posted
I just ran across this editorial which (according to the authors) brings up JFK's strategy for exiting Vietnam. Of course this strategy was never implemented since JFK was assasinated. I'd be interested in reading your opinions about this exit method and any other possible exit methods you might think of...
By THEODORE C. SORENSEN and ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr. Op-ED N Y Times
...
As we listened to Mr. Bush's speech, our thoughts raced back four decades to another president, John F. Kennedy. In 1963, the last year of his life, we watched from front-row seats as Kennedy tried to figure out how best to extricate American military advisers and instructors from Vietnam.
Although neither of us had direct responsibility on Vietnam decision-making, we each saw enough of the president to sense his growing frustration. In typical Kennedy fashion, he would lean back, in his Oval Office rocker, tick off all his options and then critique them:
Renege on the previous Eisenhower commitment, which Kennedy had initially reinforced, to help the beleaguered government of South Vietnam with American military instructors and advisers?
No, he knew that the American people would not permit him to do that.
Americanize the Vietnam civil war, as the military recommended and as his successor Lyndon Johnson sought ultimately to do, by sending in American combat units?
No, having learned from his experiences with Cuba and elsewhere that conflicts essentially political in nature did not lend themselves to a military solution, Kennedy knew that the United States could not prevail in a struggle against a Vietnamese people determined to oust, at last, all foreign troops from their country.
Moreover, he knew firsthand from his World War II service in the South Pacific the horrors of war and had declared at American University in June 1963: "This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of war."
Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?
No, in 1963 in Vietnam, despite assurances from field commanders, there was no more semblance of "victory" than there was in 2004 in Iraq when the president gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Explore, as was always his preference, a negotiated solution?
No, he was unable to identify in the ranks of the disorganized Vietcong a leader capable of negotiating enforceable and mutually agreeable terms of withdrawal.
Insist that the South Vietnamese government improve its chances of survival by genuinely adopting the array of political, economic, land and administrative reforms necessary to win popular support?
No, Kennedy increasingly realized that the corrupt family and landlords propping up the dictatorship in South Vietnam would never accept or enforce such reforms.
Eventually he began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy - well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election - can be summarized as follows:
Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."
Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel - surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.
Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.
President Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.
If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.
In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.
posted
Nice find, there are some important points that are brought up and that should be put into effect. I wonder what life is like when we aren't involved in a war.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hamson: Nice find, there are some important points that are brought up and that should be put into effect. I wonder what life is like when we aren't involved in a war.
I'd sure like the opportunity to find out what that is like, as well.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dislike comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Different times, different countries, different wars, different presidents, different technology, different circumstances, different everything. However, I do agree with
quote: If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.
Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.
because of things like this. I know half the people who know of her think she's a tool of some faction or another in Iraq, but for what it's worth:
quote: I intend to spend the rest of the night reading about Bush’s ‘strategy’ for Iraq. I haven’t seen it yet, but I expect it’ll be a repetition of the nonsense he’s been spewing for two and a half years now. Don’t Americans get tired of hearing the same thing?
It’s unbelievable that he’s refused to set a timetable for withdrawal (is he having another "Bring it on..." moment?). It’s almost as if someone is paying him to intentionally sabotage American foreign policy. With every speech he seems to sink himself deeper into the mire. A timetable for complete withdrawal of American forces would be a positive step- it would give Iraqis hope that, eventually, sovereignty will return to Iraq.
As it is, people fear the Americans will be here for the next twenty years- unless they are bombed and attacked out of the country. Although many Iraqis support armed resistance in theory, I think that the average Iraqi simply wants to see them go back home in one piece- we feel sorry for them and especially sorry for their families at times. There are moments when you forget the personal affronts- the raids, the checkpoints, the fear of bombing, the detentions, etc. and you can see through it all to the actual person behind the weapons and body armor... On the other hand, you never forget that it's a foreign occupation and will meet with resistance like all foreign occupations.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice can all swear that American troops will not pull out of the country no matter how many casualties they sustain, but history has proven otherwise…
quote: The second movie/film/actual footage had no actors- they were real people acting out atrocities. We were visiting Iraq and I was around 8 years old. I walked in on someone, somewhere, watching what I thought at first was news footage because of the picture quality. It showed what I later learned was an Iraqi POW in Iran. I watched as Iranian guards tied each arm of the helpless man to a different vehicle. I was young, but even I knew what was going to happen the next moment. I wanted to run away or close my eyes- but I couldn’t move. I was rooted to the spot, almost as if I too had been chained there. A moment later, the cars began driving off in opposite directions- and the man was in agony as his arm was torn off at the socket.
