Wait, what about the Iraq drawdown?

Heavy fighting seems to the breaking out in Basra today. Could be the start of a new upswing or not. Mostly Iraqi army by the sounds of it so it may not get much news space either way.

The Decider's plan hasn't changed from three years ago: RUN OUT THE CLOCK. On January 20, 2009 Iraq will officially become somebody else's problem. The new president will have to pull out of Iraq, at least to substantially lower troop levels than today, and Iraq will probably fall apart when that happens. But President Bush and his sycophantic supporters will say that it is the new president's fault, and not the Decider's. ("President Bush was steadfast" they will say.) Yes, they will say that forever, and some of them might even really believe it. Such is the Republican Party.

Joel (Registered Democrat as of January 2008)

There will be no withdrawal. Dick "So?" Cheney never had the slightest intention of withdrawing, and sadly, the US fragile US economy cannot tolerate the idea of Saudi oil falling into less friendly hands. We might as well make Iraq the 51st state - we're not leaving, regardless of who's in the White House.

Cheney in 1990:
"We're there [Iraq] because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."

Cheney in 2007:
"But if you look down the road a few years and speculate about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran, astride the world's supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world, that's a very serious prospect. And it's important that not happen."

I assume Petraeus is trying to keep things together until the Iraqi elections in October. The best case scenario is that the Sunnis get back into the government in meaningful numbers. They then all work together and decide how to split the oil and incorporate more Sunnis into the police and army. The Kurds will get enough oil to keep them happy. Reconstruction goes ahead.

The chances of all this working out in a country with Iraq's history seem low. Couple that with Iran on one side and Syria on the other and we are in uncharted territory. Sadr seems likely to become active again with elections.

At some point the MSM need to ask McCain what his plans are to keep the Army going. Mid-level officers are leaving. The enlisted people coming in are less well educated at a time when warfare has become more complex. He will probably give a vague pride and honor answer but they really need to follow up and get very specific answers as this is the heart of his campaign.

Steve

A serious call to service was due seven years ago. And would have been answered. The Army is not broken. At any rate, the Army will keep fighting, no matter how few our resources or personnel. It is simply not in our ethos to say "no," or "enough." It is engrained in us. It is encoded in creeds every soldier learns in Basic Training and it is reinforced in the line units they eventually report to, by example. We don't surrender while we still have the means to resist.

It is up to CIVILIAN leadership to make that call. You may hear very frank commentary from senior military leadership about the consequences of continuing down this path. But as long as those in charge say keep going, we keep going. Don't rely on GEN Petraeus or anyone else in uniform to make a call. We don't call the shots. As a nation we decided that early in our history, the military is subordinate to civilians.

We would all prefer a larger number of those civilians had some experience in this line of work, or at least something at stake...

I think we have two viable options. One is to draw down troop levels in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and building up our reserve capacity for contigency operations (ie, another war breaking out in a strategically important place, or God forbid another attack on American or allied civilians.)

The other is to continue the way we are - we are making progress in Iraq. Sunni tribes have stood up against Al Qaeda in Baghdad and Anbar province. But this fight will have to continue in every sector of the country. The battles will have to be re-won. And now as we speak Sadr's fighters have taken up arms again. They will have to be divided, co-opted, and fought in the same fashion that the Sunnis have been in the past year and half. The job is doable. Indeed the momentum, for the moment, is on our side. But it is become an end-sum game: if we keep going, do we lose Afghanistan? Do we lose our strategic reserve of equipment and manpower? Can we raise up enough men and women to sustain this fight at nearly the same pace for years to come??

In the end, we have to decide, is WORTH IT? Is winning this fight really central to our security, or to our national honor? You can come down on either side of this question. But the question will have to be answered. Ignoring the problem is tantamount to answering NO. That is the feeling I am getting from the American public. I only hope this time it is not the liberals or the media that are blamed. It's a little more complicated than that, in a democracy.

