Quote :

"Group: Bush can reinstate the draft, or lose the Iraq War 08/23/2006 @ 12:30 pm Filed by Michael Roston Fast on the heels of yesterday's Defense Department involuntary call up of Marine reserves, an Iraq veterans group tells RAW STORY that if a draft is not the next step, President Bush must choose to accept a loss in the war. Advertisement Reports yesterday indicated that 2,500 inactive reserve members of the Marines were called up for duty in Iraq. The Marines are members of the individual Ready Reserve and have already given four years of service, allowing them to return to civilian life. However, they are contractually obligated to return to service when needed. But Jon Soltz, who heads up the group VoteVets.org, warned ABC News yesterday that the call up showed a lack of plans for victory in Iraq, and the problems faced by an overburdened American military. Soltz served as a captain in the Army in the Iraq war and is still a member of the reserves. In a follow-up interview with RAW STORY, Soltz explained what he views are the prospects of a draft returning to the US military. "The Pentagon has been saying it's meeting retention goals, but its actions speak louder than words," he explained of the stop loss and reserve call up actions that the Pentagon has taken. For President Bush, Soltz explained, there is a simple choice: "They have to decide between drafting people and cutting and running because either way they have a big problem. 130,000 was never enough, but you cannot sustain force levels where they are. Those are their options.""

That's about the size of it.

8/23/2006 2:29:21 PM

I've always thought Canada would be an OK place to live.

8/23/2006 2:32:03 PM

Another brilliant pryderi thread where he oversimplifies an already oversimplified blog entry that boils a complex situation down to a two choice lose-lose issue for the current administration.

8/23/2006 2:46:06 PM

False...di...lemma...hurts....my....brain

8/23/2006 2:51:19 PM

And people on here bash the conservatives for making bad posts...

8/23/2006 2:52:41 PM

a bad post is a bad post, regardless of stance

8/23/2006 2:53:10 PM

to be fair though, we don't have nearly enough troops in iraq

8/23/2006 2:53:59 PM

We probably could have done it with that number if we'd played things better from the start, but, well...

I've said before and I'll say again, there will not be a draft for this war or any other one that seems remotely likely to happen in the near future.

8/23/2006 2:56:22 PM

Did you actually think this was valid and/or worth making a thread over? You've been saying this forever. It's not happening.

New enlistments are not down all that much. They're implimenting stop-gap measures to compensate for the troubles they're having.

Bush will never "cut and run," and we will never have a draft because of a small scale conflict.

8/23/2006 2:56:34 PM

and now it's politically impossible for us to send enough

so the obvious solution now is to...

oh who cares

let's just expect the damn thing to work itself out

8/23/2006 2:57:45 PM

Ok. As soon as one of you conservatives have a plan, I suggest you fax it over to the White House...STAT!

How many Iraqi troops have been trained? How's that "stand up, stand down" thingie workin' out?

8/23/2006 3:13:43 PM

Quote :

"let's just expect the damn thing to work itself out"

we already know what's going to happen

the situation is going to devolve into a civil war

the administration and the talking heads will say that we tried our best but the iraqi people OBVIOUSLY do not want freedom enough to fight for it and make it work

we'll cut our losses and pull out

8/23/2006 3:14:40 PM

^^I'll say the same to "you liberals." Come up with something, why don't you. "Pull everyone out now" sort of qualifies, I guess, but (and yes, I see the irony here) it seems like something of an oversimplified plan.

8/23/2006 3:17:32 PM

Murtha already came out with a plan, and I support that one.

8/23/2006 3:39:40 PM

defeatism is not the way to stop terrorism.

8/23/2006 3:41:44 PM

^^ Oh come off it.

Kerry presented one in '04.

Murtha's got another.

Practically every Democratic Senator running in a tough election does, too.

8/23/2006 3:42:14 PM

http://www.bootmurtha.com/

8/23/2006 3:44:35 PM

didnt we have like half a million troops in vietnam at the height of the war?

i dont understand why we could not have that many in iraq right now...seems like we'd get the job done quicker and could bring them ALL back soon.

8/23/2006 3:46:21 PM

iraq =/ vietnam

8/23/2006 3:48:38 PM

the democrats keep comparing it to vietnam

8/23/2006 3:50:14 PM

the republicans keep making it look like vietnam

"We'll be there until we leave."

