US - Exit Stage Left

[Stravo]

Powell: Troops could begin leaving Iraq this year
Secretary of state says withdrawals depend on Iraqi role
Thursday, January 13, 2005 Posted: 1:13 AM EST (0613 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States might be able to withdraw some troops from Iraq this year if Iraqi forces can take a greater role in security, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

"With the assumption of that greater burden, the burden on our troops should go down, and we should start to see our numbers going in the other direction," Powell said in an interview with National Public Radio.

"But I cannot give you a timeline as to when they'll all be home."

The Pentagon has increased the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 150,000 ahead of elections for a transitional national assembly.

Powell said the elections -- scheduled for January 30 -- should not be postponed despite concerns about security in some parts of the country.

He said the establishment of an elected government in Iraq will help improve security, "because the Iraqi people know it's their government that's being assaulted, not an appointed government."

U.S. troops have battled a persistent insurgency since the invasion in March 2003 that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

More than 1,360 American troops have been killed since the invasion, most of them in the guerrilla war that followed the collapse of Saddam's government.

Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. commanders are satisfied with the number of troops at their disposal.

"The issue now is not more American troops or coalition troops for the long haul, but more Iraqi troops for the long haul, and that's where all of our resources and energy are now going," Powell said.

Public support for the conflict has dropped as the war has dragged on.

According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, 50 percent of Americans believe the invasion was a mistake, and 59 percent believe the war is going badly for the United States.

A Republican congressman who supported the invasion of Iraq said Tuesday that the United States should begin considering plans to bring the troops home.

Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina said most of his constituents still support the war effort, but he said that support is being tested by continuing losses.

The Bush administration says U.S. troops must remain in Iraq to help establish a democratic state.

"There is a good understanding that by advancing freedom in the Middle East, we are making the world a better place and that we're making America more secure," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

But McClellan acknowledged that the upcoming vote "is not going to be perfect," and that some provinces will see almost no turnout because of the continuing violence.

Bush administration officials -- Powell among them -- argued that Iraq had harbored stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, a hidden nuclear weapons program and long-range missiles in violation of the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

No evidence of such weapons or programs to develop them was found after the collapse of Saddam's government.

The CIA-led Iraq Survey Group has determined that Baghdad gave up its weapons programs in the 1990s, though some weapons-related research was concealed from U.N. weapons inspectors.

The search has ended, and the group's staff has been reassigned to work on counterinsurgency matters, a U.S. intelligence official said Wednesday. (Full story)

Hmmmm....Looks like some of our suspicions are coming true. Bush is going to use these elections as a front to get the fuck out of Dodge. No wonder he's been pushing so damned hard for them in the face of all the violence. Part of me wants this senseless death to end and another part recognizes we have a responsibility there.

[Vympel]

I don't think the elections are going to have the planned effect. Just like every other "turning point" before, nothing will change. Can you imagine the damage the insurgency would do to Iraqi forces if US forces gradually started leaving? They would maul them even worse than they're getting mauled now. The government, I think, would quickly collapse.

Let's go over all those turning points:

- Death of Hussein's sons: no effect on insurgency.
- Capture of Saddam: no effect on insurgency.
- Handover of sovereignty: no effect on insurgency.
- Elections: ... ditto, IMO.

Am I missing any "we've turned a corner" events?

[Stravo]

I don't think it will change anything either. I just always knew the reason why Bush kept the elections on people's minds and in the spotlight was that it woulf be the perfect cover to get the hell out.

"We've brought freedom to the people of Iraq and it is time that they begin living their lives as a sovereign and free nation in the community of nations." or something to that effect as Humvees start tearing out of Baghdad like spring break just started in Daytona.

[White Haven]

It should be noted that my first thought upon seeing the thread title was 'Massive Tidal Waves in Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.' Back on topic...yeah, that will be a MESS, unless something drastic changes soon. And...as I can't think of a single change that would HELP, I'm not betting the house on that.

