Top US commander says no timetable to leave Iraq should be set

[musicman]

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress today against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, putting him at odds with resurgent Democrats pressing President Bush to start pulling out of the violence-torn country.

Gen. John Abizaid spoke as the Senate Armed Services Committee began re-examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's elections, which gave Democrats control of Congress starting next year and was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's war policies.

Democrats have been coalescing around a call for beginning a U.S. withdrawal in coming months. In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," Abizaid said.

Asked directly what effect he foresaw on sectarian violence if Congress legislated a phased U.S. withdrawal starting in four to six months, Abizaid replied, "I believe it would increase."

"It seems to me that the prudent course ahead is to keep the troop levels about where they are," Abizaid said, while placing larger teams of U.S. military advisers inside Iraqi army and police units. He said that increased emphasis on advising Iraqi units might be accomplished without significantly increasing the total U.S. force in the country.

full story

[TJones]

I don't know why the Dems. can't get it through their thick skulls, that if you give the enemy a timetable, then all they have to do is then wait it out, and as soon as everyone is gone, they will go ahead and swoop in and terrorize and take over. We need the time to train the Iraqi forces adequately to defend themsleves. How can you put a time limit on that ? It may take 2 weeks, it may take 2 years. Our own country's "freedom", really wasn't achieved until about 1784.

[west20th]

I don't know why the Dems. can't get it through their thick skulls, that if you give the enemy a timetable, then all they have to do is then wait it out, and as soon as everyone is gone, they will go ahead and swoop in and terrorize and take over. We need the time to train the Iraqi forces adequately to defend themsleves. How can you put a time limit on that ? It may take 2 weeks, it may take 2 years. Our own country's "freedom", really wasn't achieved until about 1784.

Well an open ended commitment doesn't seem to be the answer either. It would be interesting to see if the Baker commission/group, or whatever they are, have to say. Since Bush dumped Rumsfeld and put in Gates (a member or the Baker group) it seems Bush knows what their recommendations are and he plans to implement them. They need to s&^* or get off the pot and give us an answer. If we are going to change something we need to do it now.

[nmainguy]

The president conducts foreign policy so the ball is still in Bush's hands.

It will be interesting to hear what Baker and his fellow grown-ups tell junior what to do.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Hell they are still trying to figure out whose on whose side. They players change on a daily basis. If anyone thinks there is a quick and easy solution to this mess, they are dreaming. This makes dealing with the Viet Cong look like summer camp.

You cannot defeat or detour a fanatic, that is ready to die before he ever straps up, with intimidation of show of force. They look at it as an honor to die and dishonorable not to. I honestly don't think there is a fix for this in the next ten years of we don't step up the strike power. That place is basically going to have to reduced to a huge litter-box, to even make an impression on anything and maybe not even then. No amount of diplomacy or peace talks, are going to end this thing. They've been fighting for over 2000 years and aren't going to stop now. It's just a bad situation all around.

Abercrombie is questioning Gen. John Abizaid this very issue right now on C-SPAN in the House right now.

[MidtownCoog]

Wanting to set a time table for withdrawl one week after the election just shows how out of touch the Dems reallly are.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Wanting to set a time table for withdrawl one week after the election just shows how out of touch the Dems reallly are.

I gotta agree. I've never heard of a war where one side said "we're gonna win this war before (insert date here)." Anyone saying that in Congress has a substance abuse issue goin' on or somethin'.

Now if the Dems are saying "if this is going on, we're on the right track to getting this issue solved", then I would understand. No one in Washington should look at clocks; they should look at the results, yo.

[musicman]

I gotta agree. I've never heard of a war where one side said "we're gonna win this war before (insert date here)." Anyone saying that in Congress has a substance abuse issue goin' on or somethin'.

Maybe a few want to break out the nukes??

[RedScare]

I don't know why the Dems. can't get it through their thick skulls, that if you give the enemy a timetable, then all they have to do is then wait it out, and as soon as everyone is gone, they will go ahead and swoop in and terrorize and take over.

Who will swoop in? Who will terrorize? Who will take over?

I will bet not one of you even knows who is doing what to whom over there. Unfortunately, neither does Bush. When 4,000 Iraqis a month are getting killed, a lot of them by Iraqi police, aint nobody "waiting" anything out. Not to mention the 100,000 per month (the intelligent ones) that are leaving the country for neighboring countries, means there are few actual working Iraqis that will be left...only the fighters.

Frankly, I've washed my hands of the whole mess. When I say I want the troops home, I am called unpatriotic. So, you war mongers figure it out.

[musicman]

Frankly, I've washed my hands of the whole mess. When I say I want the troops home, I am called unpatriotic. So, you war mongers figure it out.

Now maybe you'll have time to do the inside of that house!

