Of course they are; that’s hardly news. I’m concerned about it, too. And I’m sure a large part of members of Congress of both parties want to be able to keep some kind of presence in Iraq for a long time. The question is not what they want now, but what they will want later, and whether circumstances will force the U.S. completely out whether the U.S. wants to go or not.

I’m saying what the politicians want now is no indicator of what’s going to happen, because you can’t always get what you want.

I see absolutely no point in our spinning our wheels over what a post-troop withdrawal Iraq will look like, because the situation there is in such flux that we have no way of knowing what conditions we’ll be dealing with by the time a troop withdrawal is actually accomplished. Keeping a physical presence in Iraq may not be possible. Even if it is possible, the situation may have changed in such a way that it is no longer desirable.

I don’t think we’ll see a major move by Democrats to own this war until after Nov. ‘08

They don’t want to “own” this war at all; they want to get it substantially over with before George Bush leaves office so they don’t have to “own” it. Right now they are doing what is POSSIBLE to end it.

As far as “weakening” Iran, we’re not in a position to do that militarily. What the Dems and anyone else in Washington and the rest of the planet who isn’t bleeping crazy want to do about Iran is defuse the situation there through diplomatic means. If that’s “weakening” Iran, then fine, I agree. If you think the Dems want to soften up Iran with an artillery barrage, so to speak, I think you’re nuts.

I’m not claiming X therefore Y. I simply put the side-by-side Vietnam/Iraq timeline out and said, consider this as background. Sure I made a prediction, but how serious can that be?

I’ve actually been presenting arguments on two sides. See reference to Ray McGovern in Green Zone note below. Who are you going to put your money on, me or a former CIA analyst (given the track record of the CIA, don’t answer that question).

Further, one of my points is that Congress (the US) has a strong interest in staying in Iraq (or at least weakening Iran first)… they’re concerned about leaving a power vacuum, and Israel is always present to remind Congress of that. (Ray McGovern’s recent thoughts on that are of interest too). Search for “Levin” in that last link.

The Green Zone is getting hit despite the increased US presence in Baghdad.

I don’t think we’ll see a major move by Democrats to own this war until after Nov. ‘08 (setting benchmarks, or a non-binding withdrawl date, isn’t a major move), but hope I’m wrong on this.

However, I think what happens post-combat troop withdrawal in Iraq might be quite a bit like what happened post-combat troop withdrawal in Vietnam. After 1973 the whole dadblamed nation lost interest in Vietnam, and Congress cut off funding to the South Vietnamese. This was a reversal from what the politicians in Congress had said they would do. This cutoff of funding had a lot to do with why Saigon fell in 1975, which was why the Embassy Guards were airlifted off the roof. And then we were totally out of Vietnam.

I’m saying that once combat troops are out and Bush is gone, it’s highly likely that the next administration and congress will cut Iraq loose entirely, as we did South Vietnam. Even though Democrats in Congress might be saying otherwise now, I suspect that once combat troops are out and they’re no longer sparring with Bush, very suddenly the politicians will decide dumping more resources into Iraq isn’t worth the trouble. I just hope the advisers and guards are withdrawn before they have to be rescued by helicopter this time.

In short, I don’t see us keeping a measurable presence in Iraq for years and years. If we manage to keep a standard embassy staff there, I’ll be surprised.

We’ll see if the Democrats own the war, sooner before Nov. 2008, or later. I’m predicting later, with some sort of political cover to indicate they’re doing ’something.’

The Democrats don’t get to choose when “combat operations” end, unless Americans leave Iraq. I don’t think the US is leaving Iraq, even under a Democratic administration, so its the insurgents who will decide when to stop shelling US compounds, sniping and setting off IEDs.

We’ll see how long the Democrats continue to occupy Iraq after taking the White House in ‘08, if not with US troops, then with contract mercenaries.

Why don’t the Democrats cut the funds for construction of permenent bases? Maybe they just haven’t gotten around to that yet.

I expect - if hurricane season proves active - we’ll see $4 gas by Labor Day. That, plus the culmination of multiple investigations, plus no progress in Iraq will push the polls so low that GOP defections will be rising. At least, that’s my hope.