[Montcalm]

"We've brought freedom to the people of Iraq and it is time that they begin living their lives as a sovereign and free nation in the community of nations." or something to that effect as Humvees start tearing out of Baghdad like spring break just started in Daytona.

Until the fundies overthrow the new Iraqi government.

[Chmee]

Great ... they can start call it the Iraqi-ization of the war .... when we're pulling Americans off the U.S. embassy roof with helicopters, my flashback will be complete.

[Zed Snardbody]

Great ... they can start call it the Iraqi-ization of the war .... when we're pulling Americans off the U.S. embassy roof with helicopters, my flashback will be complete.

Damn beat me to it.

I saw the topic and I started wondering how to pronounce vietnamization in my head.

We've managed to bring freedom, democracy and civil war to a nation. I feel all kinds of proud.

[Gunhead]

But isn't it GRAND?? Now the poor oppressed iraqi people are FINALLY free to pursue their very own civil war! If that's not something to be proud of I don't know what is. Children are FREE to die of hunger and women are FREELY beaten into slavery. Who wouldn't cherish freedoms like that?
Happy democratic death squads a FREE to roam the land. OH JOY!!!

Happiness and fucking jubilation all around. Of course my fucking first concern is my fucking right to elect my leaders... or maybe it's not dying of hunger... I forget.

-Gunhead

[Big Phil]

Hmmmm....Looks like some of our suspicions are coming true. Bush is going to use these elections as a front to get the fuck out of Dodge. No wonder he's been pushing so damned hard for them in the face of all the violence. Part of me wants this senseless death to end and another part recognizes we have a responsibility there.

How will keeping our troops in Iraq help in any case? We eliminated a strong leader in an unstable country, and had nothing to replace him with. Whether we keep the troops there until Wednesday and pull them out, or keep them there 20 years, the country will probably collapse into Civil Wars shortly after we leave. Either that or one of the neighbors moves in. If there is to be democracy in Iraq, it'll have to be because Iraqis want it and are willing to fight for it, not because it will be imposed on them.

[Joe]

Whatever chance we had to bitchsmack the insurgency, we missed (probably a number of chances, in fact), because Iraq's long-term security, when it comes down to it, was sacrificed on an altar for Bush's re-election chances. It pains me to say it, but the best thing we can do now is just withdraw to the periphery of Iraq where the insurgency isn't strong and let the center go straight to hell in a handbasket as it inevitably will. At least we did some good for the Kurds.

[Admiral_K]

Hmmmm....Looks like some of our suspicions are coming true. Bush is going to use these elections as a front to get the fuck out of Dodge. No wonder he's been pushing so damned hard for them in the face of all the violence. Part of me wants this senseless death to end and another part recognizes we have a responsibility there.

I think its a tad early to be validating conspiracy theories...

I don't think we are going to be "shucking our responsabilities". We've been over there for nearly 2 years now. Isn't it about time that the Iraqi security forces start to take over? They number in the hundreds of thousands, and are getting more experience every day. Powell didn't say that we're "pulling out" this year, just that we may begin withdrawing troops, which is what one would expect as we are giving more and more control to the iraqis themselves. This should also have the desired effect of lessening support for the insurgent groups among the people as they will no longer be fighting a "foreign army", but rather their own countrymen.

As far as the elections situation goes, I personally feel that any delay would only embolden the insurgents. Afterall, if they feel they had influenced it to the point of delay, that would encourage them that they are "making progress".

Besides, regardless of voter turn out, those who are willing to have their futures decided for them ala a dictatorship aren't going to vote. Those that do wish to have a voice will. Therefore the election should make both groups happy .

[Sir Sirius]

Am I missing any "we've turned a corner" events?

Well... I suppose one could say that the very first "we've turned a corner" event was the "[Major] Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended" announcement.

[Admiral_K]

...Either that or one of the neighbors moves in...

