US Leaving Iraq by 2011

[Bando]

Why is Bush appeasing the terrorists? And why is he ready to lose the war, he doesn't even have an election to win?

WSJ: US, Iraq Are Said to Have Set Withdrawal Timetable

[hifigator]

This is good news; I'm not exactly sure why Bando seems to be jumping up and down for joy. He normally only celebrates bad political news.

[Boz]

Hmmm, the Washington Post seems to be indicating that the 2011 date was from a previous draft, not the one they are reporting on today.

I have no doubt that the agreement will include a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops and full transfer of security control to Iraqi forces, but I'm not sure that we'll actually be out of Iraq by 2011.

We'll see. Details don't really seem to be available yet.

[Bando]

Aug 21, 2008 10:57:36 GMT -5 hifigator said:

This is good news; I'm not exactly sure why Bando seems to be jumping up and down for joy. He normally only celebrates bad political news.

I think you missed the sarcasm. In case you need it spelled out, I'm noting that when Obama proposed his withdrawal by 2012 plan, he was called an appeaser, that he was "losing the war to win an election", as McCain put it. I'm awaiting the parade of hypocrisy that will surely surface now that Bush has done the same thing.

[EasyEd]

Didn't Obama in fact propose a timetable when we were losing the war, before the surge which he opposed? Now we are winning and it's appropriate to talk about further withdrawals, based on the conditions on the ground.

[Bando]

Aug 21, 2008 14:21:11 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Didn't Obama in fact propose a timetable when we were losing the war, before the surge which he opposed? Now we are winning and it's appropriate to talk about further withdrawals, based on the conditions on the ground.

So you admit we were losing the war? WTF? This is certainly new.

Ed, Obama's wanted to get out the entire time because going in in the first place was a bad idea. His position wasn't contingent on the facts on the ground, because the initial invasion itself was a mistake.

[hifigator]

Whether the initial invasion was a mistake or not is a debatable issue and one we will doubtlessly disagree on. What we will probably agree on is that in any case, it wasn't handled properly.

As to the timetable issue, ed's point is dead on. To have a timetable first and then try to piece together rest of the puzzle to fit the timetable is a mistake and would have been the wrong message to send our troops, Iraq as well as the terrorists.

Establishing a timetable now that we have reasonable evidence that our mission will have been accomplished by a certain point is entirely different. NO ONE wanted us to just hang out in Iraq. That was never the point. We are all for bringing our troops home as quickly as possible. Suggesting otherwise is nothing but a red herring. And in any case, to withdraw at a time which would have guaranteed a losing effort and effectively wasted the lives of some very brave men and women, is entirely different than withdrawing at OUR timetable. In this regard, it is very clear that Obama was wrong on that issue for sure.

[strummer8526]

I want to be in Iraq until 2108. Maybe 2508. Hell 3008. However long it takes.

Oh right. When someone tries to speculate about troop levels hundreds of years in the future, it sounds insane.

[EasyEd]

Aug 21, 2008 14:59:12 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 21, 2008 14:21:11 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Didn't Obama in fact propose a timetable when we were losing the war, before the surge which he opposed? Now we are winning and it's appropriate to talk about further withdrawals, based on the conditions on the ground.

So you admit we were losing the war? WTF? This is certainly new.

Ed, Obama's wanted to get out the entire time because going in in the first place was a bad idea. His position wasn't contingent on the facts on the ground, because the initial invasion itself was a mistake.

Bando, I have news for you. We are in Iraq. We were also in Iraq when Obama wanted to set a withdrawal timetable and, yes, we were losing at that time. To revert back to the "Obama was against the war from the beginning" does not address what we should do, or should have done when Obama wanted a timetable. It only changes the subject.

[SFHoya99]

Personally, I still don't think we're close enough to withdrawing to set a public timetable, but that's me. I certainly don't have enough information.

[hifigator]

Well said ed, and that's a point that I hope the right can capitalize on. The point is that Obama was against the war in the beginning, even though that meant about as much as what my bartender thought at the time, since Barrack was a STATE Senator.