This can’t be exactly compared to Vietnam because of the lack of the draft. But now, as then, if the polls say the GOP incumbents are endangered by the dozens, will produce the sense that the country’s ready to bring on the guillotine. And a recession by January would guarantee GOP unity would crumble.

Thus, I expect a troop withdrawal will be announced this year. Between October and December 31.

Experience suggests that winding down a war takes years (We’re still in the Balkans).

Hell, we’re still in Japan. That doesn’t mean World War II is still going on.

There are many, many parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, but I do want to point out that a cease-fire was declared in January 1973, and the last U.S. combat troops were withdrawn from Vietnam in March 1973. March 1973 was the official end of the war for the U.S., not April 1975.

U.S. military personnel remaining in Vietnam after March 1973 were military advisors and some Marine guards.Those Marines who were rescued by helicopter after the fall of Saigon in 1975 were embassy guards, not combat troops.

Knowing this, and knowing the Democratic leadership is very risk averse, one has to wonder if they want to “succeed” in forcing a withdrawl at this time. If they “succeed,” Bush’s war becomes their war…. and the near-certain unraveling will be blamed on them by the MSM.

It’s going to be “their war” sooner or later. If they can’t force an end to combat operations during the Bush Administration, then the next president — very likely a Democrat — will have to do it. Better now than later, for the Democrats’ own sake.

The Democrats don’t really intend to “leave Iraq,” at least not without seriously weakening Iran first.

I think that’s nonsense.

Well, see, that’s a place I would not choose to go. Bush’s strength is that he is at least a borderline (if not a full blown) sociopath, meaning that he has no compunction about exploiting the troops and wasting their lives to serve his own ends. And his ends are that he doesn’t want to admit defeat and be forced to withdraw from Iraq. His ego is on the line, and ego is Bush’s alpha and omega. By his pathologies ye shall know him.

That means Congress has to be the grown-ups who do what they can to protect the troops from Bush’s Folly. (Sociopaths are masters at exploiting the compunction of others; that’s why sociopaths nearly always have the upper hand over others.) But that’s how it is. I say we will not play chicken with the lives of the troops. If we did, that would make us no better than Bush.

If you’ve ever been in the sorry position of having to deal with a sociopath in a position of power — and I have — you realize after a while that you are interacting with a disease, not a person. Don’t expect a sociopath to react to a challenge the way a human being normally would. You also realize that you can never beat a sociopath at his own game. The only choices you have are to walk away from the game — not an option, in our case — or remove the sociopath’s power.

Those of you who think Bush would do the right thing and withdraw the troops if the money dried up are, IMO, naive. Ultimately the only way to beat Bush is to remove his power. And only Congress can do that.

but that 60% could just as easily become 75 percent and the veto proof majority could very easily materialize as a result. I’ll put my bet on the percentage of people strongly opposed to the war increasing and the number of Bush supporting congressional reps decreasing.

Well, yes, that was the point of my post. But we don’t have to play chicken with the troops to do that. It’s happening anyway. The point of the post (which you might want to read again) is to urge antiwar activists to help pick up the momentum by pressuring Republicans to change sides sooner rather than later.

It’s possible the only way this game will end is if Bush is removed from office. Currently the Republicans, and Bush, probably think they can wait out the clock. Our job is to persuade them they cannot.

Knowing this, and knowing the Democratic leadership is very risk averse, one has to wonder if they want to “succeed” in forcing a withdrawl at this time. If they “succeed,” Bush’s war becomes their war…. and the near-certain unraveling will be blamed on them by the MSM.

In addition, the Democrats understand the concept of leaving a power vacuum. In this case, the vacuum of a US withdrawl would be filled by Iran. The Democrats don’t really intend to “leave Iraq,” at least not without seriously weakening Iran first.

One answer I can come up with to my own question is that the real ‘base’ which GWB and the Republicans don’t want to alienate are the war profiteering no-bid-contract guys and the oil companies for whom the Iraq War is already or promises to be the big payoff of the decade.