Say Anything Blog

Rush was saying that the Democrats lost another vote today.

You never were in Iraq.

An Anyone But Bush Vote

Well that’s one way of spinning it. Negatively.

Well, I’m glad the elections went well.  Iraq is clearly a functioning Democracy now.  Can we leave yet?

An Anyone But Bush Vote
From your link:

I’m delighted to be voting for the first time because this election will lead to American occupation forces leaving,” said Jamal Mahmoud, 21, in the battle-scarred Sunni city of Ramadi.

The only way to redeem ourselves is to pull out imediately al la John Murtha. Iraq is a quagmire, and we have no hope of defeating the insurgency. And forget that the Sunni insurgents are protecting polls and encouraging their followers to vote. That means nothing.

Now, wait a minute: what if this vote really does inspire a fundamental shift in the will of the Iraqi citizenry?  What if the Iraqis are so emboldened by this event, that they take matters into their own hands, quickly build a united security force, and are capable of maintaining the peace?  What if those who are the recruiting targets for terrorists decide that a civil government is the best, most lasting manner to affect change.  That’s the idea, right? 

If this election has such a profound effect, wouldn’t it be entirely appropriate to discuss the timing of a withdrawal that is inevitable?

Especially Bosnia, since Clinton lied us into that one.

Why, exactly, do people think we are not going to leave Iraq? Could it be because we have never left Germany, Japan, or Korea? Not to mention Kosovo,Bosnia, or Montenegro? Where is the exit strategy for these places? Why are you not having demonstrations about these imperialist occupations? Well?

It seems elementary that, if the rationale behind immediate withdrawal(or “redeployment") is that we are losing in Iraq, and it turns out that we are winning, shouldn’t we simply reject immediate withdrawal? Seems like simple logic to me.  The Dems should just STFU.

R108, they were tied into the same deployment. Remember? Our troops will be home by Christmas? He just did not specifiy “which” Christmas. I believe this is year 9.

MI: I’m saying nothing of the kind.  Winning and losing are diametrically opposed. So, staying and immediately withdrawing are also diametrically opposed.  Frankly, I’m surprised I have to explain that.

It seems elementary that, if the rationale behind immediate withdrawal(or “redeployment”) is that we are losing in Iraq, and it turns out that we are winning, shouldn’t we simply reject immediate withdrawal?

MikeA: I’m not saying that at all.  IMO, we should have never gone into Bosnia, but we are still there.  Withdrawal is defeat, which is diametrically opposed to victory.  The difference will be that we will remain there at the behest of the Iraqi govt, not as invaders.  There is a difference.  Once again, I don’t share your basic assumption. The lefties in this country have spun the entire situation for their selfish political purposes.  Try this one:  Winning is just the beginning-of a whole new paradigm in the Middle East.

Winning and losing are diametrically opposed [to each other].

Check.

Staying and immediately withdrawing are also diametrically opposed [to each other].

Check.

What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible to hold simultaneously the two positions:
1. the US is winning,
2. the process of planning a withdrawal should begin immediately.

If things go well enough, then we should be ready to go when that time arrives, not one second longer than we have to.

[...] PostWatch No End But Victory Sophistpundit In The Bullpen The CounterTerrorism Blog Martin’s Musings California Conservative Donkey Stomp Say Anything Riehl World View Tigerhawk Ace of Spades HQ Mike’s America Technorati Tags: Iraq Iraqi Election Moonbats Filed in: The Iraqi War | No Comments » [...]

We have already won.

Great, then how about we talk about how we leave?

And so I’m absolutely clear, do you agree or disagree with this statement: “The goal of the war is that one day, the US will not have a military base in Iraq.”

WOOF:

An Anyone But Bush Vote

Got one data point there!?  CLING ON FOR DEAR LIFE!

Then there is the lefty losers can got hell vote.  According to the latest ABC poll, that one is bigger.

MI: You are looking for hidden meanings when there are none.  I said it straight out.  The first change is that we are no longer invaders, but allies of the elected govt.  Get the difference?  We have already won.  Of course, the lefties are in denial of this, but it is true, nonetheless.

Ah!  So you are taking as your proposition that withdrawal at any point in time constitutes losing.  Right?  So, the intention is that we are going to have permanent installations, like those in Germany and Japan in the last half-century?  If that’s the case, then why bother with the word “immediate”?

Got it.  So Americans need to get used to the fact that we will always have a troop presence there (as long as our ally Iraq wants us there).

