"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
Mark,
I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy
like
Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The
repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the
media
to play along, and we can control the infidels".

snip
NYOB,

There were a chorus of voices saying that we should stay the course in
Vietnam right up until the end.

While this may be a bit early to ask about Iraq, What sorts of signs
would
you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you
make
the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Much of the discussion has been focused on what we *want* for Iraq - a
western style democracy, oil, a base in the middle east, a positive
political poster child for the neocon ideals, security. It is relatively
easy to frame and measure success against the goals.

The shape of the answer to my question above goes a long way towards
deciding if current actions are taking the USA towards failure.

Before you rush to answer this, do you think that the Soviets left
Afghanistan too early or too late? In perfect 20/20 hindsight, what
should
have been the warning signs? Considering the eventual cost of the
occupation
to the Soviet government (complete collapse of the government) this does
seem like a relevant question in this closely related situation.

Mark Browne

Pull top post to bottom post


"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I think we establish bases there *outside the cities*, help organize a
police force and governing body, and then pull back to those bases and let
the democratically elected government rule the country. We remain in our
bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a
coup.
If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and
asks
us to leave, then we should consider leaving.


Reasonable armchair quarterback strategy. If you spend some time reading
about the Soviet experience in the area you may see some interesting
parallels with what is happening in Iraq now. We are in about the same place
in the Soviet timeline. In the first two years the losses were fairly light;
the number just about match what we are now seeing. It ended up just about
the way you are describing. Towards the end, the soviets did end up huddling
in their bases as the looses mounted. Nobody wanted to go out because it was
going so badly. They only came out to stage raids on the ever more brazen
resistance forces. Unfortunately, it helped the resistance forces because it
made the soldiers more predictable. The routes to and from the bases were
mined with tank busters. Gunships were shot from the skies as they tried to
fly above it all. In the end it was fairly common for the Mujahideen to
kidnap a solder, either from the base or on patrol, mutilate or kill him in
a most horrible way, and return the body for maximum terror effect. With any
luck at all (luck come in two flavors!) this could all be ours!

A further note on your plan: that the government that we set up in
Afghanistan is not able to do much in the way of ruling the country. It is
not safe for relief worker to work - Most have pulled out. Reconstruction is
at a stop - the workers are killed on the job site. "Collaborators" are
killed so the general population is reluctant to participate. Warlords run
everything outside Kabul. Please elaborate how your plan will address these
issues with the soldiers holed up in the remote bases?

Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What sorts
of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point
would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?

Mark Browne