Did Holbrooke just say onCBS that Iraq like Vietnam,.not enough Troops?

[KoKo]

resources (troops)to win the war and we won't win it like we didn't win Vietnam so we are being held back. He said France won't send in troops so without more resources it's going to continue to get worse.

If Holbrooke is speaking for Kerry (as he was introduced as a Kerry Campaign Advisor by Bob Scheiffer) then I got the impression Kerry feels we will need to bring in more troops to stabilize Iraq.

IOW, Holbrooke made it sound like Kerry will bring in more American troops and to do that....it means the DRAFT...

There seemed to be no difference in Holbrooke (Kerry's view) and Hagel, Kyle, Lee Hamilton who were on the panel with him.

Why would Kerry bring in more troops when he told us he wouldn't? Has he changed his opinion and sent Holbrooke out to tell us of this change for more American troops?

[blm]

1. The 40,000 are from troops we ALREADY HAVE.

They just need to go in en masse and stabilize the hottest points so that our allies can come in sooner to work with us and change the operation to peacekeeping.

Bush has let too much instability occur for ANY ally or UN peacekeeping force to have any hope of taking over.

[maryallen]

3. 140, 000 troops won't stabilize Iraq ...

Just like 200,00 didn't stabilize Viet Nam.

This is a lose-lose proposition for Kerry. The only winning strategy-- regarding Iraq -- is to get out now, before more Americans and Iraqis are killed and before the world -- in mass -- accuses us of genocide.

[blm]

5. Most Iraqis don't hate us. They hate George Bush.

I think that is not an insignificant difference.

we'll see greater cooperation from all sides, UN, allies, Iraqi citizens and Muslim leaders.

[punpirate]

2. Holbrooke has forgotten his history....

Vietnam was won by the nationalistic determination of its people, just as Iraq will be.

The US lost 58,000 troops in Vietnam. The NLF lost, by conservative estimates, 550,000. In the course of nine years of the war (1964-1973), the US dropped 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam, equal to 800 pounds for every indigenous man, woman and child, and Ho Chi Minh's forces still won. That amount of weaponry was 3-1/2 times the amount dropped by the US in all theaters of WWII.

If Kerry believes otherwise, he wasn't paying attention, either in 1971, or now.

That said, I suspect that Holbrooke is taking a line which he believes is prudent. Doesn't mean he's right.

[KoKo]

4. The other Vietnam-like proposal was to "train the Iraqi's to fight for

themselves" (just like we trained the South Vietnamese to fight against the VietCong which didn't work) or to put troop bases around the borders of Iraq to keep the insurgents from other countries out.

Hagel, Holbrook and Hamilton seemed to be in favor of this. But, where would the troops come from for such a massive effort to "ring Iraq" with American forces?

In all honesty I felt there was "no light" between the proposals of Hamilton, Hagel, Kyle and Holbrooke.

I was hoping someone who saw the show could explain why Holbrooke was pushing what sounded to me like "increase troops first to put down all insurgencies" then try to negotiate to get more troops from other countries in through diplomacy. All four said the country has to be stabilized before we can hope to ask France or Germany or anyone else to bring their own troops in to be killed.

But, Holbrooke did not say Kerry was totally against a draft. I felt the "door was left open" when Schieffer asked Kyle was the report about Bush calling up more National Guard after the election true. Instead of Holbrooke jumping in and saying that wasn't Kerry's position he was silent.

I and other Iraq Invasion Protestors need solid assurance from Kerry that he will not bring in more of our national guard or institute a draft which would ramp up our involvement in Iraq and head us down that long road to a Vietnam like occupation for years to come.

[punpirate]

6. All I can say is...

... that Holbrooke and the others may have their own ideas about stabilizing Iraq. Most of them wrong.

There are two basic views here--that the best course of action is to walk away from Iraq, or, alternately, to find a way to create international support in order to remove what is, admittedly, the antagonism created locally by US troops.

Right now, neither course seems to have much drawing power in Iraq, after the events of the last eighteen months. But, if taking the best chance of the two possibilities, removing equal numbers of US troops as UN troops are introduced might convince all factions that the US is serious about both fixing the problems it created, and leaving the country.

What worries me is that, one, it's too late for the best possible course (i.e., nothing the US does will help) or, two, there are greater forces at work preventing a complete withdrawal of US troops (something of which we, the public, know absolutely nothing), because those influences simply will not accept a democratic election which puts Shia fundamentalists in power.