MI: I disagree with your statement.  War is about winning, not about leaving.  Leaving is defeat.  Get it?  I guess we will have a presence in Iraq as long as our allies, the Iraqis, want us there.  We might have a lot of businesses there one day.  I hope so.  As long as Iran and Syria are threats in the region, it would make sense for our allies to need and want our help.  Make sense to you?  The first war was to depose Saddam.  The second war was to defeat the terrorists and facilitate the Iraqi population to elect their own govt for the first time in 5000 years.  After this, it is no longer a war, but a process of extending stabilization.  That is my statement.

In addition, it’s not a matter of discussing immediate withdrawal, it’s discussing withdrawal at all (immediate or eventual) that is the problem.

MI: The Dems have created the whole “when do we withdraw?” issue to continue the jihad against the President, IMO.  It’s a phony issue, and they don’t really care about it.  I predict it will morph into something else if it doesn’t get them political traction with the American public. Ever since Clinton, they run almost exclusively on polling data, not on principles.

MI: Why is that an issue with you?  We are still in Bosnia, for instance.  We are still in England and Germany, for God’s Sake!  Why just single out Iraq?  Could this be something about negativity toward the President?  Why would we refuse our ally’s call for help? Isn’t it better to stay there rather than leave prematurely for political reasons and have to come back? We did that in 1990, and look how well that turned out.

MI: Why is that an issue with you?

It isn’t.  I pointed out the very same thing to people I knew back when we were first talking about invading Iraq.  We have permanent installations in every country we’ve invaded.  I was surprised that some of the people I told were surprised to hear that.  We’ve been in those countries since the end of WWII.  What we need to do is redeploy our forces.  Those countries which are now no longer threats to us (Germany, Italy, S. Korea) do not require sizable forces.  But the missing link is that those forces need to be redeployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar.  That message is not being communicated to the public.  If we are serious about following that template, that’s the commitment we need to stand by.  That’s a congiscent decision that we Americans need to make.  This is what we do, to expect anything else was folly. 

At the same time, a discussion needs to occur as to whether that is the template we want to continue to follow.  That conversation hasn’t happen, and it’s a perfectly valid question to ask.  What kind of scenario may exist so that we could withdraw troops?  Does that scenario exist at all?  Just because it has become accepted practice, is it still applicable in this age, in that area?

Those countries which are now no longer threats to us (Germany, Italy, S. Korea) do not require sizable forces. But the missing link is that those forces need to be redeployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar.

(Note: We were never at war with South Korea.  It was probably a quick typing error, but I’m just clarifying)

We do deploy some of those soldiers in support of OIF and OEF.  One of the two combat brigades is no longer in Korea because it deployed to Iraq over a year ago.  I have friends that went to Germany, and they are in Iraq today.

(Note: We were never at war with South Korea. It was probably a quick typing error, but I’m just clarifying)

Error acknowledged.

We do deploy some of those soldiers in support of OIF and OEF. One of the two combat brigades is no longer in Korea because it deployed to Iraq over a year ago. I have friends that went to Germany, and they are in Iraq today.

Yep.  Part of the template.  Have there been any exceptions to this policy since WWII?

MI: Great post! We have troops in Europe largely as a leftover from NATO being the protection from the Soviet Union.  Those troops should probably be redeployed, but the ones in South Korea are still needed there.  I think the rest of the non-Muslim world needs to wake up and make a concerted effort to deal with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, but the leftist political culture seems to be dedicated to overthrowing the US, and we have an equal threat from political division in this country, which prevents that conversation from taking place, IMO.

we have an equal threat from political division in this country, which prevents that conversation from taking place, IMO.

I agree.

It seems to me that several months back the Pentagon announced a major global re-deployment of troops from cold-war era positions to something that will allow us to respond better to the threats we face today.

Seems to me that Germany was somewhat upset about this as it would mean pulling a number of troops out of that country.  The troops there have become something of an economic base fo them.  But the interesting thing is that we are in the process of re-deploying globally.  Or are, at least, starting that process.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] 8 million voted in January, 10 million voted in October and 15 million Iraqis voted in their first Parlimentary Elections. Iraq is now a constitutional democracy. Eighty Percent turned out to vote in Saddam’s home province. [...]

8 million voted in January, 10 million voted in October and 15 million Iraqis voted in their first Parlimentary Elections. Iraq is now a constitutional democracy. Eighty Percent turned out to vote in Saddam’s home province .  An Iraqi Family Reports: The picture looks so good it is hard to believe my ears as my father is telling me all this. Iraqi media is very upset and angry at Ramsey Clark who they feel is giving the enemy fuel for their fire. As well as the Scottish