I'm on a rant today about mischaracterizations in the press. This one comes from the Washington Post. In an article published November 18, the Post says "By agreeing to a fixed deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, President Bush contradicted years of promises that he would never agree to anything but a 'conditions-based' plan for phasing out the American military role there."
The only problem is that the timeline in the most recent security pact draft is not fixed at all. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was on TV last night saying the dates were "aspirational." The Post is attempting to paint this as some kind of major defeat for President Bush when the reality is that it is anything but that.
Here's the key point, and it's found way down in the article: "The agreement makes clear that the U.S. government would need approval from the Iraqis if a residual force is to remain beyond Dec. 31, 2011."
The positive thing is that the decision-making has shifted to the Iraqis. The draft pact contains dates (out of the cities by mid-2009 and out of Iraq by 2011), but allows the Iraqi government to ask us to stay longer. It provides flexibility for the Iraqis to change the timeline based on conditions on the ground. This is a good thing because it allows the Iraqi government to act like a sovereign government instead of the United States calling the shots.
I will say that this is different from President Bush's original demands regarding timelines, but the fact that flexibility is built into the agreement means that dates can be adjusted and that therefore the desire for a conditions-based withdrawal is still very much a driving factor.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 54
Iraq is the biggest disaster in US history since Vietnam. Getting out of Iraq is a good thing. It reverses the ongoing failure of Cheney-Bush policy.
"Getting out of Iraq is a good thing."
Not if it leaves a failed state that sparks a wider regional war and a massive humanitarian crisis.
"Yours is the argument for endless war."
No, mine is the argument for leaving a country stable and secure enough that I don't have to go back and my kids don't have to go sometime down the road.
That's all fine and well, but we have a country right here in the good ole US of A that is in dire need of economic stabilization and security. We simply can't afford any more nation building efforts in Iraq. Your children, my children, their children and possibly their children will be paying for the nearly $10 trillion debt this country has managed to rack up.
We don't have $10 trillion dollars. As it is, the Chinese basically own us. And they threat they pose, which is entirely of our own creation, is far greater than any threat posed by an "unstable" Iraq. The Chinese decide to stop funding our debt and/or to call in what they have... Iraq won't even be a blip on the screen, because we're toast.
It's a sick joke what's happened to this country in the last eight years. The Chinese have played us like the suckers we are. They have weakened us to the point of economic collapse... much the way we did to the old Soviet Union.
We need to not only get the hell out of Iraq, but we also need to start slashing spending (including military) and get our finances in order, pronto.
"Keep selling the discredited promises and false futures."
Are you saying my desired end state cannot be achieved?
"It's a sick joke what's happened to this country in the last eight years."
History did not begin with GWB. We have been racking up debt and pursuing essentially the same polices, modified only slightly from administration to administration, domestically and internationally, for the past 60 years. This notion that the current state we are in lies entirely in the Bush Administration's hands is simplistic, baseless, and naive.
"We need to not only get the hell out of Iraq...."
If President Obama promises we won't go back during his administration to clean up the mess, then okay. But he won't promise that, and you know it. I'd rather stay and finish what we started than go home only to have to go back when the whole thing falls apart.
I've even heard the statement that we should abandon Iraq right now and leave the Iraqis to their own fate, which is more akin to Vietnam than what we have been doing and what we are doing. Thinking like that is sticking your head in the sand, believing that if we leave now our hands are wiped clean and there will be no repercussions.
Let the military finish the mission.
And as to the Hummers, I've seen more Hummers parked out in front of luxury homes than on military bases. They are so shiny and fully decked out that I get a laugh every time I see someone driving a Hummer break almost completely when they gingerly bring that puppy over a little bump in the road.
So keep selling it. Not only do many people believe what you are saying, but if we abandon Iraq you'll soon see many of the converted.
I'm not suggesting that the national debt is only Bush's fault. However, particularly because he is a Republican (the party of fiscal conservatism), it is beyond galling that he added to the problem exponentially. And that's the sick joke he played on this country.
"...it is beyond galling that he added to the problem exponentially."
Agreed.
Probably not, Greg. It's not the military's "fault;" this thing is larger than a military operation; otherwise it would have been all over the day Jerry Bremer handed over the keys to the Governing Council.
The military+support "footprint" is so gigantic and expensive and yet the activities that directly affect post-occupation stability represent but a fraction. In addition, it's obvious that the waiting game is one the factional leaders are quite content to play. In that sense the occupation is counterproductive. Some more eggs are going to be broken before this omelet is done.
----------
I appreciate your service, Greg, and all of those who are serving our country in the armed forces.
The "war" in Iraq is effectively over. All that remains is the exit of Bush and the speedy withdrawal of our forces. Unfortunately as we exit we will be at the good mercies of people that we have brutalized and exploited. There will be many lives lost and much American equipment left behind.
"Probably not, Greg."
That's a subjective assessment, and I'm sure you're not surprised that my assessment differs from yours.
"In addition, it's obvious that the waiting game is one the factional leaders are quite content to play."
Some, not all.
