How to Get Out of Iraq

I've always been a fan of this particular anecdote:

In 1967, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley told President Lyndon Johnson that he needed to remove the 500,000 U.S. troops then involved in Vietnam’s civil war. When Johnson responded by asking how he could do that, Daley replied, “Put them on a [expletive deleted] plane and bring them home.”

It is time to follow Daley’s advice [in Iraq]. These multiple conflicts cannot be resolved by American military power. In fact, every time we deal with one conflict we make another worse.

That's from Larry Korb's article on getting out of Iraq, and I say: Indeed. Obviously, any large military operation is logistically complicated. But a lot of people seem to have developed mental blocks -- real or imagined -- around the fact that yes we can actually decide that Iraq is going to become one of any number of troubled countries that gets along for better or for worse without 130,000 American soldiers hanging around. All it takes is a president who actually wants our forces to leave.

Comments

And when Iraq falls apart we can all claim that Obama was right all along! Pathetic. MY and his ilk are going to succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 8, 2008 11:26 AM

MY and his ilk are going to succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

What is is this 'victory' of which you speak, and how do we get there?
How long will it take, and what will it cost?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 11:30 AM

Yeah, I love how pro-occupation people act like it all must be somehow free of charge. Or that Iraq didn't already fall apart like four years ago, because of us (no complaints about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory then!).

Posted by Bill | June 8, 2008 11:35 AM

I liked that Mayor Daley story, never heard it before.

Greg Cochran (the gcochran who often comments here) wrote a great article last year about withdrawing from Iraq. The headline sums up his thesis nicely, "Easy Out: Leave the office furniture behind. It isn't worth one soldier's life"
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/cover.html

Posted by beowulf | June 8, 2008 11:36 AM

danceswithgoats is right. It really doesn't matter what the reasons with for getting in. We're in now and can't afford to get out until the place is stablized, however you want to define that. To leave Iraq as a giant Somalia in the Middle East is unacceptable and frankly, kind of childish.

To paraphrase Colin Powell: We broke it, we bought it.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 11:38 AM

The illusion of power

"All it takes is a president who actually wants our forces to leave."

If all you knew about US govt was what you read in the Constitution, plus a knowledge of maybe the first 60 years of our history, then that statement would be deeply irrational and incomprehensible. "Where", your time-traveler would ask, "is the Congress in this discussion of the US at war?".

Let me propose an explanation for this discrepency, that also explains why the next president won't be able to just order all the troops in Iraq to just get on the effing planes. We have let the question of war and peace leave the public forum of our legislature and go behind the closed doors of the Oval Office because we don't want to face the uncomfortable truth that the military might we pay such a huge price to support isn't really good for much. Can't fashion a comfortable throne from bayonets, as Talleyrand put it.

No president is going to be able to decree that our troops leave Iraq in failure because the reason we have presidents who get to decree such things unilaterally is that we don't want public acknowledgement that our troops can fail in the mission of liberating and building nations that the comforting mythology we have built for ourselves gives our armed might. The empire doesn't end until the imperial presidency ends, and we get back to deciding war and peace in public, from a non-mythological understanding of the very real limits of power. As long as we keep the intertwined illusion of power, the power of the presidency and the power of our military, we are stuck with the destructive actions that it dictates.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | June 8, 2008 11:39 AM

If we just put the fucking troops on the fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who collaborated with us?

Posted by southpaw | June 8, 2008 11:41 AM

Re dancingwithgoats

"And when Iraq falls apart we can all claim that Obama was right all along! Pathetic. MY and his ilk are going to succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

"Those traitors back in Berlin snatched defeat from the victory the German Armies won on the battlefield," A. Hitler.

Posted by SLC | June 8, 2008 11:43 AM

going to succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

We're almost there! Success is in sight! Just give it six more months!

Just out of curiousity, Danceswithgoats, are you between the ages of 18 and 35 years old?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 8, 2008 11:48 AM

If we just put the fucking troops on the fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who collaborated with us?

More planes. Immigrants enrich America. We're a big country.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 11:51 AM

danceswithgoats is right. It really doesn't matter what the reasons with for getting in.

