Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 12, 2006 in At TMV | 39 comments

Cut’n and Run’n

NOS Journaal reports that Carl Levin said in This Week that the Democrats want US troops to gradually withdraw from Iraq… starting within 4 – 6 months time (from now).

As NOS Journaal notes, Levin is likely to become chairman of the Armed Services Committee in US Senate in January 07.

I wonder whether I missed this in American media, because I cannot remember reading about it at websites of say the NYT, the WaPo or CNN, but again, perhaps I missed it.

To be honest, I am divided. My view on Iraq has evolved over time. It is 100% clear to me that Bush et al. messed it up tremendously. I consider Iraq to be lost. But supporting a plan that means that U.S. forces will withdraw that quickly? I am not sure what to think of it. One could argue that since it is lost, one might just as well get out of there ASAP, on the other hand one could also argue that by withdrawing Iraq will undoubtedly and immediately fall into a full-blown civil war. Following this reasoning and taking responsibility for it could mean that one would argue that the U.S. (and allies) should be there to try to prevent as many deaths as possible, even if such a civil war will break out.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2006 The Moderate Voice
  • interested

    I think they ought to wait until the Baker report comes out and study it before trying to reach a path to take. Most likely this guy is just trying to gain some political points knowing it’d go nowhere until the report is done anyway. Or he’s trying to act assertive before taking the post of Armed Services Committee.

  • GreenDreams

    Much has been said about the Dems being judged on whether they can “get us out of Iraq” and will be considered a failure if it goes poorly, and that the Dems will be credited for “losing” if Bush manages to drag it out til a Dem prez takes over in 09. I’m not buying it.

    First, do we really think the GOP will sacrifice the 08 race just to blame Dems? no way

    Second, the Dems don’t control foreign policy and are NOT responsible for what happens in Iraq in the next two years. Dems need to take the message from the voters “US out of Iraq” and just repeat it every week for two years. “We once again remind the President that the country wants OUT. Mr. Commander-in-Chief, get us out. Get us out. Get us out. Get us out.

    To which he will say ‘they want to cut and run.’ To which we say, ‘oh no, you’re the decider. it’s your war, it’s your army for another two years. get us out. get us out.’

    It is Dubya who has no plan. It is not up to the Dems to come up with one, as they have no control, except over funding and oversight. The oversight will be everpresent and withering. The funding? We don’t have to cut it. We support our troops. It’s still your job, commandante, to get us out, get us out, get us out.

  • Jim S

    Michael,

    That’s when he says he thinks it should start, not some massive withdrawal that would be done within months after that. There’s a huge difference.

  • Davebo

    Jim, you’ve nailed it.

    To start a withdrawal within 6 months likely means we’ll still be there till 2008.

    We need to start handing over security to the Iraqis. It’s going to be ugly no doubt, but we have no choice.

    And make no mistake, by 2008 the public will be sick of occupation in Iraq. With an election coming, it will be the GOP pushing harder for withdrawal than the Dems.

  • ToldUSo

    New Slogan, stolen from In ‘n Out burgers who made famous for the slogan.

    “In and Out, that’s what a hamburger is all about”

    So looks like the Republicans were right after all.

    “Cut ‘N Run, that’s what a Democrat is all about”.

  • Clint Holeman

    One of the significant issues is that our presence there is part and parcel of the problem. Just being in the country makes the situation worse and makes our troops just another target of opportunity. Adn there is no clear military objective, nor a political one.

    How does one measure success when one has driven off a cliff?? A very tough question with no good answer, if you’re in the car…

    And yet, we have a huge responsibility to the average Iraqi. We created this mess, but they have to run their own country and assume responsibility for it.

    I doubt if throwing invectives such as “cut ‘n’ run” around will help find our way out of this mess. That sort of thinking helped get us here and needs to go away.

    This is a complicated area, a very complicated situation with no good outcome likely and our troops and innocent Iraqis are the ones taking the fall for it all.

    An honest, open debate about the real issues is long overdue. I think if you aren’t conflicted about it, you simply don’t understand the problem.

  • Marlowecan

    Greendreams said: “…the Dems don’t control foreign policy and are NOT responsible for what happens in Iraq in the next two years. Dems need to take the message from the voters “US out of Iraq” and just repeat it every week for two years.”

