Hillary and Pentagon fight it out over troop withdrawal plans

[ProfJohn]

This is an interesting story.

The Pentagon and Hillary going at it over whether the Pentagon should start making plans on how they will withdraw from Iraq when the time comes.

Hillary says we should be prepared, Pentagon says such talk undermines our efforts and our allies.
This is a tough one, both are at least a bit right.

The day the order is given to start withdrawing we shouldn?t start from scratch, but at the same time we don?t want our allies thinking that we are walking out on them.
If you follow the stories out of Iraq you will notice that a lot of Iraqis have been hedging their bets based on the idea that we will soon be leaving.

All of our talking about leaving has made it hard for the politicians in Iraq to make the decisions that will actually allow us to leave.
link

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman's response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman's answer "at once outrageous and dangerous," and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Clinton has privately and publicly pushed Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment.

"If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way," she said then.

The strong wording of the response is unusual, particularly for a missive to a member of the Senate committee with oversight of the Defense Department and its budget.

Clinton aides said the letter ignored important military matters and focuses instead on political payback.

"Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better," said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than "a political plan to attack those who question them."

As she runs for president, the New York senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush administration's war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected president.

If she wins, Clinton may find herself overseeing such a withdrawal policy, but she is hardly alone in raising the issue.

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana warned Thursday at a hearing that if U.S. military leaders and Congress "are not prepared for these contingencies, they may be executed poorly, especially in an atmosphere in which public demands for troop withdrawals could compel action on a political timetable."

Edelman's letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: "We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department."

Edelman is the Undersecretary of defense for policy. He is also a former U.S. ambassador and one-time aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. During the 2004 campaign, Cheney told Iowa voters that electing the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards would risk another terrorist attack.

Kerry jumped to Clinton's defense, deriding what he called smear tactics by the administration.

"They will say anything, do anything, and twist any truth to avoid accountability," said the Massachusetts senator.

BTW you have to love Kerry's statement... he must have forgot all the truth twisting he did while protesting the Vietnam war.

 

[chucky2]

Why would we ever:

1.) Tell people publically what our withdrawl plans are? The general public does not need to know this.

2.) Have a senator micromanaging something the military most likely already has rough ideas for, and Process for when the times comes.

3.) Set the expectation with the Iraqi's - and really All who we will attempt to aid in the future - that while we're telling them we'll stand by them, we're really making plans to run the F out of there? How do you even have credibility when you do that???

This smacks of a deliberate leak to the AP by the Clinton camp, got to love Washington politics...


Chuck

 

[Phokus]

A Cheney protege using his office for political grandstanding? Why i never. I see Mr. Edelman has replaced Douglas Feith well.

 

[Lemon law]

The Us military has contingency plans to invade every country on the planet. And its hardly tip top secret that we are failing horribly in Iraq. This we can't admit the truth even to ourselves is the same crapola we dealt with in Vietnam---and finally someone will call it something like peace with honor--we will all jump up and down saying yipee we won--and we will sail away with our tail between our legs.

And what is all this Hillary stuff anyway--its not a matter of the Pentagon vs. Hillary---it may be the US congress vs. the Pentagon---and no one can exactly predict how the volatile events of the next few months will shake out---but its almost a no brainer--come the September 15 report card on the mini-surge--there is likely to be a overwhelming demand to get out of Iraq----and we should be planning for that contingency.

But if it is a matter of Hillary publically calling on the pentagon to be prepared if needed--I say Hoorah for Hillary for having more foresight than I gave her credit for. And for having more brains than anyone in the GWB administration also.

After all---it takes quality planning to succeed----and if you don't have quality planning--you are not likely to succeed---and that latter not likely to succeed about sums up GWB&co.

 

[laFiera]

all theater antics to make it seem that hillary clinton as anti war since most of the country seems to be against it now....whatever it takes to get the dumb sheep.

 

[Moonbeam]

My sources in military planning have revealed that when our troops reach the border on their way out we are going to moon them.

 

[Narmer]

The pentagon official is quite the idiot. We made our plans to withdraw from Vietnam very public back in the late 1960s and 1970s.

 

[palehorse]

Withdrawal plans need not be made public. In fact, ALL troop movements are classified to a certain extent.