Yes it fucking well does. The reason you don't start a war and occupation for terrible reasons is because it will soon become a very unpopular policy with only bad options to choose from if we're ever to extricate ourselves. It is WRONG to sustain such destructive initiatives in a democracy when they are very unpopular, and it's exactly why those in favor of staying are going to lose their jobs and/or not be promoted to better ones.

We're in now and can't afford to get out until the place is stablized, however you want to define that.

"However you want to define that" is THE FUCKING PROBLEM. And saying we can't afford to get out doesn't make it true. The truth was we couldn't afford to get in.

"Dad, it doesn't matter HOW I got addicted to alcohol. The point is I'm addicted, and need to keep drinking so's I don't fall apart. You can't afford to see me fall apart!"

To leave Iraq as a giant Somalia in the Middle East is unacceptable and frankly, kind of childish.

What's childish is continuing to argue by assertion long after all your side's credibility about the ever-shifting methods for how to fix Iraq has been shot. And employing a stupid and misleading analogy to another country to boot.

Posted by Bill | June 8, 2008 11:53 AM

> If we just put the fucking troops on the
> fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who
> collaborated with us?

That Limbaugh-style comeback seems incisive until one realizes that even under Bush/Cheney and a Republican-controlled Congress we had no tax increase, no draft, and no war-profiteering act to address the costs of the Great PNAC Iraq Adventure. The implication of your snark is that the US should stay in Iraq for 100 years, but of course neither you nor Cheney nor PNAC address the costs (and I don't just mean dollar costs).

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2008 11:55 AM

If we just put the fucking troops on the fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who collaborated with us?

Who fucking cares. These quixotic liberals have no notion of pragmatism. Oh but wait they have to be right because we were wrong in 2003 and must therefore be wrong now.

Posted by Gordon Gekko | June 8, 2008 11:57 AM

To leave Iraq as a giant Somalia in the Middle East is unacceptable and frankly, kind of childish.

Three words: sunk cost fallacy.

And I don't think the relatives of the US troops who would stay alive by leaving Iraq would consider a withdrawal childish. They'd have to fight somewhere else, you say? Where? In the middle of the Pacific, when the Islamodroid armies come marching over the water?
.

Posted by sunsin | June 8, 2008 11:57 AM

To leave Iraq as a giant Somalia in the Middle East is unacceptable and frankly, kind of childish.

To echo an above comment, I'd be surprised to learn the author of this one is over 30.

Posted by Chris | June 8, 2008 11:59 AM

If we just put the fucking troops on the fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who collaborated with us?

Who fucking cares. These quixotic liberals have no notion of pragmatism. Oh but wait they have to be right because we were wrong in 2003 and must therefore be wrong now.

Posted by Gordon Gekko | June 8, 2008 11:59 AM

We're in now and can't afford to get out until the place is stablized, however you want to define that.

I heard that statement a lot in '68-'70.

It was wrong then, too.

Then Nixon declared Vietnam 'stabilized', pulled the troops out, and we lost.

The world didn't stop, either.

Next to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier ought to be the Sunk Costs Memorial.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 12:00 PM

To leave Iraq as a giant Somalia in the Middle East is unacceptable and frankly, kind of childish.

Three words: sunk cost fallacy.

And I don't think the relatives of the US troops who would stay alive by leaving Iraq would consider a withdrawal childish. They'd have to fight somewhere else, you say? Where? In the middle of the Pacific, when the Islamodroid armies come marching over the water?
.

Posted by sunsin | June 8, 2008 12:04 PM

Who fucking cares. These quixotic liberals have no notion of pragmatism. Oh but wait they have to be right because we were wrong in 2003 and must therefore be wrong now.

"Pragmatism," really breathtaking. Yet you don't have a policy that precludes the U.S. having to stay in Iraq, in force, indefinitely. There's pragmatism for you. Plus no one actually considers Bush and his dead-enders to be more interested in the poor collaborators than in being vindicated, so prize your high morals all you want, your side isn't really interested. If they cared about the collaborators they could help them, too. But using them now as moral pawns is shameless; their predicament is of our making, and MANY of them have already paid the ultimate price, or stabilizing occupation notwithstanding.

