Exit Strategy

JokeyLoki · 12-03-2006, 02:17 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....tm/index.html

George Bush has a history of long-overdue U-turns.

He waited until he woke up, hung over, one morning at 40 before giving up booze cold. He fought the idea of a homeland-security agency for eight months after 9/11 and then scampered aboard and called it his idea.

But Bush has never had to pull off a U-turn like the one he is contemplating now: to give up on his dream of turning Babylon into an oasis of freedom and democracy and instead begin a staged withdrawal from Iraq, rewrite the mission of the 150,000 U.S. troops there as they begin to draw down, launch a diplomatic Olympics across the Middle East and restart the flagging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Even calling all that a reversal is misnomer; it would be more like a personality transplant.

But Bush will soon begin the biggest foreign policy course correction of his presidency.

No matter what else may get stapled onto it, the maneuver will be based on what the bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton reached agreement on last week.

The Baker-Hamilton commission's work has been compared to family interventions for a substance-addicted cousin, but unlike those encounters, this one won't remain behind closed doors. The entire 10-person commission will brief the president Wednesday and then repeat the lesson for congressional leaders, both incoming and outgoing, later the same day.

The Iraq Study Group will call for a massive diplomatic push in two areas in which the White House has never put its shoulder to the grindstone: rekindling peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis and holding an international conference that would lead to direct talks between Washington and Tehran and Damascus.

The Study Group's military proposals are performance-based: they would link a staged withdrawal from Iraq by U.S. forces to stronger actions by the struggling Iraqi government.

Realism was exactly what the people who cooked up the commission had in mind when they set the bipartisan operation in motion more than a year ago. The review began as a $1 million insertion into an appropriations bill by Republican Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, who had gone to Iraq last year and decided the policy wasn't working.

He slotted the money to the U. S. Institute of Peace, whose president, Richard Solomon, approached the one person in Bushland who still had a reputation for realism and who could command the president's ear, alone: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Would she propose the commission to the president?
Rice's request: Don't look back

After some hesitation, Rice agreed, but made one request: the commission had to look forward, not backward, in part because she knew the dysfunctional Bush foreign policy operation, tilted so heavily along the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, would not permit, much less sustain, scrutiny.

Rice got through to Bush the next day, arguing that the thing was going to happen anyway, so he might as well get on board. To his credit, Bush agreed.

Baker and Hamilton were left to choose their own panelists, and the commission went to work, gathering evidence, making a trip to Baghdad and hearing from more than 100 experts.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor developed a reputation for asking the best questions. Democratic power broker Vernon Jordan emerged as the group's political sage. Clinton defense chief William Perry cornered the military options -- and would be a holdout on the final deal.

When Democrats swept the November elections, aides to several panelists told Time that the commission would have more room to make sweeping proposals. Rumsfeld's resignation the next day cemented that feeling.

But the election, instead of making things easier, actually made them harder.
Psychoanalysis and the prodigal son

When Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission who had served the first President Bush as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the psychoanalysis rampant in the media about daddy's team coming back to save the prodigal son steamed everyone at the White House, from the president on down, and led the administration to dig in its heels.

Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq itself kept deteriorating and there was a risk that the panel's proposals would be obsolete before consensus was reached.

Baker turned up last Monday with a draft report he wanted panel members to consider or amend and then get into the president's hands. Democrats led by Hamilton, Perry and Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's ex-chief of staff, were adamant that the report recommend a firm starting point for troop withdrawals. When the Republicans again refused, members agreed on language that would leave the date vague but the vector clear. And then the group adjourned.
'No idea how things will look in February'

Bush will put a few weeks between the big Baker-Hamilton rollout and his own restart -- White House officials worry that anything faster would look too reactive -- but one official told Time that the new path the president will outline in coming weeks is "significantly different than what we've been doing. ...When the president says we're going to get the job done, that doesn't suggest it is an open-ended commitment forever."

Whether it is the Baker approach or whatever the White House decides to call its own, events in Iraq could easily make any plan for diplomacy and withdrawal irrelevant in the face of a weak central government, a deepening civil war and widespread violence.

