Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Petraeus Assessment

This war seems to have fallen into three camps. One wants us to pull out ASAP, the next is looking for a more orderly withdrawal, and the third has punted and figures we will be in Iraq forever. I fall into the third camp. We are still in Germany (why?), Korea, and assorted other locations spread throughout the world. If there is any strategic or resource reason for the US to remain in an area they have invaded and controlled they will indeed do so--forever. The proponents of a fast withdrawal say things cannot get any worse and the others say it definitely will if we bail. Who really knows? For anyone, what will happen in Iraq if any course of action is taken is a guess at best.

I am pushing 60 and remember the 60’s very well. Between the race riots and the anti Viet Nam war protests one had the feeling that our country was coming apart at the seams. Is there anything like that feeling now? I live in Eugene OR aka ‘Berkeley North” and when one is downtown one can spot maybe two or three war protesters. Anyone reading this who was alive during the rocky 60’s can remember the mobs of angry people yelling, screaming, waiving their signs and generally causing mayhem. Maybe everyone has departed the streets and fled to their computer keyboards. Who knows—but they ain’t on the streets. So it is difficult to assess the real anger over this war. It’s seems if we are angry, we jump into our cars and burn ME oil to go shopping. With a reaction like that is it any wonder congress et al feel no pressure for an immediate withdrawal unlike the Viet Nam war days?

Kids in their 20’s today just don’t vote. They are angry and disillusioned with our system and direction but their answer is to play video games. The powers that be count on their non votes. And for the rest of us the anger just does not seem to be there. Or if it is, it is impossible to gauge. So I feel that is the reason there is no really strong push for us to just get the hell out. That, and the fact that we like our cars and stuff made from petroleum and really don’t want to give it up. If we were to just bail, quite possibly we just might have to change our ways. And that ain’t Hamurrican—is it?

Ken, I too remember the '60's and was one of those in the streets protesting and creating alternate lifestyles.

The difference is then there was a draft, meaning the issue of war was not abstract political philosophy but in your face and immanent.

Yes, from time to time I was in the streets too. I lucked out in the draft. I was in the first year of the lottery, had a high number and came from a state, Hawaii, that had a high enlistment rate. It was through a fluke that I was spared a trip to Viet Nam.

It definitely make a difference between a volunteer force and a draft force. But excluding a national calamity I don't think we will ever see the draft again. Is that fair?

It appears the administration may be looking for options which will not only prolong US involvement in Iraq but more to the point, so confuse Congress they will once again be helpless to do anything.
General’s Report on Iraq Progress Has Competition
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER


I guess there is no hope of holding these characters accountable.

Our differing perceptions may not go much beyond semantics, rporter. I see as you do his actions to form "a broad coalition spanning religious sects", which of course in Iraq translates into a "broad coalition spanning political parties". I see his primary interest being, like that of his mentor Ali al Sistani, the furtherance of Islam, and his secondary interest, also like that of his mentor, the preservation of Iraq.

To my mind, neither of these concerns is in and of itself political. I agree too that he could very easily be the "glue" to hold together the fragmented Iraqi society. But he does not need to be a political leader to accomplish that.

In fact, it may be easier, and better, for Iraq to be united behind a religious leader rather than a political one. In fact, it may be a stumbling block for us Americans to assume otherwise. It may be better for all concerned for us to accept the possibility that Iraq would prosper more if it were released from the requirement of secularism and allowed to emerge first as a theocracy and then perhaps evolve into a secular Parliamentarian Democracy.

Not so fast there, Mister. What is a "fast withdrawal"? Can you quote proponent of "fast withdrawal" who claims that things cannot get any worse?

As one who falls into the second camp, I suggest that sure, you can find someone somewhere that would put forth just about any given claim, but to my mind, the "fast withdrawal" ("as quickly as humanly possible") proponents do not in fact claim that things cannot get any worse, they claim that things will not get any worse because of the evacuation of the Occupying Forces.

I think they are probably right. But like Dennis Kucinich, I believe we should be thinking more about what is the best action rather than what could be worse. "Best" meaning "best for the future of all people, especially those suffering the most". In that case, it seems to me, there is less risk in an orderly withdrawal commensurate with introduction of a multinational peacekeeping force and funding of Iraqi-based reconstruction and repatriation.

To the extent that we are still in Germany or Korea, perhaps it would be appropriate for us to remain in Iraq. To my mind, that will be up to future Iraqi governments to determine. It's their country.