What with the fiscal crash that is upon us, it can't go on much longer anyway. There's no money. Get them home before supplies can't be paid for.
All I can say is, Hot Damn!
People thinking, together, and making sense.
How long has it been...
Bollox Ref,
Supplies will always be paid for, its just the price that Americans may not like to pay so much.
If the Fed has to print to pay the bills, look out. Weimar Republic v2.0 or Zimbabwae, Hobsons chioce..
So can we declare bin Laden victorious and finish this thing already!
If the Fed has to print to pay the bill... yes, look out.
A large part of this countries diplomatic power is directly tied to our economic power. Behind most every political difficulty in this world are economical intricacies.
I always wonder if the people that write these things really think there will be US Embassy guards in Baghdad once we end the occupation. Short answer? No. Long answer? Hell no.
Steve wrote a good series of posts at the old News Blog about what scenario would likely occur as the US troops withdraw from Iraq. In short, a bloody retreat. There will not be a US embassy in Iraq for a couple of decades at least, with the unfinished hulk of the US imperial palace becoming a metaphor for the US presence in Iraq.
Check out the recent Winter Soldier testimony last weekend in Silver Spring, Maryland, for what the real Iraq is like and the real consequences of US occupation. The only responsible course is to disengage, send the troops home, arrest and put on trial the war mongers and the people that violated the Constitution and throw them into a super max for the rest of their lives. Only that would really make future policymakers thing that their actions have real consequences for THEM and not only for the people whose lives they ruin.
responsible_plan.pdf (http://responsibleplan.com/o/2757/images/
responsible_plan.pdf) is supposed to be an 840 KB download. Firefox pulls down a 354 KB document that neither Adobe Acrobat nor kpdf (SuSE Linux 10.3) is capable of opening.
The flaw seems to be a Firefox issue. The 1.10.2 Windows version of wget, which may be found at http://users.ugent.be/~bpuype/wget/, downloads a document of size 859693 bytes and MD5 hash 38f16554 85f4c792 b1131f43 d3f53158. The command I used is a one liner which may be used as the one and only line of a 1-line script:
"C:Program Fileswget-1.10.2"wget -c -np -N http://responsibleplan.com/o/
275...nsible_plan.pdf
If you should use this scheme, just replace the string
"C:Program Fileswget-1.10.2"
by whatever location you use to store your binary.
The new download opens just fine in Acrobat.
Oops. My bad.
That string should have been
"C:Program Fileswget-1.10.2"
in both instances. *blush*
Haloscan eats backslashes.
Nice. (spits)
The plan reminds me of BO's plan.
Am I wrong?
The plan comes out today to coincide with hillary clinton's speech today? Looks like a multi pronged approach for her campaign. A few of the gens in the plan have endorsed her.
I think this is a very general statement of the obvious. I'm unclear on who is the real source of this document and media drive and can't find who exactly "Responsible Media LLC" is.
Is this some preview of what Patraeus plans to promote or what the pubs will come up with for their campaign.
I don't see anything new there. I'd need more information on who's behind this.
Oh.My.God.
Those of you whom live inside of filters where all you can do is see EVERYTHING through "pro-Obama" v. "pro-Clinton"... GROW UP AND GET A LIFE.
I am so goddamn sick of this constant bickering I could just spit.
If you must live through your candidates, I beg you, go take your comments to Daily Kos where they eat that crap up. I don't want it here. Or like, go actually VOLUNTEER for your candidate instead of infesting every damn thread on this blog with bullshit about which candidate is better and your paranoia.
This plan has NOTHING to do with which Presidential candidate wins and EVERYTHING to do with stopping the killing and the dying.
GROW UP. (And if I'm not talking to you, I'm not talking to you. If I am talking to you, give me backtalk on this and I'll give you a One Strike warning. Good Lord. Think of something other than your own problems for a change.)
Hallelujah, Jesse. For the post and the demand.
It's an interesting design choice for the bumper sticker. The colors, the simplicity. Deliberate, I think. Outside the boxes.
