‘US should pull out of Iraq now’

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2005/July/focusoniraq_July78.xml§ion=focusoniraq

(AFP)

15 July 2005

WASHINGTON - The United States should cut its losses, pull out of Iraq promptly and never again use its military might to build a nation according to its own values, former CIA chief John Deutch wrote on Friday in The New York Times.

US military presence in Iraq is harming US interests in the Arab world, detracts attention from other “important security challenges ... North Korea, Iran and international terrorism,” and weakens the US military, said Deutch, who before heading the Central Intelligence Agency (1995-1996) was deputy defense secretary (1994-1995).

“Those who argue that we should “stay the course’ because an early withdrawal ... would hurt America’s global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our objectives in Iraq and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road,” he added.

“I do not believe that we are making progress on any of our key objectives in Iraq,” he said, adding that even when the Iraqi government appears to be functioning, “the underlying destabilizing effect of the insurgency is undiminished.”

[lynettebro440]

1. I have to agree fully

Get out. Just get the hell out of there.

[Glorfindel]

2. Amen! Even if we have to declare "Bush's Glorious Victory"

and hold parades, erect statues, etc., just bring our soldiers home before one more drop of blood is uselessly shed.

[ClintonTyree]

3. This guy has no idea what he's talking about............

big deal, he was a former CIA Chief. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are the people with their fingers on the pulse of America now. They know far better how this quagmire should play out than some old CIA guy. Americans trust Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly far more than some old, washed up spy.
The NERVE of Deutch. Why does he hate America? Why is he aiding and abetting the enemy? :shrug:

:sarcasm: (as if that needed to be added)

[booksenkatz]

4. O, but it would leave such a Viet Nam-y taste in our mouths.

We should do it, but we won't, because the comparison to Viet Nam would be just oh-so-uncomfortable, and armchair warriors don't like being uncomfortable, dontcha know. We have to keep bombing over there so that we can maintain our erections over here. Without the bombing, the erections fall. And when the erections fall, so doth Amurka.

[Demeter]

11. Maybe Two Vietnams Would Teach Americans

what poison tastes like, so that they would avoid it ever after.

Nah. "There's a sucker born every minute!" And the man was talking about Americans.

[Hissyspit]

12. I thought the first time we tasted the poison did the trick.

But Americans made me a sucker, too, didn't they?

[leftchick]

5. I agree with him but sadly the exit will look like this

from the green zone about 10 years from now. :(

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. and the new Iraqi Army may be another ARVN

I watched NewsHour on PBS (4th July) where they had some U.S. soldiers (who had served in Iraq) in a round-table discussion. None of them said that they were impressed with the state and performance of the new Iraqi armed forces even after the training they'd been given. I fear it's going to be ARVN2.

[0007]

17. Love those two photos

When is Norm Coleman gonna invite George Galloway back to the States for another session? Or did "Storming" Norm give up in total embarrassment?

[leftchick]

18. I have been thinking of changing George lately

But I just can't do it yet. Those were the most powerful words said in the Senate in decades.

[0007]

19. I agree!

Would like to George come back slam these clowns one more time.

[Upfront]

6. couldn't agree more--

with this thinking. We have already lost creditability, now all we are losing is more lives and money for nothing. Nam all over again.

[ckramer]

7. The problem is every new president

likes to play 'Command-in-Chief' for a while on expense of others' lives.

[Hissyspit]

8. Iraq is not Vietnam, people!

It just looks like Vietnam. Smells like Vietnam. Quacks like Vietnam. Shits like Vietnam. Hurts like Vietnam. Goes on and on like Vietnam. Costs like Vietnam. Causes an administration to spin and lie like Vietnam. Disgusts like Vietnam. Kills like Vietnam. But, no, it's not Vietnam.

[geckosfeet]

10. Good point !!

[Pacifist Patriot]

13. So that's the difference!

[Hissyspit]

15. :-)

Has a river delta region to the south like Vietnam...

[AlCzervik]

9. yes we should or else we are going to be like the Russins in Afghanistan

and we all know how well that ended for them.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. The US-led coalition should pull out with the United Nations in its place

The UN for its faults is still better-placed to rebuild Iraq's economy and provide stability than what an American-led coalition would be. It will also leave Muslims with a sense that Iraq is being rebuilt as opposed to being occupied.

It will also likely lessen support for the Ba'athist/Radical Islamic "insurgency", especially if troops from moderate Islamic states take part in the peace-keeping.

Of course the Bushista regime will never allow it, even if becomes obvious to them that it's the best course of action. They can't allow it out of pride and fear of admitting failure and it is why more Americans and Iraqis will die in the War. Control of Iraq's economic assets will likely factor into this too.

[Barrett808]

20. Here's the NYT column by Deutch

Time to Pull Out. And Not Just From Iraq.
By JOHN DEUTCH
Published: July 15, 2005
Cambridge, Mass.

AMERICAN foreign policy should be guided by two general principles: the first is advancing our security and political interests; the second is encouraging prosperity and responsive government for all people. It may be that with our encouragement and example, many countries will choose to adopt democracy and a market economy, presumably adapted to their own culture. Of course, others will follow a very different road for some time, perhaps indefinitely, as ethnic differences, poverty and historical and religious traditions affect and constrain choices.

America embarks on an especially perilous course, however, when it actively attempts to establish a government based on our values in another part of the world. It is one matter to adopt a foreign policy that encourages democratic values; it is quite another to believe it just or practical to achieve such results on the ground with military forces. This is true whether we are acting alone, as is largely the case in Iraq, or as part of an international coalition.

It seems that many in the Bush administration believed that an invasion to topple Saddam Hussein would result in a near spontaneous conversion of Iraq, and with luck much of the Middle East, to democracy. But the notion of intervening in foreign countries to build a society of our preference is not just a Republican or conservative failing. The corresponding Democratic or liberal failing is the view that America has a duty to intervene in foreign countries that egregiously violate human rights and a responsibility to oppose and, where possible, remove totalitarian heads of state. This Democratic rhetoric quickly moves from "peacekeeping" in a country torn by strife to "peacemaking" and to "nation-building."

The Clinton administration's intervention in Bosnia in the mid-1990's is an example of just such a failing: moving from an initial, laudable objective of stopping the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnians to a fantastical goal of creating a "multiethnic" society with peaceful coexistence among three groups - Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs - that have a history of enmity.

(more)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15deutch.html?

[WhiteTara]

21. I wonder if he will get "roved" for being real

He makes so much sense that I am sure he will be smeared.