The Libertarian Party's exit plan for Iraq

[shanek]

http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

Quote:

Iraq Exit Strategy: Troop Withdrawal
The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from
Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,00011. Troops would leave
gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete
withdrawal in one year’s time. This will bring the troops out of harm’s way quickly,
preventing more unnecessary loss of life. Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give
the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble
areas.
As the United States removes troops from Iraq, 30,000 will be relocated to other
Middle Eastern countries. Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for
peacekeeping purposes. Decisions regarding troop reallocation will be based on the
locations of existing U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The most likely
candidates would be Turkey, Bahrain, Egypt and Oman. These countries were chosen
based on current foreign military base information in the Department of Defense
Base Structure Report12. All of the previously mentioned countries have U.S. military
bases that possess additional acres to house more troops. The remaining troops,
numbering approximately 100,000 would return home rather being relocated to
other Middle Eastern countries. This would help reduce the strain on military reserves
and free up military resources for the War on Terror.
Those against the immediate withdrawal of American troops believe an American
departure will create a significant power vacuum. They assert that Iraqi security
forces are ill-equipped to stand alone. It is feasible that, given a year for training,
the Iraqi security forces would be able to control the insurgency. As of January 2005,
the Iraqi Army had a total of 68 operating battalions which includes the Iraqi
National Guard that was incorporated into the Iraqi Army13. The Iraqi government
has its own Special Operation Forces, including a counter-terrorist force to combat
insurgents14. As of January 2005 there were approximately 55,000 trained Iraqi
police officers. Furthermore, there are five police academies that together train
approximately 3,500 police officers a month. Using these numbers, approximately
42,000 officers could be trained in one year, almost doubling their current numbers.
At the end of the troop withdrawal process, the Iraqi government could have 97,000
police officers trained and placed on the streets.
By removing our troops from Iraq and relocating them to various bases in the Middle
East, we remove the insurgency’s common enemy. The insurgency consists of many
different factions with no central leadership. One faction consists of leftover
remnants of the former regime, such as the Ba’ath party, Republican Guard and the
paramilitary Fida’iyin. A second faction consists of religious groups who wish to turn
Iraq into an Islamic state. Some of these groups are trained overseas or are foreign
nationals, the latter including Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis and Sudanese15. Another
faction is comprised of nationalist groups who oppose American troops being
stationed in Iraq and were against Saddam Hussein’s regime16. According to the
Strategic Studies Institute, most of the armed opposition has been Sunni17. Even
though major Sunni political parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iraqi
Islamic Party are participating in the political process, many Sunni clerics have
strongly opposed the American military presence. “Without the occupation as an
outside enemy, those much smaller sectors of the resistance that are motivated
largely by religious extremism and who are responsible for some of the worst
Libertarian National Committee • 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Suite 100 • Washington DC 20037
(202) 333-0008 • Fax (202) 333-0072 • www.LP.org
- 5 -
violence against civilians, will likely become isolated from the broader sectors of the
resistance,� the Strategic Studies Institute authors noted18.
Negotiations with nationalist groups not tied to the former regime should take place
in tandem with the withdrawal of U.S. troops. “We are not going to win the
unconditional surrender from the insurgents and have no choice but to somehow
bring them into society,� said retired Army Colonel Paul Hughes, an Iraq war veteran
who is now at the government-funded U.S. Institute for Peace19. There is evidence
suggesting that these groups would consider surrendering in exchange for immediate
and complete U.S. withdrawal and major political concessions to the Sunnis20.
Removing the Sunni nationalist groups will help to isolate the more extreme
elements of the insurgency. Divisions between secular Iraqi insurgents and Muslim
extremists are becoming more evident; insurgents native to Iraq have denounced
the brutal tactics of the extremists21. It is hoped that a negotiated settlement with
the mainstream faction of the insurgency will help to further polarize the extremists.

