Just joking, Aaron. I know Casey didn't draw up his plan in response to Murtha. See my comment in Aaron's previous news story.) But how do you know that the plan "signifies the increased confidence in the Iraqi Military to handle the job on their own."

Republicans are obviously in turmoil over what to do about the Iraq quagmire. Someone leaked this plan. I doubt the timing is CNN's doing. Someone is trying to undercut Bush, and saw this was a good time to leak the plan. It sure makes the House Republicans look clueless. And it is really unfortunate timing for anyone who just called Murtha a coward.

Anyone who calls Murtha a coward is a moron.

The Republican pressed voted on Friday was moronic and undemocratic.

I haven't been for immediate withdrawl. But Murtha deserves respect and since looking over his proposal I think it's something that should be taken seriously.

It certainly didn't deserve a rushed fake vote. That was one of the biggest jokes i've witnessed.

Murtha, perhaps more than any other congressman, he has the ear of the military and perhaps speaks for the military more than any other congressmen.

Murtha deserve respect and his plan deserves serious consideration.

To call him a coward is purely idiotic.

So, if a US Marine calls a US MArine a moron, which one is the moron?

The vote on Friday was undemocratic? Back up that statement. How is a vote "undemocratic".

The biggest joke I've witnessed is a local city council creating a resolution against the war in Iraq. Oooooooooooo....the Cambridge City Council is against the war. ALL non-binding resolutions are jokes. Gives them pols something to do to justify their existance. How about a Congressman telling the Commander in Chief what to do with the military in a war? I think THAT's a farce outside the jurisdiction of the Congress. They hold the purse-strings, that's their influence on how the POTUS runs a war, not by giving their opinon on how to do that. Leave it up to the generals.

No, I don't think Murtha speaks for the military any more than anyone else. Guess I'll have to agree to disagree with your opinion.....and I'll ask those in the military what THEY think. You think THEY think he speaks for them?

Here's where we will always disagree:

Murtha deserve respect

Murtha's service and devotion to the country deserves the respect that has been earned. However, this does not give someone a free-pass to say anything at any time without criticism.

and his plan deserves serious consideration.

No, it doesn't. He's a Congressman with an opinion......an incorrect opinion according to those that don't share the opinion that are in-charge.

If a highly decorated Marine calls him a coward, who's the idiot? Which one? Which opinion is idiotic.

In case you missed it Tom, it was a MARINE COLONEL that stated that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do"....not the Congresswoman that relayed the message. So, you're calling a highly decorated Marine Colonel an idiot and moron if you think that statement called Murtha a coward. Where's the so-called respect you claim is deserved? Or does that respect only come for those yoiui agree with?

The vote on Friday was undemocratic? Back up that statement. How is a vote "undemocratic".

----

Because it was an attempt to undercut a sincere plan of action proposed by Murtha. This is a guy who's consistently been pro-military, who speaks to the pentagon a lot. Who has traveled to Iraq. He doesn't think the US presence in Iraq, at least a large presence in charge of Iraqi defense, will help improve the situation there. He's sees it as a hindrance.

He's laid out a very detailed plan to quickly reduce the size and role of the US military in Iraq. Republicans by forcing this vote, which had none of the thoughtfulness or plans of Murtha’s, are trying to undercut it without any real debate about it. They are in effect trying to force the democrats into a vote on it, so they will vote no, then the idea of immediately withdrawal will go away.

They tried to take away a real, reasoned debate on this. I don't think they will in fact succeed in doing so, but they tried.

They also obviously tried doing this for political reasons. Anyone with a brain can see that.

But other people hold Murtha's views. In fact, most of the country holds his views.

But for another reasoned view in correlation with Murtha see this page:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

In case you missed it Tom, it was a MARINE COLONEL that stated that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do"

----

If it was a Marine Colenel who said this, then I respectfully call his opinion idiotic. It's more understandable for a marine to say this, since this is how they are and should be trained.

But Murtha's plan is not cowardly. It's basically saying the US is doing more harm than good in Iraq. That without the US pulling back, Iraqis won't learn to fend for themselves.

And Murtha is not really that far off from the administration and pentagon. They are plans for withdrawal ready, maybe not as great as Murtha calls for, but the idea that we need to start getting out of there is prevalent on capital hill and in the pentagon.

