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

[TJones]

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.

That's it Red, just keep drinking your Kool-Aid, and everything will just go away on it's own once we hurry up and redeploy the troops to Okinawa, just like your Talking-head Lib leaders have told you. Talk about deluded.

You say that our Republican leaders can't tell us what "victory" would be, yet I haven't heard what the Dem. solution for "victory" is either. Can you please enlighten us with the Dem. plan ? Surely you holier than thou Libs. had some kind of plan in place, since you wouldn't tell us during the election race, just in case you did get the win last Tuesday, right ? Are we now gonna have to wait 6 weeks to hear about this strategy, or since "getting our troops home fast" is the Dems. greatest concern, can you guys and gals go ahead and let us in on your little secret, so we can start using it.

I don't need to apologize for Bush, nor would he want me to. You can cry me a river Red, over what you consider a failure, you'll never get me to drink your poison punch.

[westguy]

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.

Yup, Bush has been hoodwinked by Iran in a big way. They didn't like Saddam, but not because of his human rights record. They simply eliminated and enemy and gained an ally. The tortured bodies are popping up again and it looks like the new regime is behind it.

If we leave, there will be a civil war, and the US will certainly be responsible for it. However, we are not in the business of making miracles.

[DJ V Lawrence]

You say that our Republican leaders can't tell us what "victory" would be, yet I haven't heard what the Dem. solution for "victory" is either.

Um, TJones, it was a Republican Congress (House and Senate), Republican Cabinet, and a Republican President (say it with me boys and girls: George W. Bush) who were in charge when the war began. If they don't know what "victory" would be, I say we're in SERIOUS trouble.

I haven't heard the Dems solution yet. They haven't begun their terms in Congress yet (that starts in January), so they have two months to come up with something. Yo TJones, would you kindly let us know what the Republican interpretation of "victory" is in Iraq?

[TJones]

First DJ, all your little Dems. voted for the war also, yes we could have still won the majority,even if all of them had voted agaisnt the war, but none of them did, so just stop the shenanigans.

Victory in Iraq means giving the people of Iraq control of their own nation under a Democracy, what does it take to achieve that, basically what we did with Germany and Japan, rebuild them, train them and slowly but surely let them know that we are NOT their enemy, we only wish for them to prosper without fear of being blown up or be afraid to speak their minds without fear of repercussions. Trying to build the foundations of Democracy is not an easy task for a country that is basically still in the dark ages of having free speech. Hearts and Minds, show the people that there is a better way, and that way is freedom, which is inherent in every man and woman. It WILL take, it will just take time.

Now DJ, qui pro quo, why do the Dems. need to wait 6 weeks to get in office to tell everyone the plan, if they are soooooo worried about losing more soldiers ? That doesn't seem odd to you, or are the soldiers lives just not THAT important to them ? 2 months to come up with something ? The Dems. whole platform in the last race was that THEY had the solution for Iraq, that if you pick THEM, everything will be alright. DJ, you telling me you fell for that, and now you are saying, "well they got 2 months to come up with something." Go stand over there with Red, and have some more Kool-Aid.

[DJ V Lawrence]

First DJ, all your little Dems. voted for the war also, yes we could have still won the majority,even if all of them had voted agaisnt the war, but none of them did, so just stop the shenanigans.

Victory in Iraq means giving the people of Iraq control of their own nation under a Democracy, what does it take to achieve that, basically what we did with Germany and Japan, rebuild them, train them and slowly but surely let them know that we are NOT their enemy, we only wish for them to prosper without fear of being blown up or be afraid to speak their minds without fear of repercussions. Trying to build the foundations of Democracy is not an easy task for a country that is basically still in the dark ages of having free speech. Hearts and Minds, show the people that there is a better way, and that way is freedom, which is inherant in every man and woman. It WILL take, it will just take time.

Now DJ, qui pro quo, why do the Dems. need to wait 6 weeks to get in office to tell everyone the plan, if they are soooooo worried about losing more soldiers ? That doesn't seem odd to you, or are the soldiers lives just not THAT important to them ?

Ah, so I'm a Democrat now?

I'm also surprised that you seem the least bit concerned about soilders' lives (at least in your last post). I assumed that we ALL want our soilders to come home safe, but wanted the mission complete.

