraq doesn’t just deny George Bush a victory (as satisfying as that prospect may be to some). It denies the United States any true hope of permanently leaving the Middle East at some point in time. If we leave Iraq in the near future (before the Iraqi government is stable), do you honestly believe American forces won’t be right back in the fight after the world sees the carnage that would inevitably ensue? Think about it.

You referenced the GAO report, which based their conclusions on whether or not goals have been achieved. It did not measure any sort of progress toward the achievement of those goals. In addition, the report includes nothing that took place over the summer (a period of time in which security in some areas of Iraq improved greatly). I wouldn’t exactly label GAO’s work on this matter as full or complete. Frankly, I don’t expect Gen. Petreaus to be a cheerleader for the Administration. I believe he’ll report both the positives and negatives to Congress in a few weeks, and let the political chips fall where they may.

PD, you’re ability to fit issues into your neat little preconceived political prisms never ceases to amaze. You are apparently ready to write off a four-star general who, by most reasoned accounts (TPMs, um, “straightforward” report notwithstanding)is nothing but honorable and on-the-level, without the man so much as uttering his first word under oath. I guess my only question of you at this point would be: what exactly are you so afraid Petraeus might say? That some things ARE IMPROVING in Iraq? Of course, the hardcore left “just can’t have that”, now can they? I’ve been extremely critical of some of the decisions made in Iraq (and I’m no fan of the Administration on this issue, despite your sad attempt to lump me in with their lot), but your routine practice of talking down every and any piece of good news coming from Iraq is nothing but political and pathetic. For such a self-styled “progressive”, you certainly fear the concept of “progress” in Iraq, no? Oh, by the way, the next time you include “references” in a response, please chose something other than partisan websites and magazine articles. If I want entertaining hearsay, I’ll travel to the local dive around 5 o’clock next Friday. Now that I think about it pd, you and the hardcore anti-war crowd should continue to bash Petraeus and downplay any positives coming from Iraq. If Petraeus continues to get results in the future, it’ll be fun watching you throw your political temper-tantrums from the gigantic hole you all have dug for yourselves.

FYI, I opposed the war from the beginning and knew what this administration was saying was a pack of lies. I knew it was going to be a disaster when Rumsfeld was asked about securing his supply lines and brushed it off as if supplies would just magically appear at the front lines. And what was the first thing to be attacked? The unsecured American supply line from southern Iraq to Baghdad. That told me all I needed to know about how well the war was planned.

I worked around flag officers for over a quarter century. I know first hand how much they are driven by the political priorities of the civilian administration in power. Perhaps when Petraeus is retired, like others, he’ll speak differently, but while he’s in the Army, he will say what the Bush admin wants said.

Every trip that Bush or Rice, etc, make is unannounced. What does that tell you? Even the most secure areas are less secure than they were.

Last, here’s the difference between you and me. You’re fine with seeing more young Americans and innocent civilians dead and I am not.

pd

Unreal. You again dodge the issue at hand (i.e., the consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq) and instead focus on the horrible prosecution of the war (something that, surprisingly, we’re in agreement on). Rumsfeld far overstayed his welcome and should’ve been dumped much earlier than last November. The focus of the Iraq debate needs to shift from yesterday onto tomorrow. By that I mean, the left and the right need to develop a strategy for
“where to go from here”, as opposed to continually fighting over “how we got here”. Most everyone accepts the premise that some very bad decisions got us where we are in Iraq. However, many of those same people realize that if America retreats before the Iraqi government can sustain itself, sooner or later those same young American men and women will be thrown right back onto the sands of the Middle East. Most on the left will talk all day about “immediate withdrawal from Iraq” but quickly shy away from discussion of the probable consequences of such a move.

I mostly agree with you, Stanley. However, are you willing to recognize the progress that has been made under the “surge”? For example, the Anbar province has been brought under control, with Iraqis beginning to take more and more responsibilities in that area. Iraqi Sunnis are now assisting American forces in combating the Shii’a militias. The Iraqi political leadership needs to get itself in gear, but for some to claim “zero” progress during 2007 is simply ignorant. As for troop levels, let’s see what Gen. Petraeus reports to Congress this week, as he’ll no doubt field such questions. I agree that an indefinite engagement with no verifiable results “isn’t a valid option”. However, I’d argue that for Washington to pull the rug out from under our forces at the VERY MOMENT they’re getting results would be the worst possible action to take.