WAR: USATODAY Founder Calls For Iraq Pullout: Receives Mixed Response

In a Thursday column, Al Neuharth, founder of USATODAY called for a US pullout from Iraq "sooner rather than later." An E & P report on the column quickly drew hundreds of emails. Responses surged initially against Neuharth, but became equally divided.



The division of the comments are not surprising, as just like here on ATS opinions vary when posed the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq. I think the administration should have acted responsibly when it became clear that no WMD's were there, and pulled out then with an appology. After all, initially that was the main component of their sale for the war. The attempted shifting of focus from that leads me to believe that there were and are alterior motives for the war.

Related News Links:
www.usatoday.com
www.usatoday.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake
Who said American Freedom doesnt work in Iraq?
poll: do you believe the war in Iraq is worth fighting?

I believe the u.s. will pull out as soon as possible, where possible could be defined as an installed regime that they think stands a reasonable change of maintaining the oilflow. Naturally the country would still be a mess for years to come with clashing parties all over the place, but that's not really important or is it?

Originally posted by Countermeasures
I believe the u.s. will pull out as soon as possible, where possible could be defined as an installed regime that they think stands a reasonable change of maintaining the oilflow. Naturally the country would still be a mess for years to come with clashing parties all over the place, but that's not really important or is it?

You know, i think that when Cromwell invaded Ireland in 1649 he thought much the same thing. But we were still there in one form or another for Centuries. A War on an enemies native soil is the hardest battle to win. We learned that to our cost in Colonial Wars against America and the Boers in South Africa and countless other countries across the World. The US had a similar lesson in Vietnam. But the only thing to do is to plow on and keep fighting. We are there now and in too deep to pull out, all we can do is support the Troops there and hope that it is sooner rather than later. But dont hold your breath, this conflict will still be going on in one form or another for a long, long time.
I think that realistically the best we can hope for is an uneasy peace such as the one that exists in Northern Ireland at the moment. Anyone who thinks that its going to be a total victory and a signed surrender of the Terrorists, then back home for a ticker tape parade is deluding themselves. Fighting Terrorists is akin to catching the wind. They are by their very nature fragmentary and as such very hard to pin down and defeat.




[edit on 24-12-2004 by Janus]

We have to at least stay a year after the elections in Jan to give the new government a chance since we are already there (don't know exactly who made Bush God to decide democracy is better for Iraq than the existing regime was but anywho). Then after one year if things are just as bad then I say we should pull out.

But remember Bush and his closest buddies are making boatloads of $$$$ off this war/rebuilding process so that may come into play in a decision to stay or leave. Maybe if Bush and his buddies had some of their kids fighting on the ground we would already have pulled out eh???

Mr. Al Neuharth comments only reflect the "propaganda" and media bias that has long "invaded" and infiltrated the ranks of mass, mainstream media and its willingness to sway public opinion.

Present the FACTS sir, nothing more, nothing less. This is your job after all isn't it? Noticing that some of his other grossly exaggerated comments went missing in this topic, like:

He observed that WW II, on the other hand, was "highly moral" and troops were �properly equipped.�

Please sir, being that you are a WWII vet, having supposedly served in "France, Germany and the Philippines", since 'when' has the U.S. fielded a perfectly non-lacking equipped military force or army? Its apparent that you have forgotten the tons and tons of complaints that were issued concerning the Sherman tanks versus Tiger and Panther tanks or against 88mm artillery field pieces? BTW, tank results in Africa ring a bell? Oh, forgot, you didn't serve there....
"Properly equipped" must be one of those relative terms, huh, Mr. Neuharth?

Nothing but disgruntled leftist, anti-war media dribble, courtesy of Mr. Neuharth of the USATODAY.




seekerof

[edit on 24-12-2004 by Seekerof]

Seeker, and the rest of you you who feel that the Iraq war is just and proper, I am curious. How would you respond to Anthony Gregory's statement (paraphrased): "For every reason there was to attack Iraq, there was a better reason to attack NK or Iran."

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Seeker, and the rest of you you who feel that the Iraq war is just and proper, I am curious. How would you respond to Anthony Gregory's statement (paraphrased): "For every reason there was to attack Iraq, there was a better reason to attack NK or Iran."

I agree, North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq, a much bigger threat. But the powers that be decided on Iraq and I'm afraid that we are stuck with that decision. A War on Terror is going to be difficult if not impossible to Win. Why? Well there are numerous reasons, lets have a look at a few.

1) There is no defined command and control system, Terrorists and insurgents work in cells. Completely independent and in most cases unaware of each other. This means that if you take out one the others can still work with little impact on their effectiveness. This makes the age old cut the head of the serpent tactic ineffective.

2) For every Cell destroyed there will always be another and another.

3) To the Terrorists this is a Holy War, a Jihad. There is nothing more powerful and more motivating than Religious conviction. Look to History for confirmation of that.

4) Combat in Urban areas or FIBUA (fighting in built up areas ) is the most desperate and vicious form of combat. The Terrorists are fighting on their own doorstep, there they have the advantage. Also communication and co-ordination in very difficult in a built up area. By fighting this war in the Cities the insurgent takes away much of the allies advantages, Tanks, close air support, carpet bombing a city (Politically and morally ) is out of the question for instance.
It is down to the Man and Woman on the ground to take and hold areas there by denying the insurgent one of his main advantages. The War then becomes Dependant upon the Non-Coms and the Soldiers under them. This in effect puts the GI/Tommy on the ground in more danger thereby increasing casualties and this has a direct impact on public opinion at home.

5) The terrorist/insurgent has the support of the people ( through intimidation or through a genuine support for the terrorists cause ) there by making a job even more difficult than it already would be. They will hide them, feed them, supply them with all the means to wage a covert and bloody insurgency. That is the main thing, the most important thing the insurgent has going for him because without that fundamental resource, without the support of the people every insurgency must fail.
Look to the American War of Independence for parallels. Without the support of the people America would have lost the War.

So why do i support the War on Terror? The fight is there, it doesn't matter if we like it or not. Battle has been joined with a determined and ruthless enemy and anyone expecting a speedy resolution better re-adjust their view because this is going to be very long and very bloody and many will die before we see the light at the end of the tunnel. Its too late now to pull out, too late to find an alternative we have no choice now but to see it through to its bloody conclusion. They will not compromise and neither will our governments.



[edit on 24-12-2004 by Janus]