Still, my view is that the sooner the conflict is defused, by whatever means, the better. That's neither Holbrooke's, Hagel's or Hamilton's view. Each wants some advantage to accrue to the US, and for that reason alone, the situation will get worse, not better.

Kerry will have to speak for himself on this issue. If he doesn't, or tries to somehow find a middling ground between the various American views, he will inherit this war, and it becomes his, whether he likes it or not. If he convinces the Iraqis and the broader Middle East that the US will have no continuing military presence in Iraq or the Middle East, then he has the barest chance of success, but only if his plans for that are clear and proceed immediately after his election.

Cheers.

[Fla Dem]

8. Help me out here.....if JK is elected and the situation in Jan

is the same or worse than it is now, which is extremely likely, if we pull out immediately these are my fears.

Iraq will erupt into a civil war.
Thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered.
Iran will probably invade Iraq and take it over.
They will be much more brutal than anything any U.S. forces may have done.
The whole area will become unstable.
Afghanistan will probably also erupt into war and the Taliban will make a come back.
The extreme Muslims will be in control.
Terrorist will flourish in the unstable region.
Pakistan will become a more unstable and dangerous place.
And I can think of many other catastrophic events cascading into the vacuum we will have created.

I know this is Bush's fault, that he created the mess we are in Iraq. But isn't it our responsibility to clean up our messes no matter who created them. Is it right to leave the Iraqi's in worst shape than when we invaded. Granted Saddam and his henchmen are no longer there. But if we pull out, there will be utter chaos, mayhem, slaughter of innocent women and children.

I don't have the answer. But pulling out immediately just doesn't seem to be the right answer. This is where I need help in understanding what those who advocate pulling out think the result will be.

[faithnotgreed]

9. i wrote basically this same thing in a thread

from yesterday. there are many forces at work incl neighboring countries getting involved if we leave, european countries possibly getting involved if kerry is elected, but i just cant see that any country is going to react well if we just up and leave. in fact, i wouldnt be surprised at any response from all kinds of countries if we try to leave that disaster for everyone else to figure out

of course this is highly complicated and no good answer is available. as much as most in the country say they want us to get out, i dont think they understand what that means. i know i certainly dont

i agree with you. theres no good answer just a choice of what might not cause ww3. thats basically it.
even many iraqis primarily dont want us to leave now because otherwise we leave them decimated on every level with no real protection.

you know when lugar joins hagel in publicly condemning this bunch, you know its gotten wildly out of control

what this administration did and continues to do couldnt be any worse if they tried. hmmm

[punpirate]

11. Please note that I didn't suggest that.

Nor can I answer for what Kerry, or his advisors think.

My own feeling is that US forces are the primary provocation in the current insurgency, and the only way to diminish the political effect of US troops in the country is to remove them--hopefully, by replacing them with truly neutral peacekeeping troops who have skills in policing, rather than war.

But, the troops are there, and permanent bases are being built, because, I fear, there are long-term plans to keep US troops in Iraq. Kerry can't go along with those plans and also defuse the situation. It is logically impossible.

Walking away from the damage and destruction is not an option. Events over the last year prove that. Nor is keeping troops in the country an option.

The rebuilding can be done by others, with our financial assistance in the form of foreign aid. If, as has been done over the last year, the United States persists in the belief that only American firms, on American terms, may participate in the reconstruction, there will be no help from other countries of any kind, and if there's an expectation that the United States can control the outcome of elections, it will convince both the Iraqis and those other countries that might still help us that the United States has an agenda which is not flexible, and admits only what the United States wants--which is the root of problem, to begin with.

Iraq's future, as it was imagined by the Bushies, is already lost, because of their greed and their arrogance. We now have to live with what we have wrought. We can regain some of our lost stature in the world by convincing the Iraqis that a new administration, divorced from the Bushies, will behave much more altruistically.

Cheers.

[Fla Dem]

12. Thanks Pun, you explained your position with more clarity, or

at least I am able to understand it better. In fact, I an certainly leaning in your direction. We cannot immediately pull out. We must open up reconstruction, construction and other economic opportunities to corporations from other countries. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of reconstruction will be taking place until there is more security in the area. But Kerry's plan should articulate that eventuality. We cannot go it alone, we need help, but we will have to stay until there is stability in the area. But not forever. And we should have absolutely NO permanent bases there. Kerry cannot give a deadline as many want him to do. That will only embolden the insurgents to wait it out.

