Will Bush Cut and Run from Iraq to win in 2004?

I don't see any indication of Bush wanting to "cut and run." Sounds like more editorializing on your part, Glynch.

Weren't people like you criticizing Bush for not building up the Iraqi forces faster and transferring controling to them sooner? Don't you agree with Kucinich that we should leave ASAP?

 

I don't care how or why Bush does it -- hand-off to the U.N., and get us OUT OF THERE. NOW.

 

Kucinich is wrong. This is our mess to cleanup.

 

He will continue say we are winning based on frequency of attacks and announce the reinstation of the draft so we can pacify Iraq and prevent other Islamic dominoes from falling to terrorism after his reelection in 2004.

 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,537458,00.html



Building an Iraq Exit Strategy
'Iraqification' is the new buzzword, but transferring security responsibility and political power to Iraqis is a contentious process
By TONY KARON
Wednesday, Nov. 05, 2003
One argument against the U.S. simply leaving Iraq is based on the notion that to do so would just encourage more terrorism. Hasty retreats from Lebanon in 1985 and Somalia in 1993 are Exhibit A and B in Osama bin Laden's argument that despite its overwhelming military power, the U.S. runs when its nose is bloodied. The converse, however, may also be true: That the continued presence of U.S. occupation forces in Iraq fuels an anti-American insurgency there and swells the ranks of Islamist terror networks worldwide. Or, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put in his internal Defense Department memorandum leaked two weeks ago, "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?"

Thus are quagmires formed.

Even the relentlessly upbeat Defense Secretary suggested that victory in Iraq could be assured only after "a long, hard slog." The dramatic escalation of attacks on the U.S. and its allies in Iraq over the past three weeks — the "Ramadaan Offensive," of which the downing of a Chinook helicopter that killed 16 soldiers was simply the most dramatic in a series of daily, deadly attacks — has turned up the domestic political pressure on the Bush administration to provide answers over what is transpiring in Iraq, and how soon Americans might expect to be out of there. Although administration officials have stuck fast to the suggestion that the attacks are the work of Baathist "bitter-enders," criminals and foreign terrorists, U.S. commanders on the ground are far less certain about the composition of the force or forces confronting them. Whoever is conducting these attacks, however, has clearly found a sufficiently permissive environment in the environs of the Iraqi capital and the "Sunni Triangle" to the north and west to mount and intensify an increasingly sophisticated insurgency. The insurgents are largely invisible to U.S. forces not because they're disappearing into some cover provided by natural features such as mountains or jungles; they're taking refuge in the civilian population. And the limits of intelligence-gathering on the insurgency thus far suggests that the local population is therefore either not sufficiently sympathetic to the U.S. forces to blow the whistle on those doing the fighting, or else not sufficiently confident in the ability of the U.S. forces to protect them from retribution should they do so.

Indeed, an extensive opinion survey of ordinary Iraqis by Zogby International recently misquoted by Vice President Cheney to imply that a majority of Iraqis were firmly behind the U.S. occupation found, in fact, that almost two thirds would like the U.S. forces to leave within a year, and that a majority had an unfavorable view of the actions of the U.S. military in Iraq. While there's no reason to believe the insurgents carry the support of anything close to a majority of Iraqis, the Zogby International findings suggest that a majority may, in fact, be inclined to stand on the sidelines in the clash between the Americans and the insurgents.

That could be bad news for the Bush administration, since the preferred strategy for addressing the security crisis, now, goes under the name "Iraqification" — accelerating the transfer of security and political authority to Iraqis under the tutelage of the U.S.

The attraction of "Iraqification" of security duties is obvious: The U.S. is plainly in need of help in pacifying the insurgency, and little is forthcoming from abroad. Turkey's retraction of its offer to send upward of 10,000 men until the U.S. can twist the arm of the Iraqi Governing Council to reverse its opposition to such a deployment has left Washington forced to contemplate calling up more reserves. Getting Iraqis to take on more of the security burden is obviously preferable. But accelerating the training and deployment of Iraqi forces also raises a number of dangers. It assumes that Iraqis will somehow be more capable than the far better-trained and -equipped Americans — and equally willing — to hunt down and eliminate the insurgents. But if the composition of the insurgency is not fully known, nor are the hearts and minds of the ordinary Iraqis who would make up a new army.

The question of raising new Iraqi security forces also plays into the factional politics of post-Saddam Iraq. Some members of the Iraqi Governing Council have suggested, for example, that the U.S. ought to resurrect the Iraqi regular army, which they argue should never have been disbanded. Others in the IGC, however, see the old army as dominated by Sunni officers, and some of the Kurd and Shiite parties want a greater role for their own militias. Political power in the old Iraq issued from the barrel of a gun, and the contenders for power in the new Iraq are in no rush to prematurely turn theirs into plowshares.

"Iraqification" only works on a security level if it occurs with a transfer of political authority to Iraqis. That may be why Ambassador Paul Bremer is now talking of accelerating the process by which Iraqis adopt a new constitution and elect a government. But constitution-making is a deeply contentious business in Iraq, which has, pretty much since it was constituted as a nation-state by the British after World War I, been ruled by the Sunni minority. The Shiite majority, naturally, insist on nothing short of a majoritarian democracy, while the Kurds demand the right to govern northern Iraq as an autonomous component of an Iraqi federation (the consternation of neighboring Turkey). Right now there's substantial disagreement over how a constitution should be adopted — the key Shiite religious authorities have insisted that only a democratically elected body can legitimately adopt a constitution — much less what it should contain. Accelerating the timetable for elections, some analysts warn, runs the risk of empowering either a weak central government without demonstrable popular support, while others suggest a rush to the polls could work to the advantage of radical demagogues such as the Shiite militant Moqtada al-Sadr.

