Poll: Go Big, Go Long or Go Home?

Secret U.S. Iraq Plan: Go Public, Go Home, Go Mecca

by Scott Ott

(2006-11-20) — According to a newly pre-released secret Pentagon document, the U.S. military is considering three options for dealing with the situation in Iraq, dubbed ‘Go Public, Go Home and Go Mecca.’

The unnamed Pentagon official in charge of leaking national security secrets to the Washington Post said it’s possible that the U.S. could adopt some combination of the three.

He summarized the strategy options as follows:

1. Go Public: Consistently leak top-secret Pentagon strategy deliberations to the news media as a way of neutralizing the unfair “element of surpriseâ€, and of building trust by being more transparent with the enemy.

2. Go Home: Remove the only reason for terrorism by bringing all U.S. troops back home, and also allowing all U.S.-trained Iraqi troops to emigrate to the U.S.

3. Go Mecca: Deal “head on†with the heart of the conflict, by amending the U.S. Constitution to bring it into compliance with Islamic Sharia law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 01:42 PM) [snapback]352601[/snapback]</div>

You stated first - you back up first. In either case I think it near impossible to cite trustworthy studies from there - how do you conduct a poll in Iraq today without risking your life or sampling the population honestly? In any case they do have a democratically elected government who can ask us to leave at any time much like the governments of Germany and Japan and South Korea. When they ask us to leave we have to leave.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(San_Carlos_Jeff @ Nov 21 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]352603[/snapback]</div>

No one should be blamed - and hence the problem becomes magnified here. The House voted to go to war and we went to war. DONE. Deal with the REALITY that today brings us. DONE

Now if we can all try to get on the same page and plan something reasonable that gives everyone the best chance of success - whatever that might be - that would be best for all.

Just picking up our ball and going home to pout will only ensure that the mess will grow and we will be back in some way shape or form - the only difference will be the number of dead Americans here and there - not to mention the number of dead Iraqi's etc.

Continued bickering only aids our enemies. A disunited front only ensures more death and destruction with little to show for the sacrifice.

Now with the Dems in control I hope - now that their words have real meaning and power - I hope this can be done. That being said, in two short months the Dems can force us to withdraw at any time by stopping the funding for the war like they did during Vietnam. No money, no war -- simple.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jroth74 @ Nov 21 2006, 01:55 PM) [snapback]352616[/snapback]</div>

Maybe he did? By threatening to withdraw I wonder what uproar that would cause.

I see Turkey kicking and screaming - the threat of an indenpendant Kurdish nation is a nightmare for them.

I see Saudia Arabia kicking and screaming as they see Iran moving into the vacuum and dominating Iraq the same way Syria dominates Lebanon. They won't sleep well with an Iran not counter-balanced with Iraq.

I see Syria kicking too. The ruling minority party of Assad fears a confident and well supported shia majority within its own borders - kind of like what syria is doing to lebanon will be done to them by iran. Also, Hezbollah would pose a significant threat to assad too.

Egypt (who gave Israel the green light to kick Hezbollah's butt even though Olmert refused) has huge headaches with a large and young radicalized shia population.

Jordan - no way wants this. They already have their hands full with al-Qaeda and Islamic radicals whose strength and access to technology and weapons would only increase dramatically with a dominant and unchecked Iran.

And then you start going regionally. China - no way - they will pass Japan in a few years as the second biggest importer of oil ............. What happens if Iran turns off the spigots? Or hikes the price. Or announces it has a nuke and can shut the Straits forever - whenever????

Anyhow - do not see us, even with the Dems in control, picking up and leaving .... and this could be the genius to the next chapter of the story....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 11:56 AM) [snapback]352657[/snapback]</div>

Ha! That's funny! If you had asked me to back up my statement, I would have been obliged to do so. Instead, you said that my statement was false. Therefore, you put the burden on yourself.

But ok, I can back up my statement, easily:

"A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers."
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mi.../iraq/4239.html

Now, either back up your claim to the contrary or admit you were wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 03:08 PM) [snapback]352680[/snapback]</div>

nice try

kinda like the polls conducted during the Soviets hayday huh? every third house on the left :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 12:53 PM) [snapback]352614[/snapback]</div>

No... didn't slip my mind...