    You are repeating the Democratic dream: Oppose, oppose, with no responsibility (in CAPS, I noticed).

    While the Democrats did not control foreign policy during the latter years of Vietnam, they were blamed by the public for a generation for their starving the war through the purse strings.

    You and the Democratic leadership want to have your cake and eat it too:

    Yes, the president controls foreign policy…but WE will determine who the UN ambassador will be!

    WE will determine that the Sec of Def must go!

    WE will determine that the troops should be pulled out!

    I was amused at seeing Pelosi and Reid demand a SUMMIT with Bush on Iraq. Of course, this does not mean they will have any responsibily for Iraq. None at all.

  • superdestroyer

    Greendreams,

    Actually, Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats could force the withdrawl of all US forces by September 30,2007. All the Democratic controlled House needs to do is refuse to apropriate any funds for Operation Iraqi Freedon in the FY 08 Budget. What would force the military to move out before then.

    See what happens when the Democrats gained control of Congress. They can actually affect how the government works instead of just blaming others. However, my guess is that they will just punt on the issue and decide not to decide.

  • BeYourGuest

    Clint Holeman is 100% correct.

    If you’re not conflicted, you don’t understand the problem.

  • Rudi

    The Vietnam withdrawl began with “Peace with honor” and Kissinger’s secret talks with the NV. The funding was cut for the SV Army, not the US troops.

    If Iraq is lost, do we sacrife another 2800 US lives, or 30,000 lives like Vietnam, for our “honor’ or world standing. For all those who oppose “cut and run”, will you give the lives of your children for a failed Iraq war. I will buy into more lives lost when Pierce Bush (W nephew)joins in the fight like Webb’s or McCain’s sons. We are talking about US and Iraqis sons, not some obscure policy or honor.

  • Marlowecan

    By curious coincidence, Greendreams views on the Dems and Iraq exactly mirrors the NYT’s editorial page this weekend:

    “The responsibility for all that has gone wrong lies squarely with Mr. Bush. Even with control of the Congress, the Democrats’ role in changing things will be hortatory. And while we too are eager to hear the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — better known as the (James) Baker commission — it should be the start, and not the end, of a bipartisan discussion on Iraq strategy. The Democrats need to be ready to play a full role.”

    This is a fascinating pretzel of logic…even for the Grey Lady. To paraphrase: The Democrats now have power, and we demand a “full role” in a “bipartisan” way on Iraq…but we bear NO responsibility for anything that might happen.
    (ie. now we have power, and Bush must do what we say…but we will not accept any responsibility)

    BTW: Did not Democratic members vote authorization for the war?

    PS: I happened to stop by Speaker-to-be Pelosi’s office the other day – she was out, measuring curtains in her new digs I think – and I noticed a draft of her talk to the new freshman class on the desk of an aide.

    It was turned to the final page, and amid the worthy member’s pencilled annotations, I noticed the concluding pep-rally remarks:

    “And remember, first last and always, the new motto of our party: “WITH GREAT POWER COMES NO RESPONSIBILITY!”

  • Mikef

    I consider Iraq to be lost. But supporting a plan that means that U.S. forces will withdraw that quickly?

    Those two sentences don’t fit in the same logical universe.

    If Iraq is lost the time to start pulling out is now.

    If you think there’s something salvageable, you need to declare what it is, and lay out some idea of what needs to be done to get to that point.

    Too much of the debate has been between “Cut and Run” or “Victory”, with victory undefined. This is a big reason Bush has screwed up so badly. He seems to think that we just need to wait out the insurgency, but we aren’t actively working towards a specific goal.

    Simply leaving our troops there to watch the country collapse into chaos is crazy, especially if you remember that we’re still fighting an actual threat against our country, separate from Iraq, named Al Qaeda. Every soldier babysitting a civil war is a soldier not pursuing that threat.

  • Marlowecan

    Rudi: “I will buy into more lives lost when Pierce Bush (W nephew)joins in the fight like Webb’s or McCain’s sons.”

    This is a curious extension of the “Chickenhawk meme”. You are saying you will only support the war when EVERY single GOP family member is in Iraq?

    Oh, and for the record, I too think the US should be pulling major forces from Iraq.

    The “butcher’s bill” has been incredibly low, historically speaking (a tribute to the remarkable medevac system now in place). Also, I agree with the initial reasons for invasion (not just the WMD, but also removing a tyrant and the attempt to foster democracy).