Quote:

Direct-Aid Program
After U.S. troop withdrawal begins, a direct-aid program will begin for the Iraqi
government. The U.S. government will disperse funds directly to the Iraqi
government to be used strictly for the creation of viable infrastructure. The Iraqi
government will exercise complete control over the spending of funds and the
contracting of projects. Giving Iraqis complete administrative and fiscal control over
rebuilding their infrastructure will allow them to tap into local “know-how� that only
Iraqis possess.
Safeguards will be put in place to ensure U.S. aid is spent efficiently and effectively.
Strict accounting guidelines promoting transparency and accountability must be in
place prior to the disbursement of aid. An independent third-party auditor must be
hired to perform an audit every six months until the program has ended. These
audits will be made available to Congress and to the American public. If fraud is
detected, aid monies will be withheld until the problem is corrected.
The Iraqi government will be required to choose and hire a private firm to perform
oversight on private contractors. The firm’s mission will be to ensure that all contract
work is completed in a timely and efficient manner and to prevent fraud, waste and
inefficiency. The overseeing firm will be required to furnish reports to the Iraqi and
American governments. Additionally, these reports will be available for full public
disclosure.
Even though the direct-aid program will be a substantial cost to American taxpayers,
the United States is now obligated to make sure Iraq becomes a stable, independent
and functional country. Substantial progress has been made in rebuilding the Iraqi
infrastructure, but this does not satisfy the need for additional aid. A conservative
estimate by USAID projects a total reconstruction expenditure of $150 billion22.
Based on current estimates, oil sales alone will not provide adequate funding for
reconstruction projects. A Centre for Global Energy Studies report states that if Iraq
were to pay all financial obligations without any outside assistance, the nation would
continue to run a deficit into 201623. Additionally, Iraq has not met the projected 2.5
million barrels per day (MBPD), with their average output in the second week of June
a 2.16 MBPD24. Iraq’s oil revenues for the entire year of 2004 were $18.1 billion25.
Libertarian National Committee • 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW Suite 100 • Washington DC 20037
(202) 333-0008 • Fax (202) 333-0072 • www.LP.org
- 6 -
Iraq’s national debt is estimated to be between $119 to $135 billion before any debt
forgiveness has occurred, and the country owes an estimated $50 billion in war
reparations stemming from the 1991 Gulf War26. Many debt forgiveness initiatives
are already underway. Paris Club members have agreed to forgive a total of $42
billion of Iraq’s debt27. Iraq is still obligated to repay the Paris Club nations almost $8
billion28. The United States has agreed to forgive $4.5 billion of Iraq’s debt29. Other
countries will not provide debt relief until a freely elected government is in place. It
is still unclear whether or not Kuwait will forgive Iraq’s debt, estimated at $16 billion,
or the outstanding war reparations30. It is probable that, even with the institution of
debt-forgiveness programs, a direct aid program administered by the United States
will be required.
A direct aid program will give Iraq the best chance of becoming a stable, democratic,
free-market-oriented country. It is imperative that the Iraqi economy be fully
developed as quickly as possible. Vast, persistent unemployment would create a
fertile breeding ground for terrorists. The direct aid program will give Iraq vital
assistance while giving the Iraqi people, through their government, control over the
disbursement of funds. In previous successful postwar reconstructions, such as
Europe after World War II, the reconstructing governments managed the Marshall
Plan funds, not the United States31.

Thoughts?

[Ed]

Bloodshed.

I am an isolationist at heart but this requires a bit more thought.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

Iraq Exit Strategy: Troop Withdrawal
The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from
Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,00011. Troops would leave
gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete
withdrawal in one year’s time. This will bring the troops out of harm’s way quickly,
preventing more unnecessary loss of life.



Thoughts?

Sounds like a project for freshmen studying "How to save the world"?

Of course by the time half or more of those troops have gone, the remainder will be so thin on the ground they won't even be able to protect their supply lines or make a meaningfull dent in the insurgency, and by the time 75% of them have left the remainder will be locked up in their camps with Al Jazeera showing terrorists lobbing grenades at them just for fun. The last ones will be hard pressed to cover their backs while the world watches them run for the choppers.

I say, if there are 140,000 Libertarians in the country, we should ask them to take a year's sabatical from How to save the world, and go to Iraq to implement their plan. Jackasses.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Bloodshed.

I am an isolationist at heart but this requires a bit more thought.

No, it requires thought, period.

[pmurray]

Exit policy:

1) The next president of the US abjectly apologises for the illegal invasion, points out that Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

2) Every US citizen is withdrawn from Iraq. Put 'em on ships, planes, march 'em overland.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Sounds like a project for freshmen studying "How to save the world"?

Of course by the time half or more of those troops have gone, the remainder will be so thin on the ground they won't even be able to protect their supply lines or make a meaningfull dent in the insurgency, and by the time 75% of them have left the remainder will be locked up in their camps with Al Jazeera showing terrorists lobbing grenades at them just for fun. The last ones will be hard pressed to cover their backs while the world watches them run for the choppers.