"Some more eggs are going to be broken before this omelet is done."
No doubt about it.
"I appreciate your service, Greg, and all of those who are serving our country in the armed forces."
Thanks, Dave.
"It is no secrect that Bush had no intention of every leaving Iraq."
What's wrong with that? Strategic basing in the heart of the most troubled region on the planet will help to protect long-term U.S. national security interests. I think we SHOULD be working for basing rights similar to those in Japan, Germany, and Korea.
"...and this agreement is doomed as a result."
Most of the analyses I've seen expect this thing to pass, even if the vote is close. I don't know. We'll find out, though, in just a few days. The vote is scheduled for the 24th.
"All that remains is the exit of Bush and the speedy withdrawal of our forces."
Damn the consequences, though, right?
That's a subjective assessment, and I'm sure you're not surprised that my assessment differs from yours.
--------------
Don't get me wrong here, Greg--I am on your side, i.e., the side of the U.S.
But I heard today that Friday Prayers didn't go so well, with Sadrist irregulars burning Bush in effigy in "Saddam Statue Square."
The "Vocal Hawza" has spoken against the "deal." When I think of the ferment in country, it reminds me of the scene in "Pirates of the Carribbean" when Geoffrey Rush responds to Keira Knightley's demand for safe passage:
Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.
I'll credit you for granting that "some, not all" factional leaders are quite content to play the waiting game.
So the question that is splattered against the current blast wall is: is "some" enough?
"But I heard today that Friday Prayers didn't go so well, with Sadrist irregulars burning Bush in effigy in "Saddam Statue Square.""
Depending on the mosque, Friday prayers did or did not go well every week since the invasion. We used to deal with this every week during my two tours. Certain areas with anti-U.S. mosques were avoided on Fridays because the people would be all worked up after prayers. Other areas with coalition-friendly mosques were fine. It depended on where you were and the attitude of the local cleric. Al-Sadr's folks have been doing this routine for 5 years; it's nothing new.
"So the question that is splattered against the current blast wall is: is "some" enough?"
Maybe. Maybe not. It's very complicated. One of the problems the Shia in Iraq have is that they are incredibly divided. That's one of the reasons that a very small Sunni minority was able to exercise control for so long. The Shia can't get their sh*t together long enough to unite for a common purpose. However, there is less and less of that. They are realizing that we aren't staying forever and more Shia factions are joining forces. Sadr has been largely marginalized as an opposing force, although he still wields some power. But both the U.S. and the Maliki government are feeling more confident that he can be handled.
We shall see.
I can't agree that al-Sadr has been largely marginalized. I understand the "success" of the Iraqi Army (actually a purportedly "forward" flank of MNF-I) in quelling one of the "uprisings" of the Mahdi Army. I understand that the irregulars are peasants or shopkeepers with a rusty Kalashnikov under the counter. You would have to consider that, cynically speaking, al-Sadr has "played" Bremer, Jalal Talabani, al-Sistani, the Iranians and the seminaries, the Iraqi Parliament, and anyone else who has wanted to put him in a "box" at least since Dad was provided some free air conditioning by Saddam a decade back.
In marketing in the US it's called "mind share." In Iraq it is doing the will of Allah. You can't marginalize that.
Previous efforts by the Democrats to put a time on the withdrawal have met with vetoes in spite of the fact they were more of a wish list than an actual timetable as they contained provisions for the president to determine if it was feasible or not. So what is different now?
Your exchange with Dave about the stability of Iraq would lead me to suggest that if a stable and democratic, western accepting and multinational corporate accepting Iraq is the desired goal, I don't think the chances raise above the traditional two, slim and none! I've longs said that when we leave, even if it is ten years down the road, there will soon be an overthrow of the government and probably much bloodshed in that country.
I don't believe it is possible for any nation to be given a successful democracy. That must come from within and be earned just as our forefathers earned the US freedom and subsequent government. This is not what is happening in Iraq and I firmly believe it is doomed from the start for that reason alone. When one throws in the history of the region it is doubly doubtful.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong on this and that the current Iraqi government will be successful and maintain a stable government, lending stability to the entire region. But I'm not going to be surprised when it fails. We'd all like to see it succeed but what we'd like and reality seldom go together.
"Now decide which one of those choices you like the best."
Nationalist. In the end, Iran will have some degree of influence. The question is how much?
"I can't agree that al-Sadr has been largely marginalized."
As an armed opposition, he has. As a political force, he has not.
"Previous efforts by the Democrats to put a time on the withdrawal..."
But that's not their role. That responsibility lies with the commander in chief. If the congress does not approve of a military action, they have the power of the purse to stop it. Despite all the rhetoric, if Pelosi and Reid wanted to end the Iraq War they could have done so years ago. However they believed the POLITICAL price was more important than standing on the principles they supposedly believed in. What good is a principle if you are not willing to act on it?
"...a stable and democratic, western accepting...
Stop there. Don't add "multinational corporate accepting." That should not, IMHO, be part of the goal. Our goal in Iraq should be limited to a stable and secure, preferably democratic, Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors and is not a haven for global terrorism.
