What Does "cut And Run. . .", really mean?

Let's tell the truth. "Stay the course" means "you broke it, you bought it." Like in a china shop.

From CNN: Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded today that the United States is losing the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration." Asked point-blank by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin whether the U.S. is winning in Iraq, Gates replied, "No, sir."

So we are getting confirmation of what I have maintained all along: we lost the war in Bushnam the day we invaded.

He shoots from the 3-point line ... and misses.

"Nam" is right, as in Vietnam. And like Vietnam we lost once support from home evaporated. Yes, we lost the war in Iraq the day we invaded - thanks in no small part to the US media.

With every retired 1-star criticizing every move with their 20-20 hindsight, and with the media showcasing every "bad" while refusing to showcase any "good", the US couldn't win World War II today.

POP QUIZ: Which major US media outlet issued the following statement (from October 2006):

ANSWER: None. That was from CENTCOM. There is not one major US media outlet that has said anything positive about Iraq since it's inception.

Those 131k soldiers are the "replacement lid" mentioned earlier - unless there are those that would prefer a permanent US presence. Free self-rule according to laws created by the people and protected by the people.

"Cut and run" would be when the US pulls out all its forces before the Iraqis are ready to go it alone. I'm smart enough to know that I cannot sit here and "determine" which date this will happen, and it amazes me to find so many civilians ensconced behind their computers on cloud-covered mountains with the ability to determine the date by themselves. Even the new 2007 Congress members are backing off earlier promised dates.

US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell said Tuesday Prime Minister al-Maliki and Bush had agreed on an "accelerated timetable" for Iraq to take charge of its own security. "We should see the complete transfer of command and control of all Iraqi army divisions by late spring early summer," he added. This is great! But we back home should allow them the freedom to do so and not set any artificial date - that would be "cutting and running".

At this point the war is over. The US public said so back in November. Fine, but let our forces finish the job. I think things are far better than we're led to believe. There is nobody that wants them home more than themselves, and they are in the best position to tell when that can happen - and not a bunch of keyboard jockeys back in the US (whether they be civilians on message boards or officials passing laws in Washington). And the only people that benefit from a deadline of any sort are those wanting to brutally take over the minute the US leaves.

And I keep hearing about polls: '974% of registered voters want our troops home in time for the St. Patrick's Day parade'. Yet I've never seen any poll of those actually doing the fighting - and there's supposed to be dozens of journalists over there. I dare Perky Katie to poll the Marines and see that they think about a "disengagement".

Or we simply wait for the lone helicopter to land on top of the embassy and whisk away some civilians minutes before the country implodes - like we did in Saigon in 1975. I think some are hoping this happens so that they can begin the Lynch Bush celebrations.

Stay the course. Cut and run. Hog wash. How about, two wrongs don’t make a right, never did, and never will. Unless of course, you’re profiting from this war, in which case, it would still be wrong.

Brother Shamalama, blaming the media for Bush's idiocy just doesnt cut it. As in Vietnam, Bushnam was lost long before the public soured on the steady diet of lies from the current mis-administration.

Bush's idiocy vs. Media Bias. Much can be debated as to where the "steady diet of lies" originates.

Many are readily able to point out everything the Bush Administration has done wrong with regards to Iraq.

Few are able to point out anything positive the media has said with regards to Iraq.

There is a cause-and-effect relationship.

But the topic is "cut and run". My thought is at least allow those with feet on the ground to have a say in the decision to disengage.

From Vets 4 Victory:

Personally I'd much rather listen to one of these heroes on military policy than anyone in Washington or on a message board ... unless you don't think of these people as heroes (a.k.a. Vietnam-era Baby Killers). At that point this discussion turns more philosophical than practical.

From VETS AGAINST IRAQ, concerning the Iraq war and calls to replace Rummy:

"The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951."
By Richard Holbrooke
Washington Post, April 16, 2006

The calls by a growing number of recently retired generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have created the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951. In that epic drama, Truman was unquestionably correct -- MacArthur, the commanding general in Korea and a towering World War II hero, publicly challenged Truman's authority and had to be removed. Most Americans rightly revere the principle that was at stake: civilian control over the military. But this situation is quite different.