A commission official put it this way, "What we have produced is a plan for December. We have no idea what things are going to look like in February."

So.... thoughts? I was actually pretty surprised to hear this big of a turnaround happening, but it makes sense. Rumsfeld told Bush before he left that they were failing. I just wonder if diplomacy will have any effect at all, after all the damage that's been done. Bush hasn't really talked to anyone in that region in quite a long time. It's all threats and bullets.

Effloresce · 12-03-2006, 02:24 PM

Regardless of what happens, a lot of this is going to get dumped on the next President, and I think he or she will have a rather difficult time dealing with it. The domino effect of problems presented by this senseless war is just unbelievably disastrous in so many ways across the board.

Now, if a big turnaround will actually happen remains to be seen, but I hope Bush will be more open to at least taking a more neutral stance and letting some advice from the outside help direct where to go next.

Future Boy · 12-03-2006, 02:33 PM

Its too late to do anything other than get the hell out.

Effloresce · 12-03-2006, 02:38 PM

Future Boy, I agree with you. But apparently everyone wants to leave "responsibly". My question would be, is there ANYTHING you can do to keep Iraq stable once we pull out? We could leave tomorrow or two years from now, there's going to be even more chaos in that country with a significantly diminished or completely absent military presence. People are really putting their confidence in an Iraq military to be able to defend themselves? That's really a solution? I don't think there IS a solution. We either stay and continue to watch our troops get killed for nothing, or leave and stomach the irreversible damage we've done in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Future Boy · 12-03-2006, 02:47 PM

We've failed, anything that delays getting out is mearly to try and save face really. "leave and stomach the irreversible damage we've done in Iraq and throughout the Middle East." Pretty much, yeah. A change in leadership/direction and an increase in troop levels might end things on a better note, but I dont see that happening.

Effloresce · 12-03-2006, 02:49 PM

And even if you leave things on a better note, long-term, that country is more or less fucked.

The Omega Concern · 12-05-2006, 12:25 AM

Rumsfield coming out with his his ideas that he wrote just before the election is a rather pathetic way to hold on to his credibility.

and Effloresce,

this war wasn't senseless. Both Clinton and John Kerry advocated Saddam's removal in '98, but there wasn't the political will to do much until after 9/11. There was plenty of reason to go in there and remove him but the current insurgency is largely funded by Iran and Al-Queda is all over the place and always was there well before the war...

that's why Army generals wanted a half-million troops but Rumsfield shot all that down, very arrogantly, btw...gaff central.

and that Iraq committee isn't gonna come up with anything that hasn't been thought of before...

Karl Connor · 12-05-2006, 11:08 AM

it seems to be all about damage control at this point. i would've sworn to god at that press confernce with the iraq p. minister a few days ago he cited al queda - numerous times - for the primary reason it'd be "disasterous to leave iraq now." al queda, who's responsible for like, 2% of the actual attacks that have taken place over there throughout this war. if you're going to cite reasons why leaving iraq would be a bad idead, dont continue this "they win/another 9-11 is inevitable" bullshit. this is just becoming a farce now

Effloresce · 12-05-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Connor

it seems to be all about damage control at this point. i would've sworn to god at that press confernce with the iraq p. minister a few days ago he cited al queda - numerous times - for the primary reason it'd be "disasterous to leave iraq now." al queda, who's responsible for like, 2% of the actual attacks that have taken place over there throughout this war. if you're going to cite reasons why leaving iraq would be a bad idead, dont continue this "they win/another 9-11 is inevitable" bullshit. this is just becoming a farce now

Indeed it is.

Nimrod's Son · 12-05-2006, 06:23 PM

I think I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I agree with what Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry said before the last election - we need more troops to do the job right. Of course they both reversed position since then.

gurr8 · 12-05-2006, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I think I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I agree with what Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry said before the last election - we need more troops to do the job right. Of course they both reversed position since then.

you're a Democratic dipshit.

Mayfuck · 12-05-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

this war wasn't senseless. Both Clinton and John Kerry advocated Saddam's removal in '98, but there wasn't the political will to do much until after 9/11. There was plenty of reason to go in there and remove him but the current insurgency is largely funded by Iran and Al-Queda is all over the place and always was there well before the war...