But also didn't elect anyone who can make the decision to bring the troops home.

The last election that decided this was in 2004. Good luck getting enough dems together in the congress to pass a bill to bring them home that can withstand a veto.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Nov 21 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]352565[/snapback]</div>

1. wrong - How many innocent civilians have been killed by Americans since the start of the war. Separate terrorist, and those killed by sectarian violance. How many hundreds of thousands have been pulled from mass graves in Iraq. How many Kurds did he kill. How many Kuwaiti's did he slaughter. How many of his own was he killing? Dont forget the one million or so Iranians who died at his hands.
2. possible - but still wrong
3. until he developed wmd's or invaded kuwait or iran or kept supporting terror with each $30,000 check he sent to a palestinian who blew themselves up in Israel
4. Osama is in Afghanistan?? Not Pakistan? Or are you suggesting we invade Pakistan to get him?? And if we found him in Iraq with Saddam - invade Iraq to get him???

Anyhow, since your suggestion is no longer on the table - start looking forward to helping find a real answer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov 21 2006, 03:33 PM) [snapback]352701[/snapback]</div>

They could do it easily. They control the purse strings of the government. They have the power to vote to stop funding the war - and home we come - just like Vietnam. I cannot wait to see what they do! Although if Pelosi appoints Alcye Hastings Chair of the Intelligence Committee I see significant problems for all. And there goes the "culture of corruption" -- this time on the Dems side -- imagine appointing a ding dong that was impeached by everyone into a postion of that power.... JEEEEZ - say it ain't so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 12:26 PM) [snapback]352698[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for proving, once again, that you are a LIAR

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 03:40 PM) [snapback]352708[/snapback]</div>

One thing i forgot. Since you are such a big believer in polls --- since the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT believe in Gay Marriage I am confident you want to drop the subject and put it down and away until the poll figures change?

What other opinions of the majority are you currently bucking that do not involve American national security?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 21 2006, 08:15 AM) [snapback]352515[/snapback]</div>

"Victory" means different things to different people:

To a Republican, we'll have "won" when we have sucked out all their oil and burned it all in our ever-growing fleet of Hummers and SUVs.

To a Democrat, we'll have "won" when we have sucked out all their oil and burned it all in fuel-efficient cars.

To a pacifist, war has no "winner." To a pacifist everyone loses when there's a war.

And to an environmentalist also, everyone loses when there's a war.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 21 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]352615[/snapback]</div>

It was common at the time, and it is still common now, for a small number of very angry people to insist that we could have won the war if we had only gone "all out." As if L.B.J. was a softie, or Richard Nixon influenced by the hippies. Democrats gave it their all, and Republicans gave it their all. We lost that war because the Vietnamese were willing and able to carry more than their own weight, day after day and year after year, through almost-impenetrable jungles on a bowl of rice a day. We lost because the Vietnamese were and are a proud nation that would not stop fighting to be free of foreign invaders as long as one of them was left alive. We dropped more explosive power on that one tiny country than all the bombs dropped by all the allies in WW II, including the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the defoliants dropped on the jungles and the napalm dropped on civilian villages which maimed and burned to death women and children. And we still could not win.

You can curse the Democrats and the Republicans and the peace demonstrators all you want, but the plain and simple fact is the only thing that would have "won" that war for the U.S. would have been to nuke it off the planet. There were voices calling for just that. People whose logic was, "If they don't want us to save them from 'communism' then let's murder them all!"

Fortunately, that barbaric cry arose from a minority, and we admitted defeat rather than slaughter a nation in one great fireball.

I hear your angry cry that anybody who opposes us deserves to die and should be struck down with an iron fist. I feel for you. But there are some wars not worth winning, and the extermination of an entire country is too high a price for victory.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov, 06:08 PM) [snapback]352823[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, you have made me think about a lot of things, and I very much respect your opinion. I rarely find things that I flat out disagree with you on. But here, I must disagree. Most Dems are pacifists and environmentalists, and to us, most wars are unnecessary and cause more harm than good. I will not say all wars, but most. And certainly this war.

 

We went in to remove the WMD danger (there weren’t any)
We went in to “save the people†from Sadam (never asked if they actually needed saving)
We went in contrary to the advice of all the other (except Iran) neighboring countries
Why the hell we went in?