Posted by Bill | June 8, 2008 12:07 PM

^ our stabilizing occupation

Posted by Bill | June 8, 2008 12:09 PM

Can't we just "declare victory and go home"? Things are kind-of peaceful (probably won't last after the American payoffs to Sunni tribal leaders stop, but that's AFTER the victor parades).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Aiken

Posted by Robert the Red | June 8, 2008 12:11 PM

Then Nixon declared Vietnam 'stabilized', pulled the troops out, and we lost.

The world didn't stop, either.

We got some really nice Vietnamese restaurants out of it, though.

Seriously, which would cost more? Absorbing a hundred thousand refugees from what was the most secular and educated population in the Middle East, or fighting a war there for the next hundred years? I know which one would leave more American troops in the land of the living, that's for sure.

But I forgot, living American troops are very low on the wingnut priority list.

Posted by sunsin | June 8, 2008 12:15 PM

Stop flattering yourself Gekko, you weren't just wrong in 2003. You [second person plural - you seem to have taken the role of spokesman for the warmongers] have been wrong in every prediction, every comment, and every idea about this assault on the people of Iraq.

Five years of being wrong means we get to consider your input for what it is - garbage. You are welcome to shut up now and forever.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 12:18 PM

Seriously, which would cost more? Absorbing a hundred thousand refugees from what was the most secular and educated population in the Middle East, or fighting a war there for the next hundred years? I know which one would leave more American troops in the land of the living, that's for sure.

I would support that plan. My point was just that making an accommodation for refugees presumes a level of planning and tactical sophistication somewhat superior to: put the fucking troops on the fucking planes.

Posted by southpaw | June 8, 2008 12:21 PM

Can't we just "declare victory and go home"?

Not so long as there's a Democratic Party.

The 'goal' for the whole bloody war was for the GOP, operating out of the White House, to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher, using a wartime surge of nationalism and the powers of an aggrandized executive.

It was the key to a one-party state.

The panic seen in some posts here is caused by the imminent collapse of the Glorious Revolution.

This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what thiscountry, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war about it -- just not here. If it wasn't in Iraq, it would have been someplace else.

We've outsourced our Second Civil War.

People like danceswith goats don't have anything invested in which particular stick they can lay their hands on to bash the other party, so long as there's a stick handy.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 12:21 PM

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but this writer is 54 years of age. Further, the Mideast isn't Southeast Asia and this Domino Theory isn't an illusion.

And frankly I'm getting tired of arguments that rely on emotion to carry them. The Congress overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan fashion, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And they were all looking at the same evidence. That's a fact.

And 4,000 lives cost is a tragedy for the families but a pretty small percentage historically. Unfortunately, we've become pretty good at this. Maybe if the cost was higher, we'd been less inclined to get involved in the first place.

And lastly, enough with the 60s analogies. I think those who protested Vietnam await each new war with the hope they can break out the tie-dyes and re-enact the halcyon days of their youths.

The Iraq situation is what it is. These weeks, it seems to be working. Next week, ?. In any events, mature nations don't bail on a job because it's making them unhappy

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 12:28 PM

I have to confess, I don't know what to think about Iraq anymore.

I was staunchly opposed to this misbegotten adventure, the strategy from '03-'06 was obviously idiotic, but today it seems the strategy is actually better. Is it working? At what rate is it working? I've been lied to so damn much I don't know who to believe. If it is working at a reasonable rate to 'stabilize' the country, that seems like what we should do. If we're just inching along with tiny baby steps that'll take 10 years, we should probably just leave.

Can anyone answer which case is happening?

As for Iraqis who helped us? Bring 'em all here, up to a million if necessary.

Posted by mike | June 8, 2008 12:30 PM

In any events, mature nations don't bail on a job because it's making them unhappy

Mature nations don't take jobs like this on in the first place.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 12:32 PM

True, but we did. Hopefully, we've gained wisdom in the interim. If nothing else, the past seven years have provided ample opportunities for growth and maturity in our national policies. Whether we'll learn from those opportunities, ?

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 12:40 PM

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you but this writer is 54 years of age. Further, the Mideast isn't Southeast Asia and this Domino Theory isn't an illusion.

