--> All discussion of candidates' Iraq policies here

[Dreadsox]

yo, Dread.

clear out some of your old PMs.

i gots something i want to say to you.

Done:O)

 

[Strongbow]

some of us have been saying this since 2004.

i think you're one of those -- you realize the situation in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, and yet reject the false choice that STING and the administration presented us with.

But Pollack who was not in the administration agreed with the administration on the need to remove Saddam from power with US military force. He was well aware of the type of coalition the administration had put together in March of 2003 as well as the size force that was being sent in, but he never raised any serious objections about those things in March 2003 prior to the start of the war that I can recall.

 

[Diemen]

Waiting longer to remove Saddam would have only cost more American lives and made the occupation more difficult.

This is nothing but pure speculation on your part, and I for one seriously question the assertion that it would have cost us more American lives and made the occupation more difficult. Overthrowing Saddam was relatively easy, and I don't see a few months or even a year giving him time to significantly ramp up an already eroding military. He simply was not the threat he was made out to be before the war.

As for it making the occupation more difficult, I completely disagree. Had we waited longer, read the reports and given more weight to those who said we would need a larger force in order to occupy the country, [had we decided to invade anyway after looking at the facts...] the occupation would most likely have been easier. Remember, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq until after we invaded. Had we invaded with a larger force capable of securing more of the country, Al Qaeda would not have been able to work as effectively.

 

[Irvine511]

Remember, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq until after we invaded. Had we invaded with a larger force capable of securing more of the country, Al Qaeda would not have been able to work as effectively.

just to add, AQ was a factor *because* we invaded.

and i agree. if you were going to invade Iraq and occupy it effectively, you would have needed 450,000 troops or more. some of us said this at the time. but Rumsfeld was intent upon demonstrating to the world that we could send a small-ish amount of troops and knock out any government, anywhere, and be done with it and out of there. *this* is why the occupation was such a disaster and what is actually alluded to -- they never planned to be in Iraq for very long, they thought i'd be over and done with, and Chalabi would take over and that would be that.

and life it just didn't turn out that way, did it.

 

[Strongbow]

This is nothing but pure speculation on your part, and I for one seriously question the assertion that it would have cost us more American lives and made the occupation more difficult. Overthrowing Saddam was relatively easy, and I don't see a few months or even a year giving him time to significantly ramp up an already eroding military. He simply was not the threat he was made out to be before the war.

Even those unlikely to be supportive of the invasion admit that the sanctions and weapons embargo were necessities in trying to contain Saddam. These two things had erroded to the point of almost non-existence by 2003. It was only a matter of time before Saddam would be well on the road to significantly rebuilding degraded military capabilities as well as the size of his forces. In fact, even minor changes in preperation for the war could have significantly increased coalition casualties but Saddam did not actually believe the coalition was going to invade as late as the week of the invasion. Given several years or more of preperation, rebuilding of various military capabilities and the cost and consequences go up. Its simply inaccurate to be suggesting that Saddam did not pose a threat simply based on US casualties in the initial invasion, especially since many of his more hardcore supporters drifted into the background on purpose and later formed the backbone of the insurgency. No one is arguing that Al Quada and the Taliban were not a threat based on the US casualties that were suffered in Afghanistan in 2001-2002.

As for it making the occupation more difficult, I completely disagree. Had we waited longer, read the reports and given more weight to those who said we would need a larger force in order to occupy the country, [had we decided to invade anyway after looking at the facts...] the occupation would most likely have been easier. Remember, Al Qaeda was not a factor in Iraq until after we invaded. Had we invaded with a larger force capable of securing more of the country, Al Qaeda would not have been able to work as effectively.

Waiting equals more time for Saddam to prepare for such an invasion. There were large numbers of bridges, damns, oil wells, and other facilities that Saddam could have blown up had he been more prepared, which would have created enormous difficulties for the invasion force and occupation afterwards. Increasing the size of his forces and obtaining new weapons(because of the essential end of sanctions and the weapons embargo) would have made the initial invasion far more costly, and destroyed much more of the country making the rebuilding process that much more difficult. A more costly and difficult invasion would make for a more costly and difficult occupation and reconstruction phase.

The facts you speek of would not have changed in terms of intelligence. What little we know now about the true nature of Saddam's capabilities and programs at the time was learned after Saddam was removed and US forces could investigate the entire country in large numbers instead of the pre-war situation of a small group of investigators always being stalled and interdicted as they tried to do inspections. While WMD stocks were not found and there are still thousands of stocks that mysteriously remain unaccounted for, multiple programs related to the production of WMD that were in violation of the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement were found.

The size of the coalition force that was in place by July of 2003 was as large as the average size that the coalition force has been for the past 5 years with the exception of the recent 18 month Surge. Although I agree a larger force would have been better, it would have required mobilizing National Guard Brigades before the invasion since the Active Army only had 33 combat brigades at that time. In addition, you have to weigh the larger size of any force with the greater level of destruction within the country that surely would have happened had the United States waited longer to invade.

Despite the obvious success of the Surge, combating an insurgency does not just take larger numbers. How those forces are used, as well as political and economic factors also play a role. It would take longer to rebuild the political and economic structures of Iraq had the initial invasion been more difficult and costly with more of the country being destroyed. That in turn could have increased the size and support of the insurgency.

 

[Strongbow]

just to add, AQ was a factor *because* we invaded.

and i agree. if you were going to invade Iraq and occupy it effectively, you would have needed 450,000 troops or more.