    However, I simply do not see any possible strategic advantage the US could gain from remaining there.

    The US should withdraw significantly from most areas…save supporting the Kurds in the north – they are the US’s historic allies (not the Shia or Sunni) + oil fields around Mosul + weight against Iran…and let the Sunnis and Shia take each other down.

  • BeYourGuest

    It is true that Democrats, like Republicans, voted to authorize the war.

    Nobody, however, voted to authorize incompetence.

    Where do we go from here?

  • Marlowecan

    Mikef said: “Too much of the debate has been between “Cut and Run” or “Victory”, with victory undefined. This is a big reason Bush has screwed up so badly. He seems to think that we just need to wait out the insurgency, but we aren’t actively working towards a specific goal.”

    I completely agree! This was Bush’s ONE big mistake. If he could have laid out a coherent plan or idea or defense of Iraq other than a lame “stay the course” the American people would have fully supported him. (People here might disagree…but I believe this to be true!)

    As a conservative, I have no idea why Bush and Co. have never done this. It boggles the mind, really. No, you can’t blame this on Bush’s intelligence. There are bright folks in the WH. Yet this was never done.

    I don’t understand it, but there it is.

    Hopefully there will be a plan soon. Or a goal. Or an objective. Or something….

  • Elrod

    My take on Levin’s remarks is that he’s trying to control the bargaining terms in the coming Congress. He got out in front of the ISG for a reason. Surely he feels that the ISG will not go for any sort of major redeployment (to Kurdistan, the Iraqi borders, or outside Iraq altogether). This WaPo article suggests that the ISG findings are geared more towards what the White House will accept, not what is objectively right. But the Democrats’ victory makes the calculus tougher because the ISG never really considered pushing for withdrawal.

    Yes, Congress has control over the purse strings, but I don’t see the Democrats cutting off funds. In fact, I see that as unlikely as Bush invading Iran. Both sides would love it, but the political result would be suicide. The ISG is going to be some sort of middle ground football that both sides can kick around for their own advantage. My guess is that nothing much changes here unless top Republicans convince Bush to start withdrawing to Kurdistan, the Iraqi border or out of Iraq altogether. This is the opening salvo in a long confrontation.

  • Rudi

    Comrade Marlow,
    I also mentioned McCain and Webb as some leaders who have sent their sons to Iraq, this isn’t a chickenhawk argument. The Bush family is dumpimng shitty software into our schools, they will not send their sons to fight a war they started. McCain and Webb(wore his sons combat boots) could lose their sons, one supports the war – the other gained a seat while opposing the war.

  • Jason Shapiro

    Although I am no longer a fan of John Kerry, his question of three decades ago still rings very true – how do you ask someone to be the last one to die for a mistake? What we do is stand up, face the world, tell them a rogue administration, ignorant of history, geography, religion, and international law followed their own agenda and used phony data to start an illegal war. We’re very sorry and while we will work with other countries and international organizations to try a create some kind of stable situation, we are starting to plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We don’t lose “honor” (whatever that is), instead we gain the respect and admiration of the entire world.

  • superdestroyer

    Elrod,

    So you are saying that the Democrats could force an complete pullout in ten months and save American lives but will not because it might politically benefit the Republicans? What does that say about the state of leadership in the US?

  • A lot of the arguments here seem to amount to “someone needs to do something now”. That seems unrealistic – the “vote for change” in the election wasn’t “change immediately”, it was just “change”. The first step of that change is to figure out what the ultimate goal is (“victory” is a bit too ambiguous of a goal at this point) and come up with new options. With the ouster of Rumsfeld, the upcoming Baker report, and new voices being given an audience we’re at the beginning of that process.

    Once a few options are available, hopefully there can be a meaningful debate (important words: “meaningful” and “debate”) about which one is best, be it sending more troops, immediate withdrawal, phased redeployment, or something else. At the moment, people appear to be attempting to figure out a solution without knowing what the final goal is and what options are available to achieve that goal. It’s been just five days since the election – give it at least a little bit of time for some initial discussions to happen.

  • Rudi

    MvdG Levin and Reed pushed this plan in an amendment back in June. The Republican establishment used the “cut and run” meme to attack this plan. The Republicans used the “stay the course” meme in June, untill Bush claimed that stay the course was misunderstood.

