Cut and Run???

“I'm not ready for cut and run, I'm looking for an alternative to staying a stupid course and cutting and running, but someone sent me the following by Lt. Gen. William Odom (retired).

Los Angeles Times
October 31, 2006

How To Cut And Run

We could lead the Mideast to peace, but only if we stop refusing to do the right thing

By William E. Odom

THE UNITED STATES upset the regional balance in the Middle East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops — within six months and with no preconditions — can break the paralysis that now enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.

Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq; creating democracy there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain; and others.

But reality can no longer be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq. All of these things and more became unavoidable the day that U.S. forces invaded.

These realities get worse every day that our forces remain in Iraq. They can't be wished away by clever diplomacy or by leaving our forces in Iraq for several more years.

The administration could recognize that a rapid withdrawal is the only way to overcome our strategic paralysis, though that appears unlikely, notwithstanding election-eve changes in White House rhetoric. Congress could force a stock-taking. Failing this, the public will sooner or later see through all of the White House's double talk and compel a radical policy change. The price for delay, however, will be more lives lost in vain — the only thing worse than the lives already lost in vain.

Some lawmakers are ready to change course but are puzzled as to how to leave Iraq. The answer is four major initiatives to provide regional stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the U.S. less influential in the region. But it will be the best deal we can get.

First, the U.S. must concede that it has botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and must let others have a say in what's next. As U.S. forces begin to withdraw, Washington must invite its European allies, as well as Japan, China and India, to make their own proposals for dealing with the aftermath. Russia can be ignored because it will play a spoiler role in any case.

Rapid troop withdrawal and abandoning unilateralism will have a sobering effect on all interested parties. Al Qaeda will celebrate but find that its only current allies, Iraqi Baathists and Sunnis, no longer need or want it. Iran will crow but soon begin to worry that its Kurdish minority may want to join Iraqi Kurdistan and that Iraqi Baathists might make a surprising comeback.

Although European leaders will probably try to take the lead in designing a new strategy for Iraq, they will not be able to implement it. This is because they will not allow any single European state to lead, the handicap they faced in trying to cope with Yugoslavia's breakup in the 1990s. Nor will Japan, China or India be acceptable as a new coalition leader. The U.S. could end up as the leader of a new strategic coalition — but only if most other states recognize this fact and invite it to do so.

The second initiative is to create a diplomatic forum for Iraq's neighbors. Iran, of course, must be included. Washington should offer to convene the forum but be prepared to step aside if other members insist.

Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's because we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq (Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we do, but neither Washington nor Tehran want chaos). And we can help each other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil, and we simply need more oil.

Accepting Iran's nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the likely benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed whether we like it or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran's support for Hezbollah, and it will definitely undercut Russia's pernicious influence with Tehran.

Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a foundation for Middle East peace. The invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washington's power to broker peace or to guarantee Israel's security. We now need Europe's help. And good relations with Iran would help dramatically.

No strategy can succeed without these components. We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically. The United States needs to restore its reputation so that its capacity to lead constructively will cost us less.

Lt. Gen. WILLIAM E. ODOM (Ret.) is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University.”

“Wow, I really wish some of you would get it. It's not about Iraq. Why is this so hard to understand for you guys? Lay off the nightly news, it's clouding your thinking.”

“I can understand why facts and information would prove confusing and undermine the clarity of thinking for some.”

“Impeachment of Dubya in 2007 will follow.”

“it's not a war about making friends - it's one of expanding (re-expansion) of our military intelligence which Clinton DESTROYED

we can make friends later, if we choose - meanwhile, the Muslims want to kill us. Period. And not because we pissed them off. It's in the Koran.

props out to my peeps in France ...”

“Maybe we should send the terrorists all of our organic food.”

“and muffins...”

“Is George going to glue the pieces of those statues back together and stand them back up?”

“SGt Alvin York, "Uncle Sam's Uniform is not for sale."

LT Gen. Odom "Hey Media, want a good phrase for $20?" Sure there is time before the light changes."”

“It is beyond U.S. power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq

some of you just dont want to see this....”

“Me thinks the time has come that we stop trying to be the benevolent nation building savior, take the effing gloves off and get this bltch won already.”

“we want to prolong being there to build intelligence connections ... blah blah blah ... and so on and so on ...

we're not supposed to come home yet! geesh people.

Think about it. This is the greatest opportunity ever to build MI relationships in the middle east. Why can't you guys see that? Is this thing on?”

“Oh of course. We invaded Iraq in order to build an intelligence network in the Middle East. Developing a decent Arabic language program in the US and working through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would have been a wussies approach.”

“yeah, ... um ... I didn't say that. But nice sarcasm.

pedxing - did you think for a moment that where we'd like to build out MI is in Iran and Syria? you think we shouldn't worry about them, right? Hey! The other guys speak in a similar tongue, so close enough, right? get real dude”

“WOW...it took the Defeatocrats less than 12 hours after Kerry blew it to start going FRENCH and running (LOL)...this is guts...never ride through the storm, never go positive...just shut up and run”

“Oh of course. We invaded Iraq in order to build an intelligence network in the Middle East. Developing a decent Arabic language program in the US and working through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan would have been a wussies approach. - pedxing

Sarge oversimplifies it, but we needed leverage - which we got through invasion, by the way. If Bush hadn't screwed up with the "winnig hearts and minds" bullchit, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The real reasons for invasion were sound. I posted a lot of analysis on this around the start of the war. We reaped the benefits of this already. It's a shame that Bush has squandered so much, but that has nothing to do with the bigger picture.”

