It doesn't matter who choses the battlefield, the battle is there now. You want us to hand over Iraq to extremists but I think that's really a stupid strategy.
We created a battlefield in Iraq, I don't think that was the purpose, but that's what happened. We don't have the right to put the lives of Iraqi's on the line for us to battle 'al-queida'. So for you to state that we should stay there due to al-queida is selfish and inconsiderate… We messed up that place, so it's our duty to fix it, also there's potential to bring back trillions of dollars if peace ever does come about…we need to place a dictator again and help rebuild, that's the only solution…due to Iran we'd have to select a Sunni dictator, how ironic, another Saddam is needed.
This region of the world is clearly not ready for democracy, it was naive of Bush to push this agenda, and it's one of the most misguided principles of the right. That being said, installing a dictator, while the only realistic option from a practical standpoint, would be a miserable policy failure that I don't think the this administration would do. I also don't think any administration would have the appetite of doing this after what we've been through being told how we "liberated Iraq". I think we work with local militias to stomp out foreign mercenaries, and then partition the country into Kurdistan, Shiite-Ville, and Sunni-Land. Turkey will go crazy at this, but what can you do? With Congress pushing to end the war, we need to develop an end-game strategy. I'd like to see if military progress continues, but the political end is broken and looks rather hopeless. Unless we see movement there in the next 4-6 months, I can not anticipate realistically justifying remaining in Iraq without radical changes in policy.
Copy cat. Where are the plagiarism police when you need them? But at least you woke up. Whether it's waiting 4 more unnecessary months to decide or initiating the process now, it's about starting the end game and leaving behind the least bad scenario. There is no positive outcome left. Basically we are left to sweep the pieces into a pile vs. leaving a total mess. The notion someone else had of leaving Iraq to remove Al Qaeda's reason for being there is naive. They will remain in Iraq indefinitely. The invasion and overthrow of Saddam opened the door and the festering sectarian trends ensure a segment of Iraqi Sunnis will be sympathetic. A large segment of Iraqi Sunnis will remain highly radicalized and vengeful about Saddam's overthrow.
Again you display an inability to comprehend the written word. All of those objectives are contingent on redeployment, but all are more valuable than "stay the course."
The NIE report disagrees with you. It states that Iraqis are just as interested in getting rid of AQ as we are. Unfortunately, they are also more interested in settling old scores (some going back centuries) than working for peace. The only responsible solution is to begin planning for the redeployment of our troops to an area where Islamic extremists are flourishing: Afghanistan. Iraq will continue its civil war without American targets to shoot at and with America at of the picture, AQ will leave because (1) the Iraqis will continue attacking them and (2) there won't be Americans to attack. We should leave people there to train the Iraqi army and police, and we should have some special forces "on the horizon" to take out any terrorists that we get actionable intelligence on. That should be the extent of our presence. Then, send some of the troops home and the rest to Afghanistan, where they can finally finish the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11.
you seem to be under the misguided notion that Al Qaeda in Iraq won't find a purpose without the U.S. there.
Yes, well, when your measuring stick is that low, no wonder you see value in spinning redeployments 3 different ways.
I'm only saying that there is a chance Congress will prematurely force an end to the war, in which case you have to have an end game strategy in place. I still think the wise move would be to be patient and assess the current strategies to see how much impact they are having. But the most recent NIE assessment that has come out has painted a bleak picture. You see, my opinion is dynamic and based on the current available information, it's not dug in - I know that's hard for you to understand.
Man, you libs are naive when it comes to foreign policy. It's all about politics with you guys, nothing about reality. What you conveniently excluded from your nickel analysis is that the unrest in Iraq won't just 'continue', but will in fact escalate out of control. Think eruption. Think a fervent dailykos reader finding a picture of Hillaroid in a one-piece on the internets. ERUPT
Very silly thing to say. Most people have a dynamic opinion of Iraq, me included. I just don't need to wait on the Bush administration in order to change mine. They are months behind the reality and so are you. This is what "patience" has gotten us. 99% of the time I counsel patience, but not when it's used as an excuse to delay the inevitable.
hey hypocrite, you declared the war as a failure. flip flopper, flip flopper and if we our government was really concerned about al-qaeda we would be in pakistan and saudi arabia.
It's clear your bias against the Bush Administration is affecting your judgement on Iraq. I am no fan of Bush either, but I suggest seperating Iraq from Bush at this point - especially since Bush really is now a lameduck, and focusing on the future not the past. After 4 years of poor decision making, it finally seems we have a competent general in place. Now we have to see if we can make wise moves politically.
It is not. I've been against "immediate withdrawal" forever. It must be planned before executed. Long term implications that will outlive Bush must be considered. But when Bush says be "patient" here is the plan, he has no credibility because of the innumerable falsehoods he has already stated about Iraq over the last 5 years. In other words, when he speaks, we may as well discount what he says and just consider facts since the two rarely correspond. I don't remember how much I've posted here but nearly everything I've advocated in Iraq Bush tries to implement about 18 months later. The problem is it's too late by then because our position is weakened. I could make a list but won't bother. Why do you think Petraeus is so much better than all of the prior generals? Is it because the current climate may allow him to truly speak his mind about Iraq when prior generals were squeezed to tow the Bush line? If that is what you mean by competent, then OK. Otherwise, he is no better or worse than the other generals who had their hands tied and mouths gagged. This September update will be interesting, but I'm somewhat skeptical Petraeus will be allowed to say things the administration would object to. The pressure from the Defense Dept not to deviate much will be enormous. Based on the trial balloons floating around, I bet nothing he says on Sept.15th will be new.
oh this just gets better and better... Major Republican firm lobbying to undermine Maliki CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) — A powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, CNN has confirmed. This comes as President Bush is publicly taking great pains to reiterate his support for the embattled Iraqi leader, whose government has come under sharp criticism and scrutiny from Washington lawmakers and officials and Thursday's National Intelligence Estimate. A senior Bush administration official told CNN the White House is aware of the lobbying campaign by Barbour Griffith & Rogers because the firm is "blasting e-mails all over town" criticizing al-Maliki and promoting the firm's client, former interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, as an alternative to the current Iraqi leader. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/23/major-republican-firm-lobbying-to-undermine-maliki/
Do you mean the reality you are ignoring in the NIE report? Or are you talking about the reality you are ignoring in the worsening situation in Afghaistan? Maybe you are talking about the reality of the factions in the Iraqi government that have no intention of working out their issues? Are you taking this prognostication from the same orifice that predicted so many nasty things before the war? The NIE report is pretty clear that we can do somewhere between little and no good. We need to start planning for the inevitable so that we can responsibly redeploy our troops when the time is right. The only ones who come across as naive in all of this are the ones who continue to ask for more of the same.
Very smart - you would make a very good politician. You've set yourself up to be right no matter what's in the report. If it's positive, then it's just Bush propaganda, and if it's negative, you are right that way too.
Outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace to call for massive troop pull out. ------------------ Advice by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs poses a potential clash with supporters of the buildup. By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers August 24, 2007 WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war. Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond. Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their pre-buildup numbers sometime next year. Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it. According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pace24aug24,0,43964.story?coll=la-home-center