  • vwcat

    He said he’d like them to start withdrawing in about 6 months but, not from today. Probably from January. Alot depends on the iraq group.

  • If you, as I am, are of the belief that a timetable, complete with both milestones and consequences, would provide beneficial focus to the Iraqi government, then Levin’s statement makes perfect sense.

    For some reason, the good cop/bad cop scenario that played out at the end of West Wing’s final season keeps running through my head (not that I believe Bush and Levin are working together secretly or otherwise). Hmmmm.

    And frankly, MvdG, “cut ‘n’ run” is no more helpful to productive debate than is “stay the course”.

    The election (to quote many a GOPer from 2004) is over. Deal.

  • I don’t think you stay for honor. I think you stay for the Iraqi people. We destroyed the country. Are we still able to help fix it? I agree completely that you don’t put American soldiers in harm’s way for pride. But you might do so to keep that Shia child from being chased from their home or the Sunni man from being executed by a death squad. That might be worth fighting for, particularly since we created the situation where these things are occuring.

    I wish I knew if our troop presence was hurting or helping, but I don’t. My hope is that all parties put the Iraqi children above politics and dignity and reputation on all sides.

  • Ack

    And frankly, MvdG, “cut ‘n’ run” is no more helpful to productive debate than is “stay the course”.

    I tend to agree. It’s a false dichotomy.

  • Elrod

    superdestroyer,
    That’s a fair question. I have no answer. The war in Iraq is lost. There is next to nothing we can do at this point to support democracy in Iraq, or even protect ordinary Iraqi people from getting brutally slaughtered. Either we increase our troop presence by 500,000 troops, or we withdraw. And if we withdraw, we must do so in a way that protects the Kurds and prevents region-wide war.

  • Marlowecan

    Rudi, my estimable Bolshie comrade…

    Thank you for your more precise focus: “The Bush family … will not send their sons to fight a war they started.”

    While I do not accept the “chickenhawk meme” I believe your take is VERY valuable in one key respect: there is a disturbing absence of military experience in this administration.

    Yes, the Clinton WH was no different…maybe worse, as Powell was SecS in the Bush first term.

    But actual field experience…seeing people die in your command…changes you. I recall reading about Eisenhower’s horrible night before D-Day as he thought about all the young men he knew he was sending to their deaths…and the guilt that would be on his head if it was for nothing and the invasion failed.

    I actually believe that Bush is a decent man, and does feel for the families of soldiers lost…but there is a difference when you know the cost in the pit of your stomach…and one is more cautious and careful about committing forces.

    As in the Powell Doctrine (is that dead, or will it be revived?).

    Something has to be done on Iraq…to try to ensure that those who gave their lives did not do so in vain…AND that there is a clear purpose for the mission to ensure more soldiers don’t die just to stay the course.

  • Elrod:

    The war in Iraq is lost. There is next to nothing we can do at this point to support democracy in Iraq, or even protect ordinary Iraqi people from getting brutally slaughtered. Either we increase our troop presence by 500,000 troops, or we withdraw.

    I think this is a point that needs to be debated, and a continuing source of partisan bickering will be due to “absolute” statements such as yours. I would agree that the idea of a sudden transition in Iraq into a flourishing example of democracy is hopeless, but I suspect that there is still a role that the US needs to play to prevent the country from descending into anarchy (“we broke it, we bought it” as Powell said).

    To this point I don’t think we’ve made much effort to engage the various factions in Iraq to find out what they want. Jihadists want us to leave, but how about the Kurds? Is there a humanitarian role the US should play? What if the US withdrew to Kurdish areas and deployed into the rest of Iraq only only when violence flared, and only as an emergency peacekeeping force? How about as a training force for Iraq security personnel? There is a large percentage of America that rightfully feels that we cannot leave Iraq to descend into further chaos if there is something we can do to help. Iraq wasn’t a terrorist haven four years ago, but it is now, and that problem needs to be addressed. With a new head of the DoD, and a new Congress, there is now hope that new ideas might be considered that could offer some middle ground between current policy and a complete withdrawal.

