What's wrong with cutting and running

[10thzodiac]

President Reagan’s NSA chief speaks out

Retired general asks, What’s wrong with cutting and running?
By Corey Pein

Some would have you believe that only terrorists and San Francisco liberals want the U.S. out of Iraq. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom proves otherwise. Odom ran the National Security Agency — a major employer here in Augusta — for three years under President Ronald Reagan. Now he is a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. He is also an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq and the “war on terrorism,” which he derides as “a slogan” that made Al Qaeda “far more effective.” The Metro Spirit interviewed him recently.

Metro Spirit: What are your feelings on the NSA’s program of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens?

William Odom: It didn’t happen under my watch. And I’m still puzzled why somebody hasn’t tried to impeach the president for doing it. Any conservative in the United States who values his life [ought to be outraged]. In fact, the South seceded in defense of minority rights — why the hell have they forgotten them now? Ben Franklin said, “somebody who values security over liberty deserves neither.”

MS: What do you say to people, and there are plenty here in Augusta, who say that cutting and running from Iraq is traitorous act?

WO: Well, just tell ‘em they’re full of ****. They're traitors. You know what lemmings are? Yeah, they’re lemmings. We went to war for our enemies’ best interests. You ask those people why it makes sense that we went to war to advance the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda.

MS: Will the Democrat-controlled Congress change anything?

WO: No, not much. I think that what’s gonna change the course is that we’re losing the war. It’s not the Congress that’s changing things. I’ve never seen much spine on the part of the Democrats. What’s gonna change it, if anything, is that [Defense Secretary nominee Robert] Gates has thought that we have a ridiculous policy toward Iran, because they’re going to get nuclear weapons anyway. He has never thought the war made any sense.

MS: Do you think President Bush wants to invade Iran?

WO: The prime minister of Israel was here begging him [Bush] to do it. People down there in Augusta, they’re just being led around by the snout. I grew up in East Tennessee. I know what Georgians are like. I’m a redneck, and there are a lot of stupid rednecks. You can quote me saying that. Ask ‘em if they know that the United States is one of the greatest supporters of terrorism in the globe. I’m all for my terrorists, I’m just against their terrorists.

MS: So you think the Israel lobby, as you put it, was the reason we invaded Iraq?

WO: The religious right here pushed it. I don’t think the oil issue has much to do with it. Your enemies will sell you oil. Do we need to own a country to get oil from it? As much as [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez hates us, he gives us oil. The oil issue by and large is a red herring. Ask those guys after what we’ve done in Iraq, if anybody who’s gonna run Iraq is gonna be pro-American. The Iranians have been telling the Shiites, “Do what the Americans tell you.” Do you know why? Because the American democracy program was gonna put Shiites in charge. There are more Shiites in the country. Now they can kill off the Sunnis.

MS: It’s been said that Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile whose bogus intelligence helped build American support for war, was an Iranian agent. Do you think so?

WO: Of course he’s working for Iran. He’d work for anybody against anybody else. You got all those hardliners in Augusta who are suckers for any kinda city slicker. They’re suckers for this criminal banker from Jordan.

MS: You say the Iranians will get nukes no matter what we do.

WO: Just like North Korea got ‘em.

MS: So, then, what should we do? Should we pressure Israel to disarm its nuclear weapons?

WO: I don’t care whether they disarm or not. Why don’t you ask Israel to give up their weapons if the Iranians will give ‘em up, too? The Iraq war has made Israel much less secure. Al Qaeda can operate in Iraq now. How stupid can you be? The crowd I don’t know what to do about is the religious right who believe in the Book of Revelations. They used to tell me the Earth was flat. There must be some smart rednecks down there. It’s time for them to stand up.

Victory Is Not an Option

The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy

By William E. Odom
Sunday, February 11, 2007; B01


The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public's clarity of mind, the president's relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress's anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of "who gets the blame" could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.