Hillary should NOT be micromanaging the situation. A simple "The Pentagon needs to be prepared" would suffice. After all, we have tens of thousands of people whose only job is to come up with, document, and brief contingency plans of every type.

If/When we withdraw, it should be done quietly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Why would we ever:

1.) Tell people publically what our withdrawl plans are? The general public does not need to know this.

2.) Have a senator micromanaging something the military most likely already has rough ideas for, and Process for when the times comes.

3.) Set the expectation with the Iraqi's - and really All who we will attempt to aid in the future - that while we're telling them we'll stand by them, we're really making plans to run the F out of there? How do you even have credibility when you do that???

This smacks of a deliberate leak to the AP by the Clinton camp, got to love Washington politics...


Chuck

1) Agonizing details aren't necessary. It isn't unreasonable for people to know if it has even occured to those in charge of ops. to plan in some detail. Given the current Administration's track record for blunders, we can't take it for granted.

2) Asking questions isn't "micromanaging". Telling them what they can do and when would be. Micromanaging the military is what the Administration does, not the Senate.

3) So the people in Iraq are clueless about what the majority of Americans feel, and how that filters up through politics? I bet there is a pretty good understanding of the situation, and if not and they are so ignorant, then we can talk all we like, because they can't hear us.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All of our talking about leaving has made it hard for the politicians in Iraq to make the decisions that will actually allow us to leave.

HUH?!!!

Please - the Iraqis haven't done SQUAT - and THEY are taking a month-long vacation while our beloved American sons & daughters are fighting for THEM?

The Iraqis have had 4 years...*4 YEARS* to make the decisions to stand up for their own country, that will "allow" us to leave. And they haven't come close to getting anything done, let alone their own citizens to stand up to the plate and fight for their own country, in some organized fashion.

No. Clinton & everyone else is correct that we should have an exit plan on the back burner. Most definately. And they should not be blasted as being unpatriotic or chastised for jeopardizing our forces in Iraq.

I have always been justified in saying, from Day 1, that Bush's invasion of Iraq is a sham. And Bush's Iraq-love has turned his administration into a dictatorship of our Country.

If Bush is so determined to fight for Iraq, then SEND HIM OVER THERE TO BECOME THEIR PRESIDENT!

Thank GOD we have people such as Keith Olberman to speak up about the latest Bush scapegoat fiasco and shinanegans:

Read & watch Keith Olberman's commentary

"It is one of the great, dark, evil lessons of history," begins Olbermann, "that a country, a government, a military machine can screw up a war seven ways to Sunday; it can get thousands of its people killed; it can risk the safety of its own citizens; it can destroy the fabric of its nation; but as long as it can identify a scapegoat, it can regain, or even gain, power."

 

[JEDIYoda]

It is really simple....Hillary needs to butt out of the situation!!

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All of our talking about leaving has made it hard for the politicians in Iraq to make the decisions that will actually allow us to leave.

HUH?!!!

Please - the Iraqis haven't done SQUAT - and THEY are taking a month-long vacation while our beloved American sons & daughters are fighting for THEM?

The Iraqis have had 4 years...*4 YEARS* to make the decisions to stand up for their own country, that will "allow" us to leave. And they haven't come close to getting anything done, let alone their own citizens to stand up to the plate and fight for their own country, in some organized fashion.

No. Clinton & everyone else is correct that we should have an exit plan on the back burner. Most definately. And they should not be blasted as being unpatriotic or chastised for jeopardizing our forces in Iraq.

I have always been justified in saying, from Day 1, that Bush's invasion of Iraq is a sham. And Bush's Iraq-love has turned his administration into a dictatorship of our Country.

If Bush is so determined to fight for Iraq, then SEND HIM OVER THERE TO BECOME THEIR PRESIDENT!

Thank GOD we have people such as Keith Olberman to speak up about the latest Bush scapegoat fiasco and shinanegans:

Read & watch Keith Olberman's commentary

"It is one of the great, dark, evil lessons of history," begins Olbermann, "that a country, a government, a military machine can screw up a war seven ways to Sunday; it can get thousands of its people killed; it can risk the safety of its own citizens; it can destroy the fabric of its nation; but as long as it can identify a scapegoat, it can regain, or even gain, power."

Profjohn is a special case. Don't take him TOO seriously.

