Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?

[kai]

First, we need to pull THIS president out of the White House.

and the bad guys will all go away

 

[retrorich]

and the bad guys will all go away

At least ONE bad guy will go away: George W. Bushtard!

 

[PureX]

I am concurring with Patrick here. The problem which creates speculation is why the USA invaded Iraq in the first place. Propositions include,

1) the war on terror
2) wmd
3) democracy in iraq
4) oil
5) establish a military base in the middle east to contend with future m.e. political issues by force when neccessary
6) protection of israel and us friendly countires in the ME.


There may be others but without argueing which of this list are valid or invalid we can reasonably deduce the following.

1) If the motive is a war on terror than it is a long-term project and the next president will not have a pull-out option in the backdrop of that directive.

2) if it is wmd we found none and are still there which stipulates we may use this as a starting point to check neigboring countries and moniter activities. If only checking Iraq was the primary motive than there would be a pullout as we speak. There is not.
3) democracy in iraq. another long-term goal giving the counties history, economic structure and religious influence.

4) oil= permanent occupation.

5) establish a base = permanent occupation

6) protection of israel = establish a base= permanent occupation.

If you look at the pure economics of it the conservatives of our political nation see the miltary as an investment in foreign relations. The negoication power of the USA stems very strongly on our military might. However moblization both to and from the middle east is costly. Much more economically costly than just establishing a permanent base and in a blanket cost-benefit analysis is makes more sense to set-up shop and stay there than it does to ship soldiers back and forth back and forth back and forth.

I just don't see a senerio irrgardless of what validity you assign to our initial invasion of iraq where pulling out is economically or politically feasible.

The American people aren't buying into any of your proposed reasons for invading or staying in Iraq. And believe it or not, they will have their say in the end. We will pull out of Iraq, and fairly soon, because the politicians who propose otherwise are going to be booted out of office. And since politicians want to keep their positions of power above all else in life, they will do what the American people want in the end.

Also, not one of the reasons you listed is really viable. The longer American military forces remain on Arab soil, the more strenuously they will be opposed and attacked by Arab "terrorists" from across the Arab world. This reality is not going to go away over time. In fact, it will only get worse over time. Sooner or later the American government is going to have to get that into it's head. I think the American people are already beginning to understand it, and I think a lot of politicians are beginning to, as well.

 

[kai]

The American people aren't buying into any of your proposed reasons for invading or staying in Iraq. And believe it or not, they will have their say in the end. We will pull out of Iraq, and fairly soon, because the politicians who propose otherwise are going to be booted out of office. And since politicians want to keep their positions of power above all else in life, they will do what the American people want in the end.

Also, not one of the reasons you listed is really viable. The longer American military forces remain on Arab soil, the more strenuously they will be opposed and attacked by Arab "terrorists" from across the Arab world. This reality is not going to go away over time. In fact, it will only get worse over time. Sooner or later the American government is going to have to get that into it's head. I think the American people are already beginning to understand it, and I think a lot of politicians are beginning to, as well.

then you think Iraq is a lost cause to the insurgents. and another rogue state joins the que to hate the west

 

[PureX]

then you think Iraq is a lost cause to the insurgents. and another rogue state joins the que to hate the west

Not necessarily. We don't know who will win the civil war. And we don't know how they will react to the lunatics and zealots trying to convince them and Iraqis in general to die in a jihad against the infidels. In fact, Iraqis are not known for their religious zealotry, and may not react positively to such nihilism. Before the invasion, and especially before America's complete failure in establishing and maintaining order after the invasion, a lot of Iraqis were hopeful that perhaps the downfall of Saddam could lead to a new and somewhat more democratic Iraq. Those hopes are now lost, but the point is that Iraqis did have that hope, once, and so are not especially hell-bent on killing themselves in a religious war against the world. It will take time, and a lot of violence for the mess in Iraq to work itself out. But in the end I don't believe that Iraq is destined to be a terrorist mecca. The terrorists will certainly try to make it so, but once WE GET OUT, a lot of the fire will die out for that sort of nihilistic nonsense.

The Iraqis are going to want to rebuild their country, not fight jihads.

 

[cardero]

Pure X writes: The American people aren't buying into any of your proposed reasons for invading or staying in Iraq. And believe it or not, they will have their say in the end. We will pull out of Iraq, and fairly soon, because the politicians who propose otherwise are going to be booted out of office. And since politicians want to keep their positions of power above all else in life, they will do what the American people want in the end.