"...I don't think the chances raise above the traditional two, slim and none!"
They're a hell of a lot better today than they were 18 months ago, right?
"I don't believe it is possible for any nation to be given a successful democracy."
Agreed. Democracy cannot be imposed. It must be accepted.
"This is not what is happening in Iraq..."
But it is, even if it doesn't look like a Jeffersonian democracy. Free elections have been held. Did you see the parliament DEBATING the merits of the SOFA? When under Saddam did a proposal by the national government get debated by opposing parties?
The Iraq experiment may or may not work. But it is far better off today than it was in 2006 and early 2007. How about we wait a while longer before passing judgement on its final fate?
Islam in the ME for at least 400 years was a guarded, parochial, religious territory. Traders venturing out from this land could only visit the lands of the infidel (in Europe) with permission, which was granted, if at all, reluctantly. No infidel was allowed in. Compared to the parochial nature of Jewish communities, this was a hundred-fold more "conservative." The reason the rants of OBL have had such resonance in Islam is that he plays on the ancient penchant for "purity" among Muslims. OBL revealed the depths of his cynicism by playing on populist themes for territorial "purity," regardless of the bloody consequences, while ignoring the dictates of the Koran to avoid the targeting of innocents. The attacks in NY and Riyadh prove that.
The American "footprint" can't pave over the history, the religion, or the emotion of this land. Sure, the "footprint" can crush ancient Babylonian artifacts, as in the case at Camp Alpha, where U.S. and Polish heavy vehicles crushed 2,600-year-old brick pavement and trashed bricks stamped by Nebuchadnezzar. Soil containing artifacts became fill dirt for sandbags. That's all "collateral damage" ...and in once sense not the job of the military. It is at the policy level where the US has failed so miserably. As much as I despise the poor performance of Condi Rice, she was one of the first to push for "clear and hold," probably the only tactic other than pure bribery that has "worked" in Iraq. This sordid chapter in US history cannot end too soon.
"When Greg speaks warmly about a permanent military presence in Iraq, he forgets that the geopolitical center of the ME is Iran, as if a figurative 800-pound gorilla could be ignored."
I don't forget, Dave. But a long term (I didn't say permanent; just extended, like Germany and Japan after WWII and South Korea after 1953) presence in Iraq will help with the containment of Iran in the region.
"And apparently we must ignore the intensive interest and support of both Russia and China in ME issues..."
Actually, no we CAN'T ignore Russia and China. But their interests in the region are not exactly aligned with ours.
"This sordid chapter in US history cannot end too soon."
Yes, it can. And the consequences of that happening are truly frightening.
Nationalist.
-----
That is practically the exclusive province of al-Sadr. (Sistani is Iranian, even if a "godfather," if there is any term in English to describe his influence.)
But cheer up. GWB sucks up; even quite literally begs for oil from Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
The ethnic cleansing, displacing at the very least 2 million, and perhaps 4 million, Iraqis is already complete, having been conducted under the noses of the US occupation primarily in 2006 and 2007. I guess you could say that the US mission is "accomplished" in that regard.
When al-Sadr rises we can all come to accept his rule just as we've bowed low to other antidemocratic leaders around the world.
Let's just quit spending a couple billion a week on it and move on.
I am beyond frightened at the veterans who are amputees and can't get medical care because they are retroactively declared "unfit." I am beyond frightened that while the privileged few like Dick Cheney siphon the lifeblood out of the US economy for their government contracts for a senseless war, people all around me in my community are being laid off, with no hope of finding a job. I am beyond frightened that even a congressional "compromise" will leave sons and daughters in harm's way while our nation falls further in discredit in the world community.
There's no warm and fuzzy ending to an escapade that was the Oedipal daydream of ne'erdowell would-be king that was unfit to serve.
Call it "peace with honor," and keep repeating it to yourself again and again, like Nixon, while you get the hell out. And be satisfied, like a Nixon, when you've put all the tokens in the squares you've chosen.
"That is practically the exclusive province of al-Sadr."
Yes, he has popular support, but there is a difference between his political power base and his armed resistance power base. He no longer has the latter to back up the former.
"GWB sucks up; even quite literally begs for oil from Abdullah of Saudi Arabia."
Why not? Saudi Arabia is the most powerful member of OPEC. If anything was going to be done on the production front, it would go through the Saudis. Democrats sure as hell weren't going to do anything here.
"When al-Sadr rises we can all come to accept his rule just as we've bowed low to other antidemocratic leaders around the world."
There are armed factions in Iraq much stronger than the current Mahdi Army. Al-Sadr's best chance now is through the parliament via the upcoming provincial elections.
"Let's just quit spending a couple billion a week on it and move on."
What about the potential consequences of premature withdrawal?
"Actually I function at a policy level at a little diner where I have coffee, but nowhere else."
I'm stuck in a little cubicle in the operations directorate of the Army in the Pentagon. I don't make policy, but I sure help to influence it.
"...the privileged few like Dick Cheney siphon the lifeblood out of the US economy for their government contracts...."
