NSA General:Pull out of Iraq Now

U.S. ex-general calls for Iraq pull out

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the U.S. armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

Odom, one of the most respected U.S. military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, "We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, 'the only thing worse that having allies is having none,' was once again vindicated.

"There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq," he wrote. "... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day U.S. forces remain there."



www.upi.com...

"another flowerchild....." eerr battle decorated GENERAL, nope won't work
"doesn't know squat about terrorism..." eerr headed the NSA, nope won't work
"hates Bush......" eerr a Republican, that won't work either.

Damn......think we might have to listen to his opinion?

[edit on 6-12-2005 by Bout Time]

I wish people would listen to his opinion, but I doubt they will.

William Odom, knows what he is talking about - in fact, he probably knows a lot more than many members of the Bush administration do but what do they care? They are the ones at home in the United State's who are safe - they are not the ones being sent to war.

Things would be different if they had to fight alongside the troops.

Originally posted by Bout Time
U.S. ex-general calls for Iraq pull out

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the U.S. armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

Odom, one of the most respected U.S. military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, "We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, 'the only thing worse that having allies is having none,' was once again vindicated.

"There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq," he wrote. "... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day U.S. forces remain there."



www.upi.com...

Lt. Gen. Odom is right. The US government should take out all the armed forces from Iraq. The US is certainly not benifiting from this "war". I mean we are loosing so many troops left and right, that it isn't funny. The best thing would be to bring them home. Let Iraq deal with it's own problems.

I agree that for the long term stability of the ME the US has to pull out of Iraq and other places. But we cant pull out now, to do so would ensure that for decades to come terrorists would rule Iraq.

I hope that soon the administration will listen to the Military men instead of the chicken hawks that surround the President. Maybe we can save the lives of our precious young people in the military.

I agree with Lt. Gen. Odom; "let Irag deal with deal with its' own problems"

Finally! this is what I've been saying since we got there. The Iraq war was counterproductive in that it made the world less stable.

Do I miss Saddam Hussen? Hell No!

Yes, he was truly an ass and a nucence, but ousting him when we did was a tradgic mistake. Instead of securing a victory, we ignited a war we didn't need, and can't afford. We took a terrible situation and made it worse!

Tim

Notice the conspicuous absence of the War Hawks on this thread.....

Hmmmm.....

Yes I do Stu. And this is just the beginning of military men in the military starting to tell the truth about this war.

My prediction is that in the very near future Colin Powell will tell us what he really thinks and the truth as to the reasons for this war.

We ARE going to pull out. I don't know why everyone skips over this little part. But we have to stabalize the area and train enough Iraqi forces to keep it stable. It's not like Bush plans to leave troops there forever, unlike someone we know. Let's see... The troops in Bosnia will be home by Christmas... They'll only be there for a short while...

Who was this again?

Thanks for your input herman, but if you read the article, the GENERAL said the only way to stablize iraq is to pull out now.

I certainly respect your opinion and knowledge on all things military but I'm going to have to go with the GENERAL on this one.

what the heck, why don't we just bomb jerusalem and get it over with?? then the whole area will hate us, want us gone and we can leave!!!

oh, ya, we need to find a suitable fuel alternative first.

someone, a long time ago, in one of my dreams even, told me that the iraqis and the iranians hate each other, but they will become friends if their fear of us becomes stronger than that hatred......

we'll see, won't we?

if we pull out, there will be a union of these two countries, a nice beginning to the Islamic empire.....I'd about be willing to bet on it.

on the other hand, I think this guy is right, as long as we are there, well, we are gonna be just fanning the fires.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But we cant pull out now, to do so would ensure that for decades to come terrorists would rule Iraq.

I'm afraid that this is just baseless speculation, not to mention a talking point. We won't really know what would happen unless we did it. And way too many people who know about such things are supporting the idea of getting us out for me to just ignore them and go with the talking point.

Every day we're there benefits the terrorists. Stubbornly doing the same thing and expecting different results is insanity.

Originally posted by whaaa
Thanks for your input herman, but if you read the article, the GENERAL said the only way to stablize iraq is to pull out now.

I certainly respect your opinion and knowledge on all things military but I'm going to have to go with the GENERAL on this one.

And the Commander and Chief thinks that we should say. Everyone's got an opinion, some more important than others.

I'm afraid that this is just baseless speculation, not to mention a talking point. We won't really know what would happen unless we did it. And way too many people who know about such things are supporting the idea of getting us out for me to just ignore them and go with the talking point.