Now TJ, I will agree/level with you with that second paragraph, but it takes more than just time, it takes PLANNING. The more the plans don't work, the more time it will take for democracy to flourish in Iraq. I'll ask you the same question I asked be4 to MidtownCoog (my bad, Coog. I didn't know U were independant like me). How far away are we from getting the job done in Iraq? I'm not talking about time, I'm talking about equipment and training.

By the way, the Dems have 6 weeks because until then, they're not the majority in Congress. No matter how they vote, the Republicans (the party who came up with the plans for this particular war) are still in charge. Once the Dems take over Congress, they'll need to implement a VALID plan that WORKS, and not just talk out of their ass once in power. The election's over. They now need to see if their campaigning goals can be met or not before January.

[nmainguy]

nmainguy is out of touch

It's been 9 days.

Why aren't the troops home yet?

The Republican controlled house worked 90 days so far in 2006. 90 days in a time of war. The Republican President, Senate and House cut taxes in a time of war, never asking for shared sacrifice other than the blood of too many of our own. The result is the creation of a civil war in a country where by a wide margin the people do not want us there.

So don't tell me I'm out of touch. Don't ask me why the troops aren't home after 9 days.

Ask the President what his strategy is this week for removing our troops from harms way. Not what his slogan is-what his strategy is.

I've stated mine till I'm blue in the face-or red if you prefer. I've yet to hear a concrete one out of any of you.

[west20th]

Victory in Iraq means giving the people of Iraq control of their own nation under a Democracy,

That democracy part has been thrown under the bus. I believe Bush now wants "stable Iraq able to defend itself". Not much mentioned about democracy any longer. Baker tends to define victory as such: "victory" be defined as "achieving representative government, not necessarily democracy". So I think what we will be seeing is Bush continually refining his definition of victory until "victory" is the re-deployment of our troops. Basically, Iraq is a total mess and Bush hasn't a clue what to do about it.

Lastly, you keep screaming "what is the Dems plan?". Unless I'm wrong it's the executive branch that prosecutes a war. Bush still is the "decider" as he likes to put it. The Dems can scream all the want about re-deployment but all they can really do is not fund the war and that isn't going to happen. Political suicide. Whether you agree with the war and how it is being prosecuted you have to fund the troops once they are there.

[TJones]

The Republican controlled house worked 90 days so far in 2006. 90 days in a time of war. The Republican President, Senate and House cut taxes in a time of war, never asking for shared sacrifice other than the blood of too many of our own. The result is the creation of a civil war in a country where by a wide margin the people do not want us there.

So don't tell me I'm out of touch. Don't ask me why the troops aren't home after 9 days.

Ask the President what his strategy is this week for removing our troops from harms way. Not what his slogan is-what his strategy is.

I've stated mine till I'm blue in the face-or red if you prefer. I've yet to hear a concrete one out of any of you.

You keep saying, republican , republican, republican, Where the hell are your beloved demorats at ? Didn't they work those same 90 days ? You act as if dems. can't be held accountable for anything, apparently they aren't to worried about so much time off also, or they would have their asses in the house to set an example. DON"T YOU THINK ?

DJ, you didn't answer the question, but maybe you did, by not answering it, and still holding up the "they got 2 months to come up with a plan." So, you admit, they have no plan, just alot of hotair to get you to vote for them , as usual.

But, let's just give the dems. the benefit of the doubt, and say they have the end all plan for iraq, and that it is such a great plan, that the Republicans, couldn;t possibly deny it, why on Earth would the dems. want to hold that info. back for one second and endanger our troops any longer ?

[MidtownCoog]

The Dems plan is simple: quit while we are behind.

They know this and really have no strategy and no man for 2008. The floated Gore and Edwards this summer. flop.

Kerry self-destructed and Hillary has no skills.

PRINT IT

[DJ V Lawrence]

DJ, you didn't answer the question, but maybe you did, by not answering it, and still holding up the "they got 2 months to come up with a plan." So, you admit, they have no plan, just alot of hotair to get you to vote for them , as usual.

Here was your question:

Now DJ, qui pro quo, why do the Dems. need to wait 6 weeks to get in office to tell everyone the plan, if they are soooooo worried about losing more soldiers ? That doesn't seem odd to you, or are the soldiers lives just not THAT important to them ?