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary, at times emotional, article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." He went on to "challenge those still in uniform . . . to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak."

These generals are not newly minted doves or covert Democrats. (In fact, one of the main reasons this public explosion did not happen earlier was probably concern by the generals that they would seem to be taking sides in domestic politics.) They are career men, each with more than 30 years in service, who swore after Vietnam that, as Colin Powell wrote in his memoirs, "when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in half-hearted warfare for half-baked reasons." Yet, as Newbold admits, it happened again. In the public comments of the retired generals one can hear a faint sense of guilt that, having been taught as young officers that the Vietnam-era generals failed to stand up to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson, they did the same thing.

Second, it is also clear that the target is not just Rumsfeld. Newbold hints at this; others are more explicit in private. But the only two people in the government higher than the secretary of defense are the president and vice president. They cannot be fired, of course, and the unspoken military code normally precludes direct public attacks on the commander in chief when troops are under fire. (There are exceptions to this rule, of course: In addition to MacArthur, there was Gen. George McClellan vs. Lincoln; and on a lesser note, Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, who was fired for attacking President Jimmy Carter over Korea policy. But such challenges are rare enough to be memorable, and none of these solo rebellions metastasized into a group, a movement that can fairly be described as a revolt.)

It would seem it depends on which group of "heros" you want to listen to.

The Bush Administration has botched many facets of this conflict? I agree with you. We went in with too few and we surrendered too quickly.

But that has nothing to do with "cut and run". To do so too early will simply be a photocopy of Vietnam, and we owe all the heroes a chance to finish their job.

NEWSFLASH: Human sacrifices! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

Yep, Pelosi's hand-picked liberal is asking for an INCREASE and DISMANTLING the insurgency. I must be in a parallel universe.

“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

When a reporter suggested that was not a position that was likely to be popular with many House Democrats, Reyes replied: “Well again, I differ in that I don’t want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East.”

But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”

A Democrat actually wanting to finish before tucking tail and running ... and then blaming the implosion on Bush? It’s dawning on a lot of people that the price of a US defeat in Iraq would be dire.

I need a drink.

Yup, our defeat in Iraq has already cost nearly 3,000 us lives, 21000 wounded and a half trillion dollars.....enough to have virtually eliminated our dependence on foriegn oil. What astounds me is the people who cant recognize that we have long since lost in Iraq.

There is a bright spot here....come the 2008 elections, we can watch the Democrats sweep into the whitehouse and complete their takeover of the Congress and Senate.... All thanks to Comrade Bush and his corporate masters

Now look -- if you want to do a cost-effectiveness study on regime -- er, administration change, wasn't that airheaded girl and her little blue dress a lot cheaper? (Bill lied, Hilary cried, but nobody died . . . )

Eliminated our dependence on foreign oil? Oh please, that's way too laughable. Every President since Carter has "promised" to do that very thing, and noting meaningful has happened. I think there was even a vote of "no" this week in Congress to increase refining capability. Bill Gates could turn his entire fortune over to the government and we wouldn't see one bit of change. That's only going to happen -after- consumers start demanding change out of Detroit, not from anything out of Washington. Geez, after the US leaves Iraq, and Iran steps in to "keep order", we're going to see $4 a gallon anyways.

We lost more at D-Day in Normandy yet the people of the US said to keep going and finish what was started.

We lost more at Pearl Harbor and yet the people of the US wanted to take the fight straight to Japan front door.

We lost more at Iwo Jima and yet the people of the US wanted to pick themselves up fight harder.

We lost more on 9/11 and yet the people of the US not only wanted revenge but the wanted the elimination of this new breed of Islamic terrorism.

The US hasn't won a military engagement since Korea, and it's had little to do with abilities of the military - it's had to do primarily with the will of the Administrations and civilians back home sitting in their easy chairs. Osama himself said back in the mid 1990s that the failure of the leadership and the lack of will of the people during the Somalia crisis was a major factor in knowing that an attack against the US would come will little response.