I say, if there are 140,000 Libertarians in the country, we should ask them to take a year's sabatical from How to save the world, and go to Iraq to implement their plan. Jackasses.

you forget about the growing Iraqi security forces. They will be running the place....thats the plan isn't it?

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by pmurray
1) The next president of the US abjectly apologises for the illegal invasion, points out that Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

Riiiight! Then we put Saddam back in charge and wish him luck in mass murder, imprisoning innocent Iraqis and cutting the hands and ears of young men. The world will swoon with joy.

[corplinx]

Sounds a lot like the Bush plan. Trickle out the soldiers. etc.

[Diamond]

It will be helicopters from the roof of the US Embassy all over again....

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond
It will be helicopters from the roof of the US Embassy all over again....

It will be black helicopters...

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Bloodshed.

I am an isolationist at heart but this requires a bit more thought.

It's bloodshed either way.

[Earthborn]

It is of course easy to come up with all sorts of plans if you will never have to be responsible to actually carry them out. Add a few numbers so it makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. And then add a few soundbites that make it sound popular: "More troops to Afghanistan". It's easy when you think about it.

So let's see whether I can come up with a few of my own.

Here is a libertarian one:
Leave it up to the Free Market. Remove all the soldiers and let private defense contractors handle the thing. The Free Market will solve any problem without resorting to force. The Pencil Proves It.

How about something Neocon:
There is nothing a tactical nuke cannot fix.

A fairly reasonable option:
Run to the UN and shout: "Mommy, mommy! I broke my toy. Fix it for me."

Another option that might actually work:
Ask actual military experts how to it should be done.

A typical Bush administration solution:
Withdraw. Whatever the consequences, spin it into great progress and say that it is exactly the thing you intended. Except for the bad consequences, but those were to be expected and are not really relevant.

A liberal solution:
Negotiate with the insurgents and friendly ask them to stop, and if they do you will withdraw all the troops.

Guess which one - I heard on CNN - is being carried out...

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Guess which one - I heard on CNN - is being carried out...

Can't guess. Which one?

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn

A liberal solution:
Negotiate with the insurgents and friendly ask them to stop, and if they do you will withdraw all the troops.

Guess which one - I heard on CNN - is being carried out...

If you are referring to the last one, then please note that while U.S. forces are meeting with insurgents, Donald Rumsfeld said that they are not meeting with those "with blood on their hands."

Voice of America (South Korea)

Quote:

Three suicide attacks in Iraq's northern city of Mosul have left at least 30 people dead, and wounded dozens of others. The latest violence comes as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirms American participation in contacts with Iraqis linked to the insurgency.

The attacks in Mosul targeted a police station, an Iraqi army base, and the city's main hospital. In the first attack, an explosives-laden truck blew up near the police station's perimeter wall, killing several people and leaving the facility partially destroyed. Shortly thereafter, a suicide driver detonated a bomb in a crowded parking lot outside a Mosul army base, killing workers employed at the site. A third attacker set off explosives strapped to his body at the hospital's guardhouse.

Asked about the continuing level of violence in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said insurgent attacks could increase in the months ahead, as Iraq's elected leaders work on a new constitution. Mr. Rumsfeld spoke on the U.S. television program Fox News Sunday.

"It [insurgent-led violence] is about level, actually, in terms of the number of incidents,� said Mr. Rumsfeld. “The lethality is up. There is no question that the enemy is a thinking enemy, that their attacks are more lethal than they had been previously. They are killing a lot more Iraqis. But if you think about the insurgency, they do not have any vision. There is no Ho Chi Minh. There is no Mao. This is led by Zarqawi. He is a Jordanian. He is the enemy of the Iraqi people."

The defense secretary also sought to downplay the significance of reports of contacts involving U.S. officials and some elements of Iraq's insurgency. The Sunday Times of London reports two such meetings have taken place outside Baghdad in recent weeks, in hopes of stemming violence in the country.

Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Mr. Rumsfeld said no one should be surprised that U.S. and Iraqi officials want to exert influence on members of the insurgency, and that such contacts are common.

"They [contacts] go on all the time,� he added. “Second, the Iraqis have a sovereign government. They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those [relationships] from time to time."

But Mr. Rumsfeld said no negotiations are taking place with hardened terrorist elements belonging to al-Qaida or those, as he put it, "with blood on their hands."

[Skeptic]

1) The next president of the US abjectly apologises for the illegal invasion, points out that Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

If by "Iraqis" you mean "Saddam Hussein's thugs", which was the real meaning of "the Iraqi people" before the invasion.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
you forget about the growing Iraqi security forces. They will be running the place....thats the plan isn't it?