Here was my answer:

By the way, the Dems have 6 weeks because until then, they're not the majority in Congress. No matter how they vote, the Republicans (the party who came up with the plans for this particular war) are still in charge. Once the Dems take over Congress, they'll need to implement a VALID plan that WORKS, and not just talk out of their ass once in power. The election's over. They now need to see if their campaigning goals can be met or not before January.

I'm not aware of what the Dems' plans are once January hits. They had big goals during the election, and we'll have to wait 'til January see if they can improve the situation better than the Republican Congress has. What I do know is that the numerous scandals these past 2 years in Congress didn't help any, and that helped take the focus off of Iraq. I also know that voters as a whole didn't like how the Republican Congress was going about, and as a result, the Dems won.

Now TJones, Democrats aside for a second in this question for ya: Do you think Congress as a whole has done a good job for the past 2 years? And why do you think the Democrats won Congress?

[west20th]

The Dems plan is simple: quit while we are behind.

They know this and really have no strategy and no man for 2008. The floated Gore and Edwards this summer. flop.

Kerry self-destructed and Hillary has no skills.

PRINT IT

I think Gore will be back. A lot of dems aren't sure if Hillary is capable of ever getting over the high '40s in a general election. Gore seems to be the only one that could beat her in the primaries.

[nmainguy]

You keep saying, republican , republican, republican,

Because Republicans, Republicans, Republicans are still running the show.

Because Republicans, Republicans, Republicans at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. are responsible for prosecuting the war and will be until at least January 20, 2009.

Why do you and Coog remain so obsessed with Democrats?

The White House is responsible for coming up with a solution; a plan; a strategy.

All we get out of the White House is slogans.

No believable definition of an objective.

No valid reason why we went in. [even KBH says she wouldn't have voted for it if she knew then most of what the administration told her wasn't true so you can toss out your "dems voted for it but now they want to cut and run straw man"]

No valid reason why we're staying.

No valid plan on how we'll get out.

Where's the strategy?

So far all I've heard is bad Dems or some incoherent babble about Gore, Edwards, Kerry and Clinton.

You know I'm feelin' the love for you, TJ but so far you're givin' me nothin'

[TJones]

Here was your question:

Here was my answer:

I'm not aware of what the Dems' plans are once January hits. They had big goals during the election, and we'll have to wait 'til January see if they can improve the situation better than the Republican Congress has. What I do know is that the numerous scandals these past 2 years in Congress didn't help any, and that helped take the focus off of Iraq. I also know that voters as a whole didn't like how the Republican Congress was going about, and as a result, the Dems won.

Now TJones, Democrats aside for a second in this question for ya: Do you think Congress as a whole has done a good job for the past 2 years? And why do you think the Democrats won Congress?

Answer to your questions: Yes, I do think they have done a good job. 2) I think the Dems. won because they got more votes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about congress, and the balance of power. The scandals in Washington have nothing to do with timetables in Iraq.

[MidtownCoog]

9 days, and the Dems are already off to one heck of a start:

Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader!

Pelosi's aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha has baffled and angered many Democrats, who think she has unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinves...2-NextArticle-1

[TJones]

You know I'm feelin' the love for you, TJ but so far you're givin' me nothin'

That's what happens when you close yourself off to the truth and reality.

[MidtownCoog]

nmainguy,

You got my answer a few threads back - scroll up

I am not going to repost. You'll just have refine your reading skills.

[TJones]

9 days, and the Dems are already off to rock start one heck of a start:

Democrats defy Pelosi, elect Hoyer House leader!

Pelosi's aggressive intervention on behalf of Murtha has baffled and angered many Democrats, who think she has unnecessarily put her reputation on the line out of misplaced loyalty to a friend and because of a long-standing feud with Hoyer, the minority whip.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinves...2-NextArticle-1

Yep, its gonna be a fun 2 years with you guys in control. All the in-fighting, YEEHAW !

[west20th]

Yep, its gonna be a fun 2 years with you guys in control. All the in-fighting, YEEHAW !

Please, it's a non-story. Forgotten by everyone but Murtha in a few days. Hoyer was the better choice.

[MidtownCoog]

Non-story? This is the first chapter in the Book of Nancy.

"The ironing is delicious!"

[TJones]

Please, it's a non-story. Forgotten by everyone but Murtha in a few days. Hoyer was the better choice.