Then he wanted a pullout and/or timetable which would have ultimately been a Win for the terrorists. That was a BAD decision. Now that things are moving in the right direction in Iraq, we are poised for an appropriate withdrawal. In an end justifies the means sort of way, that proves that staying the course, which McCain was in favor of was the correct choice, as opposed to the immediate withdrawal or timetable withdrawal that Obama was in favor of, which was the incorrect choice.

Whether or not going in to begin with was the right thing to do or not is an entirely different issue. But the better things end up at the end, then the more worthwhile the costs will have been and the better the decision looks and the worse the opposition views look.

[SFHoya99]

When you guys say terrorists, you mean the folks who have since begun those types of activities post-invasion, right? You aren't trying to imply a link between Saddam and 9/11 are you? Cause terrorists is a pretty vague word.

[FewFAC]

I thought Rice was in Baghdad because without an extension, we're supposed to be gone Dec. 31. But the longer we can stay in Iraq, the less we have to stand up to Russia!

[SirSaxa]

All of this talk about how we are now "winning the war" is utter nonsense.

Has the US managed to temporarily reduce the level of violence by paying off Sunnis and others? Yes. Does that mean there is anything close to a working government in Iraq? Not in the least.

No one on this board or anywhere else is going to be able to determine if anything at all was achieved until well after the US withdrawal. And meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan which was summarily dropped and never finished, is heating up again. The Taliban has been rebuilding and is mounting sizeable attacks. Neighboring Pakistan is in disarray and they have nuclear weapons. And the Democracy president was working with the clearly anti-democracy Musharaf.

As for all this blame on Obama, Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft (they are Republicans) wanted the US out too. And countless others from both parties. Most in fact.

Trying to claim victory in Iraq now? Might was well go back to that Carrier and announce "Mission Accomplished". It would have just as much meaning.

[EasyEd]

It appears the only thing that would satisfy some of you would be for the United States to suffer a complete defeat in Iraq and leave with our tails between our legs. That way you could say "I told you so. We were wrong to have invaded. So there!". The unwillingness of some to accept that the surge was the major, though not only, contributor to the greatly improved conditions in Iraq is amazing. I repeat what I said in an earlier thread, that President Bush may (not certain) be in the process of suppressing almost all of the violence in Iraq and turning over the country to a mostly democratic government. Only time will tell. Of course some of you will never admit it if it happens. Read loud and clear I am not saying we have yet won in Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, what would you do differently? Would you put more troops there? How many? What different strategy would you suggest? Would you demand our allies put more troops there? And, I'm still waiting for your call for a timetable for withdrawal from there.

[The Stig]

Aug 21, 2008 18:40:54 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It appears the only thing that would satisfy some of you would be for the United States to suffer a complete defeat in Iraq and leave with our tails between our legs. That way you could say "I told you so. We were wrong to have invaded. So there!". The unwillingness of some to accept that the surge was the major, though not only, contributor to the greatly improved conditions in Iraq is amazing. I repeat what I said in an earlier thread, that President Bush may (not certain) be in the process of suppressing almost all of the violence in Iraq and turning over the country to a mostly democratic government. Only time will tell. Of course some of you will never admit it if it happens. Read loud and clear I am not saying we have yet won in Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, what would you do differently? Would you put more troops there? How many? What different strategy would you suggest? Would you demand our allies put more troops there? And, I'm still waiting for your call for a timetable for withdrawal from there.

I for one have said from the start that I'd love to be wrong on this whole Iraq adventure. I'm very happy that I was wrong about the surge.

But I think that the success of the surge means we ought to leave sooner rather than later. Iraq's post-WWII history can be summed up with a simple trend: the Iraqis unite to get rid of somebody they don't like, then turn against whoever led that fight.

Even since the invasion we've seen it a couple times. The US led the fight against Saddam. Iraqis rejoiced at Saddam's fall, then turned against the US and threw their lot in with the foreign terrorists. Then the foreign terrorists overplayed their hand, the Iraqis turned on them, and helped the US put them on the edge of defeat. But once the foreign terrorists are pushed out, you can bet that the Iraqis will turn their energy to pushing the US.

It would be best for us to get our troops out of there before that turn happens. The fact that the Iraqi government likes Obama's pullout timetable is evidence that it's the right way to go. Overstaying our welcome (again) will only get more of our brave soldiers killed when it's not necessary.

