If that's not accurate, I apologize, but the specific phrase 're-invasion' is one I had not noticed until Friedman recently used it to describe what we have to do _now_ to secure Iraq and/or Afghanistan...

The delusions of Democrats notwithstanding, we are NOT going to re-invade Iraq to deal with potential terrorists/problems once we’ve left.

Huh? The only person I've ever seen push 're-invasion' is Friedman. While he _is_ deluded, I don't think you'll find any Democrats that'll claim him as one of their own...

And while I understand the immediate purpose of re-deploying troops - get them into relatively safe havens they can operate from without the high manpower- and stress-overhead of extra security - I don't understand the benefit of practically abandoning areas of Iraq to become safe havens for insurgent ops. I suppose some people are hoping they'll form together into nice, neat little campsites, away from civilian centers, that we can just carpet bomb away, but I don't think the insurgents are quite that stupid...

For what it's worth redeploying within Iraq -- a good idea, in my opinion -- is very different than redeploying outside of Iraq. The delusions of Democrats notwithstanding, we are NOT going to re-invade Iraq to deal with potential terrorists/problems once we've left. (witness pre-9/11 Afghanistan)

...?

Of course, permanent bases have been a sine qua non of the occupation from the very beginning. I'm just skeptical how well we can keep such bases supplied in a perpetually failed state.

There is a rumor that purchasing and planning has already began in earnest for these bases.

Rummy may not have laid out his list in the manner that others wanted, but he did send it out with his signature. So take what you like and leave what you don't.

That's what the President and the Pentagon are going to do.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Good one, JJ.

Tomorrow's New York Times unveils a November 6 memo penned by Donald Rumsfeld entitled "Iraq - Illustrative New Courses of Action."...

I'd argue that the proposal closest to Murtha's is below line: "Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out."

The closest above-line option is "Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance." But that isn't Murtha since it is both open-ended and still keeps forces in Iraq.

The "Murtha-esque" option--withdraw from vulnerable position to quick reaction force status in Kurdistan and Kuwait--is among the "above to line options."

The below the line options are:
1. Stay the course.
2. Make a last push for Baghdad.
3. Send in more troops.
4. Set a firm withdrawal date.
5. Tripartition of Iraq.
6. "Try a Dayton-like process."

Any questions?