[Mark F. Barnes]

I gotta agree. I've never heard of a war where one side said "we're gonna win this war before (insert date here)." Anyone saying that in Congress has a substance abuse issue goin' on or somethin'.

Now if the Dems are saying "if this is going on, we're on the right track to getting this issue solved", then I would understand. No one in Washington should look at clocks; they should look at the results, yo.

I am a daily C-SPAN watcher, and all the people asking for a schedule aren't asking for a schedule to "win" they are asking for a schedule of demobilization. And really there isn't a win to this situation. The goal is not to win anything, but to reinforce the Iraqi new regime and train their military to stand on their own two feet. It is a lofty goal, but that's what they are looking to do. However they are still trying to sort out the prospective players, and already certain bureaucrats are wanting to know when we are pulling out.

Gen. John Abizaid said it best today: "If we were fighting just another army, this thing would be over in 72 hours. But this is a multi-faceted faction of several different religious fanatical groups, that are extremely if not impossible at times, to differentiate from the allies over there. It takes time to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. There is no way to put time constraints on something like this and expect it to be successful."

All this rhetoric by the peanut gallery is going to continue all the way up to the next elections. They're no more concerned about the soldiers or the cause than a man in the moon. They are just concerned about whose sitting in the white house come 2008. We need to let the Military fight the battles, and let the politicians do what they do best. NOTHING!

[MidtownCoog]

Frankly, I've washed my hands of the whole mess. When I say I want the troops home, I am called unpatriotic. So, you war mongers figure it out.

That's the Dem strategy.

Cut and run before the job is done.

We owe Iraq more than running like a titty-baby feel good Dem would.

[west20th]

Cut and run before the job is done.

That's right. We need to stay the course and beat 'em with stupid catch phrases.

[MidtownCoog]

What about the Dems who voted FOR the war?

Now they want out after making this mess?

[DJ V Lawrence]

That's the Dem strategy.

Cut and run before the job is done.

We owe Iraq more than running like a titty-baby feel good Dem would.

What is "the job"?

Question to everyone on HAIF: How many troops would Iraq's Army need in their force for the U.S. to consider their mission a "success", and the withdrawl would begin? Or what skills would the Iraqi Army need to learn that they haven't learned yet?

If I recall correctly, Bush has stated that before there could be any troop withdrawl, Iraq's Army needs to be able to protect and defend it's democracy by itself. I agree. How far away is Iraq's Army from being able to do that? Are there any numbers or projections as to what Iraq's government would need in order to defend itself?

[Mark F. Barnes]

Gen. John Abizaid said it best today: "If we were fighting just another army, this thing would be over in 72 hours. But this is a multi-faceted faction of several different religious fanatical groups, that are extremely if not impossible at times, to differentiate from the allies over there. It takes time to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. There is no way to put time constraints on something like this and expect it to be successful."

[MidtownCoog]

Our job is not to screw them over any more than we already have.

We owe it to them.

Running away is not an option at this time.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Gen. John Abizaid said it best today: "...There is no way to put time constraints on something like this and expect it to be successful."

I understand the time constraints part. It's about the mission being completed, I get that. So what does the Iraqi Army need in order to have completed the mission of being able to defend Iraq by itself, and how far away are they/us from reaching that feat?

[MidtownCoog]

So what does the Iraqi Army need in order to have completed the mission of being able to defend Iraq by itself, and how far away are they/us from reaching that feat?

TBD

But the Dems don't even care.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Our job is not to screw them over any more than we already have.

We owe it to them.

Running away is not an option at this time.

You haven't really answered the question either. I'm agreeing with you Coog: we can't just suddenly withdraw now. What I'm asking is what more is needed for the mission to be complete? Hell, is the mission to rebuild Iraq or for Iraq to be able to rebuild itself?

Lastly, Iraq is a democracy. Not everyone there are Pro-Bush. What do we do if the person they elect as their next president is Anti-American? Do we just go back into war?

TBD

But the Dems don't even care.

Who cares more in your opinion; the Dems or the Reps?

[MidtownCoog]

The military cares more than either party.

[TheNiche]

You haven't really answered the question either. I'm agreeing with you Coog: we can't just suddenly withdraw now. What I'm asking is what more is needed for the mission to be complete? Hell, is the mission to rebuild Iraq or for Iraq to be able to rebuild itself?

Lastly, Iraq is a democracy. Not everyone there are Pro-Bush. What do we do if the person they elect as their next president is Anti-American? Do we just go back into war?

We are responsible for rebuilding Iraq politically and militarily...we broke it, now we gotta fix it. If they end up being an anti-American democracy, I can live with that. They'd be like France, but with more economic growth prospects.