I thought all the girls wanted Pelosi, for speaker of the house. What happened with that ? She was supposed to be the best choice, wasn't she ? Hoyer hasn't been mentioned ONE time by any of your talking heads, and NOW, he's the better choice. Nice flip-flop Mr. Kerry.

edit: I was apparently on CRACK when I was reading Coog's article posted above. Please forgive me.

[west20th]

I thought all the girls wanted Pelosi, for speaker of the house. What happened with that ? She was supposed to be the best choice, wasn't she ? Hoyer hasn't been mentioned ONE time by any of your talking heads, and NOW, he's the better choice. Nice flip-flop Mr. Kerry.

Earth to TJ. Nancy still is the speaker. Hoyer is the new majority leader. Nancy has Hasstert's old position and Hoyer has Delay's old position.

[TJones]

Earth to TJ. Nancy still is the speaker. Hoyer is the new majority leader. Nancy has Hasstert's old position and Hoyer has Delay's old position.

I read the story wrong. Apologies, I move to strike the previous statement. My mind IS actually somewhere else at this moment. I shouldn't be worrying about this stuff right now. I read it as Hoyer being top dog for some reason. I re-read it, and knew I was fixin' to get hammered. oh well. Pelosi doesn't have her cronie next to her, that is priceless.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Answer to your questions: Yes, I do think they have done a good job.

Rizpekt.

2) I think the Dems. won because they got more votes.

I'll bet U $1000 you weren't saying that in the 2000 Presidential Election, were ya?

All cheekyness aside, why do U think voters were more inclined to vote Dem than Rep this time?

Start a new thread if you want to talk about congress, and the balance of power. The scandals in Washington have nothing to do with timetables in Iraq.

The scandals affected the voters' state of mind, which in turn affected the balance of power in congress, who in turn will affect the policies toward the timetables in Iraq.

[musicman]

I think Gore will be back. A lot of dems aren't sure if Hillary is capable of ever getting over the high '40s in a general election. Gore seems to be the only one that could beat her in the primaries.

Gore won't run. He's too busy making residuals from inventing the internet.

[TJones]

I'll bet U $1000 you weren't saying that in the 2000 Presidential Election, were ya?

I'll take that bet, The Electoral College decided the Presidential election, as it ALWAYS HAS. That is the way the voting is set up, and you didn't see any crying or yelling of FOUL by Republicans when we lost in 1992, nor did you see it after this mid-term election. No lawyers rushing to "recount", no crying over "bad voting booths", or "hanging chads". These races were some of the closest in history, and yet you don't see any "Boo-Hooing" over any of it.

As far as why do I think more Dems. got out to vote ? I think they bought the Dems. lies about "We have a different direction for Iraq. And, we will get the troops out NOW !" Everyone wants the young men and women out of there, for sure. But the reality of it all is that you can't just grab your ball and go home on this one. The Dems. have been disillusuoned by their leadership, and they are gonna be in for a heartbreak, when they are told the exact same thing that is being said now by the Republicans, that we have to see this thing through , and we cannot indeed "cut and run". Then they will get mad, and won't know where to turn at that point, because they don;t like what the Republicans have told them, and now they feel the same about their own leadership.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Please, it's a non-story. Forgotten by everyone but Murtha in a few days. Hoyer was the better choice.

I really have to agree, Hoyer is a better choice. I believe Steny Hoyer to be a fair man and will not be Pelosi's lackey, for what she was shooting for with "Abscam" Murtha.

[Mark F. Barnes]

S. 3709 shot down 26 Yea 73 Nay

[DJ V Lawrence]

I'll take that bet, The Electoral College decided the Presidential election, as it ALWAYS HAS. That is the way the voting is set up, and you didn't see any crying or yelling of FOUL by Republicans when we lost in 1992, nor did you see it after this mid-term election. No lawyers rushing to "recount", no crying over "bad voting booths", or "hanging chads". These races were some of the closest in history, and yet you don't see any "Boo-Hooing" over any of it.

As far as why do I think more Dems. got out to vote ? I think they bought the Dems. lies about "We have a different direction for Iraq. And, we will get the troops out NOW !" Everyone wants the young men and women out of there, for sure. But the reality of it all is that you can't just grab your ball and go home on this one. The Dems. have been disillusuoned by their leadership, and they are gonna be in for a heartbreak, when they are told the exact same thing that is being said now by the Republicans, that we have to see this thing through , and we cannot indeed "cut and run". Then they will get mad, and won't know where to turn at that point, because they don;t like what the Republicans have told them, and now they feel the same about their own leadership.