I didn't forget. Need I explain further?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
http://www.lp.org/exitplan.pdf

Thoughts?

Maybe if we issued each Iraqi their own personal nuclear device***, it just might work.



***According to the latest in Constitutional...ummm..."scholarship", our US 2nd Ammendment allows each of us the right to carry a personal nuclear bomb.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Bloodshed.

Why?

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
Of course by the time half or more of those troops have gone, the remainder will be so thin on the ground they won't even be able to protect their supply lines or make a meaningfull dent in the insurgency,

Read the actual proposal, why don't you? The idea is that the Iraqi government would have enough time to replace the troops as they left, so the troops that remained would be concentrated in certain areas.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by pmurray
Exit policy:

1) The next president of the US abjectly apologises for the illegal invasion, points out that Iraq belongs to Iraqis.

2) Every US citizen is withdrawn from Iraq. Put 'em on ships, planes, march 'em overland.

Sounds good in principle, but it would be very dangerous. There does need to be a controlled pull-out.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Read the actual proposal, why don't you? The idea is that the Iraqi government would have enough time to replace the troops as they left, so the troops that remained would be concentrated in certain areas.

Why don't you credit me with a little smarts, and allow me to avoid explaining the obvious answer to that?

[Solitaire]

If I were running the libertarian party then I would send in 400,000 troups
from our bases around the world, who want to join in the fight and win by
the way, and seal the Iraq borders. No getting in or out without a check.
I'd then do a through scan of the country, walk the troups in one kilometer
a day clearing mines, finding weapons, leaving no stone unturned. Ending
in securing the cities, rebuilding infrastucture with iraqies not halburtons,
and get a goverment up and running in six years, basically cleaning up the
mess Bush made.

[Roadtoad]

I did read the entire proposal, and I have to agree with Ed. Bloodshed is the result of such a plan.

Oddly enough, Earthborn probably has the right answer embedded in that rather odd post, (odd that is, for someone from the Netherlands. Are you sure you weren't an American in a previous life?) Sad fact, though, is that we'll probably wind up with the Liberal answer, and we'll either have Saddam Hussein back in power, and as violent and dangerous as ever, or someone worse.

I'm glad the LP is actually trying to be a part of the discussion. But I could wish for a more realistic approach to the solution. They're headed in the right direction, (Bush isn't), but I'm less sanguine about how prepared the Iraqi military and Iraqi police forces are.

We'll see.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
A typical Bush administration solution:
Withdraw. Whatever the consequences, spin it into great progress and say that it is exactly the thing you intended. Except for the bad consequences, but those were to be expected and are not really relevant.

How true. This guy was sold to us on his ability to "hire the right people" so he would get the best advice from the best experts. That hasn't worked out so well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
A liberal solution:
Negotiate with the insurgents and friendly ask them to stop, and <strike>if they do</strike> you will withdraw all the troops.

The only problem here is the liberal solution doesn't require that they do what they agree to do. Just getting someone to say it is enough. If later on they do something else, we can just pretend it's not really happening and they're trying.

[Kopji]

Quote:

As of January 2005 there were approximately 55,000 trained Iraqi
police officers. Furthermore, there are five police academies that together train approximately 3,500 police officers a month. Using these numbers, approximately 42,000 officers could be trained in one year, almost doubling their current numbers.
At the end of the troop withdrawal process, the Iraqi government could have 97,000 police officers trained and placed on the streets.

This part seems weak. Are the police being trained the right kind needed to keep peace? Not practical for instance, to put Shiite police in a Sunni area. We would need to look at the ratios, presuming that Kurdish police would be most effective policing Kurds, etc.

The paragraph implies the academies graduate 3500 police each month, but that is not what precisely what was said. Is 3500 the total monthly capacity of training, or the throughput?

There is a question of efficiency. The paper implies a high skill ratio (approximately 1 Iraqi policeman is equivalent to 1 US troop). Various news articles have indicated this is not the case. Even in Kurdish areas police sort of 'vanished' when attacked.

If one month of training is what they actually get, we cannot expect an Iraqi off the street with one month of training to be equivalent to a seasoned soldier.

It's nice to be thinking about this but I suspect that there is not an exit plan that will not involve civil war or serious bloodshed unless the political arrangement of Iraq is also fundamentally altered. Introducing 'democracy' will not be enough if it only means that the powerful segments prey upon the weaker ones. I do not see anything yet that indicates this is not their way of life.