I am with you on this the whole way. I am sure there are many other people who would also agree with you…but I am not sure the American government is interested in listening to our public voice. Vietnam was a very unpopular stance and it took years before our government realized it was a futile effort. I can’t think of any international campaign in this century where our American assistance was needed in the form of combat.
Most likely a situation will be created to convince the American public that we are still needed over there. They may continue to insinuate that the “war on terror” isn’t over or that they have invested too much time and effort to pull out (the construction of American bases seems like they are in it for the long haul). If all else fails, they may even appeal to our materialistic values by telling Americans it will benefit our fuel economy by staying there.
I feel a bit saddened because this time Americans are really willing to forgive and forget. This is actually a brave stance for our country, it is a shame that are government electives do not share our American opinion.

Pure X writes: Also, not one of the reasons you listed is really viable. The longer American military forces remain on Arab soil, the more strenuously they will be opposed and attacked by Arab "terrorists" from across the Arab world.

Though many seasoned military leaders will admit that this war is a lot easier than past battles, the value of an American life has always seemed expendable in administrative objecives.

 

[Booko]

Some folks are saying that regardless of who is elected president in 2008, the United States will be pulling out of Iraq in 2009.

They point to the fact, not always reported by the media in America, that Iraq is in a civil war. The current number of troops in Iraq cannot stop it. And America needs its forces elsewhere anyway. Hence, the next president, regardless of party, will have no choice but to cut and run.

Do you believe it is essentially true that the next president will have no real, practical choice but to pull out of Iraq?

What are the prospects for a Republican president in '08 if no Republican candidates can escape the stigma of being the party that lead us into Iraq?

If there is a Democrat President in '08, what are the prospects for the Religious Right and its social agenda?

What will happen to Iraq after the American withdrawl?

Perhaps the better question is:

Will the US retreat to its bases in Eastern Iraq (bordering Iran) and treat them, tactically speaking, as Crusader castles, to provide a check on Iran?

If they leave the country entirely and quit the bases, then they are very foolish indeed.

That's the strategic reason we invaded Iraq in the first place.

Making money for cronies was just a nice add-on.

 

[Booko]

I hate that we invaded Iraq. I didn't support that decision, and I hate that we still have troops in Iraq. However, if it were up to me, I would send more troops over there to impose order and secure that country properly. 300,000 troops on the ground, that is about twice what we have now. This would allow us to train more Iraqis for their military and police forces, as well as give us enough troops to lighten the burden on the troops we currently have there fighting the insurgency.

I think it worth noting there is a possible parallel here with Vietnam. And yes, I do think it's possible to lose 50K troops in Iraq, should we have too large a footprint. It could happen relatively quickly.

 

[Booko]

Not necessarily. We don't know who will win the civil war.

I'd put my money on the Shi'a. There are more of them, and they are highly motivated, not to mentioned financially and otherwise backed by Iran.

The Kurds, otoh, will continue, as they have since 1991, to maintain their semi-autonomous state. It might, in time, be like another Taiwan, where it really is an autonomous state, but no one quite dares to call it that. because the Turks will be annoyed by the thought of an independent Kurdish state.

 

[kai]

I'd put my money on the Shi'a. There are more of them, and they are highly motivated, not to mentioned financially and otherwise backed by Iran.

The Kurds, otoh, will continue, as they have since 1991, to maintain their semi-autonomous state. It might, in time, be like another Taiwan, where it really is an autonomous state, but no one quite dares to call it that. because the Turks will be annoyed by the thought of an independent Kurdish state.

i agree with you there would be a terrible civil war with the sunnis coming off worse, i could even see Iranian forces aiding the shia, the Kurds would stay out of it to the best of their ability with Iraq ending up as a sort of annexe to Iran. the wild card would be anyone aiding the sunnis arab or otherwise

 

[almifkhar]

folks i don't know why you are making possible bets on who will win the civil war. none of them will win.

we created this problem when we put inhuman sanctions on iraq which wiped out the middle class. we created this problem when we betrayed the shia right after gulf 1 which resulted in deaths,etc. do you really believe they forgot? we created this problem when we invaded again and destroyed their government, public works, and society. we created this problem when we allowed a shia majority in the 'new and improved' iraqi puppet government. because under saddam, it was a secular state, and those days are over. we created this problem when we turned iraq into mozambique.

the next president will not pull out of iraq. i repeat, the next president will not pull out of iraq!

there is an old saying that goes, when the government no longer fears the people, the tyranny begins. in the case of the american government, they have no fear of the people because the people don't give them any reason to be afraid. if the american public was in so much control, how come bush just skated away from a obstruction of justice charge? this is the same crime that forced nixon to resign, but bush just got away with it! ya'll better get your heads out of the clouds and plant your feet on the ground of reality and pay attention to what your fearless leaders are up to.