 

[4X4er]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
All of our talking about leaving has made it hard for the politicians in Iraq to make the decisions that will actually allow us to leave.

HUH?!!!

Please - the Iraqis haven't done SQUAT - and THEY are taking a month-long vacation while our beloved American sons & daughters are fighting for THEM?

The Iraqis have had 4 years...*4 YEARS* to make the decisions to stand up for their own country, that will "allow" us to leave. And they haven't come close to getting anything done, let alone their own citizens to stand up to the plate and fight for their own country, in some organized fashion.

No. Clinton & everyone else is correct that we should have an exit plan on the back burner. Most definately. And they should not be blasted as being unpatriotic or chastised for jeopardizing our forces in Iraq.

I have always been justified in saying, from Day 1, that Bush's invasion of Iraq is a sham. And Bush's Iraq-love has turned his administration into a dictatorship of our Country.

If Bush is so determined to fight for Iraq, then SEND HIM OVER THERE TO BECOME THEIR PRESIDENT!

Thank GOD we have people such as Keith Olberman to speak up about the latest Bush scapegoat fiasco and shinanegans:

Read & watch Keith Olberman's commentary

"It is one of the great, dark, evil lessons of history," begins Olbermann, "that a country, a government, a military machine can screw up a war seven ways to Sunday; it can get thousands of its people killed; it can risk the safety of its own citizens; it can destroy the fabric of its nation; but as long as it can identify a scapegoat, it can regain, or even gain, power."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

1) Agonizing details aren't necessary. It isn't unreasonable for people to know if it has even occured to those in charge of ops. to plan in some detail. Given the current Administration's track record for blunders, we can't take it for granted.

2) Asking questions isn't "micromanaging". Telling them what they can do and when would be. Micromanaging the military is what the Administration does, not the Senate.

3) So the people in Iraq are clueless about what the majority of Americans feel, and how that filters up through politics? I bet there is a pretty good understanding of the situation, and if not and they are so ignorant, then we can talk all we like, because they can't hear us.

1.) Do you honestly think those involved with troop movements in Iraq have not thought about and at some level already started the planning for withdrawing from Iraq? Do you honestly think that if the President today said, Start bringing them home immediately that it would take some strangely long period of time for the military to figure out how to do that? That it would go more smooth since Hillary/her supporters are leaking this no-sh1t stuff to The Press so they can score brownie points?

2.) Asking questions is fine. She can pick up the phone, or go over to the Pentagon, or summon someone from the Pentagon, to brief her on military withdrawl plans. Instead her spokeswoman Reines is getting to make soundbite responses on her behalf based on the " copy of Edelman's response..."obtained" Thursday by The Associated Press". Forgive me if I treat this less as Clinton's personal concern for our military and more as something deliberate to bolster her public view in the Presidential race.

3.) I'm sure the understanding Iraqi Leadership (at all levels), and unfortunately future conflicts where we'll ask people to put their @sses on the line while we stand by them, know where we stand. What's even worse is now there's a blueprint for folks on the other side against us on how to defeat us. I'm not a fan of giving hope to the enemy, morale and beliefs are what makes them stand against us. Taking away morale makes them start questioning their beliefs. So Yes, I don't view this as good to publicize.

Chuck

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Thank GOD we have people such as Keith Olberman to speak up about the latest Bush scapegoat fiasco and shinanegans:

Read & watch Keith Olberman's commentary

"It is one of the great, dark, evil lessons of history," begins Olbermann, "that a country, a government, a military machine can screw up a war seven ways to Sunday; it can get thousands of its people killed; it can risk the safety of its own citizens; it can destroy the fabric of its nation; but as long as it can identify a scapegoat, it can regain, or even gain, power."

I don't see how they've tried to make Hillary a scapegoat. When news first broke out about this two or so days ago, scapegoat never came to mind. It sounded more like a loud STFU. Olbermann sounds like he's terribly overexaggerating.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If you look at recent polls, Iraq and the WoT are at the forefront of voter concerns for the 2008 election. Probably against her wishes, Hillary has to make this issue the forefront of her campaign...but she has to account for her earlier support for the war in Iraq, or suffer the same fate as Kerry.

By outlining her plan, and communicating her intent, to withdraw American forces from Iraq should she become President, she is attempting to communicate a message of intent..."see, I am already telling the Pentagon to plan for a withdrawal."