If by "political will" you mean lying to the public that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11 then yeah, the political will wasn't there when Clinton and Kerry advocated for Saddam's removal in '98. And that Al-Qaeda was "all over" Iraq before the war is a fallacy. For someone who is convinced they think outside the box, Omega, you are probably the biggest Republican tool and apologist second to Nimrod. Believing lies is what happens when someone makes the Weekly World News and Drudge Report their primary news sources.

Karl Connor · 12-05-2006, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I think I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I agree with what Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry said before the last election - we need more troops to do the job right. Of course they both reversed position since then.

i dont think there's any arugment that NOW we need more troops to "win." but what is winning and why are we fighting. i dont think there's been honesty about that. hopefully that change in january

Trotskilicious · 12-05-2006, 07:51 PM

jesus christ what ever happened to personal responsibility?

Karl Connor · 12-05-2006, 07:53 PM

well i guess it is our responsibility to clean up what we started. but when its a seeming impossibility ...

its not going to be easy for either party regardless

Effloresce · 12-05-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I think I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I agree with what Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry said before the last election - we need more troops to do the job right. Of course they both reversed position since then.

Except that adding more troops now, while everything has already fallen apart, would probably be completely different than going into the country like that in the first place. And the country doesn't want it anymore. I hope the Republican candidate runs with an idea in mind to send more troops, because he'll surely lose. So keep preaching that to the choir, by all means!

The situation has changed. There existed a chance to possibly get this war right and the Bush Administration blew it. It's a waste of time to point the finger at John Kerry, the loser of the 2004 election. This decision, regardless of how much he may have wavered on it initially, was not John Kerry's. Or Nancy Pelosi's.

I mean honestly, if you want to bring Kerry into the argument, you're doing some serious backpedaling.

Nimrod's Son · 12-05-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Effloresce

Except that adding more troops now, while everything has already fallen apart, would probably be completely different than going into the country like that in the first place. And the country doesn't want it anymore. I hope the Republican candidate runs with an idea in mind to send more troops, because he'll surely lose. So keep preaching that to the choir, by all means!

The situation has changed. There existed a chance to possibly get this war right and the Bush Administration blew it. It's a waste of time to point the finger at John Kerry, the loser of the 2004 election. This decision, regardless of how much he may have wavered on it initially, was not John Kerry's. Or Nancy Pelosi's.

I mean honestly, if you want to bring Kerry into the argument, you're doing some serious backpedaling.

What? Look I know you're in love with the Democrats, but I'm not blaming Nancy Pelosi for the war in Iraq. Jesus, pay attention. What I said was that her statement I agreed with. Bush said no more troops were needed, stay the course, she said more troops were needed to win, then she pulled a 180 and wants to (ahem) "redeploy." So in actually, they're all fucknuts who are more concerned about their political careers than actually fixing the mess we created.

Effloresce · 12-05-2006, 09:01 PM

Redeployment is what Democrats have been saying for quite some time now. I'd agree the whole "leaving responsibly" thing is bullshit beyond having some kind of a smooth transition out. On the other hand it would be in the Democrats' best interests to at least initially position themselves as being open to some redeployment and change in tactics... then when it still doesn't work, really start pushing to leave, citing yet another failure that we can't afford.

If they don't do that and all end up sounding like Joe Leiberman, I'll be pissed... and maybe you'll then see that I'm not really "in love" with either party, I just prefer Democrats because they are closest to my political views and ideals.