Cheney is not benefitting from the Haliburton contracts.
"There's no warm and fuzzy ending...."
That remains to be seen. But President-elect Obama should thank GWB for one thing: leaving him an Iraq that is much closer to being able to survive on its own than the one that existed when the President-elect wanted to withdraw in humiliating defeat.
Indeed a military/geo-political/economic blunder he correctly opposed from the start. A blunder that would not have taken place on his watch. Imagine that.
"Indeed a military/geo-political/economic blunder he correctly opposed from the start."
He opposed it as a state senator in Illinois, not as a U.S. Senator. There is a difference. One can't help but wonder if he had been in the U.S. Senate if he would have voted for the war as Biden and Clinton did. I guess we'll never know, though, will we?
"A blunder that would not have taken place on his watch."
Pure speculation. Who knows what he would have done with access to the same information that caused many of his fellow Democrats to support military action against Iraq, including, as already mentioned, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
State Senator or Mayor of Wasilla he opposed it at a time when it was quite unpopular to do so. None of the people you mentioned did the same.
I can only take a person at their word... uniter not a divider, no nation building, WMD and links to al Qaeda notwithstanding.
"State Senator or Mayor of Wasilla he opposed it at a time when it was quite unpopular to do so."
Based on incomplete information and a lack of pressure from the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate BECAUSE HE DID NOT MATTER AT THE TIME. Different worlds, my friend.
"None of the people you mentioned did the same."
My point exactly. The people actually responsible for authorizing the president to use force, the people with the access to the classified information, the people with more at stake than any state senator voted FOR the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein.
"I can only take a person at their word...."
Given the flip flops of the campaign and the pledges already broken by President-elect Obama, you're taking an awful lot for granted by taking him at his word.
Can't possibly be any worse than the last eight years of Bush's monumental incompetence, thundering stupidity and astounding ineptitude.
Given what he's been left with, I think we should all join together and hope against hope Obama can actually repair the damage.
"Can't possibly be any worse than the last eight years...."
Oh, but it most certainly can.
"Given what he's been left with...."
You mean like an Iraq that is exponentially more stable and secure than the one that existed just a year ago? Obama should be thanking Bush at every opportunity for not leaving the mess that existed when Obama wanted to withdraw.
No I mean like untangling an overstretched military from a place it had no business being in the first place and from where we can't continue to afford to support it while simultaneously trying to fix an economic disaster of epic proportions... and those are just two Bush gifts for which we should be thankful. He'll have plenty more where those came from.
"No I mean like...."
Are you disputing that Bush left Obama a much improved Iraq?
As for the economic disaster, you should try reading up on the CRA and the role of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the Fannie and Freddie fiasco. It might open your eyes a bit.
No, in fact it was kind of him to leave him an "improved" disaster rather than the total disaster it had been. Either way, Obama inherits the Bush blunder that is Iraq and has to clean up the remaining mess.
"Either way, Obama inherits the Bush blunder that is Iraq and has to clean up the remaining mess."
Imagine the mess that would have been left if we had heeded Senator Obama's calls for withdrawal in 2006 and early 2007. Just think of the humanitarian disaster, the mass slaughter, the Saudis saying they would intervene on behalf of the Sunnis, the Iranians perched to jump in on behalf of the Shia.
I think the President-elect should be down on his knees thanking God that President Bush had the cajones to stand and fight so that the Iraqi government had a chance.
Pure speculation.
>>I think the President-elect should be down on his knees thanking God that President Bush had the cajones to stand and fight so that the Iraqi government had a chance.<<
And if Bush had listened to Obama in the first place, there would have been no original Bush blunder in Iraq to begin with.
Nonetheless, a blunder is a blunder is a blunder. Now, Obama is left to deal with the Bush blunder that is Iraq. And that's the way it is.
"Pure speculation."
Right. Given the conditions that existed in Iraq in 2006 and the statements by the Saudis (that they would intervene on behalf of Iraq's Sunnis) and the Iranians (that they were "ready to fill the vacuum" left by a U.S. departure), there's no basis at all for my statement. Keep believing that.
"And if Bush had listened to Obama in the first place, there would have been no original Bush blunder in Iraq to begin with."
So the President of the United States should listen to a state senator from Illinois with no foreign policy experience, without access to the federal intelligence apparatus, and without access to our allies and their intelligence sources?
Let Obama try something like that. He'll be laughed out of the White House. Obama opposed the war from the state senate in Illinois without access to classified information used by the president and the congress to decide on war. Hardly a position of authority or credibility for the decision that had to be made.
"Now, Obama is left to deal with the Bush blunder that is Iraq."
Much better that he's dealing with Bush's Iraq than the Iraq that would exist (or more accurately not exist) if Obama had had his way.
Yeah, or his own father or Colin "Pottery Barn Rule" Powell or any number of other individuals who were drowned out by the neocons. It's too bad Bush went for the blunder that is Iraq. But that's what we're left with.
And Obama is now tasked with cleaning it up. It is what it is.
"Yeah, or his own father or Colin "Pottery Barn Rule" Powell or any number of other individuals who were drowned out by the neocons."