Compare and contrast:

And lastly, enough with the 60s analogies. I think those who protested Vietnam await each new war with the hope they can break out the tie-dyes and re-enact the halcyon days of their youths.

Vietnam comparisons for me, but not for thee. Moron. The Domino Theory was stupid in 1968, it is stupid 40 years later. That you are fine with throwing away 4000 lives for no purpose makes you no better than those who would fly planes into buildings and kill even fewer people. That you would reference only the American lives lost and ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by you and yours makes you far worse than any terrorist, living or dead.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 12:41 PM

A fair number of Democrats are fairly chickshit about leaving Iraq. I attending the Colorado state Democratic convention a few weeks ago. The standard mantra among state leaders on the national scene was that the Democrats would find a way to leave Iraq "responsibly." There is, of course, a bit of ass covering going on here. Does "responsibly" mean leaving with our imperalistic goals intact or partially intact? Or does it mean forgetting the imperialistic goals but negotiating a noninterference agreement with surrounding nations so that Iraqis can sort out their own internal affairs? Or does it mean setting a deadline and leaving, ready or not? I fear that many blue-dog Democrats will want the first interpretation. I prefer the second, but would settle for the third.

Posted by Emrys | June 8, 2008 12:41 PM

A fair number of Democrats are fairly chickshit about leaving Iraq. I attending the Colorado state Democratic convention a few weeks ago. The standard mantra among state leaders on the national scene was that the Democrats would find a way to leave Iraq "responsibly." There is, of course, a bit of ass covering going on here. Does "responsibly" mean leaving with our imperalistic goals intact or partially intact? Or does it mean forgetting the imperialistic goals but negotiating a noninterference agreement with surrounding nations so that Iraqis can sort out their own internal affairs? Or does it mean setting a deadline and leaving, ready or not? I fear that many blue-dog Democrats will want the first interpretation. I prefer the second, but would settle for the third.

Posted by Emrys | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM

> but today it seems the strategy is actually
> better. Is it working? At what rate is it working?

During the Vietnam war independent journalists were able to work throughout South Vietnam and the war zone up to and even after the end (someone took that helicopter evacuation picture from outside the embassy). The percentage killed/wounded was quite small compared to WWII.

Today I do not think there is a single independent journalist working anywhere in Iraq. Certainly no American ones; what little US reporting presence is left in Iraq is holed up in fortified walled compounds re-writing Al Jezzera newscasts because any Iraqi they talk to will be killed.

Does that tell you anything?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM

Born in 1971, I am quite tired of hearing about the 60s. World history neither began nor ended with the Viet Nam War.

Things seem to have settled down in Iraq in recent months to a degree that surprises me. If matched with political progress, that stabilization would make me more inclined to accept continued American military presence in Iraq, precisely because such developments would indicate that our forces might be able to leave behind a well functioning state sometime in the foreseeable future.

However, I have heard no indications of such political progress, and unless that's occuring, I'm not sure exactly what we're accomplishing long-term. Sounds like a holding action. And I have to question the wisdom of a holding action at this level of cost to all parties. Speaking purely pragmatically, it's hard to see how that's the best allocation of resources.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM

Born in 1971, I am quite tired of hearing about the 60s. World history neither began nor ended with the Viet Nam War.

Things seem to have settled down in Iraq in recent months to a degree that surprises me. If matched with political progress, that stabilization would make me more inclined to accept continued American military presence in Iraq, precisely because such developments would indicate that our forces might be able to leave behind a well functioning state sometime in the foreseeable future.

However, I have heard no indications of such political progress, and unless that's occuring, I'm not sure exactly what we're accomplishing long-term. Sounds like a holding action. And I have to question the wisdom of a holding action at this level of cost to all parties. Speaking purely pragmatically, it's hard to see how that's the best allocation of resources.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | June 8, 2008 12:49 PM

A fair number of Democrats are fairly chickshit about leaving Iraq. I attending the Colorado state Democratic convention a few weeks ago. The standard mantra among state leaders on the national scene was that the Democrats would find a way to leave Iraq "responsibly." There is, of course, a bit of ass covering going on here. Does "responsibly" mean leaving with our imperalistic goals intact or partially intact? Or does it mean forgetting the imperialistic goals but negotiating a noninterference agreement with surrounding nations so that Iraqis can sort out their own internal affairs? Or does it mean setting a deadline and leaving, ready or not? I fear that many blue-dog Democrats will want the first interpretation. I prefer the second, but would settle for the third.