12-03-2006, 02:17 PM	#1
JokeyLoki has great self of steam. Location: SECRET OBAMA FUCKDEN RENDEZVOUS Posts: 24,305	Exit Strategy http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....tm/index.html George Bush has a history of long-overdue U-turns. He waited until he woke up, hung over, one morning at 40 before giving up booze cold. He fought the idea of a homeland-security agency for eight months after 9/11 and then scampered aboard and called it his idea. But Bush has never had to pull off a U-turn like the one he is contemplating now: to give up on his dream of turning Babylon into an oasis of freedom and democracy and instead begin a staged withdrawal from Iraq, rewrite the mission of the 150,000 U.S. troops there as they begin to draw down, launch a diplomatic Olympics across the Middle East and restart the flagging peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Even calling all that a reversal is misnomer; it would be more like a personality transplant. But Bush will soon begin the biggest foreign policy course correction of his presidency. No matter what else may get stapled onto it, the maneuver will be based on what the bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton reached agreement on last week. The Baker-Hamilton commission's work has been compared to family interventions for a substance-addicted cousin, but unlike those encounters, this one won't remain behind closed doors. The entire 10-person commission will brief the president Wednesday and then repeat the lesson for congressional leaders, both incoming and outgoing, later the same day. The Iraq Study Group will call for a massive diplomatic push in two areas in which the White House has never put its shoulder to the grindstone: rekindling peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis and holding an international conference that would lead to direct talks between Washington and Tehran and Damascus. The Study Group's military proposals are performance-based: they would link a staged withdrawal from Iraq by U.S. forces to stronger actions by the struggling Iraqi government. Realism was exactly what the people who cooked up the commission had in mind when they set the bipartisan operation in motion more than a year ago. The review began as a $1 million insertion into an appropriations bill by Republican Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, who had gone to Iraq last year and decided the policy wasn't working. He slotted the money to the U. S. Institute of Peace, whose president, Richard Solomon, approached the one person in Bushland who still had a reputation for realism and who could command the president's ear, alone: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Would she propose the commission to the president? Rice's request: Don't look back After some hesitation, Rice agreed, but made one request: the commission had to look forward, not backward, in part because she knew the dysfunctional Bush foreign policy operation, tilted so heavily along the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, would not permit, much less sustain, scrutiny. Rice got through to Bush the next day, arguing that the thing was going to happen anyway, so he might as well get on board. To his credit, Bush agreed. Baker and Hamilton were left to choose their own panelists, and the commission went to work, gathering evidence, making a trip to Baghdad and hearing from more than 100 experts. Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor developed a reputation for asking the best questions. Democratic power broker Vernon Jordan emerged as the group's political sage. Clinton defense chief William Perry cornered the military options -- and would be a holdout on the final deal. When Democrats swept the November elections, aides to several panelists told Time that the commission would have more room to make sweeping proposals. Rumsfeld's resignation the next day cemented that feeling. But the election, instead of making things easier, actually made them harder. Psychoanalysis and the prodigal son When Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission who had served the first President Bush as head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the psychoanalysis rampant in the media about daddy's team coming back to save the prodigal son steamed everyone at the White House, from the president on down, and led the administration to dig in its heels. Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq itself kept deteriorating and there was a risk that the panel's proposals would be obsolete before consensus was reached. Baker turned up last Monday with a draft report he wanted panel members to consider or amend and then get into the president's hands. Democrats led by Hamilton, Perry and Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's ex-chief of staff, were adamant that the report recommend a firm starting point for troop withdrawals. When the Republicans again refused, members agreed on language that would leave the date vague but the vector clear. And then the group adjourned. 'No idea how things will look in February' Bush will put a few weeks between the big Baker-Hamilton rollout and his own restart -- White House officials worry that anything faster would look too reactive -- but one official told Time that the new path the president will outline in coming weeks is "significantly different than what we've been doing. ...When the president says we're going to get the job done, that doesn't suggest it is an open-ended commitment forever." Whether it is the Baker approach or whatever the White House decides to call its own, events in Iraq could easily make any plan for diplomacy and withdrawal irrelevant in the face of a weak central government, a deepening civil war and widespread violence. A commission official put it this way, "What we have produced is a plan for December. We have no idea what things are going to look like in February." So.... thoughts? I was actually pretty surprised to hear this big of a turnaround happening, but it makes sense. Rumsfeld told Bush before he left that they were failing. I just wonder if diplomacy will have any effect at all, after all the damage that's been done. Bush hasn't really talked to anyone in that region in quite a long time. It's all threats and bullets.