What about Clinton and Gore calling for regime change in Iraq? What about Biden and Hillary? What about Tenet? Are we really to believe that Obama knew better?
"But that's what we're left with."
Again, what you're left with is a dramatically improved situation that will allow the Iraqi government to survive. Thanks to President Bush, that is.
Like I said, I sincerely hope that you are correct and that I am dead wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Of course things are better than they were, there has been enough ethnic cleansing that, together with our increased troop level, more safety should definitely have been there.
I clearly see it as as imposing a democracy on Iraq and feel it is doomed to fail. This did not come from within.
I agree with you that the multinational corporation loving part should not enter into it but if, for instance, the Iraqis decide to nationalize their oil companies, and are not friendly with the corporations, how long do you think the US will allow their government to reign? We don't have a track record of high tolerance to that so we might as well recognize up front that it is a necessary factor for us to consider the operation a success.
I seem to recall another "free election" in the Mideast where Hamas was the winner. Do that make that a democracy? I don't think so! I believe that as of now, the average Iraqi looks upon their government as not of their choosing in spite of the free elections.
When they debate things it is good, we agree. But it is far from conclusive.
We need a stable government there, but I see it, if it does remain stable, being a staunch ally of Iran and against the US. Of course we had what we really needed under Saddam in spite of him being a barbaric dictator. But we chose to destabilize the Mideast with goals in mind that don't look like they are going to be met. The goal, whether stated or not, was to get our hands on much of that oil and to establish permanent military bases in Iraq for future operations in the area. That, the Iraqis have clearly indicated they don't want. Saddam was our boy in the Mideast while he was using WMD we provided on his own people! ut the Mideast was reasonably stable.
We went in there more to protect Saudi Arabia than the United States. And Kuwait. Neither country has even paid the paltry amount to which they had agreed as of this time. Why should we not expect them to take up the larger measure for their own defense? Saudis were the people we flew the suicide planes, not Iraqis. I guess it is like the rich kid of old, the teacher could not punish him so the teacher punished the "whipping boy" instead.
Once Bush made the horrible mistake of going in there, he should have done so to win and that means lots more troops! He staunchly refuse to do even that until the Republicans lost an election. First time I have heard of an increase in troops being advertised as a "surge!"
The common people, by about seventy percent, want us out of there. Period. And they seem willing to accept the consequences of that. OF course the government wants us there! Without us they fail. This has been a worse debacle than was Viet Nam in my opinion. And there is no nice ending that I can see.
But you can be confident while I can only hope you are right. But be prepared for whatever we get! And recognize that the Iraqis do not like us and who can blame them? No one wants someone to invade and occupy their nation for years! Even if it did remove their dictator whom they feared and hated.
We killed far more Iraqis than Saddam would have in the rest of his life. His sons, when he died, could not have held the government together for six weeks! Their expertise was in rape and other fun activities, not government. But Bush couldn't wait for that to occur. If this did not come directly out of the pages of the PNAC it was close enough that it should have!
You mention Clinton and Gore calling for regime change. Does it make any difference who does something that is wrong? Not to me. But you will notice that they did not invade Iraq or even as permission to do so! No one questions that Saddam was a bad boy, that is established. But invading a sovereign nation is a serious matter and should not be done for nefarious purposes. But rest assured that I can criticize a Democratic administration as well as a Republican if they commit the same errors.
I still say, that if a Sunni can come back to the neighborhood he fled and get his home back from the Shiite who now lives there, the whole ting will be successful! Or reverse that with a Shiite. Time will tell!
Thanks, Greg for the comments and dialog, it is appreciated even though we disagree!
Should have never been there in the first place, but we are. Thanks to president George W. Bush, that is. Good riddance. The ash heap of history awaits.
"Like I said, I sincerely hope that you are correct...."
So do I, James. So do I.
"Of course things are better than they were, there has been enough ethnic cleansing that, together with our increased troop level, more safety should definitely have been there."
It's not like either side has run out of people to kill. Yes, there has been ethnic cleansing. But not to an extent that would affect violence levels. The dramatic turnaround is due to multiple factors, all made possible by the addition of increased troop levels. Would al-Sadr have stood down if we had not redoubled our efforts? Doubtful. Would the Anbar Awakening have spread to other provinces if we had not shown our resolve to stand by the sheiks? Not likely. Would al Qaeda in Iraq have been decimated if we had not increased force levels and gone on the offensive? Well, you get the idea.
"...but if, for instance, the Iraqis decide to nationalize their oil companies, and are not friendly with the corporations, how long do you think the US will allow their government to reign?"
Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil companies in Venezuela and kicked American and British companies out. We get 40% of our oil from Venezuela. Yet we did not topple his regime. I have no reason to believe we do so in Iraq.
"Do that make that a democracy?"
Actually, yes. They were directly elected by the people. We may not like the outcome, but the people spoke.
"We need a stable government there, but I see it, if it does remain stable, being a staunch ally of Iran and against the US."