I don't see us allowing that to happen. We may have trouble locating guerilla insurgent groups, but our bombs can most certainly find an invading army.

If you are referring to some sort of covert invasion, well it would rely on us not finding out about it and smacking the hands of whoever is behind it. And with the numbers that would be required, I'd expect us to find out at some point.

[Chmee]

<snip>
I don't think we are going to be "shucking our responsabilities". We've been over there for nearly 2 years now. Isn't it about time that the Iraqi security forces start to take over? They number in the hundreds of thousands, and are getting more experience every day. Powell didn't say that we're "pulling out" this year, just that we may begin withdrawing troops, which is what one would expect as we are giving more and more control to the iraqis themselves. This should also have the desired effect of lessening support for the insurgent groups among the people as they will no longer be fighting a "foreign army", but rather their own countrymen.

As far as the elections situation goes, I personally feel that any delay would only embolden the insurgents. Afterall, if they feel they had influenced it to the point of delay, that would encourage them that they are "making progress".

Besides, regardless of voter turn out, those who are willing to have their futures decided for them ala a dictatorship aren't going to vote. Those that do wish to have a voice will. Therefore the election should make both groups happy .

We've trained a little over 125,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen, whose performance under fire has been ... well, inconsistent, to put it charitably. They're very poorly equipped compared to the larger American force in place today. So you think those guys are going to do better in stopping the insurgency if we're gone?

[Admiral_K]

We've trained a little over 125,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen, whose performance under fire has been ... well, inconsistent, to put it charitably. They're very poorly equipped compared to the larger American force in place today. So you think those guys are going to do better in stopping the insurgency if we're gone?

Its not as if were leaving today, and not as if we will be leaving all at once when we do start to withdraw. The withdrawl should also signal to skeptics among the Iraqi people that we had no long term designs of occupation of their country, and should work to erode the base on which the "resistence" is standing on.

[Stravo]

Its not as if were leaving today, and not as if we will be leaving all at once when we do start to withdraw. The withdrawl should also signal to skeptics among the Iraqi people that we had no long term designs of occupation of their country, and should work to erode the base on which the "resistence" is standing on.

Let me get this straight. We already don't have enough troops in theater to keep the country safe as it is and we're going to start pulling them out this year after such stunning security suiccesses as the Governor of Baghdad province being assassinated two weeks ago? C'mon this is a pure "let's get the fuck out of here." move.

The only thing thats going to erode is the little stability that is in the country. Iraqi security forces have left American troops in the lurch in the middle of firefights, funnel info and weapons to the insurgents and are less than stellar in their discipline.

The main request they've made to help them is that American troops respond rapidly to calls for aid and assistance...and we pull out.

[Chmee]

We've trained a little over 125,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen, whose performance under fire has been ... well, inconsistent, to put it charitably. They're very poorly equipped compared to the larger American force in place today. So you think those guys are going to do better in stopping the insurgency if we're gone?

Its not as if were leaving today, and not as if we will be leaving all at once when we do start to withdraw. The withdrawl should also signal to skeptics among the Iraqi people that we had no long term designs of occupation of their country, and should work to erode the base on which the "resistence" is standing on.

Ah, if I thought the political forces pushing Iraq toward civil war were primarily based on anti-Americanism, I'd agree with that. But Iraq has 3 distinct factions (Sunnis, Shia and Kurds) with 3 radically different ideas of what Iraq should be. The only thing keeping them from a civil war over the last century has been occupation (British or American) or dictatorship. One way or another, the lid is coming off this kettle .... we got rid of the dictator, we're not willing to occupy indefinitely, and the political strength of the moderates that would like to keep the country together as a civilized nation have been seriously undermined by years of war and sanctions. One way or another, these guys are probably going to have their civil war.

[Stormbringer]

You know, I have to wonder how reliable Powell is these days. He's on the outs and has already resigned. At the very least his comments about US commanders not wanting more men reflects either blinkers or a lack of understanding or just plain old lies. He just doesn't seem entirely in the loop.

