Everyone in Iraq wants us to leave by 2010. Why the hell are Bush and McCain saying anything to the contrary???

Let's declare victory and LEAVE! C'mon! This is absurd.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone in Iraq wants us to leave by 2010. Why
> the hell are Bush and McCain saying anything to
> the contrary???
>
> Let's declare victory and LEAVE! C'mon! This is
> absurd.

Uhh, check a calendar, it is 2008, not 2010. You can't declare victory yet, no matter who believes "mission accomplished." And let's get the facts straight here, the 2010 date quoted by Iraqi officials had its contingencies and was qualified. The exact quote, I saw was (source Reuters):

"But in comments suggesting Iraq and Obama are not far apart on the timeframe, Dabbagh said Baghdad's goal was for foreign combat forces to leave by the end of 2010 IF SECURITY CONDITIONS ALLOWED. Dabbagh has floated a similar timeframe before.

'We CANNOT give any timetables or dates but the Iraqi government believes the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal of the forces,' Dabbagh told reporters."

Now, does it sound like they want them out by 2010? Absolutely. Do they recognize situations may change? Yes they do. It is a far cry from your blanket statement. The way I see it, Bush and McCain would be fine with a draw down in 2010 if conditions warrant it. Will it? That remains to be seen. At worst, you can say McCain anticipates slower progress toward stabilization. It is encouraging, however, that Sen. Obama is FINALLY recognizing the progress made.

As much as I don't agree with us going into Iraq we did, and if we were to 100 percent leave the country would destabilize horribly. Even Mr Obama if elected will not withdraw all forces give the strategic importance of Iraq in geography and oil. We'll have heavily fortified air fields there for a long long time.

Look at Germany and Japan, we still have substantial bases in both those countries even after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Korea a few years later, we still have about 30k personnel there.

We'll never totally leave even if they want us to. Kind of like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. You think Fidel's government is happy with a US base on his own island? Well tough shit for him because we've been there since the Spanish American war. Iraq can go through several revolutions and we'll still be there.

Whether we think it would destabilize horribly or not, when asked over the years the Bush administration's line was ALWAYS that if the Iraqis asked the Americans to leave then they would leave. They don't have as many puppets in the government now and apparently cracks are showing in the plan. But I don't get it... what better face-saving gift for the Bush administration could they dream for than the Iraqis asking them to leave and accept all security responsibility? Why stay?

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 08:34PM by Alias.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether we think it would destabilize horribly or
> not, when asked over the years the Bush
> administration's line was ALWAYS that if the
> Iraqis asked the Americans to leave then they
> would leave. They don't have as many puppets in
> the government now and apparently cracks are
> showing in the plan. But I don't get it... what
> better face-saving gift for the Bush
> administration could they dream for than the
> Iraqis asking them to leave and accept all
> security responsibility? Why stay?

Who has asked them to leave?

The Iraqi government is publicly floating a timeline that is sooner than what the Bush administration has proposed.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Iraqi government is publicly floating a
> timeline that is sooner than what the Bush
> administration has proposed.


I believe they are anticipating that certain milestones or benchmarks can be met by a certain date. That is not really a timeline, but an expectation.

It's time to declare victory and leave. If Bush were smart (I know, I know) he would make this declaration before the November election.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's time to declare victory and leave. If Bush
> were smart (I know, I know) he would make this
> declaration before the November election.

Victory is only achieved when certain events take place. Is that too hard to understand? Bush already made a declaration with "mission accomplished." He was derided for it (and deservedly so). I used to say pull em all out, but circumstances have changed and "real" victory is within grasp. We should not abandon the progress for political expediency and arrogance. Look, Sen. McCain is not my favorite, nor is Pres. Bush. I used to think that Sen. Obama was worthy of my vote. I am having serious doubts now, and I will explain why. Many on the left accused Pres. Bush of being stubborn and unflinching in his Iraq views (and rightfully so). On the flip side, Sen. Obama is stupidly unflinching in his views as well. His refusal to recognize progress causes me serious pause.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:24PM by Alias.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:05PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTonelocian used to play the game 'Risk' and
> now views himself as a military expert.


I don't consider myself a military expert. However, I do agree with the experts who warned before the invasion that it was a big mistake.

As for Bush, please note that what progress has been made in Iraq didn't occur under Rummy or Wolfowitz or Feith - the architects of the invasion and part of Cheney's neo-con cabal. It occurred under Robert Gates - a Bush, Sr man. Once again, Daddy has had to fix one of Jr's messes.

Dubya has the opportunity to declare victory and begin to rehabilitate his legacy. To amend what I said before, Bush should do this after the November election but before he leaves office. I'm sure this is the counsel he is getting from Bush Sr. You remember him? The guy who didn't make a fiasco out of the first war with Iraq?

Apparently, the violence in Iraq is down to its lowest levels since 2004. And if its any consolation, US troop death toll has been lowest this month and Bush says that we could continue troop reductions if things remain this way and the troops newly deployed to Iraq would serve 12 months instead of 15, starting as early as tomorrow.

But as far as pulling out all the troops from Iraq is concerned I don't think that will ever happen. As pointed out by Mofo, we have just procured ourselves another base on this planet.

What is our definition of "victory" in Iraq..that will allow us to leave with honor? A regime dedicated to a western style democracy? An insurgency free Iraq? Seems to me that we wont see the "true" Iraq emerge until the day after we declare victory and leave. Then we will see how closely they align themselves with Iran and the rest of the Islamic world. If history is prologue it wont be long before violence and civil war returns or a repressive government declares martial law. The future or Iraq is tied to it's neighbors/regional future...not ours. Only then we will know if the death of 600k Iraq civilans and the spilling our own bodies and blood is worth it. I see no reason to spill another ounce of American blood on that country..lets declare victory and leave as soon as possible.

We have met and exceeded the conditions outlined in the Iraq Resolution. That is the definition of victory. Time to go.