Even if you sent every Army, Marine, and National Guard combat brigade to Iraq that was available in 2003, its unlikely you would have a number that large or greater, plus the forces would all have to remain in country indefinitely, with no extra brigades that could be rotated in to give brigades already there 6 months or a year break from occupation work.

but Rumsfeld was intent upon demonstrating to the world that we could send a small-ish amount of troops and knock out any government, anywhere, and be done with it and out of there.

Rumsfeld wanted a similar type of force that was used to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, a country with the same size population in Iraq, was 50% larger in area, and had a long recent history of insurgency and a population experienced at one. Despite the fact that Rumsfeld's strategy worked better than anyone realized it would in Afghanistan, he essentially got vetoed by General Tommy Franks on the size of the invasion force for Iraq. The force that did go in was much larger than the one Rumsfeld had initially thought about sending in.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?

I don't know. . .I'm trying to find the article now but I'm not sure where it is whether it got moved to this thread or is still in the other one. Haven't been able to locate it yet.

 

[yolland]

^ post #17 in this thread

 

[maycocksean]

^Thank you, Yolland. Somehow I knew you'd come to my rescue!

Reading the following, Sting, I think you would actually AGREE with Krauthamer, no?

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.

Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.

The emphasis is on staying in Iraq long term, at least as I read it. If you're honest, this is your position, and that of McCain as well, no?

The question is: Is this the position of the Iraqi government as well? I tend to think not, at least not based on what has been said recently. Krauthamer says that Iraqi leaders will want to "maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection." If Iraqi leaders have said that they want American protection of this kind for years into the future, I'm not aware of it.

 

[Irvine511]

^Thank you, Yolland. Somehow I knew you'd come to my rescue!

Reading the following, Sting, I think you would actually AGREE with Krauthamer, no?

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.

Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.

The emphasis is on staying in Iraq long term, at least as I read it. If you're honest, this is your position, and that of McCain as well, no?

The question is: Is this the position of the Iraqi government as well? I tend to think not, at least not based on what has been said recently. Krauthamer says that Iraqi leaders will want to "maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection." If Iraqi leaders have said that they want American protection of this kind for years into the future, I'm not aware of it.

hence, "indefinite occupation."

you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, but that's what it is. and that is why "withdrawal" needs to be the framework under which future Iraq policy goes forward. because, like i said, Muslims just *love* to be occupied.

 

[Irvine511]

Even if you sent every Army, Marine, and National Guard combat brigade to Iraq that was available in 2003, its unlikely you would have a number that large or greater, plus the forces would all have to remain in country indefinitely, with no extra brigades that could be rotated in to give brigades already there 6 months or a year break from occupation work.

which is why allies matter.

at least, today, they're waving American flags in Berlin, and not burning them.

Rumsfeld wanted a similar type of force that was used to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, a country with the same size population in Iraq, was 50% larger in area, and had a long recent history of insurgency and a population experienced at one. Despite the fact that Rumsfeld's strategy worked better than anyone realized it would in Afghanistan, he essentially got vetoed by General Tommy Franks on the size of the invasion force for Iraq. The force that did go in was much larger than the one Rumsfeld had initially thought about sending in.

and ... ?

 

[Strongbow]

^Thank you, Yolland. Somehow I knew you'd come to my rescue!

Reading the following, Sting, I think you would actually AGREE with Krauthamer, no?

McCain, like George Bush, envisions the United States seizing the fruits of victory from a bloody and costly war by establishing an extensive strategic relationship that would not only make the new Iraq a strong ally in the war on terror but would also provide the U.S. with the infrastructure and freedom of action to project American power regionally, as do U.S. forces in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

For example, we might want to retain an air base to deter Iran, protect regional allies and relieve our naval forces, which today carry much of the burden of protecting the Persian Gulf region, thus allowing redeployment elsewhere.

Any Iraqi leader would prefer a more pliant American negotiator because all countries -- we've seen this in Germany, Japan and South Korea -- want to maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection.

The emphasis is on staying in Iraq long term, at least as I read it. If you're honest, this is your position, and that of McCain as well, no?

The question is: Is this the position of the Iraqi government as well? I tend to think not, at least not based on what has been said recently. Krauthamer says that Iraqi leaders will want to "maximize their own sovereign freedom of action while still retaining American protection." If Iraqi leaders have said that they want American protection of this kind for years into the future, I'm not aware of it.

No, that is not my position, nor the position of George Bush or John McCain. The United States does not need to have bases in Iraq in order to project power through out the region. Having an air base just up the road from the ones in Kuwait would not provide the US with any new real capability in that area. Most fixed wing combat aircraft providing close air support for US combat Units in Iraq fly out of Kuwait or carriers in the Persian Gulf.

The United States wants there to be a stable Iraq, that does not pose a threat to its neighbors, does not harbor or support international terrorist. It wants to have good relations with the new Iraqi government and is willing to do what is necessary to help Iraq provide for its internal and external security.

The Iraqi national security advisor stated that once the Iraqi military has taken over security in all 18 provinces(they currently have done that in 10) that they would then have US forces still in cities redeploy to rural area's, but remain in the country for the next 3 to 5 years with the security situation reviewed ever 6 months. In 2007, the Iraqi National Security Advisor mentioned that he thought that the Iraqi military would be ready to handle all internal security functions by 2012, but would still need help in the area of providing external security until 2018. The estimates of those dates may have sped up though do to the rapid success of the surge, and the growing capability of the Iraqi military over the past year.

