Republicans Talking Iraq Exit

“Could there actually be some RATIONAL people in the Republican party? You mean to tell me not all of them are blind, bloody, jesus phreaks? So... *IF* they get us out of this mess, when do they refund all the money to Halliburton, UDI and others? LOL, we aren't leaving... Jr. wants to control the oil tooo much!.. but this article makes for fun because Jr. has to put up with it!!

___
Washington rumbles with questions on Iraq exit

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/10/MNG3VANRRI1.DTL

President Bush faces critical series of decisions after Jan. 30 election

David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt, New York Times
Monday, January 10, 2005

Washington -- Three weeks before the election in Iraq, conversation has started bubbling up on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon and some days even in the White House about when and how U.S. forces might begin to disengage in Iraq.

So far it is mostly talk, not planning. The only thing resembling a formal map to the exit door is a series of Pentagon contingency plans for events after the Jan. 30 elections. But one senior administration official warned over the weekend against reading too much into that, saying, "The Pentagon has plans for everything," from a new Korean war to humanitarian missions in Africa.

The rumblings about disengagement have grown distinctly louder as members of Congress return from their districts, and as military officers try to game out how Sunni Arabs and Shiites may react to the election results. The annual drafting of the budget is a reminder that the U.S. presence in Iraq is costing $4.5 billion a month and putting huge strains on the Army. And, of course, White House officials contemplate the political costs of a second term dominated by a nightly accounting of continuing casualties.

By all accounts, President Bush so far has not joined the conversation about disengagement, though a few senior members of his national security team have.

A senior administration official said in an interview this weekend that Bush still intended to stick to his plan -- refining his strategy of training Iraqis, but not wavering from his promise to stay until the job is done.

"We are not in the business of trying to float timetables," the official insisted. "The only metric we have is when we can turn more and more over to local forces."

But all over Washington, there is talk about new ways to define when the mission is accomplished -- not to cut and run, but not to linger, either. Several administration officials acknowledge that Bush will face a critical series of decisions soon after Jan. 30, when it should become clearer whether the election has resulted in more stability or more insurgency.

Already, Bush found himself in a rare public argument last week with one of his father's closest friends and advisers, Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser. The election "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," Scowcroft said Thursday, adding, "We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."

Scowcroft said the situation in Iraq raised the fundamental question of "whether we get out now." He urged Bush to tell the Europeans on a trip to Europe next month, "I can't keep the American people doing this alone. And what do you think would happen if we pulled American troops out right now?"

In short, he was suggesting that Bush raise the specter that Iraq could collapse without a major foreign presence -- exactly the rationale the administration has used for its current policy.

Asked on Friday whether he shared Scowcroft's concerns about civil war, Bush said: "Quite the opposite."

"I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people," he said.

But Bush's optimism is in sharp contrast, some administration insiders say, to some conversations taking place in the White House Situation Room and the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. For the first time, there are questions about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are sufficiently trained -- the measure Bush and his aides still cite -- before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming.

Some senators are now openly declaring that Iraqi military and police units are not up to the job.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said last week after meeting with top Pentagon officials: "In my judgment, a great deal of work needs to be done to achieve the level of forces that will allow our country and other members of the coalition to reduce force levels."

Before the recess, other Republican senators, including Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona, voiced skepticism about the Iraq policy.

And on "Fox News Sunday," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, "We are now digging ourselves out of a hole" in Iraq.

Few in Washington missed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's decision last week to dispatch a retired four-star general, Gary Luck, to Iraq to assess military operations and Iraqi security forces. It was driven, administration officials say, by an urgent need to determine what has gone wrong with the training of Iraqi troops.

In an interview with a Dallas radio station last week, Rumsfeld said he did not want to send more troops to Iraq "because then we'd look more and more like an occupying force."

In classified Iraq strategy sessions, other administration officials say they are asking whether the sheer size of the U.S. force -- now 150,000 troops -- is fueling the insurgency.

One scenario quietly discussed inside the administration is whether the new Iraqi provisional government might ask the U.S. forces to begin to leave - - what one senior State Department official calls "the Philippine option," a reference to when the Philippines asked U.S. forces to pull out a decade ago.

