Quite the Predicament, Mr. President...

Remove all ads!

It now seems that the new prime minister of Iraq wants us to formulate a timetable for troop withdrawal.

I find this kind of an amusing situation Bush has gotten himself into. If he does what the Iraqi PM wants, he's essentially agreeing with the Democrats. If he doesn't, then all his talk about Iraqi sovereignty and "we'll stick around only as long as the Iraqi government wants us there" is a load of hooey. (Sidenote: I love typing the word 'hooey.')

So either Maliki is a puppet and we don't care about the Iraqis, or Bush gives in to the cowardly cut-and-run Democrats. Either way will go over like a turd in a punch bowl with the base, no?

 

In truth, I'm sure he'll be able to spin this one just fine by announcing that we have decided that Iraq is finally ready to govern itself and provide for its own security......a true testament to the competence and dedication of our troops. Mission Accomplished! (And this time we mean it.)

 

And, just like every time grandiose optimistic statements like this have been made (last one was just a few weeks ago), 100+ civilians will die in blasts across the country.

I'm not so certain that Bush wants to stay in Iraq anymore. It's very possible he and his administration are playing stubborn just to appear consistent (they did start the whole mess after all). Once they withdraw, few people in the USA will be interested to hear about Iraq anyway, and when the country goes to hell few people will care. It's sad, but this wouldn't be the first example in recent history.

 

And Bush will label the (mis)management of the situation by the Iraqi people a "stunning success.....reflecting the indomitable will of the great Iraqi people....another indicator of Iraq's readiness to self-govern. The true extent of the success of our soldiers' efforts has never been more clear with Iraq so capably handling such a dire situation. Mission still accomplished! (That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)"

EDIT: grammar

[ June 28, 2006, 04:26: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Bush will claim victory. I think they should have pulled out after Hussein was captured, kill him with no trial then leave Iraq to fend for itself. Let the problems send the message to other nations what will be left of your nation if you f*** with King George.

 

It isn't usually a particularly good idea to destroy a nation's infrastructure and then abandon them with no leader in place to sort the matter out. Regardless of the reason, when you destroy a nation's ability to purify its own water, power it's cities, provide for it's own security, and assassinate their leadership you owe them. Big time.

 

Not only do you owe them - but not helping them after screwing them over is just going to end up with another tinpot dictator in charge with a vendetta against the US...

 

And, not only that, but executing Hussein without a trial would not only be hypocritical, you'd essentially be turning him into a martyr.

 

You're kidding, aren't you? (probably not, but I'm still hoping you are)

First, the USA never invaded Iraq to remove Hussein - if they disliked him this much they shouldn't have put him there to begin with. So just going in and killing him wouldn't really have given them what they were really after - oil.

Second, and more importantly, the scenario you're describing isn't exactly new. It's something US governments have done many, many times in history (Somalia comes to mind), and as Drew has pointed out it has invariable led to some madman assembling enough desperate people to become a much worse threat to the USA (Osama Bin Laden anyone? Though he more accurately qualified as a worse threat to the world)

You're probably right, unfortunately. I hate to admit that, even though I was (very) strongly against invading Iraq in the first place, I'm pretty certain that a withdrawal now will make things even worse. Maliki's not so bad (read: he's not as bad as Allawi), but I really doubt he's competent enough to handle things properly.

 

So let me get this straight: People want the US out of Iraq ASAP, but find reasons to stay in anyway? It sounds like the "anti Iraq war" sentiments are a load of hooey.

My suggestion was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I don't see the Anti war lobby coming up with any answers. There had to be more done than just roll over on September 12 and say "May I please have another..."

 

How about actually going after terrorists instead of lying to America and the world about WMD in Iraq, knowingly misleading America into thinking Iraq had links to Al-Qaida and 911, and starting a war that has caused North Korea (and possibly Iran) to dig in their heels and step up their nuclear weapons programs out of fear that they might be next? On top of that, how about not lying about what the war would cost? The president already had estimates in hand of how much the conquest and subsequent occupation of Iraq would cost from General Shinseki among others......he just ignored them when he talked to congress (and fired Shinseki for being honest with him).

The anti-war folks don't want us to pull out of Iraq tomorrow. They want to turn authority over to the UN (most of the cost and manpower burden would still be lain at the feet of the US) and formulate an exit strategy.....something we should have done before going to war at all. It's really easy to make the anti-war lobby look stupid when you put words into their mouths and don't adress any of their arguments. It's easy to say they aren't suggesting anything when you don't bother to listen to their suggestions. Try actually listening to what they actually have to say sometime. You'll be surprised.