Posted by Emrys | June 8, 2008 12:49 PM

> but today it seems the strategy is actually
> better. Is it working? At what rate is it working?

During the Vietnam war independent journalists were able to work throughout South Vietnam and the war zone up to and even after the end (someone took that helicopter evacuation picture from outside the embassy). The percentage killed/wounded was quite small compared to WWII.

Today I do not think there is a single independent journalist working anywhere in Iraq. Certainly no American ones; what little US reporting presence is left in Iraq is holed up in fortified walled compounds re-writing Al Jezzera newscasts because any Iraqi they talk to will be killed.

Does that tell you anything?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 8, 2008 12:49 PM

Iraq isn't the same place now that it was pre-invasion. Any talk of withdrawal shouldn't be premised on the idea that "we should not have gone in the first place" - that horse left the barn already.

What I'd like to see from people like Matt is an explanation of how such a withdrawal would work, and how the jihadists in the region would likely react to it. The violence level in Iraq is finally falling (back to 2003 levels, now) - will that be maintained if we leave?

Posted by James Robertson | June 8, 2008 12:52 PM

Of course people like James Robertson always want to ignore the fact that we have created a nightmare in Iraq by our presence. And what we never see from idiots like him is their own plan. It always amounts to "stay the course and everything will be fine."

As Cranky Observer notes, most of the nation of Iraq is off limits to American observers. Why? Because the lovely invasion so favored by warmongers like James Robertson has made the nation a basket case of violence and death.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 12:57 PM

What I'd like to see from people like Matt is an explanation of how such a withdrawal would work, and how the jihadists in the region would likely react to it

Play this tape backwards. It took less than six months.

As to how the jihadists would react -- we'd be removing the major rationale for their existence.

Either a.) they'd hold the door open for us -- I don't recall the IRA shooting at the British Army as it went up the gangplanks at Dun Laoghaire and Rosslare....

or

b.) they're not actually jihadists, just the armed wings of various political parties jockeying for dominance in Iraq, and then they're mostly interested in shooting at each other...

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 8, 2008 1:10 PM

Recently a vision for success in Iraq was
laid out by General Odierno:

"A self-reliant government that is stable, a government that will contribute inside of the regional context and the international context.

Obviously, that means they need a professional security force...

Obviously, a place that will not allow a safe haven for terrorists or extremists that threaten region... or the United States. ...

An economic engine that [provides for] the
continued improvement of the Iraqi people. ...

From a military perspective, the ability to secure
themselves, and do it in such a way that allows the government to continue to grow."
---------------------------------
It seems to me that there are few, if any, military solutions to reach these goals.
"Stay the course," doesn't cut it.
We've been at it in Iraq for five years now and have made virtually no progress towards these goals.
The State Department doesn't seem up to the task, either.
For thouse of you that want troops for the forseeable future, the Iraq government is making noises that it won't enter into a perminant security deal without a firm timeline for American withdrawal.
How many more Freidman units are acceptible?

thoughts?

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 8, 2008 1:37 PM

One of the many amusing parts of this endless fiasco is how many people actually believe there is something especially difficult or time-consuming about leaving Iraq. Modern mechanized forces can move pretty rapidly, as we saw in the original invasion. There is of course nothing stopping them from moving just as rapidly on the way to Kuwait. When I see people saying this, I have to wonder just what kind of brain damage they've suffered. Of course, considering that the powers that be managed to convince most of the country (possibly including themselves) that Iraq was the coming threat, you could easily come to the conclusion that someone had pithed the entire United States.

For those who are about to suggest that we'd face all kinds of opposition leaving - try to remember that when we invaded, we faced several hundred thousand organized troops and we did just fine. Sure, they had crummy tanks, but anyone opposing our exit would have _no_ tanks. Sure, they were Iraqis, some of the worst soldiers on Earth, but any raggedy-ass guerrillas that tried to snipe at us on the way out would also be Iraqis.