Few officials will talk publicly about that possibility. But in a speech on Oct. 8, Lt. Gen. James Conway, who had just completed a tour as commander of all Marines in Iraq, said, "I believe there will be elections in Iraq in January, and I suspect very shortly afterward you will start to see a reduction in U.S. forces -- not because U.S. planners will seek it, rather because the Iraqis will demand it."”

“W.House rejects lawmakers' call for Iraq pullout By Steve Holland and Richard Cowan
1 hour, 53 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Critics of the Iraq war proposed a congressional resolution on Thursday calling for a U.S. troop withdrawal in a reflection of growing American unease, a proposal swiftly rejected by the White House and the Pentagon.

The resolution, backed by North Carolina Republican Rep. Walter Jones and Hawaii Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, calls for the Bush administration to develop a plan by the end of this year to pull out all American troops from Iraq and to begin the withdrawal by Oct. 1, 2006.

Jones said U.S. forces had removed Saddam Hussein, given Iraqis a chance to have democracy and were training their military.

"After they're trained, what else should the goals be? Do we want to be there for 20 years or 30 years?" he said.

Disputing the White House's assessment, Abercrombie said it was "the continued occupation by the United States armed forces that is an object for the insurgents to point to make a rationale for what they're doing against us."

The resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives as White House aides said President Bush plans a more determined effort to defend the Iraq war amid growing public doubts.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said setting a withdrawal date would send the wrong message to Iraqi insurgents.

"This message would say to the terrorists: 'All you have to do is wait until that day when our troops leave and then you can start carrying out those attacks and just hold out."' he said.

The resolution is not expected to get far in the Republican-led Congress, which, though critical of aspects of the war, has supported the president's efforts. Moreover, both Democrats and Republicans have warned that setting a withdrawal date would embolden the insurgents.

THE PENTAGON AND THE PUBLIC

At the Pentagon, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the military's Joint Staff, also did not support any deadline and expressed disappointment over opinion polls showing waning American support for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

"We would like, I believe, to try to reverse those figures and start the trend back in the other direction, because it's extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there to know that their country is behind them," Conway said.

Bush is facing some of the most pessimistic views on Iraq since launching the war two years ago. A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press said this week that American support for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is inching up -- from 36 percent last October, to 42 percent in February, and 46 percent now.

Hoping to reverse the trend and reassure nervous Americans, Bush will play host to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari at the White House on June 24 and will deliver a speech about Iraq on June 28 to mark the first anniversary since the transfer of sovereignty from a U.S.-led coalition to Iraqis.

McClellan said Bush will "sharpen his focus" on Iraq and the U.S. economy -- another subject Bush is under pressure on because of soaring gasoline prices.

He said Bush's central argument remains the same: U.S. troops must stay in Iraq and get Iraqis trained sufficiently to defend themselves before coming home.

"The president wants to see the troops come home soon. But the best way to honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is to complete the mission," he said.

The Bush administration has offered a conflicting picture of events in Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney boldly asserted recently that the Iraqi insurgency, which is killing dozens of people daily with brazen suicide attacks, was in its "last throes." Bush has offered a more sober picture while stressing progress is being made. (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Charles Aldinger)”

“Ewker, most of us that post political pieces include a source link.
Where did this cut-n-paste come from?”

“SS, here you go. Normally I post the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050616/us_nm/iraq_bush_dc”

“Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said setting a withdrawal date would send the wrong message to Iraqi insurgents.

"This message would say to the terrorists: 'All you have to do is wait until that day when our troops leave and then you can start carrying out those attacks and just hold out."' he said.

I basically agree with Bush's man on that one. Setting a date allows the enemy (not all of whom are terrorists) to build a strategy around it. The impact on the morale of the enemy would be positve, and it could negatively impact our troop morale.

It is far better to have a goal in terms of what needs to be accomplished, and to leave as soon as that is done. I think we would have been better off setting the completion of unhindered inspections and the capture of Saddam as our goals - but it is too late for that.”

“Try looking at any news source you want. It's all over the news.”