Sen. Warner wants troops to start leaving Iraq soon

[jman19]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...warner.iraq/index.html

I definitely agree that the leadership in Iraq has to be held more accountable for what is going on there. The US military does not exist for baby sitting. Maybe when they realize that their heads are about to roll they'll start doing something other than taking vacations...

 

[eilute]

The leadership in Iraq has no control over what goes on there.

 

[Summitdrinker]

yep the leadership is leadership in name only, they almost powerless in the big picture

 

[Lemon law]

When you come down to it, two things need to be said.

1. We either have an independent democratic government in Iraq or we don't. If GWB decides that if the Iraqi democratic government can't govern, there goes the myth of democracy if the US decides it has to assert dictatorial powers.---but its just spotlights the fact that GWB&co. can have one or the other but not both.

2. The Republican moderates are finally pulling the plug on GWB. And now maybe the congress can get something done because GWB can't. But it does not take many defecting GOP moderates to form a veto proof congress. And a veto proof congress is very likely to result from either a negative Patraeus report or the collapse of the Maliki led Government.

 

[piasabird]

The sad fact is some troops are going to have to start coming home soon unless we enlarge the military. We just do not have enough troops the way they are structured now.

One problem is we probably have 100,000 troops on tour in Europe. I say let Europe defend itself.

 

[senseamp]

It's disgusting that these Republicans are only interested in gestures like 5000 troops so they can go to their voters and say, hey we are for withdrawing troops too.
They should bring all the troops home, or STFU.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The sad fact is some troops are going to have to start coming home soon unless we enlarge the military. We just do not have enough troops the way they are structured now.

One problem is we probably have 100,000 troops on tour in Europe. I say let Europe defend itself.

That's because our military was designed to be effective in winning wars, not in occupying countries. Of course, you go to war with the military you have... :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat can't believe that only four replies result for what amounts to a huge historical turning point. But bottom line, it now looks like the USA will cut and run from Iraq. Leaving nothing preventing a total Iraqi meltdown and such an Iraqi meltdown is almost certain to ignite a larger mid-east war and a possible economic collapse of all oil based economies. The ways, means, and possible scenarios of the later larger events such an abrupt US withdrawal could trigger are almost impossible to predict. And lack of predictability is never a pleasant logical position to be in because a total US troop withdrawal is the generic equivalent of amputating the steering wheel of a speeding vehicle on a very curvy road.

This is more than just playing the blame game. Even though the GOP might be able to blame the dems, we will all be required to eat of the fruit of bad decisions. Four and a half years of failure tell us that the GWB&co. stay the course plan, even with the new new added secret ingredient of a mini surge, is just more of a military solution that will not work in Iraq. And even if the Patraeus report is positive, a soon coming collapse of the Iraqi civilian government may render the Paraeus report totally irrelevant. Given the inescapable conclusion that a military solution will almost certainly fail does not logically make withdrawal a better solution.

I can only hope what I have been advocating for years will start to happen. Namely we will start to explore diplomatic solutions to the Iraq war and go to the international community to get the extra troops to stabilize Iraq. But sadly, the roadblock to such a diplomatic solution is and remains GWB&co. Other than a barely fleshed out blueprint
in the Baker Hamilton Report, the US has yet to start what amounts to a six months to a year process of getting other nations aboard such a diplomatic solution.

And when we are faced with only two bad binary choices, when we abandon one choice, we are left with only the other choice. The question is, given the GOP moderates will desert GWB and hopefully take GWB out of the loop as a decider, will some voices of sanity in congress have enough votes to prevent a total Iraqi withdrawal and at the same time force the explorations of a bi-partisan diplomatic solution?

 

[M00T]

Flip floppers!!!!

=P

Edit:

referring to the GOP.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: M00T
Flip flopper!!!!

=P

Its a bit vague to me on who you are accusing of being a flip flopper.

But a flip flopper can be right 50% of the time and a flopper like GWB is wrong 100% of the time.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And a veto proof congress is very likely to result from either a negative Patraeus report or the collapse of the Maliki led Government.