"Because if we are at war, everyone should be subject to sacrifices, not just a few."

This is not a war; it's a military occupation of a region that contains about 70% of the world's oil.

"...Iraq does not contain 70% of the world's oil."

Right. The greater ME region contains about 70% of the world's oil. And we're not just in Iraq - we're in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, UAE, Dubai, etc. We were in Saudi Arabia until they ran us out.

Iraq is the geographic center of this oil reserve and strategically located for the defense of the oil, the gulf and our other interests in the region, namely Israel. We occupy this region to insure that this enormous oil reserve does not come under the influence of stateless entities or China, India, Iran et al.

Bob,

Great, then why is my $3.25 a gallon? We have this sweet empire, and we don't even do anything cool with it. China gets stronger everyday, and we provide the protective shield that ensures they get their oil delivered nice and safely. Worst empire....ever!

I think we should institute a draft. (I thought I'd never say that!!)

Susan - I agree, and (partly) for the same reasons you give. If we had a draft putting everyone's sons at risk, the war would no longer be a (mere) story in the paper for the voting public, or (just one more) staff report & briefing for the Powers That Be. Concentrating the mind indeed.

Iraq is the geographic center of this oil reserve and strategically located for the defense of the oil, the gulf and our other interests in the region, namely Israel. We occupy this region to insure that this enormous oil reserve does not come under the influence of stateless entities or China, India, Iran et al.

Whether defense of this oil reserve (or Israel) constitutes a vital American national interest is, IMHO, questionable.

With our wealth & technological sophistication, imported oil is hardly a sine qua non for the continued functioning of the US economy. See my posts on yesterday's "Limits to Growth" thread for some ideas.

There are other ways - e.g., competent border security - of ensuring that "stateless entities" don't attack our homeland - ways that don't involve occupying foreign countries.

Even if we stipulate that Israeli survival is (somehow) in our interest...Israel seems quite capable of defending itself with no more American assistance beyond the occasional (unsubsidized) arms shipment.

And if China, India, Iran, or Russia want to fight each other for control of the Mideast, I say let them. Keeps them too preoccupied to cause us trouble.

Bob wrote: "And we're not just in Iraq - we're in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, UAE, Dubai, etc."

Are you suggesting that our presence in the UAE, Dubai, and the rest of the Gulf is in any way similar to our occupation of Iraq?

Bob also wrote: "The greater ME region contains about 70% of the world's oil"

Wrong again, though you're getting warmer. Proven reserves are difficult to verify, though it is widely believed in the industry that KSA exaggerates their figures. (Obviously no one can prove that because Aramco is about as open and transparent as the Bush administration.) At any rate, the ME as a whole probably does have a little over half the world's oil.

"With our wealth & technological sophistication, imported oil is hardly a sine qua non for the continued functioning of the US economy."

I disagree 100%. So does Cheney and corporate America. The US economy is faltering now and we're importing 2/3 of what we consume.

"If you will send your kid to fight for an idiotic idea before BushCheney brods are in Iraq, you are a bad parent."

You don't send your kid. Your kid signs up voluntarily, or in times of the Draft, is sent by Uncle Sam. It is no reflection on parenthood, in the end. Not everyone can or chooses to foot the bill for college, and some people join up out of sheer patriotism. You can disagree with this current war and you'd have a case. But I take exception to the way that comment was phrased.

And to those of you who say this isn't a war: it is. You can call it an elephant for all I care, but my Army unit is being shot at and blown up on a nearly daily basis. It's a war. Of course, it's really only a war for the 300,000 over here or on rotation to come over here.

Steve, I'm not staying in either. But I never intended to. Soldiering is a high calling in many respects (though certainly not all.) I have better things to do. Like becoming a mother, I hope.