 

[kai]

the problem in iraq is in Iraq, why put blame on the coalition or the shia or say a civil war is enevitable , the answer lies in the people in Iraq. people say saddam kept it under control of course he did the mass graves are testimony to that . the coalition is there to help the people form a new country , i beleive that , if there is another way to help the Iraqis then tell me , its no good just to critisise or spout conspiracy theories the Iraqis need help not car baombs.

 

[BUDDY]

The religious right and its social agenda are just as much a danger as the islamic extremists. The difference is that they are constrained by our legal system whereas the islamic extremists are not.

That's just silly. Last time I looked, the "religious right" was not inolved in homocide bombings, calling for the destruction of Israel, or perpetuating fascism and totalitarianism. To equate the two is truely disgusting.

 

[BUDDY]

we created this problem when we put inhuman sanctions on iraq which wiped out the middle class.

That was the UN. And even that didn't work thanks to certain countries involved in the Oil for Food scandal, which paid Saddam millions, and his people nothing.

we created this problem when we betrayed the shia right after gulf 1 which resulted in deaths,etc. do you really believe they forgot?

We chose not to support the civil war. Baad decision yes, but we were not the only ones who chose not to help them. Where is your guilt trip for them?

we created this problem when we invaded again and destroyed their government, public works, and society.

Yes, we invaded and stopped Saddams ability to wage war. that is what you do in war. Then, we started rebuilding everything for them, in better shape than it was to begin with.

we created this problem when we allowed a shia majority in the 'new and improved' iraqi puppet government. because under saddam, it was a secular state, and those days are over.

No. nder Saddam it was a totalitarian government ruled by fear, torture and death. I supposed that you want Iraqis to go back to those days?

we created this problem when we turned iraq into mozambique.

Really? So your saying that Iraq is now marked by a 12% rate of HIV infection, adject poverty, and brutal periods of drought? And not only that, but you are also saying that Iraq is this way and we caused it? Silly.

the next president will not pull out of iraq. i repeat, the next president will not pull out of iraq!

Thank God!! We can't pull out of Iraq, even if it were the right thing to do. We need to stick around long enough for them to have a chance to make it.

there is an old saying that goes, when the government no longer fears the people, the tyranny begins. in the case of the american government, they have no fear of the people because the people don't give them any reason to be afraid. if the american public was in so much control, how come bush just skated away from a obstruction of justice charge? this is the same crime that forced nixon to resign, but bush just got away with it!

Maybe because there was no evidence of wrong doing? Maybe because he has great lawyers? I can't say, because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I can't recall formal charges ever being brought against the president by the independant prosecutor. In fact, they weren't. It was investigated and Scooter Libby was prosecuted. Get you facts straight. By the way, Nixon was never impeached and was never convicted of a crime. So again, get your facts straight and open a hsitory book before you start spreading your propoganda.

ya'll better get your heads out of the clouds and plant your feet on the ground of reality and pay attention to what your fearless leaders are up to.

Or else what? I think that I have shown whose head is in the clouds.

 

[almifkhar]

so we are rebuilding things in iraq ha? boy that is news to me considering all those billions are still unaccounted for and the iraqi citizen still only has lights for less than 4 hours a day.

if it was so toltarian, how come there was freedom of religion and how one wanted to practice that religion? under saddam, a woman did not have to hijab. if things were so bad there, how come they had the best hospitals and universities in the middle east? how come 80% of men had a job to support their families? how did a middle class thrive under such an oppressive pig? how come a child's nubmer one health problem was obesity?

iraq since bush jr. conquest has left 90% of the population in the pits of poverty and has left high health prolbems of double, tripple cancers in patients and high birth defects. before the first invasion, herion abuse was not a major problem in that country either.

no we invaded iraq the second time around because saddam traded his dollars in for euro. lets not forget iraq is an opec country and lets also not forget that oil has always been traded in dollars.