I'm not sure at this point how we cannot avoid the appearance that we have some influence over the elections. They are only 4 months away. Too soon for us to be far enough removed so that will happen.

[Windy]

13. Agreed

The bottom line, we need responsible leadership. We are stuck in Iraq. We can't just pull out. We DO need to get international cooperation that's visible, not only from Germany and France, but also Arab nations. This is not going to happen with Bush in power. None of the other nations trust him. I shudder to think of the greater isolation that will result if he Bush re-elected. Then not only will faith in the administration be lost to the rest of the world, but worse, faith in Americans in general. I think the rest of the world is waiting with baited breath to see how the American people deal with Mr. Bush, who our allies and others credit with destabilizing the world. Unfortunately, I think that the terrorists will scrutinize the actions of our citizens as well. I don't mean this in a partisan way, but the truth is, if Bush is re-elected, you will see increased terrorist attacks against the citizens of this country.

I don't envy the situation that Kerry will be in when he takes office in January of next year, but at least, with a new administration, we may have some hope of gaining the assistance needed to try and stabilize Iraq. We do need to take the American face off of the problem.

[KoKo]

16. You have elections and abide by the results. You don't interfere or try

to sway the vote (if Bush re-elected that will happen...I don't know about Kerry) but you allow them to vote and decide. Then you ask them: "Do you want us to stay? And, in what capacity do you want us to stay?"

Whatever the answer the elected Iraqi's give to us, we abide by it and the hell with the oil, bases, embassies and all the promises the PNAC made to Halliburton and the other "private contractors" of Riches in Iraq.

If you allow them to decide then they will make their own choices and live with the burden of their choices. If they want to bring Saddam back it's fine with me (although he will be long dead from a firing squad) but if they do and he's still alive...it's fine with me.

THE PEOPLE must CHOOSE. Iraqi's are not children and shouldn't be treated that way. And America is not a benevolent Father who should go around the world trying to get the "children to sit on our knees" while we then entice them to pervert their own interests.

[lanparty]

7. Border Patrol !!!!

We need (or needED more precisely) enough troops to patrol the border to make sure all those "foreign terrorist fighters" don't get in.

Of course, thats a big red herring anyway. Those fighters there are pretty much all homegrown. They have the support of their communities, otherwise they couldn't survive.

Yes, we are no dealing with "Iraqnam".

[Zen Democrat]

10. I believe that he consensus is that we needed more troops at the beginning

and that was Wes Clark's position as well. We didn't have enough troops in there to establish order after the invasion was accomplished.

Now, however, that's water under the bridge. It's too late. It's worst case scenario. I've heard Kerry and Clark and others say over and over that now that we're there, we can't afford to fail. But this is a no-brainer. You didn't have to be a foreign-policy expert or a graduate of Harvard or Yale to plainly see that the invasion was doomed from the beginning -- and that conquering Saddam's army was NOT the hard part. Didn't most of us know this was opening Pandora's Box? Now that it's open, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't close it.

All we can do now to mitigate this disaster -- is get the hell out. Iran will overtake Iraq and there will be a united Persia. Isn't this what the Armageddonists want? These nutjobs that want to accelerate the timetable to end it all - so they can fly up in the air with Jesus and escape death. This is what's wrong with America right now and why the right-wing masses will follow Chimpie McCokespoon into the gates of Hell, even if they don't have jobs or healthcare.

[Fla Dem]

15. While the Armageddonists may want the Rapture I'm not ready to go.

Agree with you up until the last paragraph.

Your position seems to be they made their bed, let them sleep in it. Unfortunately, that bed they made, we all will have to sleep in it. A major outbreak of civil wars, and warring countries in that area will lead to catastrophic consequences for the rest of the world. Pakistan, Israel and India have nuclear capabilities, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Toss in the mix Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. All these countries could be caught up in a major conflict.

From Turkey's eastern border on the Mediterranean to Pakistan's border with India is only about 2,400 miles, which is about the distance from Washington, DC to San Francisco. To imagine that whole region in war is not too hard a stretch. And Bush's ill conceived attack on Iraq may just be the ignition switch that sets it off. If it happens we will all pay dearly.

[Zhade]

14. Read up on Holbrooke and Project Cherokee.

You might be surprised by what you find.

Unpleasantly surprised.