As long as Iraq does not become a security threat to the region again, is able to provide for its internal and external security, is not itself endangered by other forces in the region, it would not be necessary for the United States to base any forces there. The same can be said of Afghanistan which for some reason you do not pose the same question about the future of US troops in that country. Bush's initial plans on Iraq had over half of US troops withdrawn by the summer of 2004, and all but 5,000 by December of 2006, which might have been possible had the insurgency and its impact on the situation not developed.

Iraqi leaders have always stated that they want US troops to remain on the ground as long as the conditions warrent it. Afghanistan's leaders have stated the same thing.

 

[Strongbow]

hence, "indefinite occupation."

you can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want, but that's what it is. and that is why "withdrawal" needs to be the framework under which future Iraq policy goes forward. because, like i said, Muslims just *love* to be occupied.

The Bush administration, McCain have never been for an indefinite occupation. The Bush administrations initial plans on Iraq had nearly all US troops out of the country by December of 2006, but conditions on the ground changed that withdrawal schedule. The only reason for there to be US troops in Iraq is if the conditions there warrent it whether it be because of an internal security threat or a external security threat that Iraq was not able to deal with on its own.

I hope you remember that Afghanistan is also a Muslim country, but you don't really seem to be concerned about there being a withdrawal time table from that country.

Any withdrawal from either country must be conditions based and not an arbitrary time based one.

 

[Strongbow]

which is why allies matter.

at least, today, they're waving American flags in Berlin, and not burning the

Even if you were to combine what Europe was able to contribute to the first Gulf War, the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not be much closer to that number that has just been pulled out of the air.

 

[Irvine511]

Even if you were to combine what Europe was able to contribute to the first Gulf War, the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you would not be much closer to that number that has just been pulled out of the air.

which pretty much tells is it was always and in all ways a bad idea.

thanks for clarifying.

 

[maycocksean]

No, that is not my position, nor the position of George Bush or John McCain. The United States does not need to have bases in Iraq in order to project power through out the region. Having an air base just up the road from the ones in Kuwait would not provide the US with any new real capability in that area. Most fixed wing combat aircraft providing close air support for US combat Units in Iraq fly out of Kuwait or carriers in the Persian Gulf.

The United States wants there to be a stable Iraq, that does not pose a threat to its neighbors, does not harbor or support international terrorist. It wants to have good relations with the new Iraqi government and is willing to do what is necessary to help Iraq provide for its internal and external security.

The Iraqi national security advisor stated that once the Iraqi military has taken over security in all 18 provinces(they currently have done that in 10) that they would then have US forces still in cities redeploy to rural area's, but remain in the country for the next 3 to 5 years with the security situation reviewed ever 6 months. In 2007, the Iraqi National Security Advisor mentioned that he thought that the Iraqi military would be ready to handle all internal security functions by 2012, but would still need help in the area of providing external security until 2018. The estimates of those dates may have sped up though do to the rapid success of the surge, and the growing capability of the Iraqi military over the past year.

As long as Iraq does not become a security threat to the region again, is able to provide for its internal and external security, is not itself endangered by other forces in the region, it would not be necessary for the United States to base any forces there. The same can be said of Afghanistan which for some reason you do not pose the same question about the future of US troops in that country. Bush's initial plans on Iraq had over half of US troops withdrawn by the summer of 2004, and all but 5,000 by December of 2006, which might have been possible had the insurgency and its impact on the situation not developed.

Iraqi leaders have always stated that they want US troops to remain on the ground as long as the conditions warrent it. Afghanistan's leaders have stated the same thing.

Ah. So you disagree with Krauthamer then. It would have been easier if you'd just said so.

So Krauthamer is wrong in his suggestion that McCain agrees with the idea of being in Iraq over the long term? He misunderstands McCain's position, correct?

 

[Diemen]

Sting: Voice of the United States. And Iraq.







Mouth of Sauron? : D

 

[financeguy]

Is the Surge Working?- by Justin Raimondo

Is the Surge Working?
No, but the propaganda touting it sure is.
by Justin Raimondo
Barack Obama is getting plenty of flak for not acknowledging that he was wrong about the "surge," i.e. the wisdom of escalating a war we should never have started in the first place – and this is being compared to John McCain's stubborn refusal to admit that we need to get out (although it appears McCain isn't against timetables anymore …). In any case, the whole question of the "surge" is really just another one of those exercises in irrelevance that the American media use to fill the vast void of the cable news universe. As Obama points out, anyone could have predicted that the sudden infusion of large numbers of American troops would reduce violence, albeit temporarily. So where does that leave us?

Well, as Antiwar.com reported yesterday (Monday): "87 Iraqis Killed, 288 Wounded." Okay, so that was an unusual day, in which four suicide bombers – all of them, interestingly enough, female – took the opportunity to strike at majority Shi'ite targets, and one Kurdish site in the northern city of Kirkuk. Yet if you examine the pattern of the ongoing conflict – as painstakingly compiled and written up by the invaluable Margaret Griffis – large-scale explosions of violence aren't all that rare. Indeed, they occur with clock-like regularity, usually a week or two after relative quiet in which the daily toll amounts to two or three Iraqis killed and/or wounded.

Yes, but you have to admit – avers my imaginary interlocutor, the skeptical reader – that the situation on the ground has gotten better.