Lastly - what bad things would happen after our exit that would damage the US to the tune of $150 billion a year? If you can't think of any, we'd be better off leaving, because that's the cost of staying. I never see anyone make this calculation, presumably because people can't count that high.

Posted by gcochran | June 8, 2008 1:39 PM

One of the many amusing parts of this endless fiasco is how many people actually believe there is something especially difficult or time-consuming about leaving Iraq. Modern mechanized forces can move pretty rapidly, as we saw in the original invasion. There is of course nothing stopping them from moving just as rapidly on the way to Kuwait. When I see people saying this, I have to wonder just what kind of brain damage they've suffered. Of course, considering that the powers that be managed to convince most of the country (possibly including themselves) that Iraq was the coming threat, you could easily come to the conclusion that someone had pithed the entire United States.

For those who are about to suggest that we'd face all kinds of opposition leaving - try to remember that when we invaded, we faced several hundred thousand organized troops and we did just fine. Sure, they had crummy tanks, but anyone opposing our exit would have _no_ tanks. Sure, they were Iraqis, some of the worst soldiers on Earth, but any raggedy-ass guerrillas that tried to snipe at us on the way out would also be Iraqis.

Lastly - what bad things would happen after our exit that would damage the US to the tune of $150 billion a year? If you can't think of any, we'd be better off leaving, because that's the cost of staying. I never see anyone make this calculation, presumably because people can't count that high.

Posted by gcochran | June 8, 2008 1:44 PM

The Iraq situation is what it is.

God, I love people who use that phrase. It always displays a great education, ability to articulate, and a deep understanding of the issues involved.

Posted by goethean | June 8, 2008 2:49 PM

If you follow the articles in this magazine, the trend of debate there has been for the U.S. armed services to spend less time on direct action and more on training the Iraqi security forces. This has been done and appears -- as I said, as of this week -- to be working. More need to be trained but Petraeus has already stated he might consider sending some troops home this fall. So the strategy appears to be working. Are we now going to adopt a third or fourth strategy before this one runs its course?

And as for the time involved in leaving, I still don't think the military can move that fast, even after Rumsfeld (see this month's article). Part of the reason we're in this mess is because we'd spent some months getting 150,000 men mobilized in the Saudi desert and summer was coming on.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 3:17 PM

So how long should we wait before we start planning to leave Iraq? Let me guess: six months?

We are in Iraq because of people like you. There are hundreds of thousands dead because of people like you. Just today there were 18 American's injured and another body bag because people like you think we should just keep hanging out in Iraq.

How much blood does it take to satiate your lust for the flesh of human beings? Where was your concern for doing the right thing when it came time to start bombing the fuck out of innocent Iraqis?

We can leave, we must leave, and every delay by apologists by you costs human lives.

Posted by Circus Freak | June 8, 2008 3:44 PM

"I still don't think the military can move that fast"

One of the enduring problems with American foreign policy is that the voters, pundits, and key decision makers don't haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. They can't even get into their heads the idea that a mechanized division on good roads with no real opposition can easily move 30 miles an hour. It's _designed_ to be able to do that.
But the opinion of someone who doesn't know this - or for that matter, someone who can't even find Iraq on the map, like most adult Americans, is just as good as anyone else's. Yup. Yet if I were to have these slack-jawed troglodytes killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

Posted by gcochran | June 8, 2008 3:52 PM

To gcochran:

Sure, operationally. But to enable a mechanized division to clip along at 30 mph, you have to have support forces that take months to get into place. Desert Storm started staging in, I think, November and they jumped off in February. I forget how long the buildup to this one took. Something on the same order. I'd imagine disengagement would take a similar amount of time.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 4:07 PM

Thirty miles a day. Sorry.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 4:12 PM

What you need is gas. Rommel managed to push 7th Panzer almost 200 miles in one day. That was in 1940: we're considerably faster than that nowadays. We can go faster still in the absence of organized opposition.

This is ridiculous. I'm supposed to believe that we can't drive out as fast as we drove in?

What took time in 2002/2003 was shipping the heavy armor in in the first place. Filling the tanks, Bradleys and Humvees with gas does not take months.