But the Army WILL keep going. If we lose Captains, we promote Lieutenants to Captain faster. We force every enlisted man with a degree through OCS. We stop-loss the enlisted force for the duration. Things can get much nastier than they are now. This will denigrate the quality of the Army in the long run. Which is why I say the question must be settled on way or another. Our heart is not in this war, as a nation. (If it was we'd have enough volunteers we wouldn't have to stop-loss people, or we'd draft enough recruits.) And so, for that reason, I don't think it will last. I just think we should make that call, one way or the other, soon, and then plan realistically from there. Instead of trying to ignore the gigantic elephant in the room, distracting ourselves with Britney and Hillary bashing and the latest sex scandals.

I want to clarify my use of "immoral".

The rhetoric of "you are not supporting our troops!" is particularly galling to me because of the secrecy behind which the CinC and his advisors hide their decision processes. In our republic, the responsibility of our elected officials is to be answerable to the entire country. Secret intelligence, the nuances of diplomacy, all of that we abide in trust that those to whom that responsibility and authority is delegated are qualified and competent. But the decision process must be transparent. It's not that we expect our leaders to be corrupt or self-serving, but that it is possible for them to be so, and we (the citizens) retain the responsibility of making that determination.

From my POV, Bush and his policies of secrecy have made it well nigh impossible for me to support our troops. On what do I base my decision? Blind faith in a man I voted against twice? Balance that with the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and the invasion of Afghanistan. I do not hesitate in saying that I was well-informed, and that Bush made the right decisions to invade and conquer. For me, a citizen, the moral justification is clear and valid.

I have no such foundation for the invasion of Iraq. I also have clear evidence of incompetence in intelligence gathering and its use in the decision process. Mistakes were made, and invading Iraq was insult to that injury. That is my moral stance on Iraq. I can offer every benefit of the doubt, avoid using epithets like "liars" and such, and the lack of moral justification to invade Iraq remains clear.

I am only one citizen. But I am also one of millions who were equally kept in the dark, and who must be permitted to pursue the same thought and logic track that I've described here. If our republic is to have any moral standing, we must exercise our civic duties, and we must require that our government disclose to us what we must know to make morally justified decisions.

"Are you suggesting that our presence in the UAE, Dubai, and the rest of the Gulf is in any way similar to our occupation of Iraq?"

Yes. Our presence in the ME is an attempt to keep the oil - from all these countries - out of the control of extremists, be they Shia, Sunni, Iranian, Chinese, Russian or stateless. That's why we're there, and that's why we'll stay, regardless of who wins the election scheduled for November.

A little aside. AnotherBeliever stated Not everyone can or chooses to foot the bill for college, and some people join up out of sheer patriotism.

But the fact is, even serving isn't going to pay for the full costs of college, and that is a disgrace, IMO. After WWII, the original GI bill paid for vets to go to college - all the way to PH.D, if they wished. Because of this, we as a country saw prosperity and amazing technological growth. The rational for it was to NOT let our vets become homeless and destitute (which happened after WWI and is happening now) - but to give back to our Vets a small portion of what they gave for us. It was the sensible and moral thing to do.

And it still is. IMO, if we can bail out corporations to rescue them from the consequences of their own greed, surely we can give our Vets (and I'm talking anyone who serves, whether it be national guard, reserves, of full time forces) the opportunity to get an education to what ever level they wish to receive it. And frankly, the will probably do more with that education than most others.

I know that there are many who don't believe the government should subsidize anything - education or health care or food - but don't you think that we owe our vets something?

Sen. James Webb of Virgina has authored some legislation that would revamp the GI bill to cover the full cost of the most expensive public institution in any given state. So here's a advertisement - contact your senator and let him or her know that you support this effort.

On a different note - AnotherBeliever, you are in my prayers.
Franklin Evans - I agree with a lot of what you say.

I now return you to your regularly schedule discussion.

Oops! Sorry about that, I posted from a different computer and forgot to put my name in. :-)

For those interested, the senate bill is S.22 - "Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act." The bill before the house is H.R. 2702.

Charity