Jesse - I'm asking if anyone has more information on who this LLC is. That's all.
I'm just trying to find what it is about. I very well may want to endorse this but, given the way the campaigns are going, I'd just like to make sure I'm not accidentally endorsing a candidate or other persons that I don't mean to. That's all.
With Iraq being such a fluid situation, it is about as specific as any candidate can get at this point though. It was somewhat confusing with Patraeus' quote being the basis for what they're saying. I don't endorse him or his next attempt to buy some more time.
I think we all see the pubs attempting to claim victory for their mcbush campaign "See we did it, we were right, the dems want to wreck what we've accomplished, don't vote for them"..... then it ramps up again after the election. Patreaus is part of that.
So, I honestly am trying to find out the source(s), regardless of who that might be in order to endorse it or not. Just wanting more info. That's all. 
Myrtle -
This isn't an attempt by anyone to back a presidential candidate.
It is the start of a legitimate "Netroots Caucus".
The Candidates for the House of Representatives who are behind this plan, are:
a) backed by the Netroots
b) serious about stopping the war in Iraq
c) come from districts with different views on which Democratic candidate should be the nominee.
The plan is being endorsed and prompted widely across the blogosphere by people who are for Obama and people who are for Clinton, as what everyone is for is stopping the war.
This plan makes more sense than anything I've heard from anyone, and I've heard both candidates talk -- in person -- about how they would stop the war.
This plan is precisely what it says. It is a responsible plan. Just as Congress is responsible under The Constitution for Declaring War, it is equally responsible for Declaring ENOUGH.
I support these Democratic Party Congressional Candidates and I support their plan.
We're closing in on over 4,000 U.S. dead, well over 50,000 U.S. wounded, and over 1 million dead and wounded Iraqis.
The total cost of the war to the United States will be over $3 Trillion Dollars, and that's the middle-case. It could well be worse. This for a war we were assured wouldn't cost more than $100 Billion, tops, and most of that would come back to us through oil taken from Iraq.
It is time for this to end.
Overreaction a bit Jesse?
I want a plan that includes brigade decampment dates, closing of FOBs, end of permanent base construction, and equipment loading up on C-130s and getting the hell out of dodge. I skimmed through the pdf and hope that there is a more detailed declaration of how to get this done.
If anything I hope that prepared statements like this puts the military on notice on the operational side to start making these contingency plans. There will be NO permanent bases, NO residual force, NO US imperial palace on the Tigris.
Jesse - Well, thanks. Obviously I am, and have been, very serious about stopping this insane war. I've very outspoken about the spinelss nature of Congress.... both in not speaking out prior to the war and not doing everything in its power since the midterms to stop it.
It is good to see congressional candidates making this committment at this time. If they themselves drafted it, then good for them. I think that will go a long way in their local races.
So, these candidates are "backed by the Netroots" then. That's good to see some cohesive support at the congressional level. My personal preference would be to see some cohesive Netroots "backing" at the primary level, one way or the other based on the values and mission of the Netroots. That would be most helpful to many
I keep on evaluating my endorsement. Something to think about. Thanks again.
I want a plan that includes brigade decampment dates, closing of FOBs, end of permanent base construction, and equipment loading up on C-130s and getting the hell out of dodge.
wengler, I read through the PDF and I didn't see that either.
If I did, I would have been most unhappy and extremely disappointed. A plan written by politicians should NEVER spell out every P and Q. It must be "mission orders", at the level of general strategic objectives ONLY. 30,000 feet up may still be too close to the weeds.
If you get to the point where you're having to spell out details like this to your generals, then you are really in the shit. You're about 50 miles down the wrong path and going further wrong by the millisecond. You should have sacked the fucking lot of them and gotten yourself new generals the moment you realized your first lot weren't up to their jobs.
This is like sitting down at a good restaurant and ordering a meal. You CANNOT do what the chef is supposed to do. Your job is to tell him, in overall terms, what to do. The minutiae are his business. If he gets it right, then the judgment you pass on the serving will be favorable.