you want to know about the oil for food program, why don't you read the article writen by a u.n. offical who was incharge of this program and walked out on his job because he was so angry about the program and it was not because saddam was pocketing millions. the oil for food program came after the sanctions, long after.

how can you say we did not want a civil war in iraq? how can you say that we don't want any part of such a war? what sets the mood for such a war to happen? i want you to think about that and then compare it with how we destroyed the governemt, public works, middle class, society, and put a majority in to run this country. (iraq has always been a multi national country)

as far as bush goes, i guess you don't read the washington post much, they only reported what i said not 3 weeks ago. get your facts straight man, nixon resigned because if he didn't he would have been charged for obstruction of justice due to the watergate scandal. in bush's case it all had to do with the unconstituational wire tapping of our phone lines and internet use, and how he personally blocked the law to investagate it.

 

[kai]

this site has information regarding reconstruction projects in Iraq you wont see any of this on the news i guess its not newsworthy only death and destruction gets the limelight.
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

an idea of british efforts in reconstruction
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/key.htm

 

[almifkhar]

kai

i checked out your sites briefly i will admit, and if this is true i think it's great, however, i see iraq on my t.v. on a daily basis (because i have an iraqi sat. station on my dish) and i gota tell you, i have yet to see any new construction going on over there. i have even read interviews with american solders over in iraq and things don't sound good for iraq, iraqis, let alone for our troops. our troops themselves say that part of their job is going and talking with the locals to see what they have in the way of security, power, water. they report that they write down what the locals need and nothing yet has ever been done about it. it was sad to read them say that they feel like their mear targets and don't understand why they are there. (sounds like something a vietnam vet would have said) if trash is all over the streets because the trash man is not picking up trash, things are not being rebuilt. if locals are lucky to get 4 hours of lights, things are not being rebuilt. if locals are complaining water is hard to come by and how our troops sometimes take pitty on them and give them water, things are not being rebuilt and it beggs the question, where did all those billions go?

 

[PureX]

this site has information regarding reconstruction projects in Iraq you wont see any of this on the news i guess its not newsworthy only death and destruction gets the limelight.
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

an idea of british efforts in reconstruction
http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/key.htm

That's it??? We spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq so far, and all the Iraqis got for it was a woman's center with a few sowing machines and computers and an asphalt plant, most of which is likely being used by the U.S. military itself? They still don't have water or electricity but they have a woman's center and an asphalt plant? And you're offering this as evidence of rebuilding????

The Brits have spent a mere fraction of what we have and they've at least managed to rebuild some hospitals. 'Course, hospitals without electricity and water aren't going to be all that useful, but at least it shows some concern for people's health.

Man, what a dismal and hopeless picture this presents. And it sure does beg the question, 'where did all that money go?'

 

[!Fluffy!]

That's it??? We spent 400 billion dollars in Iraq so far, and all the Iraqis got for it was a woman's center with a few sowing machines and computers and an asphalt plant, most of which is likely being used by the U.S. military itself? They still don't have water or electricity but they have a woman's center and an asphalt plant? And you're offering this as evidence of rebuilding????

The Brits have spent a mere fraction of what we have and they've at least managed to rebuild some hospitals. 'Course, hospitals without electricity and water aren't going to be all that useful, but at least it shows some concern for people's health.

Man, what a dismal and hopeless picture this presents. And it sure does beg the question, 'where did all that money go?'

Please get your facts straight.

http://www.grd.usace.army.mil/news/releases/index.html

If that doesn't work simply go to the home page and click on the More Stories link at the bottom.

Also: from the PDF'd article linked at the top of the home page (McCoy Sets the Record Straight):

Three-quarters of Iraq gets twice as much electricity today as they did before the war.

Electricity in Baghdad is on at least 8 hours a day, improving constantly, and demand has been outstripping infrastructure due to a profusion of personal electronics Iraqis are buying that they never had access to before.

-- 800 new or rebuilt schools
-- water treatment plant to provide fresh water to over half a million people in 2 mos., another in northern Iraq providing water for 330,000 citizens of Irbil. Not to mention thousands of miles of new roads, police stations, courthouses and post offices.

Things are improving rapidly every day and the military and U.S. contractors are relying heavily on the many brave Iraqis eager to take over, even in the face of grave personal danger.

 

[!Fluffy!]

(Just a minor nit-pick):

And it sure does beg the question, 'where did all that money go?'

In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.