Actually, Tom, his resolution laid out a very simple plan. Pull the troops out immediately is the first step and I fully disagree with that first step as do all the Generals in charge that get paid to make those decisions.....as does the Commander in Chief......and no matter how many times you say it in an ad nauseum manner, "most of the country" does not share that view of pulling ALL the troops out immediately, not even to have them sit by in a neighboring country to be called back in the day after the pull-out. You HAVE read his resolution haven't you? Pull all the troops out immediately, keep a quick reaction force and a buncha Marines visible, and use "diplomacy" to deal with terrorist-scum.

The idea of immediate withdrawl SHOULD go away and the GOP had the Democrats put their vote where their mouths are. THEY are using the House for political purposes as well, Tom.....and they got called on it.

Actually Sarge, I don't think his plan calls for the pullout of troops from Iraq.

This is what he called for:

-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.

-- To create a quick reaction force in the region.

-- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.

-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

In two interviews I've seen with him, he said he wants troops postitions on the perifery of the country, not in with civilians. They would be able to mount operations inside iraq still, and help the iraqi security forces.

If you think about it, this is basically what we did in afghanastan.

----

The idea of immediate withdrawl SHOULD go away and the GOP had the Democrats put their vote where their mouths are.

----

So just because one party thinks this is a bad plan, it's OK for them to force a false vote on it without giving the American people the chance to hear a real debate on it?

THAT'S undemocratic.

It’s very well known now that a year ago Murtha said the current way the US was fighting the war in Iraq made it unwinnable. He said they either need to withdrawal or increase forces. He said he favored an increase in forces.

Now after a year with no real progress in making Iraq independent from the US military, while also seeing the insurgency continue, if not strengthen, he is calling for redeployment in the country to make the US presence not as powerful, and to force the Iraqis to defend themselves.

This is a story from the current time. It seems to show that US military on the ground has been asking for more forces for a while.

--

If the Repulblican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq. "We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html

--

It seems to me that Murtha knows what he is talking about, and was speaking for the commanders on the ground last year when he said the US needed to increase the amount of troops in Iraq.

Tom, you'd do better for yourself if you go off of the text of the resolution instead of the cliff-notes version provided by a 3rd party.

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Primary sources, Tom...always better than spin. I don't care what interviews you've seen with him. I care about what his resolution said, not his backpeddling of what he MEANT his resolution to say...and this is nothing like what we did in Afghanistan because OUR troops that left were replaced by other troops from other countries AND we still kept 15,000 troops there.

Your concept of what's undemocratic is questionable. Unless you want the Democrats to ceaselessly bash the POTUS non-stop with their bullshit without ever being called on it. They were called to put their vote where their mouths have been for quite some time now and they all, except 3, were a bunch of political cowards. Personally, I don't give a fuck what a retired Marine Colonel that is not in ANY chain of command in this war has to say about "how" to run it. I'll leave it up to the Generals that get paid to make those decisions.

No I don't need Murtha's past or present opinions spoon-fed to me. I also understand that he's a politician, not a general in charge of anything. Thusly, he can spew off his opinions at will and never be called on anything when his opinions are or are not put into action. His opinion is noted, I disagree.......and so do the generals and civilians in the chain of command that DO make and implement the decisions.

"the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

This does not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, Sarge.

It calls for a change in strategy. Which is what I outlined above.

What I posted are his words from his press conference, not any sort of back peddle.

What i laid out is what he is proposing. Now, do you care to address that?

And, that's great that you disagree, but the original intent of my post was that this plan deserves debate and the republicans tried to cut off that debate, and that's undemocratic.

Do you disagree with that, sarge?

Only liberals would watch one of thier own issue a plan for immediate withdrawal and then try to argue that the language doesn't mean 'immediate withdrawal'.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Thanks for contributing nothing, MJ.

The deployment of United States forces in Iraq...is hereby TERMINATED" Terminated...as in...aat the end of this vote, troop deployment is TERMINATED....ENDED....FINIT. What part of terminated do you not understand? I don't give a flying ratshit what he said in any press conference or what you can dig up somewhere or your "outline"...I read the actual text, not Tom's translation.

What i laid out is what he is proposing. Now, do you care to address that?

No, what you laid out is a translation of what he's proposing....primary sources, Tom.....and I need not go further than the 1st clause, which I disagree with wholeheartedly. Anything after that is not relevant. This plan deserves no more debate than it was given. Terminating the deployment of troops in Iraq is not and will not be a good thing at this juncture. Republicans are sick of the bullshit Democrats are furthering that get into the soundbites in the nightly news. They called on the House Democrats to "put up"...put their votes where their rhetoric has been for a LOOOOOONG time now. Evidently, they CHOSE to shut up, going off of their voting. PLUS, I don't give a shit what YOU think "deserves debate" in the House, either. I disagree that the House should debate military strategies, when we pay good generals to do those things.