I never forgot that video. Millions of Iraqis still remember it. Every time I hear the word “aseer” which is Arabic for POW, that video plays itself in my head. For weeks, I’d see it in my mind before I fell asleep at night, and wake up to it in the morning. It haunted me and I’d wonder how long it took the man to die after that atrocity- I didn’t even know human arms came off that way.
The horrors of what happened to the POWs in Iran lived with us even after the war. The rumors of torture- mental and physical- came back so often and were confirmed so much, that mothers would pray their sons were dead instead of taken prisoner in Iran- especially after that video that came out in either 1984 or 1986. Every Iraqi who had a missing relative from that war, saw them in the agonized face of that POW who lost his arm. SCIRI head Abdul Aziz Al Hakim and his dead brother Mohammed Baqir Al Hakim were both well-known interrogators and torturers of Iraqi POWs in Iran.
There isn’t a single Iraqi family, I believe, that didn’t lose a loved one, or several, to that war. There isn’t a single family that didn’t have horror stories to tell about the POW that came home. They were giving back our POWs up until 2003. In our family alone, we lost four men to that war- three were confirmed dead- one Shia and two Sunnis- and the fourth, S., has been missing since 1983.
When he left for the war, S. was 24 and engaged to be married within the year- the house was even furnished and the wedding date set. He never came back. His mother, my mothers cousin, finally gave up hope that he’d come back in 2003. With every new group of POWs returning from Iran, she’d make phone calls and beg for news of her darling S. Had anyone seen him? Had anyone heard of him? Was he dead? With every fresh disappointment, we’d tell her that in spite of the long years, it was possible he was still alive- there was hope he’d come back. In 2002, she confessed to my mother that she wished someone would come along and crush the hope once and for all- confirm he was dead. In her heart, a mothers heart, she knew he was dead- but she needed the confirmation because without it, giving up hope completely would be a form of betrayal.
The agony of the long war with Iran is what makes the current situation in Iraq so difficult to bear- especially this last year. The occupation has ceased to be American. It is American in face, and militarily, but in essence it has metamorphosed slowly but surely into an Iranian one.
It began, of course, with Badir’s Brigade and the several Iran-based political parties which followed behind the American tanks in April 2003. It continues today with a skewed referendum, and a constitution that will guarantee a southern Iraqi state modeled on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The referendum results were so disappointing and there have been so many stories of fraud and shady dealings (especially in Mosul), that there’s already talk of boycotting the December elections. This was the Puppets’ shining chance to show that there is that modicum of democracy they claim the Iraqi people are enjoying under occupation- that chance was terribly botched up.
As for the December elections- Sistani has, up until now, coyly abstained from blatantly supporting any one specific political group. This will probably continue until late November / early December during which he will be persistently asked by his followers to please issue a Fatwa about the elections. Eventually, he’ll give his support to one of the parties and declare a vote for said party a divine obligation. I wager he’ll support the United Iraqi Alliance - like last elections.
Interestingly enough, this time around the UIA will be composed of not just SCIRI and Da’awa- but also of the Sadrists (Jaysh il Mahdi)- Muqtada’s followers! For those who followed the situation in Iraq last year, many will recognize Muqtada as the ‘firebrand cleric’, the ‘radical’ and ‘terrorist’. Last year, there was even a warrant for Muqtada’s arrest from the Ministry of Interior and supported by the Americans who repeatedly said they were either going to detain the ‘radical cleric’ or kill him.
Well, today he’s very much alive and involved in the ‘political process’ American politicians and their puppets hail so energetically. Sadr and his followers have been responsible for activities such as terrorizing hairdressers, bombing liquor stores, and abductions of women not dressed properly, etc. because all these things are considered anti-Islamic (according to Iranian-style Islam). Read more about Sadr’s militia here- who dares to say the Americans, Brits and Puppets don’t have everything under control?!