Not necessarily. The Iraqi Shia are very fragmented and there are significant numbers opposed to a close alliance with Iran.
"Of course we had what we really needed under Saddam in spite of him being a barbaric dictator."
Except for the whole pursuit of WMD, mass murder of his own citizens, and invasion of two neighboring states factors. Hardly what we needed there, buffer against Iran or not.
"...that don't look like they are going to be met."
It looks a hell of a lot better now than it did 18 months ago.
"The goal, whether stated or not, was to get our hands on much of that oil...."
There's no evidence to support that claim. If that were true, why are we standing idly by while the Chinese, Dutch, Russians and Brits get the biggest oil contracts?
"... and to establish permanent military bases in Iraq for future operations in the area."
This is a good thing. We need a forward presence in the Middle East.
"Once Bush made the horrible mistake of going in there, he should have done so to win and that means lots more troops! He staunchly refuse to do even that until the Republicans lost an election."
He listened to his Defense Secretary and his Joint Chiefs. Isn't he supposed to do that?
And it was a "surge" because it was temporary.
"The common people, by about seventy percent, want us out of there."
Since when do politicians listen to the common people? Our congress doesn't do it here. Why should the Iraqi government?
"We killed far more Iraqis than Saddam would have in the rest of his life."
The numbers don't support that conclusion. We've uncovered mass graves for hundreds of thousands and are finding more every week. Only the most partisan estimates put the number killed during OIF that high, and most of those were Iraqi on Iraqi, not U.S. on Iraqi.
"You mention Clinton and Gore calling for regime change. Does it make any difference who does something that is wrong?"
The point is that it was standing U.S. policy to remove Saddam, a policy inherited by George Bush. But Bush is the one criticized.
"But you will notice that they did not invade Iraq or even as permission to do so!"
Which, to me, is even more damning of Clinton. If he believed it was necessary for the national security interests of the United States, why didn't he act on it? To me that is negligence, pure and simple.
"I still say, that if a Sunni can come back to the neighborhood he fled and get his home back from the Shiite who now lives there, the whole ting will be successful!"
What about when we factor in that Saddam forcibly relocated Shia and Kurds to put Sunnis in the most desirable portions of Iraq?
"Should have never been there in the first place, but we are."
That's for the historians to decide. But since we are there, shouldn't we work toward the best possible outcome? President Bush has been doing that, and President-elect Obama should be extremely grateful.
Obviously, the election is over and Obama will begin the pullout from Iraq. Clearly, a majority of the public believes we shouldn't be there and that it was a mistake to begin with. In the end, we'll unwind it and move on.
That said, given the outcomes of the last two elections, I find it curious that Bush has any support among Republicans. He basically derailed the conservative movement in this country, and, politically speaking, he set the GOP back countless years. It will be a while before they see a majority in either House of congress. It's not like defending the Bush presidency is going to sell with most Americans. Given the overall state of the country, I can't imagine a "return to the Bush years" will ever be a winning strategy.
Why carry water for the guy? He's pummeled the Republican brand.
"...Obama will begin the pullout from Iraq."
Don't count on it. Sure, there will be token reductions in accordance with plans the Bush administration already has in place. But there will be no 16-month pullout UNLESS the security conditions dictate it. Obama will not allow Iraq to fall apart on his watch. The campaign rhetoric is meaningless once you're the guy actually responsible for the consequences.
"That said, given the outcomes of the last two elections, I find it curious that Bush has any support among Republicans."
Bush has been terrible domestic president, but an outstanding commander-in-chief. That's coming from someone who's been sent to war twice by President Bush.
"He basically derailed the conservative movement in this country, and, politically speaking, he set the GOP back countless years."
That's because too many people equate Republican with conservative. That may have been true years ago, but it is not today. President Bush is a Republican, but not a conservative. Many GOP Senators and Congressmen are Republicans, but not conservatives.
"It will be a while before they see a majority in either House of congress."
Not if Obama lurches too far to the left, a la Bill Clinton in 1993-94.
"Why carry water for the guy? He's pummeled the Republican brand."
He is an outstanding war president. And I'm conservative first, Republican second.
>>And I'm conservative first, Republican second.<<
That's my point. Why carry water for the guy who has derailed the conservative movement in this country?
Given the fumbled intellignece and reasons for going to war with Iraq, the initial planning, execution and management of the conflict. The lack of a counter-insurgency plan, too few troops on the ground, etc., etc., etc. How do you rate Bush an "excellent" war-time president?
He stood firm on the surge, but virtually everything prior to that was wrong or very poorly executed. And Afghanistan is sliding backwards. How do you rate that performance so high? It doesn't jibe with actuaql results.
"That's my point. Why carry water for the guy who has derailed the conservative movement in this country?"
I don't "carry water" for him. I defend him where I believe he was right.
"Given the fumbled intellignece and reasons for going to war with Iraq, the initial planning, execution and management of the conflict. The lack of a counter-insurgency plan, too few troops on the ground, etc., etc., etc."
No battleplan ever survives first contact with the enemy.
"How do you rate Bush an "excellent" war-time president?"