Oh yes I agree that Bush and Company have absolutely botched a lot of stuff in Iraq. We only have a disagreement over whether this is a just and necessary fight in this place and at this time. I sincerely believe that if we don't fight now over there that our children will fight over here.

Nutjobs from one group or another, all under the name of ridding the world of the Great Satan for the glory of Allah, have been killing US citizens all over the world for around 20 years. Neither Reagan, Carter, or Clinton did anything meaningful to try and put an end to Islamic fanatics, and Bush 1 only meekly did what the UN "allowed" him to do. Appeasement, forgiveness, and compromise are today's goals, not the elimination of the real threat. We defeated Nazism, we out-lasted Communism; we're not going to do that with Islamism - which is not the same as Islam.

"Lost the war" my patootie. My son told me that there were two groups of people he discovered when serving over there: (1) 5% that were cross-eyed crazy against anything related to the US, and (2) a mostly silent [scared] 95% that thanked them for, if nothing else, allowing them a few moments of freedom. In many ways these crazies are worse, and may be killing more innocent locals, than the KGB in the USSR during the 1950s. Heck they're stoning women, executing homosexuals, and preventing abortions and the Left in America -still- doesn't want to do anything about it. Maybe if they will just start killing spotted tree frogs ...

Shamalama, very good post. However, I think you waisted your breath. I think if we just leave Iraq, Iran will come in and the reagon will be even more destabilized. Plus now there are some who think we need to talk with Iran. After tha wack job who's the Presiden now said Israel needs to be "wiped off the face of the Earth". Yes he's a stable individual. But hey I'm waisting my breath as well. I think it's going to take another terrorist attack here in the USA in order to get folks to see just who this enemy is.

It isn't a contest. Losses from one battle do not justify (comparatively or even in absolute terms) expenditure of life in a different battle. Please bury that argument once and for all. The justification for continuing this present conflict does not seem to be holding up in the eyes of the majority of the American people. If it's not our business, whose is it?

I think the point was to make a distinction between American commitment during the WWII era and today Stoirmeil, not body count. Dispite higher casualties, our commitment was firm, that was Shama's point I believe. Yes I agree, the justification for the current conflict doesn't hold up as well in the eyes of Americans.

At that time the enemy was clear, distinct, and nationalized whereas today the enemy is diffuse, their participants unknown and difficult to detect, and are capable of independent operations anywhere. The nature of the threat makes the response more difficult and in need of great flexibility. There's a learning curve here, the old responses don't work as terrorist's unpredictability makes us constantly on the defensive. If someone's going to argue that American lives are too high a price for a learning curve, you're naive. There is no safe conflict, and any response involves a learning curve. Diplomacy doesn't work for those who wish to eliminate you or bomb you into religious conversion, nor is it wise to allow terrorists to hold the free world hostage with their actions while they outline their demands. One more thing, they're not going to leave us alone if we ask nicely.

To leave Iraq prematurely with an unstable govt. still in its nascency, after toppling the preexisting govt., is not only irresponsible but geo-politically suicidal. It will come back to haunt us. How many mullah-oligarchies do you want trying to get the bomb?

Too much verbiage has already spewed concerning why we went to war and how its been handled thusfar. Perhaps solutions going forward would be a better place to focus energies. There's somewhere to focus bipartisan cooperation!

You can argue whether toppling Saddam was a mistake or not. Deposing Iran's worst enemy has certainly emboldened them. But its done already! We're in the middle of seeing if democracy will work there. At this point we don't even know yet, and after all we've done and how bleak the alternative is, we're idiots if we don't find out.

I agree that our leadership are idiots. Democracy there will work, in about 1000 years. Now its just a religious based civil war. Democracy doesnt always work, even when it seems to: see Venezuela and Chile. The sooner we pull out of Iraq, the sooner we will stop generating new terrorists. We are creating them much faster than we can kill them.