McCain, Graham, Lieberman Support Withdrawal From Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:10:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

This is what "redefining the middle" looks like. McCain, Graham and Lieberman, the people who lost the 2008 election in a landslide, write:

Our shared, central task now is to work together to support a responsible redeployment from Iraq . . . [W]e are optimistic that President-elect Obama will be able to fulfill a major step of his plan for withdrawal next year . . .

I think we need to be clear on something though - Iraq is headed for civil war after we leave. This has always been the case imo. But unless we stayed forever, or even if we did, this was inevitable. So when "the commanders on the ground" tell us that this will happen, that should not stop the withdrawal. After all, McCain, Lieberman and Graham now support withdrawal from Iraq.

Speaking for me only

< The "Ingenues" Of The Beltway | Saturday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain, Graham, Lieberman Support Withdrawal From Iraq | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Not really (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM EST

First, McCain lost and is no longer a national leader. Lindsay never was, and neither was Lieberman.

So to claim that their comments/positions carry weight within the Right is not accurate.

Secondly, on down the article we find this::

Gen. Odierno was the operational architect of the surge in 2007, when he served as deputy to Gen. Petraeus, as well as of the tribal engagement strategy that persuaded Sunnis to abandon the insurgency and join our side. Gen. Odierno -- as the current commander on the ground -- is the person whose judgment should matter most in determining how fast and how deep a drawdown can be ordered responsibly.

Having said that, I hope Odierno calls for a large and fast pull out, based on facts and reality. But he should remember what happened in Vietnam, and he should understand that beyond the millions who died in SE Asia because we cut and ran, the penalty was empowerment of radical groups that grew into what we see today.

Simpler, we were seen as "paper tigers."

If the Muslim world views that the radicals have forced a political surrender on us then we can expect a much bloodier and dangerous future.

Prepared to declare victory Jim? (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST

: Nope (2.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:25:15 AM EST

But, as always, I am prepared to listen to the military folks on the ground.

Paper tigers (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST

Should have considered that before we went in.

I knew this day would come and frankly, knew that the Debacle supporters like yourself would provide us the Vietnam paper tiger defense.

All so predictable and so tragic.


Defense? (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST

Nope, just historical facts.


And what (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST

bloody future did we have after Vietnam that could be traced to a related combatant?

Try to get the history straight.


: Huh? (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST

Related combatant?
You'll have to explain that.

Really (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by cal1942 on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST

Gen. Odierno -- as the current commander on the ground -- is the person whose judgment should matter most in determining how fast and how deep a drawdown can be ordered responsibly.

Apparently whoever is responsible for that statement doesn't realize that our military is SUBORDINATE to civilian control and any beliefs to the contrary are unspeakably dangerous and by tradition and Constitution, unAmerican. The Bush administration kept stating that they'd act according to the wishes of the military. Or perhaps they were using the military as a front to cover for their own decisions. Anyway it sent the wrong signal.

In any war policy considerations; whether to continue or to end, are the sole province of civilian authority.


If we stay in Iraq, then we are paying (none / 0) (#10)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST

a huge, concrete cost in lives and dollars. Can't the "enemy" exult if we stay, also?


: You will have to define "enemy" (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:26:44 AM EST

: They already do (none / 0) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST

they videotape suicide bombings and IED's detonating under U.S. vehicles and then they circulate them and post them on the internet as proof that America is a paper tiger. The glory that culturally comes with the attacks recruits more usually young attackers.

Broken Force (none / 0) (#30)
by FreakyBeaky on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:08:42 PM EST

Anybody remember the term "broken force" as applied to the post-Vietnam US military?

Say it once with feeling. The United States was defeated in Vietnam. It's forces were broken. There was no cutting and running. There may have been walking out before getting kicked out. But we lost the war. On that point let there be no doubt.