Leadership and a commitment to not lose a war.
"It doesn't jibe with actuaql results."
The results in Iraq contradict that statement. As for Afghanistan, the President went wrong when he trusted NATO to fulfill their obligations and publicly stated commitments.
The Iraqi's want us out by 2011. My guess is that we'll scale back significantly during the next four years to the point of minimal presence by the end of Obama's first term. At that point, it will be a non-issue.
As for Obama moving to the left... the NY Times is already reporting that the left-wing of the party is getting antsy about his moving to the right. I think he'll learn from Clinton's early mistakes (which obviously weren't fatal). He's a smart politician. He wants to serve two terms. And, generally speaking, that's done by playing in the center.
"He was hell bent on going to war with Iraq, and he stuck with it. That's for sure."
There were plenty of good reasons for getting rid of Saddam. But that point aside, a state of war had existed with Iraq since 1991. Our pilots were shot at everyday enforcing the UN no fly zones. Every shot fired was an act of war.
"The Iraqi's want us out by 2011."
Interesting, though, that they left themselves an out. You see, the new security pact allows the Iraqi government to ask us to stay if the conditions on the ground are not conducive to a pullout. Funny how those with a direct stake in the conflict won't commit to an outright, inflexible timeline.
"My guess is that we'll scale back significantly during the next four years to the point of minimal presence by the end of Obama's first term."
If security conditions permit. Obama will not allow himself to be responsible for a disaster just to fulfill a campaign promise.
"As for Obama moving to the left... the NY Times is already reporting that the left-wing of the party is getting antsy about his moving to the right."
That's because he knows he can't get re-elected and the congressional majorities are in danger if he actually does the things he promised on the campaign trail. So much for hope and change. In the end, he's a typical politician.
He hasn't even been sworn in, yet. Talk to me in 2012.
"He hasn't even been sworn in, yet. Talk to me in 2012."
Yeah, but looking at the names being tossed around for the cabinet and the statements coming out of the transition team, all indications are it's going to be more of the same--say and do whatever will get you re-elected.
Thanks for the comments and thoughts!
We obviously see the situation in Iraq from different perspectives and I certainly respect your perspective which you defend so eloquently! A large part of the deterioration in Afghanistan can be attributed to Bush's determination to invade Iraq and his unwillingness to wait. However, in all fairness, I'm not sure that Afghanistan is a really winnable situation. We went in there to get Osama. We failed in that endeavor. We did not go in to "liberate" them from the Taliban. And every day the Taliban become a greater presence with more influence. I find them deplorable and largely despicable but something about them seems to work for that country. I worry about Obama getting bogged down there just as Bush did in Iraq.
I don't believe that you can really consider a young man with few connections and no large supporters, who hacks his way to the presidency with only two years in the senate hardly "typical!" However, about the politician part, we'll have to see how successful he is. If he is not or does not become a politician, he will fail, and he has no intention of that.
His choice of staff tells me nothing about his "changes" and how or what he will actually try to accomplish. It does tell me that Obama recognizes the gravity of the situation and knows that there is not time for a vast learning curve, but must hit the ground running instead, and that is the direction his appointments have emphasized. Pragmatism over ideology. This will definitely disappoint some of the more radical left wing liberals, but is in keeping with what the populace wants.
I believe that you will see some significant changes in his administration. A major one will be the implementation of some form of national health care. It will not be the system either Obama or myself really believe should be in place but it will be all that is workable and doable at this time. It will not be sufficient to really solve many of the shortcomings and failures of the current system but will get all persons under some king of insurance coverage. Relieving the manufactures of having to provide health care, thereby emulating the foreign competition, is not going to happen this fast. These are, of course, just my opinions on the matter and I could certainly be wrong!
No, politicians seldom do what the people want. But that is irrelevant to the question, the Iraqis cannot be said to want us there when the people do not. Sure the government wants us, we leave, they fail and may well loose their lives! And they know that better than anyone.
You said "What about when we factor in that Saddam forcibly relocated Shia and Kurds to put Sunnis in the most desirable portions of Iraq?" This has nothing to do with the point I was making about the Sunnis and Shiites and there not being a good resolution until all can come hope safely and expect to get their property back. Of course a government will move their supporters into favorable positions. Bush, Clinton and Regan all did this. you are obfuscating the issue here.
The numbers do support that we killed more than Saddam would have. He was not on a murderous rampage against his people. That was in the past when we thought he was great! And whether it was our bullet or one of the insurrectionists' makes no difference. There would have been no insurrections were we not there.
To me, a democracy indicates a free society such as we have or many of the European countries have. Do you think that exists under Hammas? No, free elections are only a single part of a democracy, not the whole package. In fact, I'm told that such freedom does not exist even in Israel for Palestinians. I've been told it was true under the predecessor to the Shaw in Iran but can't actually say that for sure.
The fact that we've had poor results getting all the oil we'd like does in no way negate the fat that we went in there for it. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that we'd have gone into Iraq were there absolutely no oil under the ground there? If so, I've got some bridge stock we need to discuss!