At this point, I don't think that either political party cares at all. There are a few high-profile individuals that seem to care, and history will remember them for it, but the political parties are way too focused on the short-term outcome.

[nmainguy]

TBD

But the Dems don't even care.

Probably one of the most sweepingly ignorant slogans I've heard on this board in a long time. I'm proud the voters saw through that childish tactic November 7th.

[Jeebus]

Probably one of the most sweepingly ignorant slogans I've heard on this board in a long time.

You must consider one week a "long time". That's how long its been since you've made a sweepingly ignorant statement about the Republicans.

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that when you make sweepingly ignorant statements about Republicans that it doesn't count to you.

[MidtownCoog]

nmainguy is out of touch

It's been 9 days.

Why aren't the troops home yet?

[TJones]

Who will swoop in? Who will terrorize? Who will take over?

I will bet not one of you even knows who is doing what to whom over there. Unfortunately, neither does Bush. When 4,000 Iraqis a month are getting killed, a lot of them by Iraqi police, aint nobody "waiting" anything out. Not to mention the 100,000 per month (the intelligent ones) that are leaving the country for neighboring countries, means there are few actual working Iraqis that will be left...only the fighters.

Frankly, I've washed my hands of the whole mess. When I say I want the troops home, I am called unpatriotic. So, you war mongers figure it out.

Why don't we try Shi'ite Muslim Fundalmentalists, backed by Iranian money, with a few Syrian and Palestinian extremists thrown in for good measure. 100,000 well meaning Iraqis leaving every month and nothing but "fighters" left ? Works for me, and I am sure the military would absolutely love that, fire without prejudice, and you will have all the bad elements out of Iraq in a couple of months. Then all the well-meaning Iraqis can come back to their homes without having to worry so much about a car bomb going off in front of them on the way to the mosque.

I don't think you are unpatriotic at all Red, I just see it as one of the many things we disagree upon how things should be solved.

[DJ V Lawrence]

The military cares more than either party.

Wow, can't believe I'm saying this, but I'ma agree with you twice on one page

Here's a question 4 you then: do you think that at this point, we're screwed regardless of which party's in Congress?

[MidtownCoog]

I have no idea. But the Dems can't rush out like Bush rushed in.

Propper planning prevents piss poor performance.

[RedScare]

Why don't we try Shi'ite Muslim Fundalmentalists, backed by Iranian money, with a few Syrian and Palestinian extremists thrown in for good measure. 100,000 well meaning Iraqis leaving every month and nothing but "fighters" left ? Works for me, and I am sure the military would absolutely love that, fire without prejudice, and you will have all the bad elements out of Iraq in a couple of months. Then all the well-meaning Iraqis can come back to their homes without having to worry so much about a car bomb going off in front of them on the way to the mosque.

I don't think you are unpatriotic at all Red, I just see it as one of the many things we disagree upon how things should be solved.

With apologies to Midtown Coog, "(TJones) is out of touch".

TJ, have you not read who the membership of the Iraqi police force is comprised of? If the government cannot even meet (for lack of a quorum), and the police force is chock full of death squads taking orders from Shi'ite Muslim fundamentalists, backed by Iran, just who in the hell is the US supporting?

I understand that this is a no-win situation. I also understand whose fault it is. I further understand that that you and Midtown Coog and other Bush apologists are setting up straw men just to knock them down. The violence in Iraq is INCREASING, not decreasing, and you people and Bush have no idea what to do about it, so you make smartass remarks about everyone else, while ignoring the fact that Sunnis, Shia, children, and US troops are dropping daily.

Hell, no can even tell me what "victory" is, much less how to achieve it. You people's comments remind me of the old actress who doesn't realize that she is old and washed up and not respected anymore. I suppose in suburban Houston you can still find a few people who are as deluded as yourselves, but the rest of the country and the world has opened it's eyes. This entire campaign, from it's motives for invading, to it's execution, to it's inability to achieve any semblance of peace, to it's inability to end it, has been a failure.

This is why I no longer debate Bush apologists. They have no answers, only demagoguery. They castigate anyone ignorant enough to ask, "When will things get better?" And, heaven forbid, someone actually suggest that there might be a better way to do it. Well, come on Chief. Let's hear your plan. How long do you want to keep our guys over there? 2009? Longer? What is your definition of "Victory"? Even with a Democratic majority, this is still the President's war. Those of you who agree with him need to tell the rest of us how he's going to fix this mess.

EDIT: Coog's last post is the first admission I have seen that Bush screwed things up. Props for that. I'd still like to see some suggestions for fixing it.

[MidtownCoog]

I have never been a Bush aplogist. I hate lables, but I am an independent conservative.

But we can't run away 9 days after the election.

Train the troops, rebuild and get out.

The real question is can Arabs handle freedom? Thier interpretation of their religion is a joke.