The full C-SPAN video of the panel discussion can be found here.
Also see the Center for American Progress report How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of US Forces from Iraq by Lawrence Korb, Sean Duggan and Peter Juul. The link has the full report plus a video produced by CAP on the report. Excerpt summary follows:
Some have asserted that a US military withdrawal from Iraq will take two years or more, but we believe it is not only possible, but necessary, to conduct a safe and responsible redeployment of US forces from Iraq in no more than 10 months. Our military can accomplish such a task, should it be assigned, if it uses all elements of US military power, focused on our land forces' proficiencies in maneuver warfare and logistics.
There is significant disagreement and confusion about the time necessary to withdraw all US military forces from Iraq. Proponents of an indefinite US military presence in Iraq have asserted that a withdrawal of over 140,000 American troops and equipment would be fraught with risk, uncertainty, and overwhelming logistical complications. According to a recent ABC News piece, several commanders in Iraq stated that there was "no way" a withdrawal of one to two brigades per month could work logistically - although none of them agreed to be quoted on the record.
The debate over how to conduct an American withdrawal has gravitated back and forth between those arguing that there must be either a rapid, precipitous withdrawal, and those advocating for a long, drawn-out redeployment. Many who argue for an extended redeployment over several years do so simply in order to "stay the course" in Iraq, and cherry-pick logistical issues to make the case for an extended US presence.
Deciding between a swift or extended redeployment, however, is a false choice. Both options are logistically feasible, but this report will demonstrate that an orderly and safe withdrawal is best achieved over an 8 to 10 month period. This report, written in consultation with military planners and logistics experts, is not intended to serve as a playbook for our military planners; it is a guide to policymakers and the general public about what is realistically achievable. A massive, yet safe and orderly redeployment of US forces, equipment, and support personnel is surely daunting - but it is well within the exceptional logistical capabilities of the US military...
Comments
<I>"Proponents of an indefinite US military presence in Iraq have asserted that a withdrawal of over 140,000 American troops and equipment would be fraught with risk, uncertainty, and overwhelming logistical complications."</I>
That's odd. It seems that <b><I>everyone</I></b> thinks that, to include people who want us to leave now or very soon. It's odd that Korb et al would choose to word it in such a way as to associate this concern only with <I>"Proponents of an indefinite US military presence in Iraq."</I> That is a very specific group of people (or group of straw men). Is this an inconspicuous suggestion that others do not view a withdrawal as complicated and fraught with risk?
Partisan poppycock, I believe...
This early assumption from the full 'report'is full of partisan and questionable assertions:<blockquote>"It is necessary now more than ever for the United States to commit to a responsible phased withdrawal. This must be done because, as many analysts have noted, the
American invasion and occupation of Iraq has produced several unintended consequences.A large and indefinite military presence in Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to reconstitute itself, diverted U.S. attention from the war in Afghanistan, weakened the United States ability to project its hard and soft power around the world, and strengthened Iranian influence throughout the greater Middle East."</blockquote>It is followed by this one which is highly suspect. I do not question what has been said; I do strongly suggest that those in the ME are masters at saying things they do not mean and the Authors of this report either do not know that or have elected to ignore it:<blockquote>"The latest unintended consequence is widespread Iraqi opposition to the seemingly indefinite American troop presence. The Bush administrations positions on
the bilateral Status of Forces and Strategic Framework Agreements has created a broad Iraqi political consensus in favor of a U.S. commitment to withdraw its forces from the country."</blockquote>They later say:<blockquote>Withdrawal will not only improve the chances of stabilizing the region; it will
allow the United States to reset its entire
Middle East policy. Over the past seven years, U.S. influence throughout the greater Middle East has diminished to such a degree that we are no longer liked,feared, or respected."</blockquote>I really hate to tell them this but we were not liked in the Middle East in the late 1960s and the fear and respect took their biggest hit in the Fall of 1979, it's just gotten progressively worse -- except I would argue that the 'feared and respected' portion is subject to several interpretations and for the one which counts in the Middle East, the statement is incorrect -- because we are in Iraq and stayed longer than it was believed we would...
As the saying goes, "It's all downhill from there."
The later, militarily oriented elements are arguable in many cases but are better that the policy segment. What can be done and what should be done are different matters.
Hopefully no one will pay the 'report' much attention...