Go to Original

    General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq
    United Press International

    Friday 02 December 2005

    Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

    Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

    Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, "We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill's glib observation, 'the only thing worse that having allies is having none,' was once again vindicated.

    "There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq," he wrote. "... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there."

    Go to Original

    Bush Creates Illusion of Progress in Iraq 
    Star Tribune | Editorial

    Thursday 01 December 2005

    President Bush gave an impassioned and rosy speech on the way forward in Iraq at the US Naval Academy Wednesday. It's just too bad that the picture he painted of today's Iraq was an illusion, and most of his assertions about the future were wrongheaded.

    Bush did not lay out a new strategy for Iraq, nor did he hint, as many had expected, at a near-term drawdown in US forces to aid Republicans in 2006. Instead, he basically said that US policies have been a success overall, and if we will just stick with them, "complete victory" is achievable. That assessment, however, is at variance with independent reports from Iraq.

    Indeed, the impressive progress in Iraq that Bush asserted is a chimera; it does not exist. Each day the country slides closer to chaos and all-out civil war. Bush portrayed Iraqi army and police forces as increasingly well-trained and the security situation as improving daily. But the reality reported by others is quite different.

    Administration estimates of Iraqi troop strength have been all over the lot, but estimates of their effectiveness tend to be consistent. Gary Schmitt, director of strategic studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, recently told the Los Angeles Times that while some Iraqi units have improved, "to get a force that is really effective requires a lot more experience than this army is likely to have for years." Writing in the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reports, "Time and again since the training began, inspection teams ... have visited Iraq and come to the same conclusion: The readiness of many Iraqi units is low, their loyalty and morale are questionable, regional and ethnic divisions are sharp, their reported numbers overstate their real effectiveness." And in a new study, Andrew Terrill, a Middle East scholar, and Conrad Crane, director of the Army Military History Institute, agree. They say it's not clear now that the United States can "create military and police forces that can secure the entire country no matter how long US forces remain."

    In addition, roadside bombings are at record levels and showing increasing sophistication. Increasing sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites more and more looks like nascent civil war. Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi complained to a London newspaper last week that human rights abuses in Iraq now are as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein. And this week came reports that Shiite death squads have infiltrated Iraqi police forces so they can mete out street justice to Sunnis.

    Bush was right when he said that Iraqis now are free to express their views, but what they are expressing in overwhelming numbers is the desire for American troops to leave their country.

    Bush also said that it is only "politicians in Washington" who want to set a timetable for withdrawing American troops. Actually, that's not the case. To this point, most Republicans have remained loyal to Bush, and most Democrats have been missing in action. It's true that the Senate called for the administration to provide a schedule for meeting objectives in Iraq. But most of those calling for a timetable are experienced American military men. That's who Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., himself a 37-year Marine veteran, consulted before he issued his proposal for an orderly, six-month drawdown of American forces.

    A similar argument has been made forcefully by retired Gen. Robert Gard Jr., former president of the National Defense University, and retired Gen. John Johns, formerly on the university faculty. Especially outspoken on the issue has been retired Gen. William Odom, a former head of the National Security Agency and now a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute.

    These men make three arguments: US forces have done all they can in Iraq; leaving them there imposes an unsustainable burden on the military that weakens American security, and, to the extent that Bush's political goals for Iraq are achievable at all, they are best served by withdrawing American forces and badly served by keeping them there. The longer Americans stay, the bloodier and more chaotic will be the future of Iraq.

    Murtha and the generals are right that the American people need a real plan for disengagement from Iraq; the American military needs a real plan, and the Iraqis need a real plan. What Bush laid out yesterday at the Naval Academy was no plan at all.