Why am I arguing with an idiot?

Posted by gcochran | June 8, 2008 4:52 PM

You're forgetting the support structure that's been put into place. Some of the bases they've BRAC'd in the U.S. have taken years to clean up. I doubt they'd be that thorough here but they aren't just going to have off of helicopters and fly away.

I've just looked over the projected Iraqi Security Forces order of battle. Based on what's been done and what needs to be done, I say they can get out in 16 to 30 months, one to two years to stand up the rest of the ISF and four to six months to break camp and get out or retrench or what have you. in any case, 2010 seems doable.

Since Obama has been stating his intention to have all the troops out 16 months after he takes office, he's probably hearing the same things and is going for the optimistic end of the scale.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 8, 2008 5:11 PM

Pete Seeger is still singing a song he wrote during Vietnam, "Bring 'em home," with somewhat updated lyrics.

Who knew he was channeling Mayor Daley I.

Posted by devtob | June 8, 2008 5:34 PM

That you are fine with throwing away 4000 lives for no purpose makes you no better than those who would fly planes into buildings and kill even fewer people. That you would reference only the American lives lost and ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered by you and yours makes you far worse than any terrorist, living or dead. Posted by Circus Freak

4,000 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan battling radical Islamists is not a high price, as wars go. A serious war, like invading Pakistan as Obama advocates in extremis now THAT would produce the sort of major American casualties we suffered in our major wars..And yes, Lefty traitor, we are better than the terrorists that hit us in 9/11.
As for the hundred thousand or so Iraqi dead, the bulk of them were not killed by "you and yours", but the dear allies of the Left - the radical Islamists.

There are hundreds of thousands dead because of people like you. Just today there were 18 American's injured and another body bag because people like you think we should just keep hanging out in Iraq.
How much blood does it take to satiate your lust for the flesh of human beings? Circus Freak

1. There are hundreds of thousands of people dead because of your Muslim freak allies, Circus Freak. Not "you infidel interlopers". In the last 60 or so years, Muslims have been happy to slaughter tens of millions without any US presence - From the mass slaughter in black Africa, up to Algeria, endless war in Plaestine,over to Iraq, the great democides of Partition and Bangladesh's creation, all the way to the butchering of 200,000 in East Timor.

2. Blaming the US for what Al Qaeda and Iraqi death squads did 2004-2007 is akin to blaming all the slaughtering the Japs did in Asia in WWII as all stemming from the US/UK limiting Japan's power and access to resources, then putting the Emperor's subjects under an oil and steel embargo.

3. As for lust of the blood of humans beings? Unlike traitor scum such as yourself, Circus Freak, most of us do not look up daily casualty reports hoping and praying there are lots of deaths that you can pretend you care about, to exploit to make your political points. The rest of us are grateful that the Surge strategy has worked and along with high level military commanders telling Iran to stop bringing lethal weaponry into Iraq - casualties are way down.....

Posted by chris ford | June 8, 2008 7:52 PM

The morons weigh in here:

"We're in now and can't afford to get out until the place is stablized, however you want to define that."

Fine - let's define it as stabilized now and leave.

About as smart as what you just wrote.

"If we just put the fucking troops on the fucking planes, what happens to all the Iraqis who collaborated with us?"

They die - maybe. Meanwhile, the war killed over a million and displaced four million more. Where was your concern then, moron?

"The Congress overwhelmingly, in a bipartisan fashion, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. And they were all looking at the same evidence. That's a fact."

No, it's not. Various Congress persons voted against the war, looking at the REAL facts. Your statement is bullshit.

"What I'd like to see from people like Matt is an explanation of how such a withdrawal would work, and how the jihadists in the region would likely react to it. The violence level in Iraq is finally falling (back to 2003 levels, now) - will that be maintained if we leave?"

What Id like to see from bullshit artists like Robertson and Powell is how he intends to get from "here" to "there", given the utter lack of evidence that any such movement has occurred in five years or will occur in the next five years.

Meanwhile, what is actually HAPPENING is as follows:

1) Provincial elections are coming up this fall which will empower the Sunnis and Sadr's movement.

2) Parliamentary elections are coming up next year which will further empower the Sunnis and Sadr's movement.