[Admiral_K]

Let me get this straight. We already don't have enough troops in theater to keep the country safe as it is and we're going to start pulling them out this year after such stunning security suiccesses as the Governor of Baghdad province being assassinated two weeks ago? C'mon this is a pure "let's get the fuck out of here." move.

We haven't withdrawn everyone yet. Personally, I feel that Powells assessment is being optimistic, and he didn't mention the numbers of troops that will be withdrawn. I believe he was just giving an outline of the general plan to gradually hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces. And simple raw numbers isn't really an issue. Insurgent forces aren't exactly overwhelming us with numbers. Their hit and run terrorist style attacks aren't going to be stopped by more troops, this only gives them more targets.

The only thing thats going to erode is the little stability that is in the country. Iraqi security forces have left American troops in the lurch in the middle of firefights, funnel info and weapons to the insurgents and are less than stellar in their discipline.

The main request they've made to help them is that American troops respond rapidly to calls for aid and assistance...and we pull out.

A gradual pullout will allow the iraqis to get their ship in order. The plan all along was for Iraqis to eventually take over these dutys, and since its been nearly 2 years since we've been there, I don't think its unrealistic to start the process of doing that.

[Admiral_K]

Ah, if I thought the political forces pushing Iraq toward civil war were primarily based on anti-Americanism, I'd agree with that. But Iraq has 3 distinct factions (Sunnis, Shia and Kurds) with 3 radically different ideas of what Iraq should be. The only thing keeping them from a civil war over the last century has been occupation (British or American) or dictatorship. One way or another, the lid is coming off this kettle .... we got rid of the dictator, we're not willing to occupy indefinitely, and the political strength of the moderates that would like to keep the country together as a civilized nation have been seriously undermined by years of war and sanctions. One way or another, these guys are probably going to have their civil war.

Ofcourse anti-Americanism isn't the only driving force behind these groups. However, it is the major propoganda that they use to get support from the general populace.

As far as the rest of your statement, only time will tell.

[Gunhead]

There is no real reason to assume Iraqis couldn't handle their security in the future, for more details see thread about the death squads.
A pullout might give them a boost (it's amazing what people can do when they have to), but with the current morale and motivation... dangerous shit.
The future government won't be by any western standard democratic, but as long as it can take care of things, so the country don't go into civil war. That's the best we can hope for.
Strenght of leadership is needed there, badly, just don't see the guy to take up the bat.

-Gunhead

[Stormbringer]

There is no real reason to assume Iraqis couldn't handle their security in the future, for more details see thread about the death squads.
A pullout might give them a boost (it's amazing what people can do when they have to), but with the current morale and motivation... dangerous shit.

I won't deny at all the danger in it. But with Iraq capable of simply shrugging security onto us there is little reason for them to do anything. It's not like such things haven't been done before. And if the US actually maintains real aid good may come of it.

[Big Phil]

...Either that or one of the neighbors moves in...

I don't see us allowing that to happen. We may have trouble locating guerilla insurgent groups, but our bombs can most certainly find an invading army.

If you are referring to some sort of covert invasion, well it would rely on us not finding out about it and smacking the hands of whoever is behind it. And with the numbers that would be required, I'd expect us to find out at some point.

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Bush: I'll raise your humanitarian crisis and totalitarian leadership with a botched occupation, civil war, destroyed infrastucture and poorly set up economy.
And I fold.

[Admiral_K]

Are you forgetting how forcefully we defended South Vietnam after we pulled our troops out of there? Less than three years after our withdrawal NVA Troops were marching through Saigon. We either stay to defend it, or pull out and hope for the best.

That was nearly 30 years ago and the circumstances were far different. I believe a more recent example of what we would do can be seen by how we came to the aid of Kuwait and Saudia Arabia in the Gulf War.