And I certainly believe that not invading Iraq was a good move on the part of the Clinton administration. He did not because he could not justify it. Bush succeeded in doing so with manufactured evidence and misrepresentation to the American people.
Don't get me wrong, I supported Bush totally in his journey into Afghanistan. He even did it in the manner I thought should be done. I think differently now but that was what I thought then, and gave Bush great credit. When he started making noises about invading Iraq I was totally against it. I felt a trip down that path with the total destabilization of the Mideast was risky imperialistic adventurism. I see no reason to change my opinion at this time.
I believe you are far more of an apologist for the hard line Republican view point than I am for the progressive view point. I have the nasty habit of deviating off course and cannot give them a blanket endorsement. I'm curious, have you ever voted for a Democrat? Regardless, you do a good job of defending your hard line positions and for that, I give you a lot of credit. At this point I am convinced that the Bush Administration has been a disaster, both internally and world wide. And I hope that Obama is successful in correcting the mistakes of the Bush years. And I limit that to Bush II as the first Bush had a lot more knowledge and judgment besides not being tied to the PNAC by virtue of the cabinet appointments and VP. Bush II will be long remembered for an ill advised and abortive imperialistic aggression into a sovereign Mideast nation.
So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on most of what we've been discussing, we see it from different perspectives and while I can respect your perspective and opinions, I cannot agree with them.
Thanks again, Greg!
"Thanks for the comments and thoughts!"
The same to you my friend. You are always a pleasure to debate.
"A large part of the deterioration in Afghanistan can be attributed to Bush's determination to invade Iraq and his unwillingness to wait."
He would have had no choice but to wait if NATO had not agreed to take on the Afghanistan mission. They did, however, and subsequently failed miserably at it.
"We went in there to get Osama. We failed in that endeavor."
Yeah, but bin Laden is irrelevant at this point. He's in command of nothing. He's been marginalized as an operational leader. He's not directing any attacks and all indications are that if he's even alive he's spending all his time making sure we don't find him. That makes for an ineffective leader. And even if we did get him, it wouldn't matter. Some other fanatic would step up to take his place (see the example of Zarqawi in Iraq).
"I worry about Obama getting bogged down there just as Bush did in Iraq."
If he fulfills his campaign pledges with regard to Afghanistan, then that will likely be the case.
"I don't believe that you can really consider a young man with few connections and no large supporters, who hacks his way to the presidency with only two years in the senate hardly 'typical!'"
Everything he's done and said since November 4 paints a picture of business as usual.
"His choice of staff tells me nothing about his "changes" and how or what he will actually try to accomplish."
Oh, I think they give a pretty good indication of where we're headed. You don't surround yourself with people who have a history of differing from what you plan to do.
"It does tell me that Obama recognizes the gravity of the situation and knows that there is not time for a vast learning curve...."
Yet his entire platform was built on trying something new. That seems to have gone out the window.
"Pragmatism over ideology."
Again, he campaigned on ideology. He knows full well that he can't do half the things he pledged to do during the campaign. Correction - he can. But he can kiss a second term goodbye.
"A major one will be the implementation of some form of national health care. It will not be the system either Obama or myself really believe should be in place but it will be all that is workable and doable at this time."
I think it will differ SIGNIFICANTLY from anything discussed prior to the election.
"This has nothing to do with the point I was making about the Sunnis and Shiites and there not being a good resolution until all can come hope safely and expect to get their property back."
But it does. If a Kurd owned a home in Kirkuk, was forcibly relocated by Saddam so the home could be occupied by a Sunni, and then took his house back when Sunnis were driven from the area, whose property is it? This happened on a massive scale under Saddam in all of the key regions of the country. The Kurd could claim just as much right to the property as the Sunni.
"The numbers do support that we killed more than Saddam would have."
That depends on the estimate. The UN's numbers don't even come close to what we know Saddam did.
"Do you think that exists under Hammas?"
According to the State Department, a representative democracy (which virtually every democracy is) is one "...in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good."
That is what the Palestinians did. It is also what the Lebanese who elected Hezbollah to the government did.
"The fact that we've had poor results getting all the oil we'd like does in no way negate the fat that we went in there for it."
You can't prove that. There is no evidence to support that claim. Is Iraq less valuable without the oil? Yes. But there is a critical difference between guaranteeing the free flow of oil in the region and seeking to control the oil.
"And I certainly believe that not invading Iraq was a good move on the part of the Clinton administration. He did not because he could not justify it."
Yet he believed it was necessary enough to make it U.S. policy, a policy inherited by Bush. If Clinton claimed to believe it was necessary, but then took no action, doesn't that make him negligent?
"I'm curious, have you ever voted for a Democrat?"
Yes. In fact, in this election I voted for Mark Warner, Democrat and former governor of Virginia for the Senate. He is an upstanding man and truly has the best interests of the people at heart. That is why I voted for him over Republican Jim Gilmore.
"At this point I am convinced that the Bush Administration has been a disaster...."
I know, of course, that you understand I disagree with that assessment.
"Thanks again, Greg!"
And thanks to you, James.