Ex NSA Chief Retired General Calls for Iraq Withdrawal to Protect US Security

Why does General Odom hate America?

More and more we see people coming to the same conclusion that Murtha did. Democrats like Kerry and Clinton better be careful or they are going to be left behind.

 

Follow Jack Murtha -- and ignore the dangerous pablum being dished out by the likes of Joe Lieberman who, having just returned from his fourth trip to Iraq in the last 18 months, cited the "progress" being made there and characterized the war as being "between 27 million Iraqis and 10,000 terrorists." Forgetting something, aren't you, Joe? The 160,000 U.S. troops -- which the majority of Iraqis continue to see as "occupying forces." Listen to Murtha: "We've become the enemy." The fuel for the insurgents' fire.

Democrats should, at all costs, avoid following Hillary Clinton and her have-it-both-ways rhetoric. "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," she wrote in an email to supporters this week. "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." Talk about covering all your bases -- and standing for nothing.

The party must also aggressively reject the afraid-of-their-own-shadow bleating of DLC anachronisms like Marshall Whitman who described Bush's stay-the-course bullheadedness as "expressing resolve" and Murtha's position as "offering surrender" and "manna from heaven" for Republicans.

So, once and for all, Democrats need to fight the battle between the DLC hawks who lack the imagination to see that you can simultaneously be strong on national security and against the war in Iraq and those George Washington Democrats who take to heart the Father of Our Country's admonition about avoiding foreign entanglements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dems-template-for-succes_b_11597.html

 

Immediate withdraw would be a disaster, Iraq will have a civil war and Al queda will get even more recruits. However, we do need to pull out, we just need a better plan than the one we had going into this mess.

It's not alway black or white. I wan't for going into Iraq, but understand why alot of people thought it was necessary. However, I was and still appalled about the complete incompetance in how we handled the situation. No plan, no consesus, not enough allies.

 

Murtha had a real plan. The GOP couldn't stand to debate it, so they changed it into a farce.

 

I too thought this would be true. But I've revised my thinking on it a bit. A recent poll in Iraq said that 80% of the country want us out and anther said that 80% of the insurgency are Iraqi and not radical AQ. Now my thinking is that if we did pull back (notice I didn't say out) to some place like Kuwait or Turkey and have a quick strike force (like Murtha suggests) That 80% of insurgency would end because they would have accomplished what they wanted; the US out of their country. Then you have the 5 to 10% of radicals that could be neutralized by the strike force.

Also, The whole suggestion that if we leave Iraq it will become a breeding ground for AQ. I don't by it. We will still keep a close watch on the country and as soon as these cells pop up the strike forces will be there to take them out.

Lets not kid ourselves; the US will be in Iraq for a long time. We just have to figure out the balance. We will still have our hand in their economy, politics and pretty much everything about the country for many years to come. But the military option has run its course. We have to try other tactics.

 

glynch, an immediate pullout would send a message to all of our enemies -- the message that it takes 2,000 deaths to beat America in a war. We'll never win a war in our future if this message is sent. Is this what you want?

Do you want to *hand* the terrorists a victory? Do you want to embolden them and let them know that America's will is *weak*? This is inviting more terrorists attacks at home.

I'm glad you libs weren't around during other wars in our country's history. We'd still be paying the stamp tax to Britain and going down to Georgia to buy slaves.

 

It's quite different though. There were noble principles for which we fought those two wars you referenced. The Fathers were willing to put their lives on the line for independence from despotic colonial rule. Slavery was an evil that needed to be abolished and the foundation of the Union was at stake with southern secession (whichever cause behind the war you subscribe to). In Iraq, what exactly is our mission? At this point, securing the peace, but how many more American lives will it take?

Jorge, the flaw in your argument is that there were no terrorists to begin with in Iraq. We're fighting out a war we ourselves created and an enemy we ourselves created.

 

TJ,

I disagree, we won the war, now we need to let the locals govern themselves.

Only they can root out the terrorists, we can't.....

Bring our boys home, and let the Iraqis duke it out amongst themselves....and support their elected government as much as possible economically.

DD

 

Exactly...almost ,

Once we're gone, what remains of the insurgency will be easy for the Iraqi forces to mop-up, particularly when the Iraqi public no longer support it.

As for the hardline Sunni insurgents, some will remain but our exit will force the Shiites to work harder and quicker to get Sunnis on board. Our continued presence in Iraq only makes the unification of Shiite and Sunni leadership more difficult, not easier.

And remember, the Iraqi leaders recently gave insurgents carte-blanche to kill American servicemen. They understand how their public feels. Time to leave. Tell the Iraqi gov they have only 'X' months to mend fences with the Sunnis because we will be gone...totally.

 

And the 50,000 US troops who died in Vietnam, should we have continued throwing more troops into that struggle? The 24,000 who died in Korea? How many US deaths does it take to win a war? How many does it take to make a war worth it?

The problem with your argument is that it becomes a self-fulling argument that says that since we've had some troops die we need to continue to commit troops to win it just to justify the deaths already.