Americans constantly tell me, “What do you think will happen if we pull out of Iraq- those same radicals you fear will take over.” The reality is that most Iraqis don’t like fundamentalists and only want stability- most Iraqis wouldn’t stand for an Iran-influenced Iraq. The American military presence is working hand in hand with Badir, etc. because only together with Iran can they suppress anti-occupation Iraqis all over the country. If and when the Americans leave, their Puppets and militias will have to pack up and return to wherever they came from because without American protection and guidance they don’t stand a chance.
We literally laugh when we hear the much subdued threats American politicians make towards Iran. The US can no longer afford to threaten Iran because they know that should the followers of Sadr, Iranian cleric Sistani and Badir’s Brigade people rise up against the Americans, they’d have to be out of Iraq within a month. Iran can do what it wants- enrich uranium? Of course! If Tehran declared tomorrow that it was currently in negotiations for a nuclear bomb, Bush would have to don his fake pilot suit again, gush enthusiastically about the War on Terror and then threaten Syria some more.
Congratulations Americans- not only are the hardliner Iranian clerics running the show in Iran- they are also running the show in Iraq. This shift of power should have been obvious to the world when My-Loyalty-to-the-Highest-Bidder-Chalabi sold his allegiance to Iran last year. American and British sons and daughters and husbands and wives are dying so that this coming December, Iraqis can go out and vote for Iran influenced clerics to knock us back a good four hundred years.
What happened to the dream of a democratic Iraq?
Iraq has been the land of dreams for everyone except Iraqis- the Persian dream of a Shia controlled Islamic state modeled upon Iran and inclusive of the holy shrines in Najaf, the pan-Arab nationalist dream of a united Arab region with Iraq acting as its protective eastern border, the American dream of controlling the region by installing permanent bases and a Puppet government in one of its wealthiest countries, the Kurdish dream of an independent Kurdish state financed by the oil wealth in Kirkuk…
The Puppets the Americans empowered are advocates of every dream except the Iraqi one: The dream of Iraqi Muslims, Christians, Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen… the dream of a united, stable, prosperous Iraq which has, over the last two years, gone up in the smoke of car bombs, military raids and a foreign occupation.
Is there proof beyond the blogger's word that the government put in place in Iraq now is Irani influenced?
The respectable gentlemen from the New York Times engage in a fair bit of what-if writing, but do not take into account the facts that Storm Saxon points out:
quote: Different times, different countries, different wars, different presidents, different technology, different circumstances, different everything.
As for " Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay."
posted
I've seen plenty of articles about the influence of Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria and Saudi Arabia, in Iraq. Rather than google for them right now, I'll wait for them to pop up as they do. I'll make this be like my torture thread.
For some of the same reasons I am loathe to bring Vietnam comparisons into a discussion of Iraq, I don't know how valid Liberia is. Even though it's about the same time, I think circumstances and whatnot are different there, too.
In the final analysis, many Iraqi leaders have asked us for a timetable. We must give them one or look like occupiers, it seems to me.
One thing I have been mentioning for a while now is that we will never 'win' in any way while Iran in its current form still stands. I happened to catch a news bit today where they mentioned that Netanyahu said that if elected, a pre-emptive strike on the Iranian edit: nuclear facility was a serious possibility.
Consider an Israeli strike, followed by an Iranian strike on Israel, followed by a declaration of war on Iran by Israel's pal the U.S....
posted
Maybe one of the countries that Iraq will influence in the future to become a democracy in teh miraculous domino effect will be Russia. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One can surely bet that anyone who can get their hand in to influence Iraq's destiny is hard at work at doing so as we speak.
It's like a lot of people trying to reach into a bubbling stewpot all at the same time and sooner or later it will spill on one of the folks. Perhaps that's what we're actually waiting for.
In the end, it will have to be the Iraqi people themselves who will have to make a go of it or not. I just can't take their current government very seriously at the moment. Their base constitution rounded out to how many hundreds of pages?