“MUTT, you do know that the HUMINT system the CIA had for decades was destroyed under.....42nd administration. The other thing they did was pass the order that we could not develop relationships with "unsavory" charachters...(yep the most UNSAVORY administration in recent history).

The sad thing is the libbies remind me of those Rookies I get who want so bad to be a FIREMAN, they want to ride the red truck, wear the uniform. But when the fire rolls out the door at about waist height...they disappear.”

“I Totally agree...and so does Nazi Germany and, Fascist Japan (LOL)....

However the Jews and other Untermensch of the time probably thought it was nice to be freed by the Allies.”

“Nancy Pelosi has ruled out any notion of impeachment. Wise. That would be just what the republicans expect and would divide the country. Nothing would get done but pissin goff the right and pleasing the smug hippy lefties.

If the Democrats take over and pursue this kind of vindictive nonsense and go off on multiple tangents they will quickly lose the country. This would be divisive.

The Democrats need to be inclusive and constructive. Build a better country don't tear it down.

Governor Phil Bredeson of Tennessee (D) suggests that they focus on a few very simple issues that the country readily accept and understand. HEALTH CARE.

This would be difficult no doubt. If successful though, the country would associate the Democrats with this issue instead of all the other negatives they carry.”

“You know it would be hilarious to see the Defeatocrats get in control....attack Bush, start pusing for amnesty for Illegals, and pull our troops out of Iraq.

Then in 2008 they could get another 1994 but on a NATIONAL SCALE (LOL)”

“Sarge oversimplifies it, ... Mutt

Then why don't you make it more complicated for us? I've tried to make it as simple as possible because these cut'n'runners NEVER address the real reason we don't leave”

“but we needed leverage - which we got through invasion, by the way.

Not enough.”

“George Bush is not going to pull the troops out.

So, if the Democrats take control of one house, they need to build a strong oversight record. Call the administration on every questionable decision. Bring the generals and civilian leadership before committees. Cut out wasteful spending. Make them run the war more efficiently.

The Democrats lost national defense after the Vietnam War. They have an opportunity to retake it for a generation. But it requires dogged oversight and, I think, one of the presidential candidates who voted FOR war authority.”

“so far their response to that has been thus:”

“The only person capable of cutting and running is George Bush.

He's the president. He has full authority in Iraq.

So, whether the Democrats want him to pull out or not is immaterial.

The only role they can have is oversight.

And I think they need to hammer any weakness that Bush shows.”

“Spending money, over-feeding the military industries, does not equal national defence.

It does however garner votes from professionals who work in these industries.

Its our money.
last edited: 11/02/06 8:44:39 PM”

“BTW, it was the Democrat Congressional leadership that supported Lieberman until the primary results.

It's been Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congressional leadership that has squelched talk of any kind of impeachment hearings.

Hilary Clinton and others remain solidly in the pro-war authorization camp.

There will be pressure from the roots-Dems to force a more radical position on Iraq, but the Democrat Congressional leaders won't have the authority to change Iraq policy anyway. I think they'll be able to keep the current coalition stable.”

“Voting against Dubya's war can be political suicide and reps and senators go along to get along thinking they can do more good staying on the job.

It is what I call the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Syndrome.”

“The only role they can have is oversight.

oversight =! overt hostility

oversight = productive criticism & suggestive assistance”

“Has anyone noticed that Nancy Pelosi has been out of sight since October ....? Wonder why? DO you think it is like the libbies telling Kerry to go away, they reveal too much of who they really are.”

“Moonglo!

It doesn't matter, really.

Whether the Democrats in Congress are hostile or helpful doesn't matter.

Congress has already given Bush full authority in Iraq. He's the only one who has the power to keep the troops in or take them out.

And any majority in the next Senate is likely to be of the one or two vote variety. So there won't be any Congressional action to pull the troops out.

So, it is irrelevant whether the Democrats are hostile or helpful - at least in terms of the continuation or ending of U.S. involvement in the Iraq Civil War.”

“So, it is irrelevant whether the Democrats are hostile or helpful - at least in terms of the continuation or ending of U.S. involvement in the Iraq Civil War.

It is entirely relevant when they are claiming to have solutions but aren't presenting any. Isn't that their duty? or are they putting politics above the supposed American lives they want to save?”

“It's a structural argument, moonglo.

We have clearly defined roles in government.

The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

And the Congress has given the President authority to conduct the war.

So, whether you like it or not, the decision is completely in his hands.

Peace people can argue all they want that Congress can end this war, but that is a false statement.”

“RL...what happens when Pelosi defunds the operation? Remember the Congress sets the budget.

The whole argument is this. Do we tell the men and women they died for nothing by leaving? They CAN win, we have NEVER lost a battle we were fielded to win. It is when politicians start micromanaging the effort that we start losing.

Heck we had a Battalion Chief who went through a phase of micromanaging fire crews inside the structure fires. It became a joke because the interior officers would stop acknowledging his transmissions.

We were burning stuff up because he was more interested in meeting the stupid A$$ "usage tables" for air use than fighting the fire.”

“I should of expected this level of discussion. Polarized rants. Infantile drivel. Have fun fellas. I can study primates and get the same thing.”

“Charlie Darwin trollmaster ... good idea, but the implementation is weak. Not funny. Maybe polish it a bit and try again. Thanks.”

“Bug balls.”

“Bug Balls (British accent)? Well a good hearty RAT Cod's back at you (LOL).”