Reading the tea leaves

For lack of knowing what to do, we usually do what we know. I apply this principle to the present day debate and differences about what to do in Iraq. In my case, doing what I know includes trying to figure out the objectives of those who want us out of Iraq one way or the other. While their objectives may be obvious to some, they are not to me until I go through my review process. In this vein, I hope this discussion helps the readers. To try keep it to RCP length levels, I will use a bullet format.

There are two very basic reasons I hear about why we should get out of Iraq.
We shouldn’t be there in the first place
While it was correct to go there, the mismanagement of the war and hidden agendas means getting out now is the only reasonable course of action

The first point that we shouldn’t be there comes first.
Conquering Saddam Hussein and his country was never in our vital national interest.
The global war on terror (GWOT) is in our national interest, and Iraq is an unnecessary diversion of our national will and resources.
While conquering Saddam Hussein was in our national interest, we were simply too weak to do it. We bit off more than we could chew.
While conquering Saddam Hussein was in our national interest, diplomacy and multi-lateral consensus was the only way to proceed.
The CIA Director, George Tenet at the time , statement to his President that Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction was a “slam dunk” turns out to be wrong, kind of. (If you have been there, as I have, you would listen and prepare. And where they went to be hidden is another story that will come out, eventually. Mostly I mean chemical stuff.)

Now while I may not agree with all the aforementioned, my process provides me a list to work from in developing the objectives of those who want us out of Iraq.

The second point is that it was correct to go there, but the mismanagement of the war and hidden agendas means getting out now is the only reasonable course of action.
The President and his hired minions in D.C. don’t know how to fight a war like in Iraq.
The strategy used, limited war, is a failed strategy that even failed us in Vietnam.
i. Ignoring Iran and Syria was a mistake.
ii. There was too much micromanagement from D.C. The best example is the Rules of Engagement (ROE), rules apparently written by a committee of lawyers and appointees, all in D.C. The idea of a Napoleon’s Corporal test was probably ignored.
iii. “If only they had listened to me”. Hindsight is wonderful to all the arm chair generals, secretaries of state, and librarians of congress.
It is just too late to change the course of action.
The President has been too patient. He should have changed course a long time ago. We are now overcome by events. He is a crummy war President.
Stay the course is a failed idea from 30 years ago. (I don’t understand this one, but a “media literate” believes it).
The President seeks power for his ego, and wealth for his supporters.
Casualties really don’t bother him.
Iraq is about he and his supporters gaining wealth.
The President and his government is part of the problem now, not the solution.
The problems we face will not be solved by “the minds that created them”.
Some interpretations of the 2006 Congressional elections say get out of Iraq.
All of the reasons above.
Personal losses, and possible future personal losses, are too painful to absorb.
i. Personal interest over national interest comes to the front. Mostly this means those of us at ”home” and not “over there”.
ii. No one will sacrifice for a lost or mismanaged cause. We are not that stupid.
There are other interpretations.

Now I get to add my two cents. Here are discussions I would like to hear from those who want us out of Iraq. I have not heard much on the following.
Are there future “costs” of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq?
What are they?
i. Will we pay “in spades” later?
ii. Will it end the GWOT?
iii. Will it allow us to continue the GWOT?
iv. Are we between a rock and a hard place?
We are going to pull out of Iraq. The discussion is when and how. Can we agree on this?
Is the western main stream media (MSM) “reporting” this business’s overt effort to influence the outcome?
Yes, it too has been politicized
i. Of course it is
ii. I’m just paranoid, and prejudiced to boot.
iii. That 90% vote Democratic should be ignored
No, it is doing its job of informing we citizens.
How much has American politics and future elections of American politicians come to dominate the things that should be done today?
The American tradition and culture of isolation is alive and well.
b. Politicians may act in their own self-interest before our national interest.
Have foreign political objectives and business deals skewed multi-lateral policies?
Is a multi-lateral approach reasonable?
Is it a good idea, from an American point of view?
Can other countries be influenced by business deals and political complacency?
Can there be bad people in the world?
Is there anything we in the USA will fight for?
What will it take?
Certainly it takes a bully pulpit to keep explaining it to us.
For those that denigrate us, why?
Politics
i. It’s easy if you are secure.
ii. Spoiled or lazy. Writing well as a pundit (income generating) helps.
iii. Do gooder
iv. Sincerely still believe in socialism and/or communism, even after the systems have failed. Just look at Sweden and Russia.
1. Mentioned because Iraq is a speed bump to their real issue.
Take advantage of our American instincts and culture. Nice guys lose. Many look at us in ways that we do not even believe in, or even imagine.
i. Foreign image that is believed, or at least suspected.
ii. See things as black and white more than grey
iii. Cowboys
1. We are the new world.
a. The new world is not in Europe.
i. Asia and South America come to mind as the new world that we are part of.

Hope all this helps you. It helped me. For making it too long, well I apologize. For trying to hit the points for us citizens to think about, this is what I think.