It Is Better To Cut & Run Than Stay & Die...

[Repo]

George W. Bush says of the Democratic Party, "They are the party of cut and run." We hear it all the time on television and radio. We see it in print or on the Web from Republicans. Any Democrat that has an opposing view on the Bush gang's "Stay the course," Iraq strategy is called out for wanting to "cut and run." It may make for a nice sound bite but one has to question the Republicans' morals; there is something wrong anyone that would rather have American soldiers die in Iraq endlessly when they could easily leave immediately, saving hundreds or thousands of American soldiers from death or serious injury. You don't stay the course into the middle of a hurricane, you turn the ship and get out of it but just like the Bush Administration couldn't figure out what to do after Hurricane Katrina hit, the same blundering administration doesn't know what to do now that the Iraq civil war has hit. Stay the course is a failed idea. It is not a plan but an idea and a failed idea at that. All the factions in Iraq are vying for power. American soldiers are nothing more than tools for the ruling Shiites and targets for both the Shiites and Sunnis. Many of the police trained by American forces are loyal to one side or the other not for a true democratic government. Keeping American troops in Iraq is sentencing them to death. Iraq is in a civil war and the sooner the American forces leave the better it is for the soldiers and America. It is better to cut and run than stay and die...

Now many of the Bush Administration are under the false impression that leaving Iraq now would put the whole region in chaos, especially leaving Israel vulnerable. That is completely wrong. Pulling American troops out of Iraq entirely would actually stabilize the region and be in in Israel's best interest. The Middle East is mostly made up of Muslim countries but those countries are split between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, not unlike Iraq itself. Iraq is already in a civil war. If the United States pulled out of Iraq the Shiites and the Sunnis would shift their aim from Americans to more of each other than they already are aiming at. The violence between them will increase but that would have some positive affects. Since Iran already supports the Iraqi Shiites they would get more involved. That would make some of the Sunni countries like Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia get involved. There is a likely chance that refugees would flood Iran and Syria hurting their economies. If Iran gets stuck fighting in Iraq against the Sunnis, there is less of a chance that they threaten Israel. Right now the United States is stuck in an Iraqi quagmire. Once the United States pulls out of Iraq, it will be Iran that gets stuck in the Iraqi quagmire. Iraq's civil war will last a long time and keep Iran bogged down for years, which is a good thing...

The Democrats may be "The party of cut and run," but the Republican Party is certainly the party of stay and die. Just like they left Americans to die in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Republicans are now willing to let Americans stay and die in Iraq. The American military is the best fighting machine in the world but no military can win when they are in the middle of another country's civil war. The American soldiers are nothing more than targets so stay the course just plain makes no sense but neither does Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld...

[albed]

Another lecture from the stupid to the stupid. Even the cut and run party doesn't forecast that scenario as a result of their proclaimed strategy; which has been proven to be empty words anyway since they've actually voted against a withdrawal when forced to walk their talk.


The things they'll do to get the stupid vote.

[RDixon]

Cut N Run my ass.

That is what is stupid.

Name one great military leader, ie. winner, who never retreated.

I can name thousands of losers who would not retreat, but you have never heard of them because history isn't so kind to losers.

It was exactly that stupid attitude that unecessarily cost the lives of 30,000 + young Americans back when Nam was the stay the course disaster.

And approximately 100,000 maimed men who returned home in pieces both physically and mentally.

Every time I hear the talking point cun n run it makes me want to choke the living shit out of whoever says it.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Repo

Keeping American troops in Iraq is sentencing them to death. Iraq is in a civil war and the sooner the American forces leave the better it is for the soldiers and America. It is better to cut and run than stay and die...

The statistics disagree with you here. Soldiers in Iraq, who are trained to respond to danger, die at a lesser rate than American civilians who drive themselves to work every day. While keeping troops in Iraq may not exactly be a reprieve, their training and tactics make them far safer abroad than at home. I think it's not the fact that some soldiers die that bothers you, just the idea that they might be dying for nothing. Of course, they're the ones who signed up for service, and by now they knew the dangers ahead of time, so it's rather selfish of us to question the risk they're taking while we're at home and they're not.

Now many of the Bush Administration are under the false impression that leaving Iraq now would put the whole region in chaos, especially leaving Israel vulnerable. That is completely wrong. Pulling American troops out of Iraq entirely would actually stabilize the region and be in in Israel's best interest. The Middle East is mostly made up of Muslim countries but those countries are split between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, not unlike Iraq itself.

The region may stablize itself in our absence, but we'd never be able to tell the difference. What goes on in the middle east can never simply be ignored and we can't just pretend that we didn't have anything to do with the downfall of the previous Iraqi government.

If our strategies don't work that simply means our strategies should change. Stay the course, contrary to the way the term is used, was never an actual strategy. And cut & run bears little resemblance to the kind of tactical retreat RDixion seems to be refering to. We shouldn't be talking like those are our only two options; neither option is actually on the table at this point.

Right now the United States is stuck in an Iraqi quagmire.

This has been repeated over and over for years now. Iraq is not a bog, it's a desert. Our soldiers do good work over there, and their only real obstacle is American political bullshit.