 

I don't think anybody knows.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juniper @ Nov 21 2006, 08:58 PM) [snapback]352852[/snapback]</div>

I urdge you to check out the exellent BBC documentary that covers this titled "The Power of Nightmares" it's available on the internet and there is a thread about it here in FHOP.

In a nutshell, they point out that in order for the neo-conservative movement (very different from main stream Republicans IMO), to maintain control is to keep a majority of the people in a state of fear. This can only be done if we have a powerfull enimey ready to pounce on us (smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud). And we were sure he had WMD's because we still had the reciepts

P.S. "Of course we're at war with Oceania, we've always been at war with Oceania."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Nov, 10:15 PM) [snapback]352857[/snapback]</div>

Well then, it was a short term gain, wasn't it? Now they just look stupid.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KingSuper20 @ Nov 21 2006, 05:44 AM) [snapback]352444[/snapback]</div>

Is there some reason that I should assume that these are the only options?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 06:35 PM) [snapback]352840[/snapback]</div>

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of Democrats as pacifists. Remember LBJ and Vietnam? Remember the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago when the Democratic mayor had cops beating up peace protesters? And the peace protesters, by and large, were not Democrats. How about most Democrats voting to let the shrub have this war in the first place?

A pacifist by definition opposes all war. If you feel that some wars are justified, you have a right to that opinion, and some very good arguments can be made, but by definition this means that you are not a pacifist.

"Pacifist" is not a synonym for "peaceful" or for "peace loving." It is a philosophy which argues that violence is never justified. It is the Freedom Riders allowing themselves to be beaten up without raising a hand against their aggressors. It is Jesus telling people to respond to hatred with love and to respond to blows by offering to receive more blows, and telling his followers not to attempt to interfere with his execution.

And if "environmentalist" means burning the last of the oil in a slightly more efficient car, then of course everyone on this board, Democrat and Republican is an environmentalist. But if "environmentalist" means refusing to purchase any product with wasteful packaging, then I think none of us is an environmentalist. And if "environmentalist" means giving up eating meat due to the abysmally wasteful and environmentally-destructive manner in which it's produced, then relatively few Democrats are environmentalists.

I get between 45 and 50 mpg in my Prius. But a Mexican Indian living in the Oaxaca highlands burns no gas at all. Who's the environmentalist? The American "environmentalist" replies that you cannot expect him to give up his car and live like a Mexican Indian! Why, that would be downright unAmerican! We all make choices, and the choices I make, and the choices you make, disqualify us from the title of "environmentalist."

That's just the way I see it.

As long as the Democrats in the Senate did not fillibuster against spending any money on bombs to devastate the environment of Iraq (depleted uranium shells, and all the other poison that war leaves behind) they are not environmentalists. And after January 1 we'll see whether they cut off money to further destroy the environment with this continuing war.

Yeah, they'll take a few token measures. Not enough to make any real difference. How about a national law like the CARB backed down from in CA? How about a law that all car makers must make 25% of their cars zero-emissions by 2010? Suppose the environmentalist Democrats will pass that? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Dragonfly, from reading your posts I think you are a progressive and genuinely caring person. I don't think most Democrats share your views, and few if any Democratic office-holders do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov, 10:41 PM) [snapback]352920[/snapback]</div>

No, but I've been told they used to be quite racist as well.

Yeah, I couldn't believe they did that.

Maybe it's just the people I know. Among my friends, I tend to be more center than they are, and most of them even ride their bikes to work. But I guess that doesn't necessarily speak for the country as a whole. About the office-holders: I think it's pretty clear that they don't represent their constituents very well. From either side. So I was talking more about the people than the politicians. But I guess that's pointless because the people have no power (or nearly so) without the politicians. (sigh)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Nov 21 2006, 10:15 PM) [snapback]352857[/snapback]</div>

Do you think we are the target of Islamic terror?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 22 2006, 08:49 AM) [snapback]352961[/snapback]</div>

Considering that I am just as likely to be struck by a meteor than killed in a terrorist attack, then being targeted is really a non threat.
Even if an attack occurs, our reaction will likely be more damaging to the nation than the attack it self.

I say pull out. Most of the problems there can be traced back to the West meddling.