I think that is too optimistic. Firstly of all, the republicans are mostly sycophants so it would take video of bush mutilating animals at his ranch for many of them to jump ship and secondly the congress, republican dissenters aside, is so hopelessly inept that even with a veto proof congress they wouldn't know what to do, like a 6 year old who just found daddy's gun. I'm so quickly losing faith in the government of this country and of its idiotic masses to do anything really intelligent; I feel many decisions are just luck and the course of the country is good or bad based on a dice roll. There's too much entrenched idiocy on all sides. In this way, I can somewhat defect from the proceedings and watch as an outsider (figuratively and literally, not being a citizen, though having lived here for years) while the US randomly goes where it will. What's around the next corner? Good? Bad? Turn the page, let's see! I don't find the political climate in this country a positive one whatsoever, and not all countries are so demonic about how they operate in this arena.

 

[Narmer]

I hear a general in iraq has criticized Warner. Is that allowable? Is it legal for a man in uniform to criticize a member of congress? Aren't soldiers just supposed to do their job and let the politicians push them around?

 

[tomywishbone]

Originally posted by: eilute
The leadership in Iraq has no control over what goes on there.

Agreed. They'll all be extremely lucky to see their next birthday, once the US war machine leaves.

 

[daveshel]

The cheese stands alone? So it might seem, but Warner's pronouncement may be no more than lip service. In the end the Republicans that speak out now and then for sound bites still tend to vote along party lines.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I hear a general in iraq has criticized Warner. Is that allowable? Is it legal for a man in uniform to criticize a member of congress? Aren't soldiers just supposed to do their job and let the politicians push them around?

Namer Narmer Narmer---you don't understand how it works yet?---The General in question is just questioning the policy Warner advocates and is rendering a semi-official official US military opinion. And may be retired anyway. But as we all know GWB listens to his generals
as a cop out generality.

But if an active duty military officer were to question the policies of GWB&co., they would be fired faster than you can say Shinseki. When you are the decider and the commander and thief, you get to decide who to fire, who to hire, and who to make retire. And everyone else better beware.

 

[piasabird]

A general follows the orders of the president, not Congress. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and no one else. Congress can effect the outcome by cutting off funding to the military. When Warner starts fighting this fight in the Press he is asking for an answer. So if he gets one that is too bad. The Pentagon has a press breifing of its own also. I say let them discuss this in congress in the proper committe and see what happens. The pentagon could start moving troops around within reason, suspending other training, and cutting back funds for other projects to fund this a little longer. They could also fight this out in the press. The president is in charge of the troops and he decides what they can say and do. As the commander in charge of all of Iraq, Petreas probably has his own Public Affairs office. If the press ask a general for a comment then they open the door.

 

[Lemon law]

We are now getting pretty far afield from the original topic of what Warner is saying. Before the fact, during the fact, and after the fact various military types have been and will be shooting off their mouths which can only add to the general noise pollution fact that everyone and their brother in law has a different idea about what to do about Iraq. And this thread is about what congress can and may do to put a monkey wrench into the concept that GWB will call all the shots in Iraq.

The point being the congress can and may put down their foot down and force various Iraqi issues. And there is not a damn thing GWB&co. can do about it if Congress gets a majority together. Up until now, there is no question that congress has failed to reach any consensus which basically defaults to GWB is the decider regarding Iraq.

We know the GWB stay the course policy is unlikely to work, I think we should be very wary of simply withdrawing, and I suggest we should be writing our legislators to opt for a diplomatic solution. In my case, I did so months ago because its been a certainty that sooner or later, GOP moderates will be forced to desert GWB. The Warner statement may or may not be the final precursor to that desertion.

 

[dmcowen674]

8-31-2007 Sen. John Warner retires

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, one of the most authoritative voices in Congress on the military and a key figure in the debate over Iraq, said Friday he will not seek a sixth term in 2008.

Warner, 80, has held the seat since 1978, when the dashing former Navy secretary campaigned alongside his wife at the time, Elizabeth Taylor. His retirement offers Democrats a valuable opportunity to take the seat from the GOP and expand their one-seat Senate majority.

"My work and service to Virginia as a senator" will end on Jan. 6, 2009

 

[Lemon law]

It does not surprise me that Warner choose retirement. He made noises that he was getting too old for the endless fact finding missions on meet the depressed last Sunday. Which may then make Sen. Lugar the defacto leader of GOP moderates. And Warner may choose to go out on principle now that all personal political considerations no longer matter.

Its an interesting development that could lead in all kinds of different directions.