The American military is the best fighting machine in the world but no military can win when they are in the middle of another country's civil war.

And you know this how? The Republican Guard seemed to do a pretty good job of keeping the Shi'ites from warring with the Sunnis, and they managed to wage a full blown war with Iran at the same time with only a few Russian tanks and missiles at their disposal. The question isn't wether the people of Iraq can be stopped from fighting against each other (they can), the question is whether they will decide to make peace now that they've finally been given a choice.

[theknife]

the Bush administration said Monday there are no plans for dramatic shifts in policy or for ultimatums to Baghdad to force progress.

we'll just continue with the Tinkerbell strategy - if we clap our hands loud enough, it will all work out.

[multi]

It's Never Been "Stay The Course"

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The statistics disagree with you here. Soldiers in Iraq, who are trained to respond to danger, die at a lesser rate than American civilians who drive themselves to work every day.

Sorry - you'll have to back that one up.

Links, studies, raw data... random interview with person on the street, something.

[goldie]

Originally Posted by multi

It's Never Been "Stay The Course"

**DEAD**

[JackSpratts]

Truth will only take us so far, but it is the right way to begin. Americans will probably spend the next generation debating whether the Iraq invasion would have worked under a competent administration. Right now, the best place to express bitterness about what may become the worst foreign policy debacle in American history is at the polls. But anger at a president is not a plan for what happens next.

When it comes to Iraq the choices in the immediate future are scant and ugly. But there are still a few options to pursue, and the alternatives are so horrible that it is worth trying once again — as long as everyone understands that there is little time left and the odds are very long.

[Mazer]

Nice article, Jack. Unlike Kerry and his ilk who are trying to convince everyone that all out civil war has begun (which sound more like an election platform than the truth), the author of that article seems to understand that Iraqis really don't want to spend the next decade killing each other. And his suggestions are pretty good too. Who wrote it?

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Nice article, Jack. Who wrote it?

ostensibly thhe editor in chief. could be the managing editor however, both or even a commitee. you just can't tell with editorials. regardless, as you say it's good and well reasoned.

- js.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The statistics disagree with you here. Soldiers in Iraq, who are trained to respond to danger, die at a lesser rate than American civilians who drive themselves to work every day.

Come on Mazer, will I be safer in Iraq? Lets see some statistics.






You just can't help making up bullshit can you? Get your ego under control; you're smart enough to impress people without lying to them.

[Mazer]

Alright, I did pull that out of my ass. Now that I've checked the facts I can say that about 1 out of 210 soldiers in Iraq gets killed while only about 1 out of 7,700 people in America die while driving. At the time I wrote the above statement I hadn't done the research. However, I do know that homocide rates in major American cities nearly match the soldier mortality rates in Iraq:

The average monthly death toll for US soldiers in Iraq is 55.6 deaths per month while the average reported murders per month in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City are 48.7, 51.9 and 49.3 deaths per month. The murder statistics in the US cities are for hostile deaths only — whereas the death toll in Iraq includes both hostile and accidental deaths.

Link

So if we were to compare apples to apples by combining the statistics for homocides, accidental deaths, and suicides it's likely that domestic civilian death rates in most major cities would equal or exceed military death rates throughout the whold nation of Iraq. albed, I think if you were a soldier in Iraq you would be marginally safer than you are right now, if for no other reason than you are really fucking anal about the details and you don't let anything get by you. You could probably sniff a sniper or an IED 1,000 yards away.

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally Posted by Mazer

So if we were to compare apples to apples by combining the statistics for homocides, accidental deaths, and suicides it's likely that domestic civilian death rates in most major cities would equal or exceed military death rates throughout the whold nation of Iraq. albed, I think if you were a soldier in Iraq you would be marginally safer than you are right now, if for no other reason than you are really fucking anal about the details and you don't let anything get by you. You could probably sniff a sniper or an IED 1,000 yards away.

Nope again. How many US/ally soilders are in Iraq?

You comparing Chicago, a city of roughly 3 million people. The highest year Chicago had ~650 homicides.

The DOD has said that we have approx 138,000 soilders in Iraq.

650 out of 3,000,000 or 650 out of 138,000.

Apples to apples? Not even close. Because it completely ignores all of the other civilan deaths happening around the soilders. Bagdad for example - is still a marginally funcationing city with all the problems that a city has. So they still have their share of X number of attacks, deaths, and accidents. Add to that the groups that are actively trying to kill large numbers of recruits to the military and police forces.

I live within walking distance to the my city's police academy and I can guarentee that we haven't have any mass kidnappings or excutions outside of it lately.

[theknife]

an NBC reporter stationed in Bagdhad recently touched on this same issue:

I'm more puzzled by comments that the violence isn't any worse than any American city. Really? In which American city do 60 bullet-riddled bodies turn up on a given day? In which city do the headless bodies of ordinary citizens turn up every single day? In which city would it not be news if neighborhood school children were blown up? In which neighborhood would you look the other way if gunmen came into restaurants and shot dead the customers?

Day-to-day life here for Iraqis is so far removed from the comfortable existence we live in the United States that it is almost literally unimaginable.