It seems like the logical assumption to me that if we left, the terrorists that are there trying to drive us out (Think - why would they want us out? If we were benefiting them, they wouldn't be so desperately trying to get us out, would they?) If we left now, they would have control over the region, because that is what they're fighting for. If we pull out, we lose. If we lose, they win.

ahh.....but if we would have just just left Iraq alone and stuck with driving al quada out of Afghanistan, well, they certainly wouldn't be running to saddam now for help! Saddam wasn't gonna bow down to them and let them run the show!

the commander in chief also appearently thinks we should become a little more like saddam, and well, be able to legally torture our prisoners.......why else whould he had balked at the idea of passing an appropriations bill geared to provind dod funding simply because it re -emphasized laws against the inhumane treatement of prisoners declaring torture as illegal...again, laws are already on the books, but our commander in cheif seems to think he is above any and all laws, if he finds they are standing in his way as he fights this "war on terror".

[edit on 17-12-2005 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by stumason
Notice the conspicuous absence of the War Hawks on this thread.....

Hello stumason. *waves*
Other than your sound bite rhetorical antics to 'sucker' those dern "war hawks" into this, did you have anything remotely meaningful to add to this topic? Appears that you did not....


As for the topic, I think in general and broad terms, ex-General Odom is correct, per se'. That per se' is this: The US needs to reduce its 'footprint' in Iraq and the Middle East, and needs to concentrate on embedding trainers [continued training with advisors, etc] in Iraqi formations as added 'backbone' while keeping US mainforce type units beyond the visibility and presence-factor they now are giving or exhibiting.

More and more, it appears and seems that the US and military is moving in that general direction, which I think could have been accomplished or instituted sooner, but hey, better late than never. At the end of the day and in all US economic reality, the US has been inevitably fated to fight in the Middle East since we, along with the rest of the Westernized world, decided to make the world economy dependent on petroleum and oil. The criticism given over the liberation of Iraq goes as far back as 1998 when the Clinton Administration authorized state sactioned regime change. And thanks in part to the Bush Administration's particularly poor performance in laying out their case, many proponents against the war seem to uniformly overlook the fact that the US had been at a legal state of war with Iraq and Saddam since 1991.

What I will contest and debate is ex-General Odom's advocating the stereotypical de-facto 'cut-n-run' strategy, and for me, coming from a military man with the credibility he has, that is very disappointing. To me, and contrary to this esteemed ex-General's advocating, staying the course while doing phased and calculated withdrawals, based upon Iraqi government considerations and needs, is what should be the prevailing strategy.

The US does not want to exit in haste; doing so may well create the same type power vacuum that occurred when the US exited South Vietnam: the collapse of the Iraqi government and the loss of the democratic efforts gained, started, and created during regime change and occupation. Furthermore, leaving in haste, creating a power vacuum, the lose of democratic efforts would likely lead not only to the collapse of the Iraqi government, but a broad-based civil war, which would ultimately lead to the creation of another Saddam-like oppressive regime.

We can all agree that a withdrawal of US troops is a necessary and eventual matter, an issue that has been discussed extensively. The issue of withdrawal is when and how, and be assured that a cut-n-run strategy does not and will not play into the exit strategy of and for US forces in Iraq. It must be measurable but calculated, and based upon a number of Iraqi government considerations and needs. Having said as much, this sort of makes what ex-General Odom says the more redundant and mute. How so? He is simply advocating US cut-n-run exit strategy from Iraq, again, something that is already a known factoid and issue. His voice and opinion is credible and valid, but simply is another voice added to the withdrawal issue. Furthermore, his voice is one that is easily countered and negated by other esteemed military ex-generals saying the opposite as he, who likewise, Bout Time, have opinions worthy of merit and to be listened to.

So in all truth and reality, this topic and and Bout Time's mention, quoted below, are immaterial and simply another way of advocating a Murtha policy. The issue of US forces withdrawal has been and is under review, thus again, making ex-General Odom's voice and opinion redundant and mute.

Originally posted by Bout Time
"another flowerchild....." eerr battle decorated GENERAL, nope won't work
"doesn't know squat about terrorism..." eerr headed the NSA, nope won't work
"hates Bush......" eerr a Republican, that won't work either.

Damn......think we might have to listen to his opinion?

seekerof

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Seekerof]

To be truly accurate, he should've phrased his statement slightly differently. Instead of "...while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the U.S. armed forces to get out of Iraq now" it should've read "if President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the U.S. armed forces to get out of Iraq now." When one recognizes that the goal is not, nor has it ever been, to "bring democracy and stability to the Middle East," then the administration's actions make perfect sense and withdrawal can be seen to be simply not an option.

As a matter of fact, a continuing US military presence in Iraq was, in and of itself, always THE goal.