A Quick Withdrawal From Iraq: Dumb

First, the premise, at OTB:

America’s top military leader is warning about rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs chairman has a word of warning to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: A rapid of withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a “chaotic situation” and would “turnaround the gains we have achieved, and struggled to achieve, and turn them around overnight.

Admiral Mullen’s comments came in a response to a question about what the Joint Chiefs are doing to prepare for a new president, given that two of the candidates have called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. “We need to be prepared across the board for what a new president will bring,” Mullen said. “I do worry about a rapid withdrawal. . . [that would] turn around the gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight.” Asked to define a “rapid withdrawal,” Mullen said, “a withdrawal that would be so fast that it would leave us in a chaotic situation and the gains we have achieved would be lost.”

That said, Mullen added: “When a new president comes in, I will get my orders and I will carry them out.”

Obviously.

James writes… correctly, that none of the Democrats wants to get tagged with having lost a war.  It’s a point I’ve made often enough.

Knapp complains:

What gains have we made there with our troop presence, exactly? I’ve been digging into this for a couple of weeks now, and as near as I can tell, the recent declines in violence have been less attributable to increased troops in Iraq and more attributable to:

1) al-Sadr agreeing to a ceasefire for his personal forces and

2) the U.S. bribing Sunni tribesmen into not fighting.

But even with more troops, the Sadr ceasefire, and rampant bribery the “Sunni Awakening”, violence is still at the same levels it was in 2005. In other words, Iraq is still pretty much in chaos right now.

Yeah, right. Of course he hasn’t noticed our successes because the press is refusing to report such, as I pointed out yesterday.

Bithead,I didn’t say that violence hasn’t died down, and it’s nice to see that the Iraqi Parliament might actually complete the laws they were supposed to have passed in 2004.

And why is that problematic, particularly? I mean, have you seen the glacial pce of our own Congress of late? why shuld we expect better performance out of a band of people who are arguably n a more contentious situation than we here in the US are? The point I’m making is that demands of quick action on the part of such a group is likely not realistic.

What I am saying is that violence is still at 2005 levels, which was hardly a time of peace and prosperity in Iraq.

I’m also saying that that the bulk of that decrease in violence doesn’t actually appear to be directly attributable to our increase in forces.

Knapp also complains to another commenter:

…if security gains in Iraq aren’t due to increased levels of U.S. troops, then the argument that we need to maintain troop levels to keep violence down isn’t sustainable.

If, as I suspect, that the largest reason for the decline in violence in Iraq is due to al-Sadr’s ceasefire, then it doesn’t appear that U.S. forces are really needed that much at all.

You’re not suprisingly missing it, Alex…
Even assuming for the moment, that the reduction in violence is the fianl arbiter of success or failure over the short term… AND even assuming it’s a valid arbiter at ALL… AND assuming that our troops are not responsible for the reductions now seen… with all that assumption going on… a stretch to begin with… what positive link do you have to prove that reducing our troop levels there isn’t going to increase the violence? I mean, look, even if we assume that the troop levels didn’t calm things there, what’s to say they won’t ignite once we leave?

The point is you seem to be leaping over a number of unanswered questions, to a pre-determined and politically correct (Democrat approved) course of action.

Of course, Alex will be annoyed by such a charge. But perhaps he can take note that the charge seems to fit so often.

Of course, there’s one additional point to be made here that Alex seems to miss;

The possibility that Sadr’s ‘cease fire” is in place because he can’t get past the US troops without diminishing his own ranks below sustainability.