Changes like dividing Iraq into three separate states and then keeping them from attacking each other might be needed. This idea was frowned on early on but I still think has some merit. Maybe bloodshed lite...

US meeting with insurgents has probably already resulted in the saving American lives, and proportionately shifted to more Iraqi deaths. Reasoning presented to 'bloodfree insurgents' could be that the fewer American deaths there are the easier it is to say things are under control and advocate pulling troops out sooner.

Surely a common goal of both the US and the insurgents. (sarcasm)

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
Thoughts?

Yeah. I think libertarian philosophy has a great deal of merit and it's too bad the party is run by kooks who just can't be trusted to wield real power. Still, I suppose they're useful for getting ideas out there, even if you can't vote for their people.

[coalesce]

It's going to be a minefield no matter which way this turns out. There will be Iraqi and foreign elements that will not like what's going on once the US withdraws. Right now, there are people in the area who don't need a us-against-West excuse to blow each other up (see Lebanon and Syria). All you can do realistically is hope that when the US withdraws that there is enough of a functioning Iraqi infrastructure to deal with the malcontents.

Michael

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by coalesce
It's going to be a minefield no matter which way this turns out.

I think those are the truest words said here yet.

I still can't help thinking the best way is to divide Iraq into separate countries, or at least states, along tribal lines.

[KelvinG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Yeah. I think libertarian philosophy has a great deal of merit and it's too bad the party is run by kooks who just can't be trusted to wield real power.

Uhmm, have you had a look at who's running the country right now?

[Earthborn]

Quote:

Originally posted by ladewig
If you are referring to the last one

Yes, that's the one!

Quote:

Donald Rumsfeld said that they are not meeting with those "with blood on their hands."

If they don't have 'blood on their hands' in what way are they insurgents?

It is not that I condemn such talks, even if they had 'blood on their hands'. I've heard far worse ideas to achieve peace than negotiations with the enemy. It's just all so delightfully ironic...

Quote:

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Bloodshed is the result of such a plan.

Apperently you don't trust 97 000 Iraqi police officers to be able to do what 140 000 American soldiers can't. Good thing the Libertarian Party doesn't share your lack of faith.

Quote:

Are you sure you weren't an American in a previous life?

I'm rather agnostic when it comes to reincarnation, so the answer is no. I am not sure.

So which one of my solutions do you think is the right one? Running to the UN perhaps? Sorry, has been tried.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein back in power, and as violent and dangerous as ever, or someone worse.

Never misunderestimate the power of spin. "At least the Iraqi people have chosen their leader themselves."

Quote:

I'm less sanguine about how prepared the Iraqi military and Iraqi police forces are.

Those insurgents aren't going to let the Americans form those forces without resistance. I have been told that they specifically target recruitment offices for them, or any other Iraqis they consider collaborating with the Americans. So those forces probably won't ever be prepared.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shanek
I still can't help thinking the best way is to divide Iraq into separate countries, or at least states, along tribal lines.

I understand that although Iraq has many different population groups, many Iraqis do have some sense of a national identity. So dividing it up may not be such a popular idea. It will certainly feel to many of them as another thing imposed on them.

Here's an idea: instead of trying to invent what would be best for the Iraqis, why not organise a bunch of referenda on key issues to give them a minimal sense of self-determination?

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn

I'm rather agnostic when it comes to reincarnation, so the answer is no. I am not sure.

You're kidding, I hope. Maybe we should call on Randi to help you sort this out?

Here's an idea: instead of trying to invent what would be best for the Iraqis, why not organise a bunch of referenda on key issues to give them a minimal sense of self-determination?

What do you have against elections? Too minimal?

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
I understand that although Iraq has many different population groups, many Iraqis do have some sense of a national identity.

I'm not so sure about that. Remember that Iraq was artificially carved into place by the British less than 100 years ago. There certainly may be some, but I can't think it would be many.

And besides, if you made each tribal area a state and kept Iraq as a republic, they could still have their nationalistic pride.

Quote:

So dividing it up may not be such a popular idea.

Is anything going to be a really popular idea?

Quote:

It will certainly feel to many of them as another thing imposed on them.

Is anything going to feel like something that isn't imposed on them?

Quote:

Here's an idea: instead of trying to invent what would be best for the Iraqis, why not organise a bunch of referenda on key issues to give them a minimal sense of self-determination?

Given the way the elections went, that doesn't seem to be such a hot idea.