Well, no, I don't admit any such thing, because one has to ask: better than what? Better than before the war? Surely not – and that's the only standard that has real meaning to the Iraqis. More than anything, they want a return to normalcy – and a low-level civil war punctuated by eruptions of shocking violence is anything but normal.

 

[financeguy]

Ah. So you disagree with Krauthamer then. It would have been easier if you'd just said so.

So Krauthamer is wrong in his suggestion that McCain agrees with the idea of being in Iraq over the long term? He misunderstands McCain's position, correct?

Well, much as I disagree with STING2, I don't think STING2 is in the same league as Krauthammer, an unapologetic extremist Zionist fascist who has openly called for Muslims to be massacred (all in their own best interests, naturalement).

 

[Irvine511]

Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave

Aug 7, 3:35 PM (ET)

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq and the U.S. are near an agreement on all American combat troops leaving Iraq by October 2010, with the last soldiers out three years after that, two Iraqi officials told The Associated Press on Thursday. U.S. officials, however, insisted no dates had been agreed.

The proposed agreement calls for Americans to hand over parts of Baghdad's Green Zone - where the U.S. Embassy is located - to the Iraqis by the end of 2008. It would also remove U.S. forces from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, according to the two senior officials, both close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and familiar with the negotiations.

The officials, who spoke separately on condition of anonymity because the talks are ongoing, said all U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by October 2010, with the remaining support personnel gone "around 2013." The schedule could be amended if both sides agree - a face-saving escape clause that would extend the presence of U.S. forces if security conditions warrant it.

U.S. acceptance - even tentatively - of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Throughout the conflict, President Bush steadfastly refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last month, however, Bush and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the U.S. mission.

Bush's shift to a timeline was seen as a move to speed agreement on a security pact governing the U.S. military presence in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Iraq's Shiite-led government has been holding firm for some sort of withdrawal schedule - a move the Iraqis said was essential to win parliamentary approval.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to comment on details of the talks. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nangtongo said the negotiations were taking place "in a constructive spirit" based on respect for Iraqi sovereignty.

In Washington, U.S. officials acknowledged that some progress has been made on the timelines for troop withdrawals but that the immunity issue remained a huge problem. One senior U.S. official close to the discussion said no dates have been agreed upon.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations have not been finished.

But the Iraqis insisted the dates had been settled preliminarily between the two sides, although they acknowledged that nothing is final until the entire negotiations have been completed.

One Iraqi official said persuading the Americans to accept a timetable was a "key achievement" of the talks and that the government would seek parliamentary ratification as soon as the deal is signed.

But differences over immunity could scuttle the whole deal, the Iraqis said. One of the officials described immunity as a "minefield" and said each side was sticking by its position.

One official said U.S. negotiator David Satterfield told him that immunity for soldiers was a "red line" for the United States. The official said he replied that issue was "a red line for us too."

The official said the Iraqis were willing to grant immunity for actions committed on American bases and during combat operations - but not a blanket exemption from Iraqi law.

The Iraqis also want American forces hand over any Iraqi they detain. The U.S. insists that detainees must be "ready" for handover, which the Iraqi officials assume means the Americans want to interrogate them first.

As the talks drag on, American officials said the Bush administration is losing patience with the Iraqis over the negotiations, which both sides had hoped to wrap up by the end of July.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and al-Maliki had a long and "very difficult" phone conversation about the situation on Wednesday during which she pressed the Iraqi leader for more flexibility particularly on immunity, one U.S. senior official said.

"The sovereignty issue is very big for the Iraqis and we understand that. But we are losing patience," the official said. "The process needs to get moving and get moving quickly."

The official could not say how long the call lasted but said it was "not brief" and "tense at times."

In London, Britain's defense ministry said it is also in talks with Iraq's government over the role of British troops after the U.N. mandate runs out. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said that early next year Britain will reduce its troops in Iraq, now at about 4,100, and that Britain's role in the country will change fundamentally.

Iraq's position in the U.S. talks hardened after a series of Iraqi military successes against Shiite and Sunni extremists in Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other major cities and after the rise in world oil prices flooded the country with petrodollars.

As the government's confidence rose, Iraqi officials believed they were in a strong negotiating position - especially with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, pledging to remove all combat forces within his first 16 months in office if security conditions allow.

Standing firm against the Americans also enhances al-Maliki's nationalist credentials, enabling him to appeal for support from Iraqis long opposed to the U.S. presence.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr said the Shiite cleric will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops - but may lift the order if the security agreement fails to contain a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

The statement by Sheik Salah al-Obeidi came as al-Sadr planned to spell out details of a formula to reorganize his Mahdi Army militia by separating it into an unarmed cultural organization and elite fighting cells.

The announcement is expected during weekly Islamic prayer services on Friday.

"This move is meant to offer an incentive for the foreign forces to withdraw," al-Obeidi said. "The special cells of fighters will not strike against foreign forces until the situation becomes clear vis-a-vis the Iraq-U.S. agreement on the presence of American forces here."

Several cease-fires by al-Sadr have been key to a sharp decline in violence over the past year. But American officials still consider his militiamen a threat and have backed the Iraqi military in operations to try to oust them from their power bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.

game, set, match: Obama.

 

[Strongbow]

game, set, match: Obama.

