Is it me, or is a "gradual troop withdrawal"

[Plaid Adder]

kind of a bad idea?

I mean, if you're going to withdraw, I would think it would make more sense to do it all at once. The full complement of troops we have there now isn't enough to maintain order; what the hell do they think is going to happen once we reduce that number by 1/2? How'd you like to be a member of the last battalion to get gradually withdrawn?

I dunno, I'm not a military strategist. But I kind of wonder whether any of them are either.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Gidney N Cloyd]

1. Really. How do you ask someone to be the last man to withdraw for your country?

[HereSince1628]

12. Like this..."Last man out--Please turn-off the lights."

One of my favorite airport signs in Vietnam.

[JDPriestly]

2. Here's the military-industrial-complex's game plan;

Bush withdraws a few troops. Big fanfare about how he is reluctantly following the will of the Democratic Congress. Horrifying attacks in Iraq cause deaths of and injuries to many, many American soldiers. The MSM blasts the public with lurid pictures of the dead and wounded. The American people, incensed by the news of the needless deaths, call upon the president to send in more troops and destroy the insurgency. Voila. Republican landslide victory in 2008.

[NNN0LHI]

15. You left out the military draft cleverly disguised as a so-called national service n/t

[rurallib]

3. Totally agree

The only problem with a quick withdrawal that I see is simply the logistics. How can you move that many soldiers and machinery out all at once?
And another thing that no one seems to bring up is what about all the contractors and businesses? Will they be left to figure out their own way out or how to stay? Will they be given priority for leaving first? The way the neocons have set this occupation up there is no good way to do anything. Every option has its major problems.
Let me add this. Whether we leave in 15 minutes or 15 years the civil war will truly explode.

[Horse with no Name]

8. Leave the machinery

There isn't any way we will get it all out of there and in so doing, it will cause massive US troop deaths. It's only stuff. Leave it behind.
Bring our troops home.

[griffi94]

4. it's just my opinion

but i think the "gradual withdrawal" is for political cover.
i don't see any way that bush can "stay the course" and what little support he has now is about to evaporate.
this just gives the public a little time to switch gears and gives the bushies time to work the message a little more.
you know the same way WMD morphed into freeing the iraqi people, and then removing a dictator....the plan will start to morph
from stay the course...to gradual withdrawal...to let's get the hell out of here....mission acopmplished.
when you're failing lower the bar and change the mission statement

[architect359]

5. Do it all now or "gradually", someone's going to be the last person. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

6. I don't agree with a gradual withdrawal either

There is strength in numbers.
You start taking that away, then you leave the others as sitting ducks.
They all just need to come home now. It isn't going to be any better in 6 months. The progression has been distastrous and there is no reason to think that THAT course is going to change.

[bigtree]

7. It's a horrible strategy if the mission stays the same.

If it's a bug-out, there will always be a risk to the remaining troops. That's another reason the idea of leaving 40,000 'advisers embedded with the Iraqi forces is a risky one.

I do think they have a relatively secure base in the green zone which could cover a 'gradual' retreat if they don't dawdle . . . but, you know these folks. They dawdle.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I would think you are correct.

The way to do this properly would be to pull back from outlying bases to central locations and then march back down the road you came in on, in force, en masse. But you and me are mere civilians, I'm sure the pentagon has a good plan to do this right. The real question is will our foolish leaders let them do it?

[newportdadde]

10. "gradual troop withdrawl" = as the oil is used up.

[HereSince1628]

16. I think that's about right

The question is how long will our non-permanent permanent bases provide strategic value? Maybe much longer...and we will be there until it isn't profitable to remain.

[shadowknows69]

11. I thought the same thing Adder

Quick and orderly theatre withdrawal is something they hopefully would have worked on given the lessons of Saigon but this administration clearly learned NOTHING from that bullshit, disasterous conflict anyway so...I don't know it seems to be that we're able to deploy our troops pretty much anywhere in the world in 72 hours then we should be able to get most of them out quite quicly as well. Have a few platoons of M1s guarding our back as our guys march into the planes and close the country behind us.

[sweetheart]

13. the cost of political buy in

Its not to do with military action, never was. Iraq is arguably the greatest military mistake in
western history, considering the opportunity cost of what was squandered. To withdraw quickly
would mean that the leadership were able to admit they were wrong, and change views.

As the leadership insists on rigid dissonance, and hitler'esque stupidity in managing a military,
they're right on target ordering their generals to defend berlin in the last hours; generals
with broken morale, entirely diminished purpose and units to defending armed bunkers and outposts,
like the leftovers from crusades centuries ago.

It 'is' a strategy to squander ongoing resources in the desert, to piss away your incoming next
government's capital as much as is humanly possible for 2 more years. The entire purpose
of this exercise is to get the dems to sign his credit card bill, that after a poll, 'we'
vote to endorse this stupid hitler, and his incompetent defense of berlin by invading
the asia-caspian region.

[KansDem]

14. Get out the same way we got in...quickly while listening to no one who thinks its a bad idea.

I've said this before: Jam every US military vehicle in "R" and push the accelerator pedal to the floor.

Oh, and drop Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest (in shackles) onto the streets of Baghdad. We might even offer a "sorry" when we do, but I don't think it would help much.

[bloom]

17. I think you're right

When it's a total mess- the fewer military there - the less safe for those who are left.

Seems to me in Vietnam - when they finally decided to pull the plug - they all just got the hell out.

[shadowknows69]

18. I'm kind of hoping the military will just get fed up enough

hopefully before things get bad enough. to just pull the plugs themselves. you have to think there is more than one mid level officer, IE the ones more likely to see the situation on the ground, that are thinking: 'my commander in chief is fucking nuts and he'll keep us here until we're all dead before he "cuts and runs". We need to take things into our own hands, fuel up the cargo jets and bail and if the generals or the Pres have a problem with it when we get back we'll stand with 70% of the american people behind us and say NO FUCKING MORE!

[Divernan]

19. Recall the evacuation helicopters being shoved from flight decks into ocean

to make room for more incoming evac. helicopters. Everyone recalls the photos of the rooftop evacuations at the US Embassy in Saigon. The US troops scattered elsewhere in the country were evacuated by helicopters to US ships waiting offshore. As the last wave of troops were being evacuated, the rush was so desperate that a chopper would land, all the troops and the pilot would jump out, and push the copter over the edge of the deck into the ocean to make room for another copter waiting to land. Unfortunately, Iraq is geographically landlocked. The troops would either have to make dashes for the Saudi or Jordanian borders, or be air evacked from Baghdad. That new fortified US Embassy would probably be a safer evacuation base for helicopters than the Baghdad airport.