PLUS, Tom....your attempt to say this wasn't a call for immediate withdrawl has fallen flat in the face of the facts.

This ("the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."

) in and of itself does not call for an immediate withdrawl....but the termination of the deployment of U.S. troops does...even when followed by "the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Especially when the term "practible" means "1 : capable of being put into practice or of being done or accomplished

So, he wants the troops, whose deployment has been terminated, to be redeployed at the earliest date that THAT redeployment can be accomplished. Good job in rewriting what he said into what he didn't say and good job following his backpeddling spin. Maybe his next resolution will not call for an immediate withdrawl and will be given more non-binding debate for you.

Regarding this post: I think she doth protest too much.

Murtha just made his infamous comments within the past few days, and these withdrawal plans have probably been on paper for some time already. The request for these plans was more than likely made well before Murtha changed his stance on the Iraq War and said "it's time to bring the troops home."

Sure, good point. But I'm sure they have a lot of plan B's in the can. The question is, when did they decide to let people know about this plan? And the answer is: just a couple days ago, after Murtha presented his plan.

Sarge, if you can, please link to the resolution text, I'd like to read it. I also heard Murtha quoted as saying the plan provided for a quick reaction force in the region, probably in Kuwait. This is not inconsistent with "The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated," because Kuwait is not Iraq. I'd like to see if there is anymore to it before I decide whether or not Murtha is backpedaling. And yes, I'm too lazy to find it myself.

Murtha Resolution To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq: IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on _____________________

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

Thanks MJ, I guess he was backpedaling.

Haha oh wait wtf I spoke too soon. I just assumed that because you quoted it that there was no mention of the quick reaction force!

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Nice selective quoting, Sarge.

Wrong Fella, but nice spin on what I've said. The resolution calls for all forces to be removed from IRAQ. That's the first thing. That's all I've commented on and not only that, but if you actually read what I said, you'd see that I DID mention "sitting them in a neighboring country" only to be redeployed back to Iraq the next day when all hell breaks loose. It's the very first clause I have a problem with and it would be a bad thing if that's undertakend right now. A gradual pull out as the Iraqi forces gain experience and "sarges" is the apt thing to do.

What I've been shoving at Tom is the plain old FACT that his plan called for the immediate withdrawl of forces FROM IRAQ.....and yes, Murtha IS backpeddling from his initial resolution if he's claiming that this resolution did not call for an immediate withdrawl....which it clearly does.

OK Sarge it wasn't clear, I thought you were talking about the QRF.

Well, it still says the redeployment would be done as soon as practically possible.

The immediate part is shifting from keeping the troops there to an active policy of taking them out.

It's basically accelerating what is going to happen soon anyway.

Cheney made a point today that removing troops now would create an illusion of defeat or running from terrorists. I would counter that, given it doesn't look like this insurgency is going anywhere, anytime we pull troops out the insurgents, terrorists are going to have opportunity to claim victory.

We can't let that fact dissuade us from doing what we think is best. Granted, there are many who don't think what murtha's plan calls for is best (personally, i'm not convinced it is, but I'm open to it). But that's to be debated.

Yah....It does call for a 'quick reaction force and an over the horizon presence'....What does that mean? Probably Kuwait. Definetly NOT IN Iraq.

It absolutely does call for a complete withdrawal of troops and leaves Iraq hanging dry, and directs us to pursue peace only through diplomacy.

How the hell he thinks he's going to wage a diplomadic campaign against resurgent ba'athists and Answar Al Jihad/Al Quaeda in Iraq is beyond me, it's preposterous.

What the point of a quick reaction force in Kuwait is, (beyond our normal levels of troops stationed quasi-permanently in Kuwait for the purpose of securing Kuwait) is also beyond me. If, as he claims, 120,000 thousand troops is not enough, what will a swift strike force accomplish in the face of a rejuvinated remoralized insurgency, IF the Iraqi army fails?

If the Iraqi army does not fail, the force is not needed. If it DOES fail, the force is fucking useless and the mission, if we are so whimsical and foolish as to leave and then re-commit, becomes ten times more difficult then it was before to make progress, perhaps even impossible, perhaps after leaving them high and dry it really will be completely unwinable. You do not win back trust so easily as it is lost when you throw people to the jihadi wolves.