No task is more important to the well-being of the United States. We face great peril in that troubled region, and improving our prospects will be difficult. First of all, it will require, from Congress at least, public acknowledgment that the president's policy is based on illusions, not realities.

There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many findings of academic research on how democracies evolve.

They also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now expected to create a constitutional order in a country with no conditions favoring it.
This is not to say that Arabs cannot become liberal democrats. When they immigrate to the United States, many do so quickly. But it is to say that Arab countries, as well as a large majority of all countries, find creating a stable constitutional democracy beyond their capacities.

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

As Congress awakens to these realities -- and a few members have bravely pointed them out -- will it act on them? Not necessarily. Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

Here we see shades of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy in Vietnam: widen the war into Cambodia and Laos. Only this time, the adverse consequences would be far greater. Iran's ability to hurt U.S. forces in Iraq are not trivial. And the anti-American backlash in the region would be larger, and have more lasting consequences.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

During their first tours, most may well have favored "staying the course" -- whatever that meant to them -- but now in their second, third and fourth tours, many are changing their minds. We see evidence of that in the many news stories about unhappy troops being sent back to Iraq. Veterans groups are beginning to make public the case for bringing them home. Soldiers and officers in Iraq are speaking out critically to reporters on the ground.
But the strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops. Did not President Harry S. Truman make it clear that "the buck stops" in the Oval Office? If the president keeps dodging it, where does it stop? With Congress?

Embracing the four myths gives Congress excuses not to exercise its power of the purse to end the war and open the way for a strategy that might actually bear fruit.

The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.

Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.

Third, we must acknowledge that most of our policies are actually destabilizing the region. Spreading democracy, using sticks to try to prevent nuclear proliferation, threatening "regime change," using the hysterical rhetoric of the "global war on terrorism" -- all undermine the stability we so desperately need in the Middle East.

Fourth, we must redefine our purpose. It must be a stable region, not primarily a democratic Iraq. We must redirect our military operations so they enhance rather than undermine stability. We can write off the war as a "tactical draw" and make "regional stability" our measure of "victory." That single step would dramatically realign the opposing forces in the region, where most states want stability. Even many in the angry mobs of young Arabs shouting profanities against the United States want predictable order, albeit on better social and economic terms than they now have.

Realigning our diplomacy and military capabilities to achieve order will hugely reduce the numbers of our enemies and gain us new and important allies. This cannot happen, however, until our forces are moving out of Iraq. Why should Iran negotiate to relieve our pain as long as we are increasing its influence in Iraq and beyond? Withdrawal will awaken most leaders in the region to their own need for U.S.-led diplomacy to stabilize their neighborhood.

If Bush truly wanted to rescue something of his historical legacy, he would seize the initiative to implement this kind of strategy. He would eventually be held up as a leader capable of reversing direction by turning an imminent, tragic defeat into strategic recovery.

If he stays on his present course, he will leave Congress the opportunity to earn the credit for such a turnaround. It is already too late to wait for some presidential candidate for 2008 to retrieve the situation. If Congress cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy.

[huey guns]

10z, cut and paste again?

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Come on, Z. At least cut and paste something more current. This dates from Feb!

I respect General Odom, but he's been out of the loop for exactly HOW long now???

He has insight into the NSA that is worthwhile WHEN HE WAS THERE. Heck, that was prior to Algore even inventing the internet!

This is the equivlant of me speaking on current intelligence matters because 6 years ago I held a TS clearance. Does that give me some 'insight' to certain things? Sure. But, I sure wouldn't assume I know what is going on within any agency today. I can give some ideas, but they aren't current, that's for sure.

Therefore, while I give him credit for his service, I'll take his opinions with a grain of salt.