It's almost impossible to describe what it feels like being stalled in traffic, your heart pounding, wondering if the vehicle in front of you is one of the three or four car bombs that will go off that day. Or seeing your husband show up at the door covered in blood after he was kidnapped and beaten.

I don't know a single family here that hasn't had a relative, neighbor or friend die violently. In places where there's been all-out fighting going on, I've interviewed parents who buried their dead child in the yard because it was too dangerous to go to the morgue.

Imagine the worst day you've ever had in your life, add a regular dose of terror and you'll begin to get an idea of what it's like every day for a lot of people here.

http://onthescene.msnbc.com/baghdad/...in_.html#posts

[Malk-a-mite]

Originally Posted by theknife

an NBC reporter stationed in Bagdhad recently touched on this same issue:

http://onthescene.msnbc.com/baghdad/...in_.html#posts

Thanks for that link theknife....

[JackSpratts]

it just goes to show how a little math can be a dangerous thing in the hands of an ignoramus or a liar, or in this case ignoramuses who’re also liars.

the populations of the cities the author's cite are larger than the military troop levels in iraq by factors of 20 to 40 or even more (chi - 2.8 million, la - 3.7 million, nyc - 8 million), so the murder rates in us cities would have to be at least 20 times higher before they even approached the carnage levels in iraq. also, since the figures quoted in the above link were from 2004, you'd need to readjust them upwards by at least anther 50% before you'd arrive near the present levels of death. in addition, since most murder is personal and the end result of unresolved conflicts (and usually precipitated by intoxication), it's somewhat easier to avoid than having your face blown off at random in a roadside explosion when you've been ordered to drive down a mined street. the same can go for accidents too. you can avoid dying in motorcycle, hang-glider, parachute or even ladder accidents etc here in the states by simply not participating in such activities – but you can’t do the same in iraq if under orders to perform potentially dangerous tasks. well, you can, but you’d eventually go to jail for it while having your character forever besmirched.

in any event mortality and morbidity rates are normally presented in occurrences per 100,000 people (occasionally per 1000 people, sometimes per million) then further refined for factors such as age and income levels. atm just off the top of my head, if in nyc for example the population is 8 million and the murder rate is 49 per month (glueck & cihak figures), then the death level is well under 1 per 100,000 (apx .6), or more specifically it’s 1 per 163,000 residents per month. if for comparisons sake the troop level in iraq is 140,000 and the death rate is 70 per month, the death rate per 100,000 is 50, or 1 death per 2000 troops per month. that is in other words over 80 times higher than the murder rate in new york city. again this is off the top of my head. you can refine it w/the latest figures and you may see a fractional decrease, or perhaps even increase - but you won’t see a factor change.

the death rate in iraq is appalling. even when compared to us death rates. it remains so even when accounting for "accidents."

the guys who came up with this absurd and misleading comparison should be forced to do a year of penance with calculators. i suggest doing it in iraq - outside the green zone - dressed in standard issue army gear.

- js.

[Sinner]

I don't like the source - but take it for what it is worth....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html

[Mazer]

So the only real difference between your math and mine, Jack and Malk, is that I've cited deaths per month and you've cited deaths per capita. Mortality rates may usually be enumerated per 100,000 people, but you'd never know it from the reporting in the major media; they always tell you how many soldiers die in a given time period. I could claim that the death of an American civilian in an American city is worth the deaths of 20 American soldiers in Iraq, given the fact that soldiers expect to be attacked while civilians shouldn't have to, but that would be hyperbole. Still, the fact that Iraq is a warzone while New York and Chicago are not should temper our comparisons.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Still, the fact that Iraq is a warzone while New York and Chicago are not should temper our comparisons.

i have to take exception to that. as you point out soldiers have important advance knowledge: they know they're going to be attacked. they train for it, equip for it, and america spends billions of dollars trying to minimize it. assuming the us fields the finest military in the world one must also assume it has the best gear and strategies to protect its fighters. yet in spite of this it's at least 80x more dangerous over there then it is compared to big and scary old nyc.

now imagine for a moment how difficult it would be to mug guy walking home from a nyc bar if he was encased in the latest body armor, or how tough it would be for a brooklyn babe to crack her boyfriend's skull if he had on one of the flak helmuts they wear in baghdad. imagine further if the potential victims of murder in the states knew for a fact they were specific targets and trained and equiped themselves as thoroughly as us soldiers in iraq have for avoidance and defense. the murder rate in nyc would drop to near zero. most death by hand in the states is impulsive, it's not particularly well thought or planned, so if the easy opportunity never presents the crime doesn’t occur. this simply illustrates how astounding it is that anyone would dare to claim iraq isn't really any more dangerous than the typical american city. iraq is overwhelmingly more dangerous - to the point of being beyond any meaningful comparison. such claims to the contrary are nothing more than the worst kind of propaganda from the right. they at once attempt to placate the citizens with lies (as intended) while making light of the extraordinary danger u.s. fighting men and women find themselves confronting day after day. the authors and other idiots like britt hume who spew this garbage should apologize to their readers and to the soldiers over there who have to put up with its stench oozing out of mess hall loudspeakers tuned to fox.

- js.