Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What happens if the generals decide they can't hold Iraq and

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:39 PM
Original message
What happens if the generals decide they can't hold Iraq and
tell Bush it's time to leave?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. He'll Take Care Of Them...... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. No problem!
New Generals!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The generals wouldn't say time to go unless they couldn't hold ground.
What if Bush tells them to stay and there is a massacre?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think he's already been told. Or at least his cabinet's been told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I'm no military person, and even I know that if we bomb Iran,
the next thing that happens is that Iran invades Iraq. Saddam barely held them off. Our guys, scattered across the country to fight an insurgency, would be sitting ducks for a conventional army. If Bush can talk seriously about bombing Iran, how will anybody be able to get through to him if it's time to boogie out of Iraq? I'm really worried that we will see a massacre before this is over. Apparently Bush skipped class the day they talked about the Little Big Horn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. that is not a determination for the generals to make...
...without simultaneously resigning. To do otherwise would be tantamount to a military coup. Generals do not dictate to civilian policy makers in America unless America has changed radically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. The generals don't make policy, and the Army Corps of Engineers
doesn't make the Mississippi flow. But the Army Corps of Engineers can tell you when there's going to be a flood, and the generals better be able to tell when they can't control a situation. The scenario I'm envisioning is the entire country going up in flames. At that point, all our people could do is get themselves out as fast as they can. Right now 50,000 troops (10,000 Americans and 40,000 Iraqis) have lost control of Baghdad. What will Bush do if (when?) the generals tell him it's get the troops out or get them all killed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. if Bush says stay in, they will stay or resign...
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 09:17 PM by mike_c
...and the bodies will pile up. It's called fighting to the last person. That's NOT the policy that I'm advocating, but I wholeheartedly support the underlying model of civilian control. If the military command is ordered to fight naked with dull spoons until they're all dead and wasted, that is what the generals must do-- if they demur, they have no right to remain in command UNLESS they are willing to mutiny. Thus they must either continue to fight, no matter how futile the cause, or they must resign.

on edit-- rereading your reply, I agree-- the generals have a responsibility to report honestly to their civilian commanders and to tell them truthfully whether they think they can complete the mission. But if they can't, and they say so, then they must still try or resign if that is what they are told to do-- or mutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. According to NBC
General McCaffrey returned last Friday from Iraq and gave Bush and his advisors a very grim assessment of what is happening in Iraq. McCaffrey uses the words "civil war." So Bush has almost been told that we can't hold Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. They told him that in the Fall of 2003
By the following summer, it was conventional wisdom that Iraq was going to break up into three bite-sized pieces.

After they didn't produce WMDs, the whole thing was DOA, along with everyone who created the con.

It's all been damage control since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cezebrgr Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
10. The point isn’t to hold Iraq.
Edited on Mon Jul-10-06 08:55 PM by cezebrgr
The Long White Stripe:


The current troop deployment outside of Iraq and Afghanistan
is a hold over from world war two.
Having troops billeted around the world is part of the U.S.
strategic policy, but seriously folks we haven’t been attacked
from the beer gardens in 60 years.  The euro dollar is 30
percent stronger then the U.S. dollar.
Think what does to the cost of rent and storage of all that
military equipment.  We don’t need to be protected from high
rent in Iraq.  Sure things are tough now, but if we redeployed
our troops to Iraq the road taxes, discretionary spending of
our troops, and facilities rents or mortgages  we pay over the
next 60 years to ship goods to our out post along the silk
road.   Should be enough to restart the central Asian economy
that has been in shambles since the trade wars of the 13th
century.  

Many of the Union troops in the rehabilitation zones feel that
they are performing a worth while task.  It is true that there
has been loss of life caused by fringe groups, but the
causality percentages now aren’t even close to what the
estimates were for before any battle for any given city we are
way ahead.  Now that we are in there we are getting better
intelligence and target acquisition is a precision art. 
Central Asian economics is a key element of come current
global political problems.  Many ancient trade roads have
blocked over the past 1000 years creating an economic
development bottleneck.  The Silk Road Trade Zone, The East
Mediterranean Trade Zone, and The Black Sea Trade Zone could
benefit from refocusing the strategic establishment forming
along the Northern Tier.  Many resource poor areas along those
route have nothing to offer as revenue generators except way
points, scenic/historical rest areas,  and low cost raw
developable land with low cost labor. 

This is an opportunity to revitalize the 4000 square miles
with-in the current defense budget just by being there. 
That’s a lot of work for a single stroke of the pen. Leaving
Central Asia people to be educated by the psycho clerics is
not going to improve our situation.  The Silk Road initiative
will institute cultural development as well as economic
development. On the other hand if a reduction of the current
force level is permitted a Cambodian like killing fields will
probably occur in the power void.   There was an estimated 
one million collateral deaths attributed to the peace movement
of the 60’s. that’s more than the war itself.  

The strategic value of the winning Battle of Al Qaeda Rivers
is economic.  The human resources in Iraq are no less than
what were available in Germany,  Italy, Germany, Japan, South
Korea, South Vietnam and now they are all expanding economies.
  Bonding the development of Iraq will provide returns
especially if we hold title on some fee simple real estate. 
The Air Force needs an extra large region support center with
first class amenities and a view.  This is not a war it is
business.  The U.S. needs more trading routes and this one has
potential it just needs a few more yellow bricks.

I think the plan is about helping out.  You can lead a horse
to water,  but the heavy metals in the soil may not be good
for it:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Umm, the expanding economy in (south?) Viet Nam happened
after we left Viet Nam. I'm sure that leaving all that scrap metal around from bomb casings really helped jump start hte economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. So, if I understand the thrust of your point.....
the US Army now is the forward economic development arm of US foreign policy. So it is less about WMD and more about low rent and market development. A Peace Corp in camo. OK.

COuld you provide a link to your source...or is this your idea?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cezebrgr Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. IT IS AN OLD IDEA....
not just mine. Engineer think. A pessimist thinks the glass is half empty, an optimist thinks the glass is half full; an engineer thinks the glass is too big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Good question.
So far, the Party line from George is that the Generals are getting everything they aslk for and they don't need more troops. That they'll tell him if they have problems and, since they hven't, there's no cause to reason to change anything.

'Cept, what if they do tell him that our position in Iraq is untenable and is contributing to the breakdown in Iraq? What if he is ignoring their recommendations? I suspect that nothing can happen until after the mid-terms. A phase out-now would be disasterous politically for the Republicans. I think the plan for distraction was to bomb Iran, but Iraq isn't nearly stable enough to do this without making the troops a lightening rod for retaliation. So, the answer is....nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. We'll be in coup d'etat territory
At some point, I wonder if the military will march in and demand his and Darth Cheney's resignation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC