chomerics Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Odom is a writer for the Hudson Institute BTW, so this isn't the "liberal media" by any stretch. In his last piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, retired Gen. William Odom argued that all the terrible things the Bush administration says would happen if we pulled our troops out of Iraq are happening already. In a new postscript, Odom writes that the converse is true as well: Bush says he wants to bring democracy and stability to the greater Middle East -- but in fact the only way to achieve that goal is to get out of Iraq now. As I have watched the reactions to my earlier piece on NiemanWatchdog.org, "What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, I recognize that one critical point does not come through to many readers. The problem may stem from the words "cut and run" in the title. In the minds of some, that seems to imply leaving the region for good. My argument is fundamentally different. I believe that stabilizing the region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan is very much an American interest, one we share with all our allies as well as with several other countries, especially, China, Russia, and India. The ‘Global Balkans’ Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has called this region the "global Balkans," a name that recalls the role of the European Balkans during two or three decades leading up to the outbreak of World War I. By themselves the Balkan countries were not all that important. Yet several great powers, especially Russia and Austria, were jockeying for strategic advantages there as they anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and competition for control of the straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Britain and France wanted neither Russia nor Austria to dominate; and Germany, although uninterested in the Balkans, was allied to Austria. From a strategic viewpoint, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was unimportant, but it set in motion actions that soon brought all of the major powers in Europe to war. Four empires collapsed, and the doors were opened to the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Germany as a result. Brzezinski's point today is that the Middle East and Southwest Asia have precisely that kind of potential for catalyzing wars among the major powers of the world today, although nothing in the region objectively merits such wars. Thus Brzezinski calls for the United States to lead the states of Europe plus Russia, Japan, and China in a cooperative approach to stabilizing this region so that it cannot spark conflicts among them. As he rightly argues, the task of stabilization is beyond the power of the United States alone. With allies, however, it can manage the challenge. A Missed Opportunity After al Qaeda's attacks in the United States, the European members of NATO invoked Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, meaning that they considered the attack on the United States as an attack on them all. Article Five had never been invoked before. Moreover, over 90 countries worldwide joined one or more of five separate coalitions to support the U.S. war against al Qaeda. Seldom has the United States had so much international support. It was a most propitious time, therefore, for dealing with "the Global Balkans" in precisely the way Brzezinski suggested. Over the next year and a half, however, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, many neoconservatives, both inside and outside the administration, disparaged NATO and other US allies as unnecessary for "transforming the Middle East." Because the United States is a superpower, they insisted, it could handle this task alone. Accordingly, we witnessed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team and some officials in the State Department and the White House (especially in the Vice President's office) gratuitously and repeatedly insult the Europeans, dismissing them as irrelevant. The climax of this sustained campaign to discard our allies came in the UN Security Council struggle for a resolution to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in February-March 2003. From that time on, we have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, "the only thing worse that having allies is having none," was once again vindicated. Iraq as a Dead End Street Two areas of inquiry follow naturally from this background: First, how could we induce our allies to join us in Iraq now? Why should they now put troops in Iraq and suffer the pain with us? Could we seriously expect them to do so? Second, is remaining in Iraq the best strategy for a coalition of major states to stabilize the region? Would a large NATO coalition of forces plus some from India, Japanese, and China enjoy more success? On the first point, there is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq. How could the leaders of Germany, France, and other states in Europe convince their publics to support such a course of action? They could not, and their publics would not be wise to agree if their leaders pleaded for them to do so. And on the second point, Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al Qaeda benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day U.S. forces remain there. A serious review of our regional interests is required. Until that is accomplished and new and compelling aims for managing the region are clarified, continuing the campaign in Iraq makes no sense. Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress Once we recognize these two realities, it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region. Until that has been completed, they will not join such a coalition. And until that has happened, even we in the United States cannot think clearly about what constitutes our interests there, much let gain agreement about common interests for a coalition. By contrast, any argument for "staying course," or seeking more stability before we withdraw -- or pointing out tragic consequences that withdrawal will cause -- is bound to be wrong, or at least unpersuasive. Putting it bluntly, those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability. Once the invasion began in March 2003, all of the ensuing unhappy results became inevitable. The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In any event, the longer we stay, the worse it will be. Until that is understood, we will make no progress with our allies or in devising a promising alternative strategy. "Staying the course" may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy. Several of Hitler's generals told him that "staying the course" at Stalingrad in 1942 was a strategic mistake, that he should allow the Sixth Army to be withdrawn, saving it to fight defensive actions on reduced frontage against the growing Red Army. He refused, lost the Sixth Army entirely, and left his commanders with fewer forces to defend a wider front. Thus he made the subsequent Soviet offensives westward easier. To argue, as some do, that we cannot leave Iraq because "we broke it and therefore we own it" is to reason precisely the way Hitler did with his commanders. Of course we broke it! But the Middle East is not a pottery store. It is the site of major military conflict with several different forces that the United States is galvanizing into an alliance against America. To hang on to an untenable position is the height of irresponsibility. Beware of anyone, including the president, who insists that this is "responsible" or "the patriotic" thing to do. Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. E-mail: diane@hudson.org http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 You know me, I am on record that LESS stability there is BETTER Down with the theocracies Cause chaos so these arab financiers are more busy trying to save their own ass rather then help fund al qaeda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Yeah it was so stable before we went in. Retired desk jockeys who side with the quitters are retired for a reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 The Balkans?? You mean that great peacekeeping mission that we had to get involved in because Europe and the UN couldn't clean up their own back yard in 1995? The mission we are still involved in? 10 years later?? Clinton did want to also go into Iraq back then and on CNN had his staff try to drum up support on a college campus but the liberals went anti war protest which led to Saddam the next day shooting off his rifle from the balcony and our so called euro allies were saying Americans dont have the stomach for tough battles. I said yeah thats true of liberals but the military isnt full of liberals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 How does Hillary feel Chom? You never tout her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 You know me, I am on record that LESS stability there is BETTERDown with the theocracies Cause chaos so these arab financiers are more busy trying to save their own ass rather then help fund al qaeda I am with you, improvement is not a bad thing especialy when you look at what the status quo was :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Oh man, what does the military know anyways? A retired general writing for the Hudson? HA! Too liberal for MY tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 See link in sig... See December.. See border issue. rinse, repeat. Then we leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 Yeah it was so stable before we went in. Yes it was!!! If there was one thing Saddam did, it was hold the country stable Retired desk jockeys who side with the quitters are retired for a reason Yet chickenhawks who never served should be held in the highest regard . . . :shot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 You know me, I am on record that LESS stability there is BETTERDown with the theocracies Cause chaos so these arab financiers are more busy trying to save their own ass rather then help fund al qaeda So are you for pulling out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 So are you for pulling out? No, I am actually for more covert intervention in different places with Iraq as a base Like shaking up a piggy bank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 See link in sig...See December.. See border issue. rinse, repeat. Then we leave. Bear, they swept the boarder and they will return. There are not enough troops to stop it. You know this and so do I. What they do is they go to a hot spot, clear the area and then leave. Then it becomes a hot spot again. . . Wash Rinse Repeat We just lost 10 soldiers in Falluija today as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 No, I am actually for more covert intervention in different places with Iraq as a baseLike shaking up a piggy bank :applause: Let's eff some things up in Syria and Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 No, I am actually for more covert intervention in different places with Iraq as a baseLike shaking up a piggy bank Gotcha I see two things can happen. We can bring in 200K more troops and control Iraq militarilly, or we can leave. Our mission has been