This is like taking your cat to a vet. If the vet blows your little guy off, drop the vet without explanation or notice and find a new one quicker than boiled asparagus.
You CAN'T do the vet's job. You don't have the decade of training and the next decade of clinical experience to get it right. Instead, you judge the vet's job and you pick the vet. You CAN do that.
Never, ever micromanage the military. Make sure they have the tools beforehand. Then just tell them what you want done. If they cannot do it, either you gave them the wrong orders in the first place, or else they aren't competent to carry out the ones you did give.
But NEVER EVER micromanage. People who have done that over the last 100 years have names that are engraved in the History of Folly. Adolf Hitler. Lyndon Baynes Johnson. Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld.
Want examples of whom to emulate? Abraham Lincoln comes to mind in a heartbeat.
wengler -
No. I'm not over-reacting.
I haven't been very well, and I haven't been posting much. Even so, it hasn't escaped me that some people -- not everyone -- have been viewing every post through a filter of Us v. Them.
I won't tolerate it. GNB is NOT going to turn into a blog filled with people attacking each other. I simply won't allow it.
As for your suggestion that a plan written by politician should have dates and details of closing this and that, down to the model of aircraft, that is, frankly, crazy.
What Stormcrow said. Civilian leaders who attempt to micro-manage their militaries at that level, have a long and storied history of losing wars.
And while yes, we are getting our asses kicked, I would prefer to avoid a slaughter of U.S. Forces during the coming withdrawal.
The plan, as designed, wisely says, tell the generals, "get us out", and then, we move out as the generals tell us to, in a prompt and timely, safe, manner, with operational details left to the military.
That is how it should be.
Furthermore, from a purely political point of view, if anyone from these Candidates to Obama, Clinton or McCain were stupid enough to propose specific operational details -- as for example, McCain who has been stupid enough to propose a 100 year war -- the opposing side will BEAT THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF THEM WITH THOSE DETAILS.
This is the correct plan, both operationally (leave it to the generals, but have them do it promptly and leave no one behind) and politically (don't give your enemy something to beat you up with during the election, as well as, actually standing for something 75% of the country wants.)
So, not over-reacting Jesse, what make this plan different from BO's or HC's...or did I miss that?
ps, I respect your opinion even if you don't like my questions.
And for what's it worth. I am a groupie.
Jesse Wendel,
The thing is I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't an operational contingency plan to get out of Iraq. All the strategic planning has been based on constructing large permanent bases to support an ongoing massive US military presence. I wasn't advocating that these politicians draw up the operational plan but someone sure as hell should, and maybe if they did it would cause the Pentagon to get scared that it would be shoved down their throats and so they would present their own.
We don't have the luxury of complacency on this issue. If there is a significant collapse of the economy as is proposed in the post above, then getting out of Iraq will become the very first priority and a swift exit will be required.
As for the Obama v. Clinton thing, the only way to shut down debate is to close the comments down. Censoring the community of readers really isn't going to do anyone good. There isn't anything wrong with people pushing for their prize pig. It's when it becomes an off-topic flame war that it becomes a problem.
However any off topic McCain sniping should always be welcome.
wengler, ops plans are fine and dandy.
But don't ever, and I do mean NEVER, expect them to survive the clash of arms. Particularly if the plan was prepared more than a day or two in advance of events. Any longer standoff than that, and your chance of hitting the enemy's schwerpunkt is slim to none. His chance of hitting yours will be excellent, because you will be reacting to what he is doing, until and unless you regain your footing.
This will happen no matter how good your prewar planning is.
Plan 17? The Schlieffen Plan? The Wehrmacht plans for the invasion of France in May of 1940? Barbarossa? The German plan for the Ardennes Offensive of December 1944?
Win or lose, they all spiraled into improvisation at best, failure of control and subsequent collapse at worst.
Remember, for example, how St Vith was supposed to be cleared of Americans that first day? And instead, they hung on by their fingernails for three? Lots of "oh shit" moments there, and the Wehrmacht hadn't even run into the brick wall at Bastogne that they were still ignorant of.