Our own can be printed in a short, very short, pamphlet. Sometimes simplicity is best.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question for everyone, that is can anyone name to me some kind of major political compromises in history that ended up in a lasting peace?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a compromise to pull out of Iraq now or in the next six months. That proposal a conclusion that some people have come to after evalutating the situation.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I have a question for everyone, that is can anyone name to me some kind of major political compromises in history that ended up in a lasting peace?
The Munich Agreement! Wait...maybe not.
Oh, I've got it now - the Compromise of 1850! Whoops, that one didn't turn out too well either.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: (snip) For some of the same reasons I am loathe to bring Vietnam comparisons into a discussion of Iraq, I don't know how valid Liberia is. Even though it's about the same time, I think circumstances and whatnot are different there, too.
In the final analysis, many Iraqi leaders have asked us for a timetable. We must give them one or look like occupiers, it seems to me.
One thing I have been mentioning for a while now is that we will never 'win' in any way while Iran in its current form still stands. (snip)
Iraq is like Vietnam in the fact that at this point we are interfering in a family squabble. The factions within the religious community are already in Civil War and blowing each other up. Fear of Saddam kept them in check. They no longer have civil order to stop them from killing each other, and they are doing that.
I posted JFK's plan for Vietnam withdrawal because it made sense, and it saved face. This isn't about technology. The resistence/insurgency is low tech. This is about people, and freedom, and religion. We cannot win in Iraq.
We said we wanted to bring Democracy there, and did it at the point of a gun. The new leaders in Iraq ran on platforms which included withdrawal by the US forces. They are not the leaders we hand picked. The winners of the elections are affiliated with the religious leaders in Iran. We have unintentionally created a Theocracy. We are dominating those elected leaders and telling them what they can and cannot do.
The religious leaders and clans have now united in asking us to leave. I think the best thing for us to do is to give them what they want, in stages. Freedom. Democracy. Self determination.
In a planned withdrawal at the request of the Iraqi leadership we will save the lives of many thousands of our men and women. If we 'stay the course' and force our will on those people for another ten years or more, THOUSANDS more American soldiers will be killed. To me it is a no brainer: Bring our people home!
In my opinion getting Saddam out of office, and 'nation building' Iraq was not worth losing one American life. It certainly is not worth the deaths of thousands more, which will be the consequence of 'staying the course' in the years ahead.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mission in Iraq is to build a democracy and the US leadership has naively assumed that giving Iraqis the vote will ensure that. As many are realizing now, it doesn't work that way. It's not even something new. Democracies have failed all over the world throughout the years.
For a democracy to work, there needs to be a guarantee that those in power won't be able to abuse it without penalties. For that to be possible, the US needs to stay in Iraq.
So... let Iraqis have self-government.
But.. maintain a US military presence and a US run judicial system. The sole declared function would be to bring to court and prosecute Iraqi government officials who abuse their power. Those currently vying for Iraqi leadership should have no reason to protest this unless they have ulterior motives. Over time it should weed out the bad apples. Once the Iraqis have good government, it will begin to perpetuate itself and the US can finally leave.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:that is can anyone name to me some kind of major political compromises in history that ended up in a lasting peace?
The Magna Carta. The American Constitution. Post American Civil War Reconstruction. The gradual self-rule of Canada. The Cold War.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Magna Carta arguably led to several of the English Civil Wars, the compromises in the Constitution arguably led to the Civil War. Reconstruction? How was that a compromise?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Iraq: I suggest we finish setting up their police and military forces, and once they're sufficiently strong, leave. I *think* we're done setting up the government proper. (The media don't say.)
That is, we should do what's being done.
We could be more specific -- dates and locations -- if we want to ensure that these dates and locations are targeted with car bombs. I suggest we don't.
About Vietnam: we had a good exit strategy, and implemented it. S Vietnam survived, without US soldiers, but dependent on the US for materiel. Then Congress cut off funding, with the express purpose of letting S Vietnam die. It worked. It was a monstrous betrayal, and it worked.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Compromises aren't some magical wand that causes peace forever. That's crazy.
However, it's pretty clear that for any peace to be lasting between disparate groups that have to coexist within an area, there has to be some kind compromise worked out between those groups.
While wars can certainly remove an enemy's ability to wage for war for a period of time, it doesn't do anything to his will to fight or resolve the issues.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