 

First off, How much warning did Hussein get before the invasion actually happened? From my past as a pot smoker, if I knew my parents were coming to visit, it didn't take long to hide the dope and paraphenalia. With the UN delays, the evidence could have been hidden easily. If the US had simply invaded and then got the evidence, maybe George W. might not look like much of a fool. Hussein did violate the terms of the peace treaty, but the UN did nothing. Maybe next time (and I think there WILL be a next time) the US will say forget the UN and go in themselves to deal with the threat and tell the rest of the UN that they can either do their jobs or shut up.

As to the cost, have you ever heard of a war that ran on budget? Further, UN Troops are STILL in Afghanistan. What makes you think that troops are going to be out of Iraq before they are out of Afghanistan? Exit Strategy is a fancy word for Cut and Run--which has been criticized in this thread already. Further, who says that he even has the luxury to withdraw?

But there is a new government in Iraq, the infrastructure is being rebuilt, isn't that mission accomplished?

 

Exit Strategy: a plan for leaving
Cut and Run: leaving before the job is finished

They are NOT the same. Making no plans to withdraw, ever, makes Iraq nothing more than an occupied colony with a puppet government.

You blatantly contradict yourself here. How is it cutting and running if you leave when your job is done?

 

What evidence are you talking about? Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq before we invaded. Bush knew that Iraq had no connections to Al-Qaida before we invaded. Bush knew Iraq had no connections to 911 before we invaded. He knew the war would cost a lot more than it did.

He had more accurate estimates in hand and didn't present them to congress or the American people. Let's stop with the "Cut and Run" BS, too. No one is advocating leaving Iraq in chaos. Democrats do, however, advocate turning authority in Iraq over to the UN. Manpower would still largely be our burden, which is only fair since we started this war without UN support and on false pretenses. Given that we lied to the world in order to prosecute this war it makes a lot of sense to turn the authority over to the UN. The Iraqi people will likely feel better about the occupying troops being under the UN banne than they will about having them serve under the banner of the nation that lied to the world in order to invade them and then protected their oil fields before protecting their people after the initial assault was launched.

[ June 29, 2006, 09:28: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Not to mention that - irrespective of any WMD Saddam Hussein might have had - the cost of the war was still unacceptable. More civilians have been (or at the least will be, because the death toll is still climbing and will do so for a long time) killed than Saddam probably could have managed with his fancy WMD. The fact that it was only a *potential* threat (ie he may not even have used them) makes it even more ridiculous.

However - that's only why it would suck if the WMD did exist. Seeing that they never did, the war has no justification at all (well, short of 'liberating' the Iraqis. I'd warrent that a number of those who are now dead would rather not be 'liberated' and still be alive. If they were so damn eager for liberation they'd be holding their own rebellion.)

Now, withdrawing isn't going to change this - but they can at least leave before they **** anything else up.

 

I'd be breaking several forum rules if I said what I really think about that statement. As an Australian (and therefore, represented in the "Coalition of the Willing"), I initially supported the war, on the WMD grounds. As the evidence of lies, BS and misrepresentation (from both sides) has stacked up since, I've maintained the perspective that since we're committed, we must see it through and ensure that a new regime is established in Iraq, because to do otherwise would be far worse.

For the record, everyone should want the troops out of Iraq ASAP. Of course, ASAP means "when the job is done". That's why I'm so damn mad about the approach taken in regard to the Iraq War - there was no plan for what to do after the fall of Baghdad if they couldn't find the WMDs, and a few years later, we're still there.

I have little more to say on this matter except that I agree almost entirely with Drew and Felinoid.

 

Formulating a timetable for troop withdrawal is vastly different from "Re-deploy to Okinawa today" or setting a date that can not be changed if Iraq's fortunes should change for the worse. It does not mean leave now! Only hatred of Bush drives rational thought from such topics. It differs from the hatred durring the Clinton years only in it's intensity. Asking the USA to Formulating a timetable for troop withdrawal is prime minister Maliki's way of saying Iraq has a new republic, The Iraqi people are in contol of thier own destiny, thank you for our FREEDOM, we invite America to leave as soon as we are fully on our feet, I would like to see a plan for troop withdrawal Provided conditions remain favorable to Iraq.