[Deleted]

As I've pointed out before, paraphrasing a man much smarter than myself, "you can't win a war on terrorism. It's like winning a war on jealousy." It just can't be done.

That's not to say we should or shouldn't be in Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan, etc. Just pointing out we're not actually fighting a "war" which implies an eventual winner and loser.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 21, 2008 18:40:54 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

The unwillingness of some to accept that the surge was the major, though not only, contributor to the greatly improved conditions in Iraq is amazing.

Story from today's NY Times questions the staying power of the temporary lessening of violence once the US leaves and the pay offs to Sunni fighters are no longer being made. This is why many feel the "success" of the surge is questionable and possibly exaggerated. The long term outlook for Iraq is anything but secure and predictable.

NY Times: Iraq Leaders Target Sunnis

The Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation.

In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military.

West of Baghdad, former insurgent leaders contend that the Iraqi military is going after 650 Awakening members, many of whom have fled the once-violent area they had kept safe. While the crackdown appears to be focused on a relatively small number of leaders whom the Iraqi government considers the most dangerous, there are influential voices to dismantle the American backed movement entirely.

“The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.”...

But it is causing a rift with the American military, which contends that any significant diminution of the Awakening could result in renewed violence, jeopardizing the substantial security gains in the past year. United States commanders say that the practice, however unconventional, of paying the guerrillas has saved the lives of hundreds of American soldiers.

“If it is not handled properly, we could have a security issue,” said Brig. Gen. David Perkins, the senior military spokesman in Iraq. “You don’t want to give anybody a reason to turn back to Al Qaeda.” Many Sunni insurgents had previously been allied with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other extremist groups.

[EasyEd]

Sir Saxa, a question. Was the surge a major factor in greatly improving the situation in Iraq?

[SirSaxa]

Aug 22, 2008 8:55:36 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Sir Saxa, a question. Was the surge a major factor in greatly improving the situation in Iraq?

I will answer your question, then get to the real issues.

The surge has resulted in less violence.
The surge has been more effective than I expected.
But then, I didn't know the surge's key strategic move would be to pay the terrorists to leave us alone.
Is the situation in Iraq greatly improved? The answer to that one is: no one really knows, but there are a great many reasons to question that.

As for your earlier comment:

Didn't Obama in fact propose a timetable when we were losing the war, before the surge which he opposed? Now we are winning and it's appropriate to talk about further withdrawals, based on the conditions on the ground.

Obama did propose a timetable, as did a great many others including prominent Republicans with years of experience and success in foreign affairs. The Iraqi's also wanted a timetable.

Now the Iraqis have the leverage to demand a timetable, and Bush has the cover of lessened violence due to the payoffs to the Sunnis, and he is using that to suddenly "flip flop" on timetables, claim we are winning, and try to negotiate a schedule to get our troops out -- long after he is out of office.

"Winning the war".... no, I don't think anyone can legitimately claim we are "winning the war". Evaluating the success of this entire Iraq mis-adventure will not be possible for years. Has there been any demonstrable progress at getting the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to work together?

More importantly, Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror", nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with the Taliban, and has only a tangential relationship to Al Qaeda and even that only came about AFTER we invaded Iraq.

But it has caused us to lose the overwhelming international support we had after 9/11 (and cost lives and billions of $$) including when we took action in Afghanistan. We need that international support if we are to make real progress against the real terrorists.

We also need that support to control the dissemination of nuclear weapons (the real ones, not the non-existent Iraqi "WMD") and possible dirty bombs. Instead, our relationship with Russia (the key to that control) continues to deteriorate.

And we have done absolutely zero about reducing global dependence on oil, which is the number one challenge to national and international security.

You are frustrated because you feel Bush is not getting credit for reducing violence in Iraq and, as you believe, "winning" the war there.

Many of us are frustrated because there is no evidence that Iraq is any closer to establishing a stable and legitimate, inclusive government, despite the temporary drop in violence.


We are also frustrated because the Bush team never finished the job in Afghanistan where trouble continues to fester, is not dealing with the real terror issue, and is not taking steps to get the international community on our side and to make a legitimate, serious, tangible contribution to making America and the world safer.