3) Net result - Maliki gets kicked out, a Sunni-Shia coalition government comes in and kicks out the US.

4) When the US doesn't leave - because the US is there to secure the oil and build FIFTY - FIFTY - permanent bases in Iraq plus control the air space - the Iraqis will unite to kick the US out.

I'd like to see Robertson or Powell explain how this is NOT the scenario that will go down - and prove it.

As for the speed at which the US could withdraw, people with KNOWLEDGE of military logistics have stated it could be done within 18-20 months, no problem. It could be done sooner, but that would increase risks to the remaining troops.

And almost a year ago, we had this:

Top US general says he's received plan for complete Iraq withdrawal
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_gets_preview_of_Iraq_withdrawal_0802.html

The issue is only partly how fast we could get out of Iraq. The slow part will be getting out of Kuwait once everything is moved there. The inspection and shipping to the US of the gear will take a year or more.

Which is irrelevant, because Bush and Cheney aren't leaving Iraq in any event - and neither is Obama once Bush and Cheney start the Iran war.

Of course, the Iran war will likely drive the US out of Iraq under the worst possible conditions. If the Shia in Iraq come to the aid of Iran - as they are almost certain to do - the US military there will be under continuous fire. William Lind believes it's even possible that the US could lose its entire military in Iraq if Iran were able to take advantage of bad weather to limit US air power.

Bottom line: Fighting Iran AND fighting Iraq's population is not a good idea.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 8:47 PM

This is ridiculous. I'm supposed to believe that we can't drive out as fast as we drove in?
What took time in 2002/2003 was shipping the heavy armor in in the first place. Filling the tanks, Bradleys and Humvees with gas does not take months.
Why am I arguing with an idiot?
Posted by gcochran

To answer your last question, it is because the very stupidest people without a clue tend to think other people are idiots. Or immaturity - where "know it all 5th Graders, college freshmen" are convinced they are the sole custodians of wisdom of matters largely beyong their ken.

To address your 1st contention, that all problems are solved as soon as we evacuate - look at the ease with which we evacuated out the equivalent number of NOLA residents who were too poor, stupid, or lazy to evacuate from Katrina. If all problems were solved by "cut 'n run", why were the consequences of Katrina not over when the last welfare dependent was removed at a better than 30 MPH clip and ensconced in comfy public housing, Section 8, or private charity housing in above ocean level Louisiana cities or in other US cities?

The answer is simply dumping the NOLA parasites onto buses and shipping them away from and abandoning "the bad area" was never the solution. It would have been a half ass or worse solution to just let the ocean have 3/4th of New Orleans back after all the hard work to build the place.

Same with Iraq.

To address your 2nd contention, tanks, Bradleys, and humvees represent perhaps 5% of the 150 billion or so in portable equipment we have in-theater. You have no clue of what is at Main bases, or FOBs. Only someone never in the military thinks base closure is simply moving the vehicles out. It is done in a defeat - when a routed military drops it's gear and supplies in a full-scale panicked retreat, but not ordinarily. Disengagement is not a matter of piling into any running vehicle and fleeing in fear. To avoid giving the rest to America's enemies, we either take it out to save taxpayer funds,or blow it up, or make a judgment that the Iraqi government can retain it without it being used against us.

Drew Shaw's estimate is pretty good. I would say 24-30 months...and longer if we leave forces to rebuild the Iraqi AF and Navy, and a force to ensure Al Qaeda doesn't come back after the Surge and Sunni Awakening have devestated the terrorists from all of Iraq but scattered Jihadis and a Mosul force in the throes of annihilation....If we stay for certain missions, we have 40K there all through Obama's (or McCain's) time in office..

Posted by chris ford | June 8, 2008 8:52 PM

They die - maybe. Meanwhile, the war killed over a million and displaced four million more. Where was your concern then, moron?

But we could save them, right? The translators, I mean. It would mean issuing a couple thousand visas and running transport flights for a few weeks. After which we could go. Even with a very rapid withdrawal, it is within our power to save their lives without injuring our policy objectives. Or we can abandon the people who helped us to die.

Posted by southpaw | June 9, 2008 1:41 AM