That is the inevitable fate of detailed prewar plans.
Making them is fine and dandy, because you are actually pre-engaging the problem. So when hell comes to breakfast, you won't be caught totally by surprise.
But DO NOT expect them to work the way they were built out.
"The plan is being endorsed and prompted widely across the blogosphere by people who are for Obama and people who are for Clinton, as what everyone is for is stopping the war."
That's great, but I'd like to see one or both of the candidates endorse this plan and its goals (and follow up with rough target dates as a guideline for the professionals). At the moment, it's very clear which one of them would be more likely to do so and follow through in good faith. Pretending otherwise is as foolish as the MSM's fake ass "impartiality."
Actually OBD, it isn't clear, except to people who insist on seeing the world through a filter of "how does this help my picked presidential candidate."
I've given up on that game. I'm voting for whomever has a D after their name.
Ending the war seems a better use of my time.
And it is a MUCH better use of time in this thread, as I have already made very clear.
"Actually OBD, it isn't clear, except to people who insist on seeing the world through a filter of "how does this help my picked presidential candidate.""
You're not addressing me here, since I don't see the world that way and referenced both candidates in my post above. I do see "where my picked presidential candidate" has his strengths, and don't see any harm on pointing them out as long as I keep to topic.
I agree that ending the war is a good use of all of our time. But ultimately, it is Bush's successor who's going to be making a decision on whether or not to execute this plan. Therefore, Democrats opposed to the war are well advised to watch how both potential nominees' reaction to this sensible proposal.
Since it's too early for either candidate to have discussed this plan, we can only go on past and current performance related to the Middle Eastern morass. From that, it's as clear as seeing who did and didn't vote for Kyl-Lieberman. And no need to remind you that, until 2006, Lieberman had a "D" after his name, too.
If you want to take discussion of the Dem primaries off the front page and can convince your partners to do the same, that's your choice. You also have the power to censor and ban comments, but I doubt that banning people who are posting on topic will get you the sort of discourse and readers that the "Group" in GNB seems to want.
If you'd like me to leave, I'd prefer you make the request in public rather than banning me. I'll respect your wishes. If, on the other hand, you can handle someone commenting about the often contentious topics of Democratic politics and the merits of Democratic candidates on a liberal/progressive blog, in the context of liberal policy proposals, I'll hang around. Either way, you might want to ... BREATHE.
well the 7 points are all worthy goals for the government of this country, if that government would even get serious about getting started on any of them i'd applaud & probably have a stroke...
i can't believe sometimes that this insidious enterprise is still. dragging. the fuck. on. 5 years later...people getting killed & mangled every day that didn't need to be...wrecking America in just about any way you can think is bad enough, but the people man, the people...5 years since the voice of the World shouted, pleaded, "No! Are you Crazy?! Stooooop!" in vain...5 years...that's a goddamn Lustrum...
at the start of this war i had three good friends in the Army, they were over there, they all made it back in pretty good shape, considering (at least physically...the one who was a medic, & helluva nice guy, was so traumatized when he got back he had to be institutionalized, & none of them are the same)...but they made it back, & i was thankful for that at least...& now it drags on & on, best friends kid brothers are growing up & joining the Marines, friends struggling to raise a family are deciding that a little stint in the Iraq makes good financial sense(!), when does it end, when?
& what more can i do? what more can we do? go to one more candlelight vigil tomorrow? you bet. keep writing those letters & emails to congresspeople, editors, & santa? absolutely...but what can we do that's worth a damn?? i dunno, but let's not stifle disscussion that could lead to electing the best president to deal w/ any of this, cause that's kind of important, i daresay...
just some rambling & disjointed thoughts...
OTD and everyone else -
This isn't directed at anyone in particular. I'm both answering OTD's questions and concerns above, but I mean it for everyone
No one is getting banned today. Tomorrow... probably not either.