No, Murtha is either being foolish with that idea, or merely keeping up appearances.

If we leave Iraq, it is left, we are gone, whatever happens, WHATEVER happens, will just happen. Why do none of the people talking about pulling out talk about THIER strategic vision and plan for Iraq? What do they think will happen when we leave? I think they should tell us, I want to here this one.

What is it they think they will accomplish? Or do they just not care?

Is it like Cindy Sheehan says? Is America, or is Iraq not worth dying for?

If Iraq is not worth dying for...why not? Is France worth dying for? Poland? Would you have opposed WWII? I've allways thought the real lesson of WWII was best said by Niemoller...And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. I THOUGHT the whole point of useless UN and the 'never again' slogans was to stand up and speak for everyone. Is America now joining France in the rank of nations who surrender Czechloslovakia, and without the courage of a long gone Britian would have probably so willingly have given Poland too? Can we and how possibly should we be so callous? And how can we be so shortsided to see others fall one at a time and not realize our time is coming soon after the last willing to stand with us is gone?

That isn't rhetorical. I want answers.

Or would we stand up for France, just not Iraq? What possibly explanation is there for that, outside of innate racism? If that is the case, we may as well nuke them and be rid of the problem, if an Iraqi life isn't worth as much as an American life, if our 'Creator' didn't make them quite as equal as the rest.

The Revolutionary War lasted 8 years and claimed 4,500 men, though thousands more probably died of disease and infection.

The Civil war lasted only 4 short years, and claimed 192,000 lives, not counting those who died of sickness and infection, or civilians.

WWI lasted 5 years, 54,000.

WWII, 6 years, 292,000 dead American men.

Korea, 3 years, 34,000.

Even in Vietnam America fought for 8 years before turning tale, renegging it's promise to the South Vietnamese and leaving while cutting all funding. The struggle, largely in vain, cost 48,000 American lives. In the wake of American retreat the Communist regime killed more of thier own Vietnamese citizens then the Americans did in the entire war, over 1 million people fled the country within 10 years after the fall of Saigan and another million refugees 10 years after that. Next door, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia rose to power and killed 1/5th of it's entire population, 1.7 million people in a country of only 9 million.

The Iraq War began just 2 years and 8 months ago. So far, the fighting has claimed 2,100 American lives. And we have those who say we cannot win, impossible, and we have those who say we must give up, and leave immediately.

They say it's like Vietnam, but even in Vietnam we fought for 8 years and took 48,000 casualties. We've scarcely reached year 3 with 2000 dead. If thier were Vietnam, the hotel in Hanoi really would have been owned by Paris Hilton's father.

And those who say it's like Vietnam don't like to talk about what happened after we left Vietnam, do they?

If we allow ourselves to loose this war, as a country, whatever the 10 year future may hold, we have it coming.

This was always about nothing but W's and the Neocons interests.

You know it. I know it. You guys know the truth and will never admit it to yourselves.

Take your claptrap and your crocodile tears and shove it.

Or enlist, whatever.

The great Ralph Peters spells out exactly how the dipshit leftists WANT US TO LOSE IN IRAQ. All in an extremely short-sighted, self-indulgent and EXTREMELY selfish power grab attempt.

You have to login but it's very much worth it

Hahaha.....UY uses the tired old "I have nothing to say so I'll spew a list of nonsense and hope someone can make something of it...because I surely can't" tactic. Good job at saying nothing again.

Well, it still says the redeployment would be done as soon as practically possible.

Yes, it does. It takes a little time to move 130,000 men and all their equipment (that's why we had a 6 MONTH "rush to war"). Murtha's resolution calls for that to happen STARTING NOW, as in immediately after the resolution was voted FOR, the Congress calls for an immediate start to the withdrawl of EVERYONE (not that they have the authority to order ANYTHING). That's the wrong strategy.

It's basically accelerating what is going to happen soon anyway.

No, it's not. Currently, we have a "phased withdrawl" in the plans. Murtha's plan calls for pulling ALL of them out as soon as they can be pulled out.

Cheney made a point today that removing troops now would create an illusion of defeat or running from terrorists. I would counter that, given it doesn't look like this insurgency is going anywhere, anytime we pull troops out the insurgents, terrorists are going to have opportunity to claim victory.