Actually that would be game, set, match: Bush, if conditions on the ground continue to improve and allow for US forces to leave that rapidly. All of these plans are conditions based, unlike Obama's plan which is time based with no conditions or prerequisites for security and the development of Iraqi forces to be met prior to the start of his plan.

The fact that there is even serious discussion of the possibility of the withdrawal of non-surge US combat brigades, because conditions on the ground have so dramatically improved, is vindication of the Bush administration policy the past several years which resisted Democrats multiple attempts to force a pre-mature withdrawal of US forces prior to the Iraqi military and government being ready to handle the internal situation on their own.

Obama claimed in January 2007 that sending more US forces into Iraq would NOT reduce the level of violence, and he predicted that it would actually increase the level of violence.

 

[Irvine511]

i knew you wouldn't disappoint!

now that Bush and the Iraqis have endorsed Obama's timetable, Iraq becomes almost a non-issue in the campaign, since no matter who is president, we're getting Obama's vision: US troops out by 2010.

so the real issue comes down to who had the better judgment in 2002, and who has better understood the facts on the ground that led one candidate to make the clear-minded prediction that a 18 month timetable was far more feasible and likely than the indefinite occupation for 10, 100, 1000 years.

game, set, match: Obama.

 

[Strongbow]

now that Bush and the Iraqis have endorsed Obama's timetable.

Well, the withdrawal plan currently being discussed is conditions based. Obama's plan is time based. You should be able to understand the difference I think. Until there is a plan on the table that removes US troops from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground, you have nothing even remotely resembling Obama's or most Democratic plans on Iraq.

Under the current plan being discussed by the Iraqi's and the United States US forces would remain in Iraq indefinitely if the conditions grew worse and would only start to leave if conditions warrented it. If Obama is for keeping US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq as long as they are needed for security there, then he has abandoned his own plan and adopted the plan Bush has had since 2003. Bush's initial plan prior to the war had almost all US troops out by December 2006. That plan changed though because conditions on the ground warrented keeping and increasing the US troop levels in Iraq.

so the real issue comes down to who had the better judgment in 2002,

Well, you have one candidate who believes the United States would be safer with Saddam still in power in Iraq and one candidate who believes that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the entire region, the United States and the world are safer because Saddam has been removed from power in Iraq. I think its obvious that history will find that Bush had better judgement on this issue.

and who has better understood the facts on the ground that led one candidate to make the clear-minded prediction that a 18 month timetable was far more feasible and likely than the indefinite occupation for 10, 100, 1000 years.

The Bush administration already had a withdrawal plan before the war even started. It was delayed because of conditions on the ground. Obama does not understand the conditions on the ground which is why he made the absurd prediction that the increase in US forces would increase the level of violence in the country.

If Obama actually were to win the election and pursued a strategy in Iraq that ONLY withdrew US troops from the country when conditions warrented it, then he would be following the strategy that a 3rd Bush term would of had on Iraq.

Regardless of who is elected in November, If the US stays long enough in Iraq to help it develop sustainable security and the ability to succeed on its own, then its game, set, match: BUSH.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, the withdrawal plan currently being discussed is conditions based. Obama's plan is time based. You should be able to understand the difference I think. Until there is a plan on the table that removes US troops from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground, you have nothing even remotely resembling Obama's or most Democratic plans on Iraq.

nope. your distinction has no meaning because it's a deliberate and consistent distortion of Obama's position, and it ignores the Bush/McCain position in Iraq that any firm commitment to a deadline for withdrawal -- which is now the plan itself -- is the same thing as surrender. this new plan calls for parts of the Green Zone to be handed over by the end of 2008. it calls for removing US forces from Iraqi cities by June 20, 2009. these are hard-and-fast dates, and they are being forced by the Iraqis themselves.

Under the current plan being discussed by the Iraqi's and the United States US forces would remain in Iraq indefinitely if the conditions grew worse and would only start to leave if conditions warrented it. If Obama is for keeping US combat brigades on the ground in Iraq as long as they are needed for security there, then he has abandoned his own plan and adopted the plan Bush has had since 2003. Bush's initial plan prior to the war had almost all US troops out by December 2006. That plan changed though because conditions on the ground warrented keeping and increasing the US troop levels in Iraq.

Bush's initial plan had nothing to do with reality and to the 2006/7 Iraqi Civil War that the occupation provoked. Obama is for removing US combat brigades so long as conditions warrant, which is a clear distinction you're ignoring and the new position of Bush and the Iraqi government. the game has been changed, it's now called withdrawal, or "generalized time horizons," and you can dress it up anyway you like, but this is, as the article notes, without question: a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

it's Obama's plan, in action.

Well, you have one candidate who believes the United States would be safer with Saddam still in power in Iraq and one candidate who believes that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the entire region, the United States and the world are safer because Saddam has been removed from power in Iraq. I think its obvious that history will find that Bush had better judgement on this issue.

it's quite obvious that nearly everyone rejects your simplistic, manichean false choices and recognizes that the world is a much more complex place than is expedient for your purposes and your refusal to acknowledge the severity of what's happened in Iraq. we can talk about the strategic blunders, tactical mishaps, and egregious moral crimes of the last 5 years that have done permanent damage to the US, we can also talk about the actual dollar cost of occupying for the indefinite future (the Bush/McCain plan).