12-03-2006, 02:24 PM	#2
Effloresce Banned Posts: 5,018	Regardless of what happens, a lot of this is going to get dumped on the next President, and I think he or she will have a rather difficult time dealing with it. The domino effect of problems presented by this senseless war is just unbelievably disastrous in so many ways across the board. Now, if a big turnaround will actually happen remains to be seen, but I hope Bush will be more open to at least taking a more neutral stance and letting some advice from the outside help direct where to go next.

12-03-2006, 02:33 PM	#3
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,965	Its too late to do anything other than get the hell out.

12-03-2006, 02:38 PM	#4
Effloresce Banned Posts: 5,018	Future Boy, I agree with you. But apparently everyone wants to leave "responsibly". My question would be, is there ANYTHING you can do to keep Iraq stable once we pull out? We could leave tomorrow or two years from now, there's going to be even more chaos in that country with a significantly diminished or completely absent military presence. People are really putting their confidence in an Iraq military to be able to defend themselves? That's really a solution? I don't think there IS a solution. We either stay and continue to watch our troops get killed for nothing, or leave and stomach the irreversible damage we've done in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

12-03-2006, 02:47 PM	#5
Future Boy The Man of Tomorrow Posts: 26,965	We've failed, anything that delays getting out is mearly to try and save face really. "leave and stomach the irreversible damage we've done in Iraq and throughout the Middle East." Pretty much, yeah. A change in leadership/direction and an increase in troop levels might end things on a better note, but I dont see that happening.

12-03-2006, 02:49 PM	#6
Effloresce Banned Posts: 5,018	And even if you leave things on a better note, long-term, that country is more or less fucked.

12-05-2006, 12:25 AM	#7
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,986	Rumsfield coming out with his his ideas that he wrote just before the election is a rather pathetic way to hold on to his credibility. and Effloresce, this war wasn't senseless. Both Clinton and John Kerry advocated Saddam's removal in '98, but there wasn't the political will to do much until after 9/11. There was plenty of reason to go in there and remove him but the current insurgency is largely funded by Iran and Al-Queda is all over the place and always was there well before the war... that's why Army generals wanted a half-million troops but Rumsfield shot all that down, very arrogantly, btw...gaff central. and that Iraq committee isn't gonna come up with anything that hasn't been thought of before...

12-05-2006, 11:08 AM	#8
Karl Connor ADMlNISTRATOR Posts: 18,932	it seems to be all about damage control at this point. i would've sworn to god at that press confernce with the iraq p. minister a few days ago he cited al queda - numerous times - for the primary reason it'd be "disasterous to leave iraq now." al queda, who's responsible for like, 2% of the actual attacks that have taken place over there throughout this war. if you're going to cite reasons why leaving iraq would be a bad idead, dont continue this "they win/another 9-11 is inevitable" bullshit. this is just becoming a farce now

12-05-2006, 06:23 PM	#10
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,975	I think I disagree with almost everyone in this thread. I agree with what Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry said before the last election - we need more troops to do the job right. Of course they both reversed position since then.

12-05-2006, 07:51 PM	#14
Trotskilicious Banned Location: I believe in the transcendental qualities of friendship. Posts: 39,439	jesus christ what ever happened to personal responsibility?

12-05-2006, 07:53 PM	#15
Karl Connor ADMlNISTRATOR Posts: 18,932	well i guess it is our responsibility to clean up what we started. but when its a seeming impossibility ... its not going to be easy for either party regardless

12-05-2006, 09:01 PM	#18
Effloresce Banned Posts: 5,018	Redeployment is what Democrats have been saying for quite some time now. I'd agree the whole "leaving responsibly" thing is bullshit beyond having some kind of a smooth transition out. On the other hand it would be in the Democrats' best interests to at least initially position themselves as being open to some redeployment and change in tactics... then when it still doesn't work, really start pushing to leave, citing yet another failure that we can't afford. If they don't do that and all end up sounding like Joe Leiberman, I'll be pissed... and maybe you'll then see that I'm not really "in love" with either party, I just prefer Democrats because they are closest to my political views and ideals.