  • Elrod

    Ryan,
    All your caveats are well-taken, but they don’t counter my main point: Iraq is lost. The only question now – other than a full-on 500,000 troop “do-over” – is how we minimize the cost of that loss. There are a few things we must consider: safety of Iraqi civilians, regional instability, Iran’s prowess in Iraq, security of the Kurds, oil, preventing Iraq from becoming a Taliban-style Al Qaeda base camp. All of these are critical issues going forward.

    My personal view is that we should move our troops to Kurdistan, deploy some special forces to continue to train the Iraqi Army (in the interest of our commitment to them, not because it will help much; encourage a region-wide force to police the borders; keep major fighting units in either Kurdistan or Kuwait so they can intervene at a moment’s notice if AQ gets too strong in Anbar or Iran gets too cocky. This isn’t “total withdrawal” in the sense that these guys will come back home. But it makes the more useful than as barely-armed policemen in the middle of a major riot.

  • CaseyL

    What, exactly, would you have US troops do?

    140,000 are not going to stop a civil war. We haven’t been able to stabilize ANY city more than a few days: the minute we leave, the insurgency civil war battle starts up again.

    140,000 might be able to storm Sadr City and take out the man considered to be the main backer of the sectarian violence. Given what we know of the ME in general and today’s Iraq in particular, do you think al-Sadr’s capture or death will make his militias disband and go away? It’s more likely someone else will take his place – and the fury of the militias will focus on the US troops for murdering their leader.

    We might throw all of our weight and support behind one particular group – take sides, in other words. That would mean US troops becoming de facto Shia troops (it’s unlikely we’d support the Sunni). Please give an example of a war in which the US swung its support to a specific side or group that worked out well – because I can’t think of one.

    I agree that what we’ve done to Iraq is appalling. But our political leadership made those decisions, not our troops. It’s obscene to say US soldiers should continue to be killed and maimed because our political leadership was corrupt and incompetent.

    Unless the Baker Commission can come up with something – something workable, and specific, with calculations that take our actual resources and the actual status quo into account, and even (yes!) a timetable; NOT some fuzzy wishlist that depends on luck and/or is cobbled together only to save Bush’s face – we can do no more good in Iraq. It’s that simple.

  • Elrod – I’d mostly agree with the points you’ve brought up. Many of the hardcore Left’s calls for withdrawals often seem like a push to bring back all troops without any consideration at all for the Iraqis, and I think it’s important to make it clear that as much as possible we aren’t turning our backs on the Iraqi people. I suspect that at a minimum we need to offer some protection for the Kurds, some kind of ability to patrol borders, train security forces, etc. In addition, if the US leaves and militias move to bombard civilian populations with mortars or other artillery, the ability to launch air strikes will be important.

    Iraq may be lost in the sense that the US will never be able to withdraw and leave behind a peaceful country, but that does not absolve us of responsibility for doing what we can to minimize the damage we’ve done.

  • Elrod

    Ryan,
    I completely agree. This is what I think of when I hear “change in course,” or even “phased withdrawal.” I don’t see anybody outside the far left calling for every soldier to be brought back to America immediately. There is a cost question going forward. How many Americans must die – tomorrow – in pursuit of an existing policy that is not bringing about stability?

  • Joe4334

    I don’t see anything but ugly from here.

    When the US withdraws… If a civil war ensues, the Kurds will seperate. Turkey will not stand for a “Kurdistan.”

    The southern region of Turkey country is filled with ethnic Kurds who have been repressed for ages. In fact they Kurds have tried to run an insurgency there before being brutally stomped.

    A “Kurdistan” with oil riches is an immense threat to Turkey. To prevent the horribly mistreated kurdish part of their territory from seceding to join “Kurdistan” they will probably invade.

    All 3 tribes (Shiites, Kurds, Sunni) want the oil fields around Kirkuk, and because of Saddams wicked relocation programs they all have some legitimacy to their claims. I see a bloodbath there.

    The Sunni Vs Shiite conflict will likely turn into proxy war for the regions muslim powers…. that is if Syria or Iran don’t choose to outright absorb portions of Iraq. Since the US left, no one will stop them.

  • Kim Ritter

    I agree with Elrod, Iraq is lost. Theoretically, vastly increasing our forces there might stem the bloody chaos from an ensuing civil war, but there is no guarantee of this, and it actually could backfire by turning our allies against us, and greatly fueling the antiwar forces here in our own country. Judging from last Tuesday’s election results, the American public is no longer willing to support this war and escalation at this point will result in further losses for the GOP in ’08.

