New think tank details US withdrawal from Iraq

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20304884.htm

New think tank details US withdrawal from Iraq
20 Jun 2007 23:57:19 GMT
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 20 (Reuters) - A new think tank run by former U.S. defense officials has published a detailed plan that would have the United States withdraw from Iraq in phases, beginning in 2008 and ending in 2012.

The report made available on Wednesday by the Center for a New American Security headed by former Pentagon officials Kurt Campbell and Michele Flournoy also sets what it calls "more realistic" objectives for America in Iraq.

These aims include preventing the establishment of al Qaeda safe havens, a regional war and genocide instead of President George W. Bush's goal of creating a democracy.

The center, which aims to advance a strong centrist national security strategy, added its voice to the debate as violence in Iraq spiraled.

The administration should end the current troop surge in Iraq and "launch a transition process that focuses U.S. forces on an advisory role and reduces our military presence in Iraq from approximately 160,000 today to about 60,000 by the end of 2008," the report said

A key aspect of the plan, which has four phases, would be to set timelines for accomplishing political and security goals and for the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2012 "at the latest."

more...

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/center_for_a_new_american_secu.php
Center for a New American Security

16 Jun 2007 09:58 am

A new outfit composed, basically, of people from the old outfits. Laura Rozen calls it a "shadow government in waiting" and I think she's right -- these are, at a minimum, people who would very much like to have important jobs in a Democratic administration (I mean, they'd take jobs in a GOP administration, but it doesn't look like any of the GOP contenders want to even slightly moderate the level of insanity in current US foreign policy).

I'll note as a first impression that if President X has any sense at all, she won't put anyone even vaguely associated with this project in charge of naming anything -- what they've come up with here is just terrible.

Board of Directors

The Honorable Dr. William J. Perry, Chairman of the Board
Professor and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University

The Honorable Dr. Madeleine K. Albright
Principal, The Albright Group LLC

The Honorable Richard L. Armitage
President, Armitage International

Norman R. Augustine
Former Chairman, Executive Committee, Lockheed Martin Corporation

Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command

The Honorable Dr. Richard J. Danzig
Sam Nunn Prize Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies

William J. Lynn
Senior Vice President, Government Operations & Strategy, Raytheon Company

Lieutenant General Greg S. Newbold, USMC (Ret.)
Managing Director, Torch Hill Capital

John D. Podesta
President and CEO, Center for American Progress




Board of Advisors

Rand Beers
National Security Network

Dr. Hans Binnendijk
Director, Center for Technology and National Security, National Defense University

Dr. Ashton Carter
Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

Dr. Michael Green
Senior Advisor and Japan Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies

LtGen Wallace C. Gregson, USMC, Jr., (Ret.)
WCG & Associates International, LLC

Andrew Hoehn
Vice President and Director, Project Air Force, RAND Corporation

Dr. Michael O'Hanlon
Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Dr. Mitchell Reiss
Vice Provost for International Affairs, College of William & Mary

Dr. Susan Rice
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy and Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

Ambassador Wendy Sherman
Principal, The Albright Group LLC

Gayle Smith
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

James Steinberg
Dean, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin

I know of no instance in history where a losing occupier could gradually withdraw.

If we start drawing down troops slowly, our forces will quickly be overwhelmed.

The only way out is a rapid withdrawal.

We were not occupying South Vietnam, simply propping them up - we could draw down somewhat more before all hell broke loose. In Iraq, there is no location that supports us - everyone wants us out.

Wouldn't "centrist" address the 'rule of law' repeatedly broken by those who created this hell for Iraq AND the USA? Wouldn't "centrist" include giving the Iraqi people BACK their power over their own resources and restitution for rebuilding THEIR OWN NATION (AND forcing all companies that profitted off an illegal war to PAY THAT RESTITUTION)? Wouldn't "centrist" include REAL RECRUITMENT of surrounding peoples/nations to assist Iraq back on her feet (of course, that may be part of this plan to ultimately withdraw FIVE MORE YEARS from now)?

I think "centrist" has completely lost any meaning in this country. I really, really do.

Like Nixon, they're looking for a way to avoid dealing with the fact that we lost a war.