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
I'm rather agnostic when it comes to reincarnation, so the answer is no. I am not sure.

You're kidding, I hope. Maybe we should call on Randi to help you sort this out?

Are you sure? I'm not sure. Convinced, maybe, but not sure. I think it is so unlikely that I "walk in faith" that such things are not possible. Just as I do with religion. That doesn't make me sure. I've never seen evidence one way or the other. That's what being agnostic means. You're only sure you're not sure, and not always so sure of that. You're willing to assert your assumption, but not as if it is the be all and end all of absolute truth. You simple are not sure.
/derail

[John Bentley]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Yeah. I think libertarian philosophy has a great deal of merit and it's too bad the party is run by kooks who just can't be trusted to wield real power. snip...

Ain't that the truth. I love the libertarian ideals, its just the people in the party are such nuts, that I could never vote to put any of them into really powerful positions. They seem to be better suited for local admins. Maybe if we can get a few libertarian governors in place for a few years, then they can have some experienced people go for the big guns.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by John Bentley
They seem to be better suited for local admins.

The voters agree.

[Beer Monkey]

Quote:

you forget about the growing Iraqi security forces. They will be running the place....thats the plan isn't it?

Problems:

1) Most of the Iraqi security force is hired guns who are ready to run for the hills when the crap hits the fan.
2) Some of the rest of the members are sleeper insurgents who want to get their hands on some good weapons (resulting in us withholding arms from the force).

We're in a damned nasty catch-22. Leave now, and everything goes to hell. Leave later, everything still goes to hell.

Oops.

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm rather agnostic when it comes to reincarnation, so the answer is no. I am not sure.

Ummmm, I was joking...!

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
So which one of my solutions do you think is the right one? Running to the UN perhaps? Sorry, has been tried.

The thought of actual military experts taking the lead has a certain charm to it. Not that it will ever actually happen...

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Never misunderestimate the power of spin. "At least the Iraqi people have chosen their leader themselves."

You might not have been an American in a previous life, but you do seem to be a cynic in this one.

(Not that I'd blame you.)

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Are you sure? I'm not sure. Convinced, maybe, but not sure. I think it is so unlikely that I "walk in faith" that such things are not possible. Just as I do with religion. That doesn't make me sure. I've never seen evidence one way or the other. That's what being agnostic means. You're only sure you're not sure, and not always so sure of that. You're willing to assert your assumption, but not as if it is the be all and end all of absolute truth. You simple are not sure.
/derail

I'm surprised to hear you be so "open". This is a common response to most superstition debunking, and yes it's true to a degree. However I don't have time to clutter up my mind with every supposition without the slightest shred of evidence, that has ever been proposed by gullible humans. You might as well suggest that Earth's volcanoes have evil alien super beings imprisoned within them. I can't prove that's not true either.

[rikzilla]

Shane,
The Libertarian proposal does not explain to me how a phased withdrawal from Iraq will help win the "Global War On Terror". Is it the LP's position that the GWOT is spurious and of no use in fighting?

If not; then how will conceeding the battlefield to the enemy help us to win or even to help prevent another 9/11 type attack?

If so; then what is the LP's position on the threat of terrorism?

Barring any profound revelations in your answer I have to say that the only sane option I can see is to continue to fight and support the new Iraqi democracy until the nation of Iraq is pacified. It's not a very sexy solution, but anything else seems to only serve to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while simultaneously debasing the value of every life already lost in the current effort, both Iraqi and American.

I put to you Shane that the LP's plan, if put into action, would not only serve up bloodshed in Iraq. It would be a much needed victory for Islamic fascism; which would cost the west much more bloodshed in lots of places far removed from Iraq.

The war is an awful but militarily manageable thing right now. For a truly global disaster we'd need the LP to be in charge!

-z

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
The Libertarian proposal does not explain to me how a phased withdrawal from Iraq will help win the "Global War On Terror". Is it the LP's position that the GWOT is spurious and of no use in fighting?

The LP's position is that we should be using our military to defend our country from its enemies, not fighting wars in other countries and making more enemies. From the platform:

"Any U.S. military policy should have the objective of providing security for the lives, liberty and property of the American people in the U.S. against the risk of attack by a foreign power. This objective should be achieved as inexpensively as possible and without undermining the liberties it is designed to protect."

"We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."

Quote:

If not; then how will conceeding the battlefield to the enemy help us to win or even to help prevent another 9/11 type attack?

By not creating terrorists by killing their families.