8/23/2006 5:31:33 PM

Quote :

"the republicans keep making it look like vietnam"

8/23/2006 5:32:33 PM

why does Randy hate freemdom so much?

8/23/2006 5:48:29 PM

8/23/2006 7:27:54 PM

jeez...things were so much better when pryderi wasnt around

8/23/2006 8:13:09 PM

what fucking forum have you been reading???

8/23/2006 8:35:53 PM

good point

8/23/2006 8:48:57 PM

conscription

8/23/2006 11:02:18 PM

Quote :

"As soon as one of you conservatives have a plan"

ummm ok, what's your's then smart guy?

8/24/2006 9:50:24 AM

Quote :

"My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq "

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

Quote :

"What do I mean by Redeployment to the periphery? Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Turkey and/or Qatar. How many? 1 Division"

Quote :

" Murtha is Right: Reagan’s Redeployment Made America Stronger Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has argued recently that in Iraq, President Bush should follow the lead of President Reagan in Lebanon, who redeployed U.S. forces. Last week, Cheney responded: If we follow Congressman Murtha’s advice and withdraw from Iraq the same way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983…we will simply validate the al Qaeda strategy and guarantee more terrorist attacks in the future. The departure of U.S. troops did not stabilize the situation in Lebanon: the civil war raged on, Syria’s influence grew, and U.S. prestige throughout the world, especially in the Islamic world, was tarnished. But Reagan’s decision saved the United States from becoming further entangled in a raging civil-regional war and was essential to winning the broader Cold War. As Reagan’s Asst. Defense Secretary Lawrence Korb and I have argued, the real lesson of Lebanon is that our country must be willing to change course when an operation does not advance our strategic interests. While the Soviet Union was sinking deeper into a quagmire of its own in Afghanistan, Reagan recognized that the United States had overreached in its effort to “solve” a civil-regional war with military force. The Bush administration faces a similar choice today — whether to further drain our resources in a civil-regional war in Iraq or redeploy our assets to defeat global terrorist networks. Much as Reagan redeployed U.S. troops to better fight the Cold War, so must we redeploy today to better fight the war on terror. Cheney’s approach — sapping U.S. resources, further taxing the U.S. military, and immersing the United States in an escalating civil war — endangers the entire effort. – Max Bergmann "

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/murtha-cheney/

8/24/2006 10:08:51 AM

Cheney:

Quote :

"If we follow Congressman Murtha’s advice and withdraw from Iraq the same way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983…we will simply validate the al Qaeda strategy and guarantee more terrorist attacks in the future."

What evidence do we have to suggest that the current strategy is effective is reducing future terrorist attacks?

8/24/2006 10:35:27 AM

^You don't. I admit I don't see your point though. That is to say I'd rather use a yet unproven strategy as opposed to one that has proven itself not to work.

8/24/2006 10:41:13 AM

No, you'd rather use a strategy whose effectiveness is contradicted by the evidence. Cheney's criticizing Murtha for, at minimum, suggesting we do the same thing.

What suggests that Murtha's strategy, used in Beirut in '83, wouldn't work?

8/24/2006 11:12:43 AM

Well, since Cheney made the statement I'd say the burden of proof is on him.

8/24/2006 11:16:25 AM

Quote :

"Randy Veteran 193 Posts user info edit post defeatism is not the way to stop terrorism. "

the funny thing is i bet you sucked reagan's cock

8/24/2006 11:19:35 AM

No, it's on you.

You've claimed that Murtha's strategy has "proven itself not to work," and admit there's little evidence to suggest the current one works either. You'd rather use, I'm assuming, this current strategy though it's as yet unproven, rather than try one you say has "proven itself not to work."

If you agree that it's proven itself not to work, I'd like to know why.

8/24/2006 11:20:35 AM

I guess I wasn't clear in making my point. My point was that in the eyes of Cheney, you might as well use an unproven strategy as opposed to one that you, as Cheney, don't think works.

I've never even heard of Murtha, let alone his plan.

8/24/2006 11:45:19 AM

Ah. Gotcha.

I'd like to understand why he doesn't think it works, then. I'm pretty sure you've figured that out, though.

---

The latest line on Iraq from the White House: "Eh, could be worse."