    The whole episiode has been a tragic waste of manpower and money, not to mention the incalculable damage done to what was once the sovereign nation of Iraq. Retooling our policy to one which will cause even greater levels of casualties and strain upon the military risks breaking us financially and politically, and has a good chance of breaking us as a people, in a way OSB could have only envisioned in his dreams.

    We still have an option of redeploying a large force to Kurdestan to prevent an outbreak of violence there between the Kurds and the Turks, and to prevent the Shia from obliterating this sect if it tries to separate from their control. But Bush opened Pandora’s box, and now the Iraqis have to determine their own future.

  • GreenDreams

    Marlo, not lookin for a personal pissing match with you, but I can’t let these slide:

    You are repeating the Democratic dream: Oppose, oppose, with no responsibility (in CAPS, I noticed).

    We are not responsible for your war, nor for cleaning up your messes. Are you ready for Bush to say “we blew it. we failed. we can’t win it, we can’t find a way out. please take over, Democrats”? If so, then OK, we’ll take responsibility for ending it, but I think GHW Bush is intent on salvaging his family name first.

    BTW: Did not Democratic members vote authorization for the war?

    Grrrrr. What a pack of reprehensible lies you guys floated, and yeah, even I was fooled. Colin Powell, who I used to respect, had specific numbers of liters of Anthrax and nerve gas, satellite photos of “weapons labs” and made a powerful case, based on pure lies. We were fooled, but your team lied to justify taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan and pursue a neocon fantasy of a shining democracy in Iraq.

    The “butcher’s bill” has been incredibly low, historically speaking (a tribute to the remarkable medevac system now in place). Also, I agree with the initial reasons for invasion (not just the WMD, but also removing a tyrant and the attempt to foster democracy).

    The greatest outrage of all. nearly 3,000 dead and over 10,000 very serious injuries, ruined lives, lost limbs. Yeah, war medicine allows us to send crippled limbless Americans home who would have died of their injuries in previous wars. Your words echo Bush saying the war in Iraq and all the losses will just be “a comma” in history. And BTW, there are lots of tyrants and undemocratic regimes in the world. Many of them we could actually defeat with less than 140,000 troops. Hell, we could have secured Afghanistan with that troop level. I don’t see your team calling for a general crusade against tyrants. What BS!
    Blech.

  • dittohead

    Every decent American knows that the number of real people killed in Iraq is less than a month’s traffic accident so it doesn’t matter. The troops love it there and want us to win. Sending them over and over is the only way to support them. Great moral which is why patriots tried to cut the funding for the Va especially for post traumatic stress which doesn’t exist. We love our tropoops and don’t want them feeling like sickies.

    The MSM never covers the good news in Iraq. It’s going great which is why the president is considering drawing down some troops.

  • interested

    Green

    Grrrrr. What a pack of reprehensible lies you guys floated, and yeah, even I was fooled. Colin Powell, who I used to respect, had specific numbers of liters of Anthrax and nerve gas, satellite photos of “weapons labs” and made a powerful case, based on pure lies. We were fooled, but your team lied to justify taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan and pursue a neocon fantasy of a shining democracy in Iraq.

    Put some mutual honesty there – there are some Dem’s on record saying (written by themselves) that you couldn’t expect them to actually study the information, and even if you did, it’s an uncomfortable room to study in.

    Coat it whichever way you like, Repubs &Dem’s both had a responsibility to verify the intelligence they voted on. Both parties of Congress were neglectful there. To simply glaze over their responsibility is doing yourself what you “couldn’t let slide.”

  • Jim S

    Marlowecan pointed out that “The “butcher’s bill” has been incredibly low, historically speaking (a tribute to the remarkable medevac system now in place).”. What he neglected to mention is that it’s just a different payment on the bill. Large numbers of limbs lost, head injuries creating brain damage that will take years to recover from for those who do recover and other severe injuries. Remember that the number of wounded is 10 times the number of fatalities in this war.

  • Kim Ritter

    Jim S- Dont’ forget 400,000 to 600,000 Iraqi lives lost and counting. I heard one report of Iraqi women begging foreign aid workers in the area to take their babies out of the war zone.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com