: Sure (2.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:58:10 AM EST

A third world country defeated the world's largest super power on the field of battle.
And you actually believe that. (Note that isn't a question.)
Well, that does it for me. Yep, no doubt.
(Sarcasm alert)

Civil war when we get OUT? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Dadler on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:34:49 AM EST

There's been a civil war raging since the day we invaded. We have armed and bribed both sides. Truth is, when we leave, the human beings we have thrown into chaos may just decide, out of the survival instinct every single living organism posesses, that they can do better than we did. It would help greatly if on withdrawl, Obama makes a speech that says "We made horrible, almost unforgivable mistakes, and the entire world now fully expects you all to start killing each other and destroying what we might have failed to destroy. The world is just waiting for you to be as violent and merciless as we have been, or worse. That is what they all expect. They think you are incapable of living in peace and tolerance. Are you? Prove the world wrong, they will all be watching, and you can show them not only that you survived but you are better the U.S." At the very least we can rhetorically attempt to disarm in a humane and intensely self-critical fashion. That said, I'm not very hopeful.

Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by pluege on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST

Iraq is headed for civil war after we leave. This has always been the case

once the invasion occurred and the power structure toppled, it was always just a matter of whether or not it was a slow bleed around, and with the US military, or a sudden bloodbath without the US military. Pretty much the same amount of unnecessary blood spilled except one way takes longer and spills American blood, and the other way doesn't. And ALL of this blood, Iraqi and American is on the hands of the illegal unnecessary invasion boosters such as mccain, LIEberman, and Graham who see everything through the prism (and prison) of their own psychotic immature, violent, insecurity.

I don't think Odierno (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by ChrisO on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM EST

should have the final say on the drawdown of troops. His opinion on the matter should bear significant weight, but it's dangerous to allow the military to have veto power over policy decisions. And from everything I've read, most military leaders respect the fact they they are under civilian oversight. I'm sure it frustrates them sometimes, but they recognize the way our system operates. Calls for the military to be the sole arbiters of our actions in Iraq seem to largely come from neocon civilians.

I was gonna say! (4.50 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST

I mean, jeez, leaving was always the right thing to do. But Iraq is going to fall apart. We didn't and couldn't turn it into Belgium over night.

Belgium (none / 0) (#24)
by Nasarius on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST

With a large Flemish nationalist/separatist movement and a Prime Minister who has tried repeatedly to resign, I don't think Belgium is the best model for a stable democracy ;-)


: Not to mention Belgium has (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 01:13:03 PM EST

a King.

George Aiken says (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST

Declare victory and get out... and so McCain, Graham and Lieberman write:

After our visit to Iraq this month, it is clear that what was once unthinkable there is now taking place: A stable, safe and free Iraq is emerging. Violence has fallen to the lowest level since the first months of the war.

Well if that is what it takes, it will make it harder to claim Dolchstoßlegende, though I am sure they will redefine it as "we almost lost because the left tried to stabbed us in the back, but fortunately, Dubya won the war before they could do it". Oy Vey

: Aiken...my hero. (none / 0) (#6)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:03:53 AM EST

He was right, of course.
As for DolchstoBlegende, much of the rabid support for the Iraq war came from vets and others embittered over Vietnam, determined to 'prove'...something...I suppose 'that we could've won, should have won, would have won but for the Democrats and fellow travelers'.

Iraq is headed for civil war after we leave. (4.50 / 2) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:17:51 AM EST

Exactamundo.

I disagree with the verb tense (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Cream City on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM EST

Iraq has been in a civil war for some time, and it will continue whether we are there, or whether we leave.

It's Viet Nam redux, as so many of us said from the start. Or as Ho Chi Minh said, no matter how many of our troops served there, died there, or left there, Viet Nam still would be filled with Viets.


If that's true, then perhaps Biden and (none / 0) (#12)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST

Gelb were right.


: You wanna decide (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM EST

who gets Kirkuk under a partition?

Slight of hand. (4.50 / 2) (#22)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST

The words that these charlatans are using is "redeployment".
"Responsible" redeployment yet.

"Responsible" is a code word for "depending on the situation on the ground at the time". This means whatever the pols want it to mean at the time.