Quote :

"Bush's New Iraq Argument: It Could Be Worse By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 24, 2006; A01 Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was "progress." For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse. The shifting rhetoric reflected a broader pessimism that has reached into even some of the most optimistic corners of the administration -- a sense that the Iraq venture has taken a dark turn and will not be resolved anytime soon. Bush advisers once believed that if they met certain benchmarks, such as building a constitutional democracy and training a new Iraqi army, the war would be won. Now they believe they have more or less met those goals, yet the war rages on. While still committed to the venture, officials have privately told friends and associates outside government that they have grown discouraged in recent months. Even the death of al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq proved not to be the turning point they expected, they have told associates, and other developments have been relentlessly dispiriting, with fewer signs of hope. Bush acknowledged this week that he has been discouraged as well. "Frustrated?" he asked. "Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times and they're difficult times and they're straining the psyche of our country." Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush and his advisers still believe progress is being made and the war will be won. "No question about it, the last three months have been much more challenging," he said. "Are we always going to be pleased with the pace? No. There are days that are frustrating. But is the overall direction going the right way? . . . The answer to that is yes." The tone represents a striking change from what critics considered an overly rosy portrayal of Iraq, and the latest stage in a year-long evolution in message. With sectarian violence flaring into some of the worst bloodshed since the March 2003 invasion, the White House felt the need to connect with the anxiety in the American public. "Most of the people rightly are concerned about the security situation, as is the president," Bartlett said. But with crucial midterm elections just 2 1/2 months away, Bush and his team are trying to turn the public debate away from whether the Iraq invasion has worked out to what would happen if U.S. troops were withdrawn, as some Democrats advocate. The necessity of not failing, Bush advisers believe, is now a more compelling argument than the likelihood of success. Using such terms as "havoc" at Monday's news conference, Bush made no effort to suggest the situation in Iraq is improving. Instead, he argued: "If you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself." Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose research on public opinion in wartime has been influential in the White House, said Bush has little choice. "He looks foolish and not credible if he says, 'We're making progress in Iraq,' " Gelpi said. "I think he probably would like to make that argument, but because that's not credible given the facts on the ground, this is the fallback. . . . If the only thing you can say is 'Yes, it's bad, but it could be worse,' that really is a last-ditch argument." As recently as two weeks ago, Bush was still making the case that things in Iraq are better than they seem. The new Iraqi government "has shown remarkable progress on the political front," he said on Aug. 7, calling its mere existence "quite a remarkable achievement." The White House and the Republican National Committee regularly send e-mails to supporters and journalists highlighting positive developments. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, an article by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad argued that a shift in security operations in Baghdad has shown "positive results" and said that "this initial progress should give Iraqis, as well as Americans, hope about the future." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on a radio show this week that violence is largely limited to four of 18 provinces and that "the government now is starting to get its legs under it." But Bush has been ruminating on the different nature of Iraq and the battle with Islamic radicals and how hard it is to define victory. "Veterans of World War II and Korea will tell you we were able to measure progress based upon miles gained or based upon tanks destroyed, or however people measured war in those days," he said in a speech last week. "This is different . . . and it's hard on the American people, and I understand that." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a strong supporter of the war, suggested this week that the Bush team has only itself to blame for setting unrealistic expectations. "One of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. " 'Stuff happens,' 'mission accomplished,' 'last throes,' 'a few dead-enders.' I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be." Such statements, he said, have "contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) offered a similar assessment. "I think we undersold how hard the war would be," he told reporters this week. "I think we oversold how easy it would be to create democracy. I think we missed by a mile how much it would cost to rebuild Iraq." Through much of the war, Bush and his advisers focused on meeting benchmarks laid out for rebuilding Iraq -- writing a new constitution, electing a new parliament, bringing disaffected Sunnis into the government and training Iraqi troops. As long as those benchmarks were met, the president had tangible events to point to as evidence of progress. But the last step in that original timetable, election of a permanent parliament last December, has come and gone with no end to the violence. When Bush mentioned that election at his news conference, he depicted it not as progress but a sign that Iraqis want progress. "It's an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society," he said. Bush used to mention the number of Iraqi troops trained as another barometer to watch, suggesting that once a new army is in place, it could defend its country. Yet 294,000 Iraqi troops have been trained, just shy of the goal of 325,000, and no U.S. official expects to turn over the war entirely to them anytime soon. Instead, Bush has publicly emphasized how much his administration is changing tactics to deal with the evolving threats in Iraq, and he has privately reached out for advice about further steps to take. He had lunch at the Pentagon last week with four Middle East experts to solicit ideas about how to stabilize Iraq. "I would say he was deeply concerned about how many lives are being lost, both American and Iraqi, and how much this is costing the American taxpayer," said Eric Davis, a Rutgers University professor who was among those invited, who urged Bush to launch a New Deal-style economic program in Iraq. "He would like to see progress sooner rather than later.""

