A Roadmap Out Of Iraq

Like many, I've been concerned about recent speculation on Iraq. You can read Powerline's take here. But if one burrows beneath the headlines, the news may not be all bad. And we may be heading toward a way out of Iraq that many on the Right would likely embrace.

Tomorrow President Bush will meet with Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to discuss the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The group's report will be issued next month, but presumably its conclusions have more or less taken shape. Based on the leaking that is currently going on, the news could hardly be worse....

McCain and Lieberman both came out in support of additional troops for Iraq today on Meet The Press. Yesterday, word went out to the National Guard that the 24 month deployment limit is off as we intend to keep troop levels up for some time.

Yes, we may talk to Iran, but there are some things which would need to be said in talks and not through public channels. Iran fought Saddam's army to a stalemate after several years. We destroyed Saddam's army in three weeks. Privately, Iran should have no illusions about what we could do to their war fighting capability, as well as their oil fields, were we forced into an actual war. And we needn't occupy Iran to leave them broke and in ruins. A place I doubt they want to be.

Keep in mind that in previous reports, Def. Sec. nominee Robert Gates has claimed to know the importance of victory aka stability for Iraq and his history is far from that of a dove.

So, what do we do? As Powerline mentioned, we tell Iran and associated countries we have no intention of attacking them, but we are stepping up operations in Iraq to quell the violence.

A top U.S. intelligence official has been meeting with Middle East counterparts to discuss proposals expected from the Baker commission on Iraq, Middle East sources have told Newsday.

Doing that would buy the Iraqi government, as presently comprised, or under a stronger leader, more time to stabilize. Doing it under the guise of the Baker Commission would make it difficult for the Democrats to oppose without looking weak on national defense. The majority of Americans are tired of Iraq, not because we went there, but because we haven't been showing progress.

It's been said that Nixon was the only President who could approach China because he was such a strong anti-communist. A similar principle would play out in reverse by having Baker and company sign on to a temporarily increased level of intervention in Iraq designed to bring about stability.

If Bush does indeed go wobbly, it would anger me as much as anyone else and likely doom the Republicans to minority status for years. But there are other signals being sent that at least give me hope he is determined to fight his way out of this mess and not simply turn tail and run. I imagine we'll know for sure before the end of the year.

Comments

[College Republican]

As long as I don't have to fight in Iraq and it doesn't raise my dad's taxes I'm all for it!

[Cindi]

That is pure bullshit College. Our son is registered republican. He was very willing to give up a full 4 year scholarship at several schools to fight for his country. It had nothing to do with being a republican or a democrat. It was a matter of wanting to wipe out a few terrorist and defend what is right.

We had many a converstation with our son on his desire to join the military, which we supported, like it or not. What it boiled down to was captured in this one statement and something we always instilled, do the right thing for your brother and sisters, regardless of where they may live.

I am more than fed up with Americans who think this is only about them. We live in the greatest country in the world. We have an obligation to help our brothers and sisters in protecting their God given rights.

Doing what is right has nothing to do with taxes. Bring it on.

[ajacksonian]

We face an enemy that seeks expansive Empire until it encircles the globe.

What part of running is going to help us survive that?

When does America stop running and stand for the foundations of liberty, freedom, individualism and Nations that can make such possible?

When the butcher is at your doorstep is a bit too late, if I may say so. And if we quiver at the mere interest on the butcher's bill *now* then what will we do when it is fully handed to us?

For there are long term consequences of defeat: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/09/long-term-consequences-of-defeat.html

[bud]

Redeploy the NG? What are these people smoking? It hasn't been covered very well by either new or old media, but, while Active recruiment and reup rates are rosy, the NG is having a hard time recruiting and retaining troops. If the intent is to destroy the Guard, this is the ideal path. We'll wind up with an NG that is in the same shape as the Army and Marines were post-Vietnam: dispirited, dysfunctional, and populated with the losers of society, because that's all they'll be able to recruit.

Anyone who wants (or at least accepts) multiple, sequential multimonth overseas deployments away from home and hearth goes RA. People who view themselves as citizens who want to help with short term emergencies and major war go to the Guard. The idiots in the five-sided big top better recognize this.

One more minor problem: every unit that has already deployed once (and therefore viewed by the Big Brains at Military Central as used up) has been stripped of most of their "E" (as in TO&E) good stuff. They've been left with unencrypted comm, no armored hummers, no heavy weapons, no good vests, and leftover small arms. Redeploy? They've got some major re-equipping to do first.