Congress votes for Iraq Pull Out plan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ABrighter2006, Apr 26, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC News Page

    Okay, so President Bush can veto this - so this may be more smoke than mirrors in reality.

    I wonder how the British Government will attain a positive spin on this one.

    Possibly one of our American posters might like to comment on the feelings Stateside?
  2. The left wing of the democrat party supports the surrender plan. Time will tell how angry the rest of the voters are. I know the military isnt very happy about this sorry state of affairs. In addition to the surrender timetable the bill has money for the troops, bench marks that undercut the authority of the president, increase in the minimum wage and billions of non-defense spending that we call pork. Its a real gamble by the democrats. If they are right that most americans support them then they will do ok at the polls in 08. If they are wrong then they will not only lose control of Congress but the presidency as well. This bill does show that the democrats will not be able to shake the charge that they are weak on national defense.

    Rudi made some comments the other day about this.

  3. You know, I'm not sure that cutting back on the Patriot Act is such a bad thing. I always distrust anything that has such a wonderfully un-opposable name.

  4. CT. The people who introduced The Patriot Act are not themselves patriots. The PNAC don't give a damn for the American People.
    'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.' Dr Samuel Johnson wrote that a couple of hundred years ago.
  5. Fair comments - either way, it sends a clear signal to the guys on the ground, that they do not have total support from their countrymen.
  6. Fair point. I'm American and I worry about a Democrat President, but I cannot condone this blinkered approach to a contraction of rights in the name of "patriotism". More especially as the word "patriot" does not, in any way, conjure up an image of those currently in office professing so to be.

  7. I find it funny as hell that the Brits bash us for the Patriot Act and you have fewer rights by the day. I read recently where the police will be able to do no knock raids in the UK on homes of people who havent paid their parking tickets.
  8. tomahawk6 has a valid point there.
  9. Let's put this into context.

    The Senate has 100 seats: 49 Rep, 49 Dem and 2 independent.

    The Senate vote was 'won' 51:46
    - 48 Dems voting for and 1 going AWOL
    - 1 Indy voting for (Sanders)
    - 1 Indy voting against (Lieberman)
    - 45 Reps voting against, 2 voting for and 2 going AWOL

    This Bill was passed because 2 Republicans voted for it and 2 decided not to vote - one of them being McCain.

    Given that on Iraq votes, Lieberman acts as a Republican, if they can get their own house in order, the GOP cannot lose in the Senate with Cheney's casting vote. But they did.

    This result is more a comment about the state of the Republican party than it is the Democrats.
  10. I read a US Government report written about 6 months after 9-11 on America adopting a British style security state. It found much to praise in the system the UK had built up during the period of The Troubles and has re-enforced continually since creating what is perhaps the most surveiled society in history.

    It said unfortunately there were great constitutional barriers to such an errosion of freedoms and no sane risk assessment of the threat from AQ could provide a basis for implementing these measures in the US.
  11. On the "surrender plan". The main criticism that can be leveled here is that if the POTUS did not veto this the enemy would exploit the timetable to its advantage.

    The weakness in this argument is that "The Surge" promises almost as predictable a draw down of US forces as the US Army cracks under the strain of extended tours and the 08 election looms. The military alternative to redeployment at this point will be catestrophic failure. This is obvious to any observer and that includes the multiple enemies that wait to squabble over Iraq's sad carcass when the large predator moves off.

    Both plans are unrealistic and liable to be over taken by events in Iraq and beyond its borders. They are more about US domestic politics than the very worrying developments in the region. It's dishonest head in the sand politics I'm afraid. There is no real prospect of any meaningful victory or DC permanently extracting itself from the mess in this President's term. Neither party has the political courage to talk in terms of necessary damage limitation. There are costs to borne from this misadventure and politically expedient denial will only make them greater.

    Much of DC's armed power is probably trapped in this vital region for the next couple of decades managing the chaos caused by the fall of Sunni ruled Iraq. Which will leave DC strategically vunerable elsewhere.
  12. That's a very good point alib, I wonder why so few in the US seem to get it ? The "surge" is unsustainable, the US does not have enough troops to keep force levels that high. Why is a pullout now "surrender" and a pullout later "victory" ? Either way, the opposition know all they have to do is survive until then to win.

    The only thing that would make the enemy see no possibility of success is be an increase in US forces to a level that can support current force levels indefinitely - ie more taxes and the draft. Will the current POTUS do that ? No ? Then he does not want to win in Iraq.
  13. Dont quit your day job to become a military analyst. The full weight of the surge wont take effect until May and then in Sept. Petraus will determine the effectiveness of the strategy. If the plan continues to show success then a draw down of forces would occur by December.

    I see the surge having to move into Basra as the situation there is out of control thanks to the unchecked power of the pro-Iranian militias. The Mahdi Army has to be destroyed if the Iraqi government is to exercise control over the region. The US does not need a draft and the Army is going to accelerate adding 65,000 additional troops which should help the OPTEMPO.
  14. T6 old chap, you do make me laugh - assuming you're real and not some automated bot programmed to spout the party line without reference to logic or reason. What happens in September if the surge hasn't worked ? And I'll ask again, given the importance of the question - what happens in September if the surge does not work ? Bear in mind that the enemy will hold on if he can see a US pullout in sight, he will think about jacking it in if he sees no way to win.

    Are you telling me that all of the many statements, articles and so on out there about the unsustainability of current US military operations are false ?
    For instance:,8599,1606888,00.html
    Just a few I found, there are a lot more out there. Are they really all the work of the "terrorist supporting MSM" or "Democratic surrender monkeys" ?

    So, what if September comes, things are no better and US troop levels cannot be sustained ? How do you justify supporting a President who refuses to fund the Army to the level needed to win and who refuses to draft the troops required to win ? How does that differentiate you from that section of the US electorate who wish to pull out sooner rather than later ?

    Oh, and nice dig at the Brits there as well. The US has, what, over a hundred and fifty thousand troops and you can't keep the Sunni minority in line. In contrast we've got less than ten thousand and we get the Shia majority to look after. I mean we're good, but not that good. Besides, how are we supposed to change the minds of the many Shia who genuinely want to be pro-Iranian. Are the Iraqis only allowed democracy as long as they vote for the US preferred candidate ?

    But the big giggle for me is your wish to remove one of the few Iraqi nationalist groups (Moqtadr and his band of nutters) and leave the field wide open to the hard-core pro-Iranian groups. Maybe you're really sponsored by Tehran, or perhaps you're just a "useful idiot" for the Iranian cause (to lapse into Cold War terminology, which I know dates me).

    Oh, and guess what my day job is if I get mobilised ? I know it's not twisting the facts to justify a party political point, which renders me incompatible with current US strategic int (that's intel to you).
  15. If you dont think Sadr and his militia arent hard core and a serious threat then you are pretty ignorant of the state of affairs in Iraq. Sadr's militia was responsible for the last bombing that killed 4 British service members and probably are resposnsible for the latest death as well.

    Assessing operations is a common practice. If the full force of the surge takes effect in May by Sept. will be 90 days. At that point then the commander can reposition his forces to deal with new threats. Once we started the surge AQ moved out of Baghdad to Diyala province where they launched suicide attacks into Baghdad. The commander moved Army battalions into the province to fight AQ. The heavy losses we took last week were in Diyala. As the additional brigades become available they will be used to the greatest effect.

    The Sunni's after decades of running Iraq are out of power. Most felt they had no choice but to resist the Shia majority. Slowly this thought has been reversed as evidenced by more support we are getting from the sunni's in Anbar.