[grizzly]

I have a problem with these panty waisted liberal types who want to bail,I dont condone everything G.W. Bush is doing,but people wanted a president who talked tough and acted like he had the tetosterone producing devices necessary to get the job done.But when push came to shove everyone balked when he showed he had big cajones.They say wait till we find a smoking gun,UH...Excuse me,but when the gun is smoking,it means that it has already been fired.DUUUUHHHH...Who wants to die 1st to make the point needlessly.I say we get the bastards,before they get us,and they are coming folks dont be naive about it.People like Kerry and Murtha a former Marine(I'm so embarrassed),Hilary,etc.... are treasonous to the American priciple.They may not legally fit the legal definition of treason,but they run their mouths,hold secret meetings with the enemy(Pelosi),they are threatening our security.They are traitors in action and speech,Al-Qaidha thanks you for your support

[ggyoung]

Now that is a U.S. army general for you. Show me a active Marine general on down to a pvt. that says the same thing.

[redneck13]

What does he know? He sounds like one of them "right wing liberal IDIOT'S." I'm not especially for the war, yet, if we don't squelch these radical idiot's, like in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and wherever else?, we're goin' to be lookin' at "ALL HELL BREAKING LOOSE ALL OVER THE WORLD." Does he have intelligence information that Our President doesn't have, didn't have? Where was his idiotic theories and flat B.S. when 9-11 happened? I despise any former outdated right wing liberal, who spouts off at the mouth to make some people furious. I'm a "HARD CORE REDNECK", and he ain't one of my people, I can tell you that!! Makes me sick. Now carry on you worm destined maggot's...

[10thzodiac]

Does anyone remember LBJ talking about, "If we don't stop the Viet Cong over there, we will be fighting them on the beaches of San Diego."

How can 210 million people be so stupid?

10thz

[OLE SARG]

Better make that 210,000,001 10th. HE HE

Check the records, the demos have always had the "cut and run" mentality!!!!!! Look at fatass swimmer kennedy, as he "cuts and runs" leaving a beautiful girl to drown AND nothing happens to the piece of ****e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at ms kerry, "cuts and runs" (well he did shoot a wounded running VC in the back - typical for this type of inhumanity) after three whole months in Vietnam - now there is a pseudo-heroic bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[10thzodiac]

Now that is a U.S. army general for you. Show me a active Marine general on down to a pvt. that says the same thing.

Really, Sarge, and just how long do you think they will be active if they speak out against the Iraq war ? Didn't anybody ever tell you that's why they retired, to speak out ?

Here is a couple (recent For Sgt. Lep) USMC Generals that retired to disagree with the IRAQ WAR.



General Anthony C. "The Godfather" Zinni



General Joseph P. Hoar



General John J. "Jack" Sheehan

[huey guns]

10z, you sound more like a closet CO,than a jarhead. Too bad, I thought you were one of us.

[ivalis]

Reagan "cut & run" after the Beruit bombing.

Do i smell a double standard?

[10thzodiac]

10z, you sound more like a closet CO,than a jarhead. Too bad, I thought you were one of us.

No, militarily I just believe that we should only be willing to kill or be killed for two reasons:

1. Protecting our shore line [homes]

2. The Bill of Rights.

Everything else is: You are a fool ! If that makes me not one your self-proclaimed, "One of us" that is fine with me.

[bigdog43701]

it's all EL TORO PUU PUU, 10th

[10thzodiac]

it's all EL TORO PUU PUU, 10th

I know

[Sgt Leprechaun]

No, militarily I just believe that we should only be willing to kill or be killed for two reasons:

1. Protecting our shore line [homes]

2. The Bill of Rights.

Everything else is: You are a fool ! If that makes me not one your self-proclaimed, "One of us" that is fine with me.

Now, I just can't let this one ride. That would mean, using this particular logic, that the following should not have been engaged in:

WWII
WWI
Kosovo
Dominican Republic
Cuba
Grenada
The Cold War
Desert Storm I
Lebanon (either time).

Before you climb on the "Pearl Harbor" bandwagon, Hawaii wasn't even a state at the time, and most of the country couldn't have found it on the map. It wasn't 'our' shore anymore than Wake Island, Guam, or Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians were 'our' shores.

(Using this logic, that is....)