"Redeployment" is the word for hello Afghanistan.

Lieberman, McCain and Graham are OK with redeployment.
They are covered.
The surge (a Bush creation) has been successful - beyond our wildest dreams. So they were right about everything.

And now - we go to Afghanistan - the new "war we must win".
Everybody on board?
Toot toot.

Exactly what an Army Recruiter told me (none / 0) (#32)
by Amiss on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:20:32 PM EST

: Oh (none / 0) (#37)
by lentinel on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:36:44 PM EST

my God!

Wow.. did they say this with an (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST

"I hate America" sign as backdrop? What next---singing the Internationale?
Well, I'm glad these guys have lost their "principles".

BTW, this is the first sign that I was (4.00 / 1) (#4)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM EST

right about how McCain will treat the Obama Presidency: as a last opportunity to burnish his legacy in a positive way, by supporting Obama on major initiatives.

Isn't that special. (none / 0) (#9)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:13:16 AM EST

I note the use of words like 'cut' and 'drawdown' and references to Gen. Odierno's judgment 'mattering most.'

I do not think we are leaving Iraq. When combat troops 'fall back from the cities,' what do we suppose will happen when Sadr tests the new reality? We'll just watch?

This article is a shot across the bow of Obama and Democrats, warning that 'you'd better do it our way (if at all) or the fur will fly and you'll be blamed.'

They've just taken the high ground.

oldpro writes (2.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST

what do we suppose will happen when Sadr tests the new reality? We'll just watch?

I do not want to debate Vietnam, that can be done later.

But we did just "watch" as North Vietnam swallowed the South. Sadr is no dummy. If we don't let a strong enough government become established then we will either watch, or go back in.

Can you actually see us going back?


Well, jim...we won't have to (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST

"go back" because we'll still have ground troops there...outside the cities. You think the generals won't order them to move to counter the fight as the Iraqis struggle to maintain/control/gain power in what WILL be a civil war? You think no one in Baghdad will 'ask' for our help?

There are so many things wrong with your post (from my point of view) that my head reels: "If we don't let..." Let? And, debating Vietnam can be done later?

Not to mention 'watching.'

Please. I think we've covered it. You simply refuse to accept the resolution of not just one terrible mistake, but two.


Well, we'll just have to agree (2.00 / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:04:46 PM EST

that you are wrong but I won't try and change your mind. Besides, it probably couldn't be done anyway.

The "discuss later" was tossed in to note that I would guess Jeralyn would think it off topic.


Happy Holidays, Jim. (none / 0) (#31)
by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST

: Merry Xmas and Happy New Year! (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST

Isn't it essential to consult with (none / 0) (#18)
by ThatOneVoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST

neighboring countries before withdrawing troops?
In particular, we need to talk to Iran.
I don't have any suggestions for what to say, but I know that Iran and Saudi Arabia have the most outside influence on what happens in Iraq.
They can make a positive difference, or they can help tear Iraq apart.

: No! (none / 0) (#28)
by Fabian on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 02:50:51 PM EST

<snark>
You see, Iraq is just one little country and its civil war won't affect any of the other countries who definitely have no interest in making a grab for any of Iraq's highly desirable oil fields or in settling sectarian grudges by sending guns and fighters into Iraq.
Iraq's collapse certainly won't have any adverse effects on its neighbors, nor will any internal conflicts spill over its already porous borders. (Let alone even more refugees to burden its neighbors.)
</snark>
There's much more at stake here than a single country's stability.

We've decided what's more important (none / 0) (#27)
by bocajeff on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST

It is more important to let the situation slide into a civil war (like Southeast Asia) so we can sleep better at night knowing that the millions who will die or become refugees.

At least while that is happening I can sleep better at night knowing that I didn't want it to happen in the first place rather than doing anything to stop it in the second place.

Watch the words "Responsible" and "Redeployment". Also, remember that most conservatives didn't like Lieberman or McCain and always looked at them suspiciously.