8/24/2006 11:55:22 AM

Quote :

"His immediate goal is to radicalize the hundreds of millions of Muslims who sympathize with the vision of a restored Caliphate, but have better things to do with their lives than join the jihad. A particular problem for Bin Laden are all the Muslims who think that they can find an acceptable place for themselves in a world order dominated by the United States. I won't insult your intelligence by asking you who his best allies are in reaching this goal: President Bush, obviously, and all of the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon who push for the most aggressive response to the terrorist threat. Also the Christian leaders like Franklin (son of Billy) Graham, who regularly denounce Islam in terms that look fabulous on Al Qaeda's equivalent of the locker-room bulletin board. John Ashcroft -- and anyone else who mistreats assimilating Arabs and thereby convinces them that they will never really be welcome in America -- is also an ally. It doesn't matter how much they hate him or denounce his deeds; anyone who radicalizes Muslims is doing Bin Laden's work for him. President Bush may as well have been reading from an Al Qaeda script when he referred to the War on Terror as a "crusade". Muslims know their history and know exactly what a crusade is: Christians invade and steal your land. People who didn't believe this when they heard it from Bin Laden have now heard it from the Crusader-in-Chief."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/01247/557

[Edited on August 24, 2006 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/24/2006 11:59:57 AM

Biden has also come out with a plan that looks interesting:

Quote :

"First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue. Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together. Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights. Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments. Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html

Looks like the only politicians that have any ideas are Democrats.

8/24/2006 12:15:42 PM

Now why would you go and say something like that?

What you've done there is let the Republicans shape the debate. Why not say more honestly: "The Republicans can't show you that their ideas will work sustainably or well, and ignore our ideas when we present alternatives. Examples of this include: x, y, and z."

8/24/2006 12:36:11 PM

I asked conservatives for ideas, and they didn't have any. They asked me to present ideas, so I presented them with a couple that I found.

Hell, I'll even go for the, "As they stand up, we stand down" plan. How is that going?

8/24/2006 12:43:04 PM

false dilema

8/24/2006 12:54:08 PM

pryderi...murtha has presented a plan...fine...i think its a bad one...but im not going to say that no dems have plans

but dont even act like republicans dont have a plan in iraq....you only say that because so maybe repubs attack dems with the same line...come off it...

and no im not going to present a repub with a plan...i know you will just say "well then show me the plan!!!"...and then im not going to respond because i have a life and have to be back at work...take some of gamecats advice and stop being a typical idiot liberal

8/24/2006 1:49:47 PM

now i remember why i don't like pryderi

8/24/2006 1:56:29 PM

Quote :

"trikk311: i think its a bad one"

What's bad about it?

By the way, I have to side with pryderi on at least this one point. For all the ravings from Republicans on the matter, I'm not convinced we've seen them come up with a sustainable plan for Iraq that will work either. Their strategy seems to have been to keep the public distracted with the side issue of wondering whether or not the Democrats even have a plan, so that the public doesn't notice that the plan currently in place isn't that effective.

8/24/2006 2:28:26 PM

and here all along i thought the republican plan was to go in there and get the oil

8/24/2006 2:39:28 PM

Look, we need at least another 200,000 troops in Iraq to control populations and allow infrastructure to be rebuilt.

Where are we going to get those 200,000 plus the support units for them?

8/24/2006 2:48:10 PM

I like the Biden plan. It seems like a good place to start, and is roughly in line with what I recall saying before the war started about regional autonomy or even independence being the way to go.

It is, however, only a start, and seems heavily reliant on international help that has so far not been forthcoming. I don't see the Gulf states shelling out much (or anything at all, frankly) to support this plan, even if minority rights are contingent on them doing so.

8/24/2006 2:50:11 PM

Maybe this thread will help out the rest of the forum. It looks like we've managed to get all of the stupid in one place.

8/24/2006 4:03:48 PM