We Won't Get Fooled Again! (or maybe we will)

[Michael Tee]

Bringing Our Troops Home
from Obama's web-site

<<Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.>>

Sounds good?  Here's the World Socialist Web Site's take on Obama and Iraq, published one year ago:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/obam-f13.shtml

Bush also says the U.S. isn't building "permanent" bases in Iraq.  They build "enduring" bases. 

I also wondered at keeping troops to protect the embassy and diplomats - - is there any other country in the world, where the U.S. keeps troops on hand (apart from a ceremonial Marine honour guard) to protect the embassy and the diplomats?  It was my understanding that if the locals were unwilling or unable to protect the U.S. embassy and its diplomats, the U.S. had no business maintaining a diplomatic presence there.

And, as did the World Socialists, I noted the qualifier, "combat," as in "withdraw all combat troops."  What other troops would be left in Iraq and how many of them?

Does anyone here remember The Who's classic, "We Won't Get Fooled Again?"

Why is nobody prepared to put the hard questions to Obama, to test his "anti-war" views? 

1.  In what other countries does the U.S. maintain troops to protect the Embassy and the diplomats?
2.  What's the maximum number of troops kept for that purpose in any other country?
2a  What numerical limit would you place on the number of troops required to protect the embassy and diplomats?
2b  If the locals are unwilling or unable to protect U.S. embassy and diplomats, what is the advantage to the U.S. in maintaining any embassy or diplomats there at all?
3.  What are the "U.S. strategic interests" in Iraq and in the region that you feel require military force to protect?
4.  Why the distinction between withdrawal of all "combat troops" and withdrawal of "all troops?"
5.  How many troops other than "combat troops" would be left behind?  What would their function be?

This guy seems to be getting a huge pass from the MSM on his "anti-war" position.  Looks like they are setting this up so that the genuine anti-war feeling of the U.S. public gets cheated once again by a phony anti-war candidate who will continue the same failed policies once in power.

[BT]

How does Obama's plan differ from Murtha and other cut and run Redeployment strategies that  had wide coverage during the 2006 elections?

I don't believe Obama portrayed himself as a Quaker or peace at all cost pacifist.

[Michael Tee]

Of course not.  He said he wasn't a pacifist even in his speech opposing the granting of war power to Bush.  That's a phony issue - - very few people oppose the war in Iraq because of pacifism.

I don't know enough about Murtha's plan to say how Obama's differs from it, but a lot of people voting for Obama probably think they are voting for the "peace" candidate, i.e., the guy who will get them out of Iraq.  And that ain't gonna happen.  IMHO.

[Plane]

Every American Embassy has a few Marines present , some have a larger number , depending mostly on the size of the embassy.

[Plane]

Of course not.  He said he wasn't a pacifist even in his speech opposing the granting of war power to Bush.  That's a phony issue - - very few people oppose the war in Iraq because of pacifism.

I don't know enough about Murtha's plan to say how Obama's differs from it, but a lot of people voting for Obama probably think they are voting for the "peace" candidate, i.e., the guy who will get them out of Iraq.  And that ain't gonna happen.  IMHO.

Well that is a load off my mind.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well that is a load off my mind.>>

Unfortunately, Obama isn't running on the platform of taking a load off your mind, plane.  A lot of people are going to be very disappointed if they vote for him and he doesn't do what they think he promised to do.

[The_Professor]

If we assume that we will leave most of our ordnance behind in Iraq, a withdrawal could be both orderly and swift. If we, however, decide to take most of our ordnance iwth us including M-1s, thne it could be lengthy. Regardless, neither would in a matter of a few weeks.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that there is a better chance of Obama getting out of Iraq sooner than either McCain or Hillary. I agree that he will not be likely to simply bring them all home immediately.

There will be heavy pressure from the weapons makers and the military itself to stay on in Iraq. If Obama chooses to leave, they will try to turn the withdrawal into a disaster, just as the Carter presidency was bedeviled with 444 days of the Iran hostage crisis. Kissinger encouraged Carter to keep the diplomats and spies in Teheran and to admit the nasty little dying shah into the US, while it was obvious that this would trigger the militant Revolutionary Guards to take over the embassy.

Henry went into hiding after that, but I imagine he had a good chuckle with his buddy Rockefeller of Exxon, since gas prices shot up as a result of the instability caused.

[The_Professor]

The illegal takeover of our Embassy will go down as one of the worst fiascos of an Administration.

It is almost unheard of for this to happen. It is internationally agreed that such things simply do not occur.

Jimmy Carter deserved to not get re-elected over this debacle, if nothing else. He should have got the job done and got them out by any means possible and then perpetrated severe retribution upon those who were involved by whatever means necessary. A cruise missle up the posterior does wonders for your disposition, I am sure.

The 1st Marines (whom I was with) would have loved to go in and get the job done. Just a quick go in, kill everyone in sight, and get out. They would cover the special ops folks who would get the hostages out. The Plan was actually in place, but Carter balked.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Embassy was overrun because Carter did not evacuate it. Although Carter had the final word on this, Kissinger and others sat on him pretty hard to keep the staff, the spies (and even the printing press that printed US currency) in the embassy.

The Marines might or might not have been able to get the hostages out alive. To a Marine they are invincible, but this is a matter of ego and hubris, not reality. Sure, they could kill everyone in sight, but that would probably have included the hostages, and who would have been to blame for that? The brave Marines? Hell, no, Carter would have caught hell for that as well.


Carter did approve of Desert One, and it could have worked. It just didn't, partly because of a sandstorm.

The entire affair was a setup to discredit Carter. The second the poor man left office, the hostages were released. It was a total setup., with Reagan's henchmen planning every detail with the Ayatollah's henchmen.

[Michael Tee]

<<The entire affair was a setup to discredit Carter. The second the poor man left office, the hostages were released. It was a total setup., with Reagan's henchmen planning every detail with the Ayatollah's henchmen.>>

I agree with that 100% but still blame Carter for being dumb enough to walk right into it.  As it was, the Republicans owed the Iranians big-time for their election and I don't think we''re ever gonna know just how and to what extent they collected.

Bottom line, however, is that in the long run it all boomeranged on the U.S. because it resulted in a militant anti-American government which is a huge obstacle to the U.S.-Israeli drive for regional hegemony.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Carter should have told Kissinger to bug off, and then recall the embassy staff. But he didn't. I agree, he was to blame for his downfall.

It was Kissinger's plan that Iran would be the US's satrapy in the Middle East. Israel was too small, and all the neighbors hated it.

The Ayatollah realized that this was the ideal role for Iran and encouraged rapid population growth, and now Iran has not only the resources, but the manpower to be the dominant force in the region, much to the dismay of the US.

Blowback from Henry the K.