[west20th]

I read the story wrong. Apologies, I move to strike the previous statement. My mind IS actually somewhere else at this moment. I shouldn't be worrying about this stuff right now. I read it as Hoyer being top dog for some reason. I re-read it, and knew I was fixin' to get hammered. oh well. Pelosi doesn't have her cronie next to her, that is priceless.

Can I do a victory dance and spike my mouse now?

[MidtownCoog]

By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: October 24, 2006

An American in Iraq has finally gotten it almost right.

J. D. Thurman, the major general who is the senior commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, has figured out the obstacle to America's dream for Iraq.

''Part of our problem is that we want this more than they do,'' General Thurman told The Times's Michael Gordon, alluding to American efforts to unify Iraqis. ''We need to get people to stop worrying about self and start worrying about Iraq.''

That's a refreshingly candid alternative to the usual lines we hear about the Iraqi people's patriotism and resolve. General Thurman predicted that Americans will keep struggling unless Iraqis put aside their differences. Quite right -- and quite depressing, because they're not about to do it, no matter what timetable the U.S. tries to impose.

But what's stopping them is not selfishness. When General Thurman talked about the conflict between serving oneself and serving one's country, he was applying an American template to a different culture. Rampant individualism is not the problem in Iraq.

The problem is that they have so many social obligations more important to them than national unity. Iraqis bravely went to the polls and waved their purple fingers, but they voted along sectarian lines. Appeals to their religion trumped appeals to the national interest. And as the beleaguered police in Amara saw last week, religion gets trumped by the most important obligation of all: the clan.

The deadly battle in Amara wasn't between Sunnis and Shiites, but between two Shiite clans that have feuded for generations. After one clan's militia destroyed police stations and took over half the city, the Iraqi Army did not ride to the rescue. Authorities regained control only after the clan leaders negotiated a truce.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq, American optimists invoked Germany and Japan as models for their democratization project, but Iraq didn't have the cultural cohesion or national identity of those countries. The shrewdest forecasts I heard came not from foreign policy experts but from anthropologists and sociologists who noted a crucial statistic: nearly half of Iraqis were married to their first or second cousins.

Unlike General Thurman and other Westerners, members of these tightly knit Iraqi clans don't look on society as a collection of individuals working for the common good of the nation. ''In a modern state a citizen's allegiance is to the state, but theirs is to their clan and their tribe,'' Ihsan M. al-Hassan, a sociologist at the University of Baghdad, warned three years ago. ''If one person in your clan does something wrong, you favor him anyway, and you expect others to treat their relatives the same way.''

These allegiances explain why Iraqis don't want to give up their local militias. They know it's unrealistic to expect protection from a national force of soldiers or police officers from other clans, other regions, other religions. When the Iraqi Army ordered reinforcements to go help Americans keep peace in Baghdad, several Iraqi battalions deserted rather than risk their lives defending strangers.

Instead of trying to transform Iraqis into patriots and build up national security forces, the U.S. should be urging decentralization. The national government should concentrate on defending the borders and equitably distributing oil revenue, ideally by distributing shares of the oil wealth directly to citizens.

Most other duties, including maintaining law and order, should devolve to autonomous local governments: one for the Kurdish north, one for the Sunni Triangle, one for the Shiite south, plus coalition governments in Baghad and the multiethnic region around Kirkuk. The result would hardly be peace. There would still be murderous religious conflicts in Baghdad and fierce interclan battles in towns like Amara.

But the local leaders -- elected officials, police officers, sheiks, clerics -- would be in a better position to provide security and negotiate truces than would a national government. It's no accident that the most stable part of Iraq is also the most autonomous: Kurdistan, where two rival clans have negotiated a relatively peaceful coexistence.

It wouldn't be easy for Iraqis in other regions to work out their differences, but the local leaders would have one crucial advantage over any Iraqis or Americans giving orders from Baghdad. They would realize their neighbors are not going to suddenly embrace national unity. They would know you make peace with the citizenry you have, not the one you want.

-----------------------------------------------------------