Good job at simplifying a difficult situation. If we conduct a phased withdrawl as brigades of Iraqis get up to speed and build an NCO corps, the foreign and sunni terrorists will have to contend with THEM. If we pull out now, they will have a buncha armed boyscouts to contend with and once again, we will be the paper-tiger that we had been since 1993. Wrong message.

Debated...yes...and the call for immediate withdrawl of all troops is what ended the debate of his resolution. It's not even debatable any more. Maybe he can come up with a plan that mirrors the administrations phased plan so he can urge Congress to go for his plan and then take credit when his plan IS implemented...even though it wasn't his plan. No, I think the current withdrawl plan is gonna do just fine.

Sarge MJ said nothing.

I said something, using far less words.

Sarge MJ said nothing.

MJ said plenty, you just cannot follow and comprehend what you read. A proven fact by what youi just said.

I said something, using far less words.

YOU said nothing. A baseless charge, a baseless charge, an ad hominem and a non sequitur. THAT's NOTHING. Move along child, you have nothing to add to this or any other discussion.

Currently, we have a "phased withdrawl" in the plans.

----

Sarge, we currently don't have any plan. Our plan right now is to "stay the course."

We're paying billions of dollars a month for a war that was supposed to pay for itself and have our troops home in a year's time.

The republicans vote last week "advised" the president that he needs to keep them updated on the progress. Shouldn't he have been doing this all along?

Shouldn't there be a timetable to get out of there? The only reason we are there is to fight this insurgency, the insurgency is being fueled by us being there.

There are those who believe Iraqis are capable of fighting this insurgency on their own right now, they just have to be given the opportunity. This is something that needs to be looked at.

The majority of the Iraqi people want either a sunni or shi'ite or combination government. Leaving would not leave Iraq in danger of being overtaken by al-qaeda, especially with US arms and tactical support.

The big question is whether the sunnis and shi'tes will be able to patch their political differences or dissolve into civil war. This is a question whether of not US troops are there or not.

The question really comes down to do we really need to be there more than a year for Iraqi forces to be able to stand alone and fight the insurgency. This is what needs to be debated.

Fighting terrorism is not a reason to stay in Iraq. Terrorism will stay in Iraq as long as we're there. We have to start looking seriously about leaving. Murtha's proposal is the first serious one put forth. Let's go from here.

Now, as I said a few months ago, this is the best way for us to get out of Iraq.

By HASSAN M. FATTAH Published: November 22, 2005 CAIRO, Nov. 21 - For the first time, Iraq's political factions on Monday collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces, in a moment of consensus that comes as the Bush administration battles pressure at home to commit itself to a pullout schedule.

The announcement, made at the conclusion of a reconciliation conference here backed by the Arab League, was a public reaching out by Shiites, who now dominate Iraq's government, to Sunni Arabs on the eve of parliamentary elections that have been put on shaky ground by weeks of sectarian violence.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/international/middleeast/22arab.html?

Sarge, we currently don't have any plan. Our plan right now is to "stay the course."

Yes, there are many plans in the Pentagon and theones implemented involve a planned phased withdrawl. Mayhaps you should stop listening to your talking heads and start listening to the Joint Chiefs and generals on the ground. No, there should not be a timetable. The Joint Chiefs believe in a "by conditions" withdrawl. As in, when "X" happens, we withdraw some. When "Y" happens, we withdraw some. When "Z" happens... Timetables only give the enemy information they don't need to have.

The only reason we are there is to fight this insurgency, the insurgency is being fueled by us being there.

That's bullshit and if you thought about what you said, you'd know it. We're there right now, to assist in the stability of the country until they can stabilize themselves. The conditional withdrawl will pull troops out as Iraqis are able to stabilize themselves militarily. That requires an NCO corps, something they're building right now through experience...something they've never had.

There are those who believe Iraqis are capable of fighting this insurgency on their own right now, they just have to be given the opportunity.

I don't give a shit what "those" say. I listen to the generals on teh ground and THEY disagree. The Iraqi military doesn't have the experience and NCO corps to run on its own.

The big question is whether the sunnis and shi'tes will be able to patch their political differences or dissolve into civil war. This is a question whether of not US troops are there or not.

Awwww...that's cute. You think the difference between the shi'ites and sunnis is political.

The question really comes down to do we really need to be there more than a year for Iraqi forces to be able to stand alone and fight the insurgency. This is what needs to be debated.

