72% of US Troops in Iraq Favor Pullout Within One Year.

I have a very close friend who is an Air Force officer. He told me that Saddam had a role in 9/11 and I showed him evidence that convinced him otherwise.. the interesting thing is he admittedly has been conditioned to believe whatever he is told.

I asked him about WMD and he said due to what information they are given they (most Air Force personnel he knows) believe that we just haven't found them. After talking it over with him I realized the following:

1. Probably most military personnel are trained to believe whatever scenario or explanation they are given - no questions asked.
2. They are given whatever spin is deemed appropriate to the operation.
3. They are 'programmed' to believe they have the real picture, the accurate information.

My friend after spending some time together also saw this somewhat although it was hard for him to question anything he was told in confidence from his commanders. His intitial response to things I brought up to him was 'hey I'm in the military, I am the one who really knows the truth'.
Another interesting point he has not been to Iraq but talks to those who return. He said there take is also 'military- standard party line' - But they never have the evidence that backs it up. In other words even over in Iraq whatever the soldiers are told about a situation they believe. If they are told the WMD's are there, but not found-they believe it. If they are told that Al Queda has always operated out of Iraq they believe it. They will believe their own officers in the face of hard evidence. They are trained to do that.

But after looking at other information and thinking it over he realized that he is trained and conditioned to believe whatever he is told.

What was interesting to me is someone who I thought would know the most about the situation, in many ways knows the least. He only knows what he is told to know.

One thing I strongly believe- Iraq had no involvement with the WTC attack. Iraq was not an Al Queda training hotbed, and we haven't found WMD's as promised.

Might of been some very good reasons for the invasion but the ones given at the start were diversions.

 

We didn't bring "all" the troops home from Korea or Germany, either.

A quick reaction force that is trained to move at a moment's notice to augment the operations of the Iraqi military could be exactly the kind of backing the Iraqis need to start doing the heavy lifting thmeselves. We will be available or "on call," but will not be the visible fact of the Iraqi Army or Police force. We would not be the primary target nor would we be a recruiting tool for insurgents, but we could respond with force if the Iraqi army encounters resistance they cannot push through.

Murtha's plan was a good one. No wonder the GOP scuttled it. They just can't handle a Democrat coming up with a plan that might work.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. By ALL accounts, we need MORE troops there; not less.

Using my analogy once more, if Texas went into complete civil war right now between whomever (judging by this board, republicans and Democrats), what would you expect the U.S. to do? Bring in a policing force to immediately nip it in the bud? Or keep our forces in Louisiana and New Mexico? And if that were the case, exactly what would be deemed a necessary reaction for them to go back in?

If you leave, just leave. "Emergency" forces are worthless in this type of turmoil.

And Korea and Germany were hardly the same type of situation.

 

Those 20,000 troops would be on rotation so they would get a chance to go home as well.

But the fact is most of the people we are fighting are Iraqis. They don't like us there. Without us there the enemy wouldn't even exist like they do now. They wouldn't be formed to attack U.S. soldiers because our guys would in Kuwait, with smaller more mobile numbers able to move quicker to where they need to be.

They would be doing the job of fighting, and not rebuilding and guarding a green zone.

We have over a hundred thousand there now, and they are just a bigger target.

A strike force of 20,000 that is kept in more friendly territory and aren't an agitant, or a target, but can move much quicker, and with more precision than the larger than 100k force we have there now, would be a big improvement.

There would be no green zone(the only area we have been able to bring under marginal control), that would have to be secured, so the troops would be freed up to do what they do best. Iraqis would have more control, more responsibility, and less of a target to go after with our troops pulled back.

What we have now are more than 100k troops there, with no real plan. They aren't able to control territory in Iraq, they can barely control the green zone, and can't keep the 10 mile stretch of road to the airport open.

They are doing police work and not soldier work half the time. Sectarian violence certainly exists, but many of the Iraqis are fighting to drive out foreign invaders. With those foreign invaders gone, they no longer have the same reason and motivation for fighting. By us leaving the enemies numbers decrease, and we are more capable of targeting the trouble makers.

 

Not if you ask Iraqis. Over 80% of them want us out.

Using your analogy, Texas would have been plunged into civil war by the US forces who removed Rick Perry from his strong-arm dictatorship. 80% of Texans would want the US forces out even though there is a chance that such a pullout would cause more chaos in the short term.

In that case, I would keep forces in LA, OK, and NM to make sure that the conflageration doesn't spill over into the other states and to support the legitimate government against the forces that would bring it down.

I disagree. The troops would be there to help keep the conflict from spilling over into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and would be able to provide the ancilliary benefit of being able to respond quickly should the Iraqi military call for help.

I was pointing out that there is a precedent for keeping troops in or near a country which has recently been engaged in warfare.

20,000 troops would be a sustainable force for the area and would allow the vast majority of our military to rotate out of the Middle East. Then, we could concentrate on fighting the War on Terror rather than pursuing a failed policy in Iraq.

 

Exactamundo!

 

No revision at all (unless it's coming from war supporters)

From November of last year when Murtha first started calling for American withdrawal.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/withdrawal_11-17.html

 

The problem with having American troops stationed in Suadi Arabia is that that was one of the reasons OBL gave for going to war with the USA in the first place. Muslims don't see it as a country as much as their Holy Land.
If the UAE is really our ally, they will station all of our troops there and not give us any crap about it.

 

At this point it matters not...

No troops are going anywhere unless our objectives are secured and few know what those objectives are in truth.

If the truth of why U.S. troops are in Iraq was clearly articulated to the public the debate would have some merit.

 

Editor's Note: The House Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs heard testimony today from Iraq War Veterans and family members. Over the next couple of days we will provide you with more of the testimony. --smg/TO


'I Trusted My Country'
By Garett Reppenhagen

Wednesday 01 March 2006

Written testimony of Garett Reppenhagen, returned Iraq War Veteran; submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs.

I left Iraq, eventually was honorably discharged after a ten month involuntary extension, and returned home to begin working for veteran advocacy. I have a growing network of friends who are veterans and deal with all the major veteran organizations. I frequently visit Walter Reed and speak to a dozen veterans struggling with PTSD and other forms of mental illness. It is a constant frustration to see these men and women treated without proper care and respect. And the problem is only growing.

These soldiers are returning and overcoming the most unimaginable physical and mental disabilities. But the question they all eventually begin to ask is "Why?" With the growing public opinion being that war was not only wrong, but also based on lies, the soldier who was sent to fight has a conflict with the fact that his sacrifice had no meaning. The lack of meaning ultimately creates a breakdown of character that is fundamental in a soldier's degradation of mental health. Because the war is so "wrong," it can create not just a guilt of the traumatic experience in Iraq, it also makes the soldiers shameful of the people they have become.

These soldiers return home to ticker tape parades and "thank you's," when the soldier many times feels like a criminal. Most hold on to the ideal that it was a noble cause, to protect their character from the damaging truth. However eventually, over time, that protective bubble will pop. If it is years down the road, the buildup of stress will be more harmful. Whether conscious of it or not, because these soldiers are never punished by society and their leaders are not being held accountable, the veteran takes on self-destructive habits and sometimes commits suicide. We hold ourselves accountable, and sometimes cannot live with the pain.

The longer we continue the conflict in Iraq, the worse the injuries to our soldiers will become. We need to remove our military from a war it should have never been involved in. Without the use of our military in honest operations, the psychological impact on our service members will be unavoidable. Trauma from war is another injury of combat and is a natural reaction to being in a violent environment. Added with the loss of meaning, it can be severe. The only way to put an end to it is to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq and bring them home now.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030106S.shtml