everyone is glad that Saddam Hussein is dead. but how he got dead is a tragedy. the US is still pretty much going to remain powerless to shape the future of Iraq if it does not occupy indefinitely, something it cannot afford and something that US citizens have no interest in doing. Iraq remains perilous, it could change in an overnight coup, and it also, and most importantly, remains utterly and totally opaque. no one really knows what's going on inside Iraq, just like no one did during the 1990s and early 2000's, and no one ever will. it's strained our European alliances, it's shifted resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan, it's destroyed the credibility of US intelligence, and it's now ingrained the images of torture onto the US military forever. the core justification of the war was the WMDs -- a lie. there were no ties to Al-Qaeda, and thus none to 9-11. we know that he was not nearly as murderous as the hundreds of thousands who have died these past 5 years or the millions-upon-millions of refugees. the torture and ethnic cleansing in the Rumsfeld-created post-invasion chaos is the equal of anything Saddam did. we also now know that Saddam would have been a counterweight to the newly emboldened Iran, whereas the new Iraqi government will be strongly influenced by the Shiite mullahs in Tehran.

and it only cost us $3 trillion!

Osama Bin Laden is utterly thrilled with what's happened.

and yet, some want to spin the reduction in violence as reason to start the next war?

 

[Diemen]

Actually that would be game, set, match: Bush, if conditions on the ground continue to improve and allow for US forces to leave that rapidly.

Wait, I'm confused. If thought if we set a timetable we'd essentially be giving the terrorists a date to wait for so they can come in and take over.

Do you mean to say that setting a timetable is now acceptable?

 

[Strongbow]

nope. your distinction has no meaning because it's a deliberate and consistent distortion of Obama's position,

Really, so what are the conditions and the prerequisites that Barack Obama wants to see on the ground in Iraq, with the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi government, before he would start any withdrawal? I only ask because he had NONE throughout all of 2007 and in to 2008.

None of the Iraq spending bills he along with the Democrats tried to force the President to sign had any conditions or prerequisites for starting a withdrawal. His major foreign policy article in Foreign Affairs did not list any conditions and prerequisites that would need to be met before he would start to withdraw US combat brigades from Iraq. He stated he would start withdrawing US combat brigades immediately. Also, that withdrawal would be completed in 16 months and would only be suspended if Iraq successfully met all 18 benchmarks within that time frame. Thats Barack Obama's plan and you can read it in his foreign affairs article from 2007. No distortions at all.

and it ignores the Bush/McCain position in Iraq that any firm commitment to a deadline for withdrawal -- which is now the plan itself -- is the same thing as surrender.

Bush, McCain, the Iraqi's and the US military have always been for a withdrawal provided that it is conditions based. The Bush administrations initial withdrawal plan before the war started speculated that they could be down to 5,000 troops by December of 2006, which was not totally unrealistic if the insurgency had not happened. The Bush administration just recently increased the number of troops in Iraq and withdrew them at a pace that was consistent with conditions on the ground. They had the initial goal of having the surge forces out by July/August of 2008, but were willing to extend that date if needed.

What Bush, McCain, the Iraqi's and the US military are not for is an inflexible hard date for withdrawal that pulls out US troops regardless of conditions on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces at the time.

this new plan calls for parts of the Green Zone to be handed over by the end of 2008. it calls for removing US forces from Iraqi cities by June 20, 2009. these are hard-and-fast dates, and they are being forced by the Iraqis themselves.

No one has said that any dates that are discussed are hard, fast, inflexible dates in which US forces would be withdrawn from whatever area they were in, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the capability of Iraqi forces. If there are set backs later this year or in 2009, whether it be with the security conditions or the capability of Iraqi forces, US forces would remain at their current levels and could even potentially be increased if the situation warrented it. That is the type of withdrawal plan that Bush, McCain, the Iraqi's and the US military are planning for and not the plan Barack Obama has been selling for the past 18 months.

The Freshman Senator from Illinois met with the United States #1 expert on counterinsurgency and nation building in Iraq last month and the Freshman Senator admitted that the General did not agree with the plan he had been selling for the past 18 months.

Bush's initial plan had nothing to do with reality and to the 2006/7 Iraqi Civil War that the occupation provoked.

The United States military never considered the localized sectarian fighting in 2006 to be a "Civil War" and nearly everyone agrees the situation was created by large scale Al Quada bombings of important Shia religious places, especially the February 2006 Mosque bombing. But I guess its not surprising to see some blame the Bush admistration rather than Al Quada that actually launched the attacks.

Obama is for removing US combat brigades so long as conditions warrant, which is a clear distinction you're ignoring and the new position of Bush and the Iraqi government.

I have always consistently stated in here that no US troops should be withdrawn prior to the Iraqi military being developed enough to handle the internal security situation within the country on their own. You and many others charactized my statements as being simply copied and pasted from daily administration comments. In addition, you and multiple others were always on the otherside of the arguement when I would state that there should be NO pre-mature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.


If you, others, Barack Obama, now agree that there should be NO pre-mature withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and that US troops should stay on the ground in Iraq as long as they are needed, then you are finally in line with what Bush administration policy has been since 2003 and what I have said consistently since then with regards to when US troops could start to be withdrawn from Iraq.

the game has been changed, it's now called withdrawal, or "generalized time horizons," and you can dress it up anyway you like, but this is, as the article notes, without question: a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003.