Fortunately we've lost relatively few troops but does that mean we continue to risk the lives of our troops indefinately? As DaDokata and others have noted we've technically already won by overthrowing Saddam. I don't think we start withdrawing right away but we need to start planning to leave.

 

US Army admits Iraqis outnumber foreign fighters as its main enemy
By Toby Harnden in Ramadi
(Filed: 04/12/2005)

Iraqis, rather than foreign fighters, now form the vast majority of the insurgents who are waging a ferocious guerrilla war against United States forces in Sunni western Iraq, American commanders have revealed.

Their conclusion, disclosed to the Sunday Telegraph in interviews over 10 days in battle-torn Anbar province, contradicts the White House message that outsiders are the principal enemy in Iraq.

Of 1,300 suspected insurgents arrested over the past five months in and around Ramadi, none has been a foreigner. Col John Gronski, senior officer in the town, Anbar's provincial capital, said that almost all insurgent fighting there was by Iraqis. Foreigners provided only money and logistical support.

"The foreign fighters are staying north of the [Euphrates] river, training and advising, like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam," he said.

Although there are tensions between Iraqi insurgents and foreigners from the group al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by the Jordanian zealot Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, there are also alliances of convenience.

Col Gronski identified Mohammed Bassim Hazim, a former Ramadi taxi driver known as Abu Khattab, as the leader of the town's insurgency. Abu Khattab has become an "affiliate" of Zarqawi's group, many of whose members are Iraqis, and has been responsible for most of the 1,770 attacks against US and Iraqi forces in the past three months.

Ramadi, unlike neighbouring Fallujah, where 10 marines were killed by a bomb on Friday, has never been taken over by rebels. But it remains disputed turf at best. Thirty-four troops have died there since the beginning of September. Insurgent casualties have been much heavier - more than 180 in the same period in the town's eastern half alone.

American troop strengths have doubled in the past year with a US Army armoured battalion now supplementing a US Marine light infantry battalion.

Lt Col Michael Herbert, a brigade intelligence officer, said Abu Khattab has become an almost mythical figure. "He is the face of the insurgency in Ramadi. He has been behind the majority of the attacks." He was arrested by US forces last year but released, apparently due to lack of evidence and because his significance was not then appreciated. His photograph shows him wearing a Guantanamo-style orange jumpsuit.

The insurgents have the support of most locals. "They have the ability to move freely around the city," said Capt Twain Hickman, the commander of India Company of the 3/7 US Marines battalion. "That means they can attack at a time of their choosing."

Col Gronski said the local nature of the insurgency meant that even the few civic leaders prepared to work with the Americans view the fighters as legitimate. "They see them as resistance. They don't view these local guys placing IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and firing mortars at us as insurgents."

Some Iraqis in Ramadi now adhere to Zarqawi's radical Islamist philosophy, but for most the insurgency is about removing the occupiers, Col Herbert said. "Their family and tribal honour has been impugned if we're on their ground. They're almost duty bound to fight."

Unemployment, which is over 50 per cent, and widespread intimidation are also fuelling the insurgency. "It's economic," said Lt Col Robert Roggeman, who commands the 2/69 US Army battalion. "Two hundred bucks to shoot at an American, 50 bucks to lay down an IED."

Iraqi officials who deal with the Americans are routinely killed. Ma'amoun Salmi Rasheed, the governor of Anbar, has survived a dozen assassination attempts. His predecessor and deputy were murdered. Little reconstruction is being done, said Col Roggeman. "Here, it's security first."

The Pentagon plan for the country is to hand over "battle space" to Iraqi forces once they are capable of combating the insurgency so that American forces can withdraw. But this scheme has been beset by problems in Ramadi.

A year ago the local police force was disbanded because many of its members were insurgents. In October, the provincial police chief was arrested on suspicion of diverting salaries to fund the insurgency.

There are three Iraqi army battalions in the town, comprised mainly of Shia troops from outside Ramadi, where the population is Sunni. If American troops exit prematurely, this could be a factor in sparking a civil war.

Splits among insurgents, however, could assist the US aim to isolate Zarqawi's group. Recent weeks have seen what the military terms "red on red" gun battles between insurgent groups.

Bombs near houses and one that killed civilians on a bus prompted the clashes and could have eroded Abu Khattab's support. "He is feared rather than popular," said Col Herbert. "He might be overstepping the mark."

But the commander of one of the Iraqi battalions, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, said it would be "at least two or three years" before his men were ready to fight alone.

"The terrorists control Ramadi and the mosques assist them," he said. "We are getting better but the Iraqi army is still weak and we need equipment. We always rely on the Americans to do the hardest jobs for us."

Each week, US forces achieve successes. In the recent Operation Machete, Capt Hickman's men uncovered an Aladdin's cave of arms buried in caches close to the banks of the Euphrates.

There had been intelligence that the munitions were being transported across the river on small boats. But since Iraq still has huge stockpiles of weapons from the Saddam era, insurgents are unlikely to run out of supplies.

"These insurgents have a great deal of tactical and operational patience," said Col Gronski. "They will continue to look for the time and the place because time is on their side."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...4.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/04/ixportal.html