I've gone to a great deal of personal trouble to not throw anyone out, to not ban anyone. If anyone on this blog has been personally attacked in the past month-five weeks, I'm that person. I haven't written here about the damage those attacks have done, but I assure you it wasn't minor. They hurt me; they hurt what we're trying to do here at GNB.
None the less, I held back. I didn't throw out everyone or even anyone who participated in the attacks on me, which didn't just stop with the one post back in February. Some people (a group of five to ten) kept attacking me almost every time I put my head up for most of a month. Only recently has it stopped.
I haven't thrown anyone out, and I've only warned one or two people.
It is enough for me at the moment in my role as Publisher of Group News Blog, to keep saying over and over again, "Cool it."
Simply saying this, seems to keep the lid on, just enough. We have not descended into the out and out partisanship of either a Daily Kos or a Taylor Marsh, both of which I am disappointed in as blogs specifically with regard to this issue.
They have become ADVOCATES, not JOURNALISTS. We are the Group NEWS Blog. Not the Group ADVOCACY Blog.
In Jesse's dream world, advocates of both BO & HRC could make their cases in our comments, even strong cases, for & against their candidates, WITHOUT ever descending to personal attacks on people who disagree with them.
It's when people start calling each other names, or attacking people who advocate for the candidate they oppose, that the situation gets out of hand quickly.
Or -- as in where this conversation started -- when a proposal for withdrawing our troops from Iraq is seen through the filter of, 'who is behind it; I need to know so as to make certain this isn't giving candidate A or candidate B an advantage.'
The blogosphere is as split apart as I've ever seen it. It is still a long way to go till November... or even August.
This blog came together in the tragedy of Steve Gilliard's death. We were all family then.
What makes us "us", is our ability to talk between ourselves, without attacking each other. Regardless of if people remember that day to day or not, that is why we are all here -- because GNB is a place we can say what is true for ourselves. When people mess with that, it hurts us all.
Since GNB opened on July 1, 2007, other than trolls (about 10-12), we have baned one person, and given one regular a time-out. Everything else has been done with warnings in comments, or with emails where I have asked people to calm down or change specific behavior.
This is no different. I am asking people to change their behavior, for the good of all of the blog.
Everyone -- think for a moment before you post. If it is a personal attack, don't do it. If it is presidential politics, and the thread itself isn't, please try and contain yourself.
We are looking for everyone to be able to communicate and feel as if what they have to say has value. Even if you disagree with them. Even if you think what they say is stupid. Even if you hate their candidate passionately. Please respect that others may disagree and feel just as strongly about how they feel, as you do.
Grant them space and room to say what they have to say. Listen to them. Give each other room.
We're all in this together.
And yes -- *smiles* -- remember to keep breathing. *laughs*
Thank you.
Preventative Medicine:
I think one very good reason to get your men & women out of Iraq ASAP, is Iran. You have an Administration so in love with its own ideological game-plan that it has ignored basic reality, & an attack on Iran is a part of that game-plan.
As is one on Syria.
Afghanistan was/is a sideshow to them, no small part of the reason it's doing so poorly. It's a mere add-on to their original menu, & they've treated it accordingly.
Iraq came first because it was the weakest & most isolated - but it's meant to be Part One of a series.
Caveat: I know I've said elsewhere that I doubt an attack on Iran will actually happen, & I do. Two bad wars aren't likely to be saved by adding a new one, & against the strongest state of the three at that. But getting out of Iraq turns it from unlikely to circa impossible - it's the obvious land-base from which to launch air-power & armour. Hard to see any other borderline state that'll permit that kind of action, especially when it's a pre-emptive strike, AKA war-crime.
If anyone's turbo-bugshit-crazy enough to invade Iran, it's GWB, but not even his "genius" can find a way to do it by air or sea.
Without an occupied Iraq, a lot of Iranians get much better odds of living to see their kids turn into adults. So do a LOT of Americans. A win-win all around.
Also, when the Iraqi Withdrawal comes to a close, I sincerely hope soon thereafter to see Bush &/or Cheney on TeeVee - crying REAL tears for once.
Take their war-toys away.
Commenting by HaloScan