I'm not the one who has changed their position on when US troops could be withdrawn from Iraq. My position on this particular issue has been consistent with the administrations position since 2003. The Bush administration had an initial withdrawal goal of December 2006 prior to the start of the war. Conditions on the ground changed that though. The administration had a goal of having the Surge troops out of Iraq by July/August 2008 provided conditions on the ground warrented it. The key here is conditions. The Iraqi's have consistently said that they do not want to see a pre-mature US withdrawal.

The only people who are reversing their positions are those who now support a withdrawal that only happens if conditions warrent it, where they had previouslly been saying "out of Iraq now" and the withdrawal needs to start immediatelly with everyone out in 6 months, 18 months etc. Murtha was for 6 months, Richardson was for 16 months but always said no residual troops", Obama was for immediately starting troop withdrawals with all US combat brigades to be out in 16 months. The only exception Obama attached to his withdrawal plan was if the Iraqi government achieved all 18 benchmarks within that time frame, he might suspend the withdrawal.

A conditions based withdrawal means the goal of leaving Iraqi cities by June 2009 could be pushed back to June 2011 or even further IF conditions on the ground should warrent that US troops remain in the cities longer.

everyone is glad that Saddam Hussein is dead. but how he got dead is a tragedy.

The only way that Saddam's regime could be removed from power was through a US military invasion. Barack Obama and many Democrats were opposed to the only action that could remove Saddam's regime from power.

the US is still pretty much going to remain powerless to shape the future of Iraq if it does not occupy indefinitely, something it cannot afford and something that US citizens have no interest in doing.

First, if you really do support a conditions based withdrawal, then you support keeping US forces in Iraq as long as necessary which could be several years longer than any of the hoped for plans.

Second, the United States has already significantly shaped events on the ground in Iraq over the past 5 years, first with the removal of Saddam's huge regime and then the rebuilding of Iraqi government, security, and economic structures. While the US may not have reached a point where the progress and the general situation is irreversible, that point is currently getting closer and the relationships the US military has formed in Iraq and the progress they have made in rebuilding so much of the country will be very difficult for others to reverse. Logistically, the Iraqi military is going to be dependent on the US military for years to come regardless of when or if US combat brigades are withdrawn over the next few years.

The United States occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 7 years has been less of a burden to the United States than annual US defense spending was during the peacetime of the 1980s. No one wants to see the United States occupy Afghanistan and Iraq forever, but few people would want to see their security negatively impacted by a pre-mature withdrawal from either country.

Iraq remains perilous, it could change in an overnight coup

....and if Obama and yourself are now for a conditions based withdrawal, I'm sure you'll be supporting the continued stationing of US forces in Iraq if such conditions were to come about.

and it also, and most importantly, remains utterly and totally opaque. no one really knows what's going on inside Iraq, just like no one did during the 1990s and early 2000's, and no one ever will.

Actually the United States knows far more of what is going on in the country now that it has 150,000 troops there who move about the country at will, as opposed to two dozen inspectors in a few jeeps who were escorted by the Iraqi Republican Guard every where they went.

it's strained our European alliances

Not enough to prevent NATO's historic first large scale military operation outside of Europe. Not enough to prevent solid cooperation on tracking down Al Quada terrorist. Not enough to hurt trade or seriously damage any political, economic or security issue that the United States is working on with its European partners.

it's shifted resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan,

US forces in Afghanistan have trippled in size since the invasion of Iraq.

it's destroyed the credibility of US intelligence

Only for those who are ignorant of prior US intelligence capabilities.

the core justification of the war was the WMDs -- a lie

The justification for the war was Iraq's refusal to comply with 17 UN security council resolutions, the break down of sanctions and the weapons embargo vital to any hope of a containment strategy, Saddam's past actions, behavior, intentions, the capabilitiy of Iraqi military forces vs. neighboring countries and the impact the erosion of sanctions/embargo would have on that balance, Saddam's past history with WMD and his refusal to verifiably disarm of all WMD and to fully account for thousands of missing stocks of WMD, the threat all of this posed to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf energy supply so vital to the rest of the world, and the fact that everything short of a full scale military invasion to remove Saddam had been tried and ultimately failed to resolve the situation.

No one lied and if one would actually just once go back and study the situation prior to Bush coming into office, they would have a much better grasp of the difficult situation the world was facing with Saddam still in control of Iraq.

we know that he was not nearly as murderous as the hundreds of thousands who have died these past 5 years or the millions-upon-millions of refugees

The ignorant who continue to refuse to look at the history of Iraq prior prior to 2002 might believe that. Over a million people died in the Iran/Iraq war started by Saddam in September 1980. Saddam independent of that war murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. Several hundred thousand Kurds and Shia's were massacured in the months after the 1991 Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands more Shia's died while Saddam starved and murdered them during the 1990s while the international community was trying but failing to keep the key parts of containment regime up and running. If one
thinks that what has happened in Iraq over the past 5 years is anything compared to the suffering caused by 25 years of Saddam's rule over Iraq, then they have a lot of catching up to do on Iraqi history.

the torture and ethnic cleansing in the Rumsfeld-created post-invasion chaos is the equal of anything Saddam did.

Anyone that believes that has no idea what Saddam actually did during the 25 years he was in power in Iraq.

we also now know that Saddam would have been a counterweight to the newly emboldened Iran,

So I guess your not really happy that he is gone, eh? Plus, if Saddam is strong enough to be a counterweight to Iran, that also means he is strong enough to do certain things to his smaller southern neighbors where so much of the planets energy supply comes from. Its important to have an Iraq that is not an ally for Iranian adventures in the region, but not at the cost of what happened in August of 1990.

and it only cost us $3 trillion!