As the Bush administration grapples its way to an exit strategy, the neo-conservative vision in which an invasion of Iraq would create a Middle East beachhead of liberal-democratic, secular, free-market, pro-Western and Israel-friendly sentiment is looking increasingly like the stuff of fantasy. The leading U.S. constitutional adviser to ambassador Bremer last week told the British Daily Telegraph that "The end constitutional product is very likely to make many people in the U.S. government unhappy." Dr. Noah Feldman added that "any democratically elected Iraqi government is unlikely to be secular and unlikely to be pro-Israel. And frankly, moderately unlikely to be pro-American."

The basis of an exit strategy right now, however, is escalating the fight against the insurgents, while accelerating the political transition. The hope is that greater Iraqi involvement in both security and self-government will turn the momentum against the insurgency. Casualties will likely continue, but poll numbers suggest that a majority of the American electorate may be willing to accept those as long as it remains persuaded that the administration has a coherent plan for turning things around in Iraq. Even if it involves a "long, hard slog."

 

What a joke....

First the liberals criticize the plan for after war Iraq, and want our troops home, then they say Bush lied, we should have never gone in the first place.

Now they are criticizing for him doing what they wanted all along.

Pathetic, and shows how truly desperate the Dems are at this point.

It is CRAP like this that will make me vote for GW again, just because of all the hatred he gets that is undeserved.

DD

 

What an excellent way to decide who to vote for.

 

I agree. Bush and his plan in Iraq looks like it may turn out to be a big joke.

They're criticizing him possibly doing it in order to get more votes in 2004.

I think, if this is true, it's pathetic and shows how truly desperate Bush is at this point.

No offense, but a really ****ing stupid reason to vote for someone to hold the most powerful position in the world.

RM95

 

What an excellent way to construct a sentence, uh....for.

 

What we wanted all along was a brave, honorable leader. I don't think that's what we currently have.

Most people that I know feel that Bush at best misled Americans and our international allies to get us into Iraq, and that the administration has been incredibly inept at planning for post-war Iraq. Additionally, they (and I) feel that now that we are in Iraq, we must finish the job. We *cannot* leave a mess (that we created no less) for others to clean up. We can't leave a situation that can be exploited by those who already mistrust (or hate) us. At the same time, we must acknowledge that we can't and probably shouldn't try to do this job alone. Bush has alienated the entire world. We need a leader who is committed to a solution in Iraq and is willing to work with the rest of the world to achieve that solution.

This is how most of the Democrats I know feel about it. Every day we hear about casualties in Iraq and it's absolutely heart-breaking.And yet we know, that at this point, we're there and we must stay there until the situation is stabilized.

I don't know if, or how soon, America's standing in the eyes of the world can be salvaged, but my hope is for a Democrat who can take charge of the situation, and can gracefully integrate our allies into the solution. So that we work with the world, and not against it...

Anyway, that's how I feel about it. I don't think that's extreme, or fringe, or candy-ass, or hateful. I think it's pretty reasonable, and I think a lot of people feel similarly...

 

This sounds like a trader jorge post; and it has a similar effect in that it makes me want to write another check to Wesley Clark.

 

I am not a fan of Bush, but to watch you guys constantly grasping at straws is RIDICULOUS !!!

You don't realize how it turns off most of Americans....and will cost you the election in '04.

Right now, I would vote for Bush over anyone the Dems have running.

I wish Colin Powell would run...now HE would be a good president.

DD

 

Colin Powell investigated My Lai and could not find anything there...


There is no contradiction in not wanting to go to war and once we are at war, to actually want to finish the job. The Bushies can't even finish Afghanistan, let alone Iraq.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/bush.poll/index.html

Poll: Majority of voters would not re-elect Bush
Yet president still has edge over main Democratic candidates
Saturday, November 8, 2003 Posted: 5:16 PM EST (2216 GMT)

The survey indicates voters have mixed feelings on Bush's economic policies.
(CNN) -- A poll released Saturday finds that more registered voters want to see President Bush voted out than kept in office in the next election, but his job approval rating has remained constant.

In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do.

The survey of 1,002 adults interviewed Thursday and Friday has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

The president's overall approval rating in the survey was 52 percent -- the same it has been in previous polls by the magazine during the past two months.

But in the wake of more deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and the rising price tag for occupation and reconstruction, 51 percent of the respondents said they disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq -- the highest Newsweek's polls have ever shown -- while 42 percent said they approve.

The survey suggests mixed feelings on the president's economic policies, following positive news this week. Forty-four percent said they approve of the way Bush is handling the economy -- up six points from the magazine's previous poll a month ago. Forty-eight percent said they disapprove.

Among contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean edges out Gen. Wesley Clark in the poll. Sixteen percent of Democratic voters and those who lean Democratic said Dean would be their first choice, while 15 percent said Clark would be.

Rep. Dick Gephardt was third with 9 percent; followed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman at 8 percent; Sen. John Kerry and former Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun at 7 percent; Sen. John Edwards at 6 percent; the Rev. Al Sharpton at 4 percent; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich at 2 percent.

Asked about possible matchups between Bush and Clark, Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt, respondents gave Bush a 4 or 5 percent lead in each case.

 

yeah, the word on the street is that any democratic candidate on the street could beat bush...except the ones that are campaigning. ugh

 

I think GWB would" fall on his sword" electorially speaking , before he would voluntarily abandon the Iraqi mission.

He may be naively idealistic and inarticulate but the man has proven his sincerity and the the strength of his convictions.