accomplished in the fact that Saddam is gone, there are no WMDs and they have a government. It is now up to the Iraqi's to run their country. They are already in a civil war right now, and they are the ones that need to stop it. We are only making things worse by adding fuel to the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Bear, they swept the boarder and they will return. There are not enough troops to stop it. You know this and so do I. What they do is they go to a hot spot, clear the area and then leave. Then it becomes a hot spot again. . . Wash Rinse Repeat We just lost 10 soldiers in Falluija today as evidence. I believe they will be a little tougher than we are on the borders. They seem to have the backbone to do it... As the troops increase we decrease... We lost 10 soldiers today. To correlate the evidence to this is ludicrous and a stretch. http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/recon092905.html Forty border forts are being constructed in five different governorates. The location for each was determined by MOI/DBE. As it turns out they are on routes known to be frequented by smugglers both into and out of Iraq and Iran. Allegedly those going to Iran are taking cigarettes and liquor; those coming are in possession of automobile parts. There is a mirror border fort on the Iranian side for each of those going up in the Iraqi side. These forts are not truly designed to be a tactical position from which to defend advancing aggression. They are a home location to twelve to fifteen border guards, who conduct border patrol activities from them. Each fort has general living space, sleeping accommodations, a kitchen, and bath facilities. They also have offices and detention cells for their border watch business. Not a fortress setup, but doesnt seem to be just "Sweeps" either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Did you just equate a 700k+ murderer with keeping the country (Stable)? Stable? Marge Schott, owner of the Cincinnati Reds, believes that Hitler "was good in the beginning but he went too far." Sparking yet another controversy, the Reds owner's remarks are under consultation of the baseball commissioner. In an interview with an ESPN TV reporter at Riverfront Stadium offices, Schott said of Hitler, "Everything you read, when he came in, he was good. They built tremendous highways and got all the factories going. He went nuts, he went berserk." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Did you just equate a 700k+ murderer with keeping the country (Stable)?Stable? :laugh: Love the Marge Schott reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 I believe they will be a little tougher than we are on the borders. They seem to have the backbone to do it...As the troops increase we decrease... We lost 10 soldiers today. To correlate the evidence to this is ludicrous and a stretch. Not a fortress setup, but doesnt seem to be just "Sweeps" either... Bear, it is the way we fight the insurgency that I am talking about, not necessarily the borders. We clear an area out and leave. It is a way to lose a war. They disperse, then rop up again once you leave. It is also why I have stated numerous times if they wanted to put in 200K troops, I would support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 Did you just equate a 700k+ murderer with keeping the country (Stable)?Stable? I corrected a false statement. or do you yourself think Iraq was not a stable country under Saddam? Do not try to put words into my mouth, you know better then that. The one thing I thought everyone agreed on was that Saddam was a brutal dictator. Because of his brutality, his country was extremely stable, people would not cross what he allowed to happen. If anything, he was a stabilizing influence on Iraq, because nobody would dare challange him. . . similar as to how Cuba is stable as well. So in conclusion. . . ND infered Iraq was more stable before our invasion, and he was wrong. It is a simple cut and dry case. Iraq was more stable before we invaded then how it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 I corrected a false statement. or do you yourself think Iraq was not a stable country under Saddam? Do not try to put words into my mouth, you know better then that.The one thing I thought everyone agreed on was that Saddam was a brutal dictator. Because of his brutality, his country was extremely stable, people would not cross what he allowed to happen. If anything, he was a stabilizing influence on Iraq, because nobody would dare challange him. . . similar as to how Cuba is stable as well. So in conclusion. . . ND infered Iraq was more stable before our invasion, and he was wrong. It is a simple cut and dry case. Iraq was more stable before we invaded then how it is now. The MIDDLE EAST certainly wasn't "stable" under Hussein. He invaded two countries and started two wars. I'm sure once the eyes of the world was off him, he would have started up again. The MIDDLE EAST will be more stable without him, in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Stable? :laugh: Invading TWO nieghboring countries Supporting terrorism in ME Murdering hundreds of thousands of his subjects Developing nuclear and bio-weapon programs Plus you could add attempting to assasinate POTUS Harbouring wanted terrorist I would continue,but whats the use Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Yes it was!!! If there was one thing Saddam did, it was hold the country stable Yeah, real "stable" country that was fighting Iran, invaded Kuwait and was up to who knows what else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.