$680 Billion dollars to be exact and once again overall US spending on all defense issues, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and general annual defense spending, is less than what the United States was spending during the peacetime of the 1980s. Even if the United States had actually spent $3 Trillion dollars on the war the past 5 years, overall defense spending would only be 33% higher than it was during the peacetime of the 1980s and 2 and half times the amount of the lowest year of the Clinton defense spending holiday in the 1990s.

Osama Bin Laden is utterly thrilled with what's happened.

Yes, I'm sure Bin Laden is absolutely thrilled that the country that he wanted out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia has now invaded Iraq, removed the regime, and installed a democratic one, despite his best efforts to prevent that from happening. I'm sure he is just thrilled that his attempts to start a civil war in Iraq totally failed. Al Quada's recent experience in Iraq is not a success story.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]No one lied and if one would actually just once go back and study the situation prior to Bush coming into office, they would have a much better grasp of the difficult situation the world was facing with Saddam still in control of Iraq. [/Q]

As Sting, Sting2, Strongbow has put it nobody lied.

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied ; ly·ing/'lī-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English leogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic l?gati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE , PREVARICATE , EQUIVOCATE , PALTER , FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

The administration did lie, and Strongbow is trying to prevaricate. The global argument that sting/stongbow makes is in essence a truth. The details of how the administration went about making the case, are filled with lies.

Cherrypicking - which we now know occured with the disciplining of intelligence units within the pentagon. Cherrypicking - from from reports created by the CIA which if read the global implications did not support invasion and using these reports to support a war by selective use of sentences within the report (The One Percent Doctrine).

On October 7, 2002 George Bush told the nation Saddam was an "imminent threat" to the security of the US, he completely LIED. Six days prior the CIA report which the president received said that Saddam Hussein was "NOT a THREAT". On October 4th, the Administration published a summary version of the report to be given to Congress known as the White Paper. This report given to our congress, to help them decide how to vote did not include the conclusion of the CIA that Saddam was not a threat.

THIS IS A LIE. Period. The gobal argument, that STING/STRONGBOW makes is an accurate one. There most definitely were reasons to go to war. However, there was no URGENCY in the time. There was no reason to rush into it, yet, this administration used LIES to make the case.

That is the embarrassing thing. They have damaged our reputation. The case that this administration LIED is an easy one to make. It is also easy to show to the public what happened to the careers of people in the intelligence community when they called bullshit.

It seems we operated from an "Ends justifies the means" point of view. And this is what damages our reputation and ability to be a leader in the world. When you operate from LIES people tend to mistrust you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam being a threat, an evil man, ect...blah blah blah Demoncrat.

It has to do with the fact that the case for war was built on LIES. Someone should be accountable for it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Double post

 

[Dreadsox]

No one lied and if one would actually just once go back and study the situation prior to Bush coming into office, they would have a much better grasp of the difficult situation the world was facing with Saddam still in control of Iraq.

As Sting, Sting2, Strongbow has put it nobody lied.

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied ; ly·ing/'lī-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English leogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic l�gati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE , PREVARICATE , EQUIVOCATE , PALTER , FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

The administration did lie, and Strongbow is trying to prevaricate. The global argument that sting/stongbow makes is in essence a truth. The details of how the administration went about making the case, are filled with lies.

Cherrypicking - which we now know occured with the disciplining of intelligence units within the pentagon. Cherrypicking - from from reports created by the CIA which if read the global implications did not support invasion and using these reports to support a war by selective use of sentences within the report (The One Percent Doctrine).

On October 7, 2002 George Bush told the nation Saddam was an imminent threat to the security of the US, he completely LIED. Six days prior the CIA report which the president received said that Saddam Hussein was "NOT a THREAT". On October 4th, the Administration published a summary version of the report to be given to Congress. This report given to our congress, to help them decide how to vote did not include the conclusion of the CIA that Saddam was not a threat.

THIS IS A LIE. Period. The gobal argument, that STING/STRONGBOW makes is an accurate one. There most definitely were reasons to go to war. However, there was no URGENCY in the time. There was no reason to rush into it, yet, this administration used LIES to make the case.

That is the embarrassing thing. They have damaged our reputation. The case that this administration LIED is an easy one to make. It is also easy to show to the public what happened to the careers of people in the intelligence community when they called bullshit.

It seems we operated from an "Ends justifies the means" point of view. And this is what damages our reputation and ability to be a leader in the world. When you operate from LIES people tend to mistrust you.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam being a threat, an evil man, ect...blah blah blah Demoncrat.

It has to do with the fact that the case for war was built on LIES. Someone should be accountable for it.

Even better - 34 misleading statements about the mobil trailers after 14 of 15 intelligence analysts felt they were not for producing WMD:

‘In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was later disclosed that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that ‘only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion.’

But, not a lie? Not misleading?

 

[U2DMfan]

Plausible deniability, right?

If I don't tell you the entire truth, I am not lying.

I'm just not telling you the entire truth.

And then I can create an office that feeds redundant intel to me, then I can feed that intel to the press and the congress and it is always justified after the fact, because I have exposed you to the same version of the truth that I had, regardless of the veracity of that version of the truth.

When the information itself is 'intel' and the precarious nature of how that comes about, I can always plausibly deny my intentions by saying "My bad".

Some of us can see this forrest.