No, this does not need to be debated. The Iraqi military needs to build up the backbone of their military before they can effectively deal with ANYTHING. That backbone is the NCO corps and THAT takes time, training, and on the ground experience. As those units build up that backbone, then and only then should we withdraw our troops in a conditional manner.

Murtha's proposal was not a seroius one, it was a complete withdrawl and that's not a seriuos option. Maybe he can come up with one like what those in charge believe.

Damn Tom, do you even read what you post anymore. I guess the "leaders" agree with me and the generals.

About 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, many of whom will run in the election on Dec. 15, signed a closing memorandum on Monday that "demands a withdrawal of foreign troops on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces," the statement said.

Their "demand" is dependent on their security forces being able to deal with national security. Imagine that.....

"That's bullshit and if you thought about what you said, you'd know it. We're there right now, to assist in the stability of the country until they can stabilize themselves"

----

And sarge, their ability to stabalize themselves is greatly hurt by the insurgency. CAN the iraqis right now defend themselves from the insurgency? That's what I want to know. You obviously think no. But i'd like to hear what military leaders charged with training the iraqis say.

Also, as I believe Odom pointed out, a big problem with Iraqis defending themselves with the US still occupying is their will. If the US pulls out, then will more Iraqis have more of a will to defend their country? I think so.

The bottom line is that the training we are giving iraqis is taking a long time. The longer the US is there, the stronger the insurgency seems to get. What Murtha's proposal and now the IRaqis demand of a withdrawal timetable do is start the momentum toward the US getting out of there.

Before, we were stagnent there. I never endorsed Murtha's withdrawal plan, but i will say it helps reframe the argument from 'how long will we be there' to 'how soon will we be out.' That's important.

----

Awwww...that's cute. You think the difference between the shi'ites and sunnis is political.

----

They are politcal, sarge, in the sense that they are vying for different levels of control in the new iraq.

Im sorry that you didnt understand Sarge.

Want me to use smaller words?

What MJ said, is the biggest pile of shit ever.

"Yep we lied to you but forget that, this is about America."

And sarge, their ability to stabalize themselves is greatly hurt by the insurgency.

I disagree. The "insurgent" (read sunni terrorists that're killing shi'ites) are no longer targetting r3ecruiting centers and are mainly targetting shi'ite muslims in mosques and schools just like the terrorist scum they are. I think you can now safely drop the "insurgent" tag.

CAN the iraqis right now defend themselves from the insurgency?

No...next question.

But i'd like to hear what military leaders charged with training the iraqis say.

They say no. There are a few "up to speed" battalions, but not even remotely enough that an immediate withdrawl requires.

Also, as I believe Odom pointed out, a big problem with Iraqis defending themselves with the US still occupying is their will.

That WOULD be the problem if they actually HAD readily trained personnel to take our place and they weren't doing so because we're still there. That, however, is not the case. In case you missed it, Arab armies do not have an NCO corps and that's why they generally suck. They had officers and "not officers" with no responsibility below the officers. The NCO corps GIVES that responsibility, where a Sarge is responsible for 3 guys, not an officer responsible for 100 guys. What we're doing is extensive training "out of theater" and then OJT "in theater" alongside OUR troops so that they won't get too fuckered in minor conflicts. Soon enough, they will be able to start doing some of the work all on thei rown and we can start a phased pull-out.

If the US pulls out, then will more Iraqis have more of a will to defend their country?

No, they won't because they are physically, mentally, and strategically incapable of doing so at this time. They simply are not ready yet.

The bottom line is that the training we are giving iraqis is taking a long time.

Training a nations military FOR THE FIRST TIME takes a lot of time.

The longer the US is there, the stronger the insurgency seems to get.

The longer we're their the more sunnis kill shi'ites like they've been doing for centuries.

What Murtha's proposal and now the IRaqis demand of a withdrawal timetable do is start the momentum toward the US getting out of there.

What Murtha and the Iraqi "leaders" ignore is that we HAVE a plan to pull out exactly as the Iraqi "leaders" wish...when their defenses can handle our pulling out.

No Tom, the difference between sunnis and shi'ites is RELIGIOUS. Sunnis aren't slaughtering shi'ites because of political power, they're doing so because of the shi'ites don't practice THEIR brand of Islamism.....just as they've been slaughtering them for centuries.

No UY, you have a proven comprehension problem. Troll elsewhere with your nothingness.

Want me to use smaller words?

Ill go that extra mile for you.

You can use the smallest words to convey nothing and it's still....nothing. Nothing in 3 posts. Keep up the good work.