Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two days after the election of Barack Obama, Iraq's chief spokesman said with unusual forcefulness Thursday that his government will continue to insist on a firm withdrawal date for U.S. troops, despite American demands that any pullout be subject to prevailing security conditions.
We went under the pretense of finding WMD's, which we didn't find and likely didn't exist. Then we decided we were there to liberate Iraq from Saddam, we did this. Then we said we were there to create a free and stable Iraq, and now that free and relatively stable Iraq is telling us to pack our bags and move on down the road. So, what will be the level of "security conditions" required in order for the US to actually finally leave Iraq? Will they be required to be safer than a Washington DC neighborhood?
What will be the next criteria in this never changing goal post?
I don't think that Obama or the US will have much choice in the matter. Without a status of forces agreement, the US loses what little legitimacy it still retains for the occupation, and yes it is an occupation. Additionally, if the US refuses to accede to the Iraqi's demand the possibility of a four party insurgency is quite possible if the militias that form the backbone of the present Iraqi government choose to become involved. And remember, two of those militias, the Badr Corps, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are Iranian trained and supported.
Well considering that we have bombed Pakistan and Syria, one of whom it was believe were our allies, I get the feeling that whatever the outcome of the vote on this agreement is mere formality, to which some event such as a car bomb will be offered up as an excuse or example of why Iraq has not reached the required level of safety the US states. (whatever that level actually is)
Obama and Maliki agree on the troop withdrawal timetable, so yes, I believe the U.S. will leave when they are told.
It's funny, even George Bush finally came around when Maliki embraced Obama's withdrawal plan. John McCain and the far right were the only ones that wanted to stay in Iraq so they could achieve "victory."
Well considering that we have bombed Pakistan and Syria, one of whom it was believe were our allies, I get the feeling that whatever the outcome of the vote on this agreement is mere formality, to which some event such as a car bomb will be offered up as an excuse or example of why Iraq has not reached the required level of safety the US states. (whatever that level actually is)
Your first two examples are hardly relevant to your argument. Conflating strikes on "al-Qaeda" targets in Pakistan is hardly the same as attack Pakistan. And conflating such attacks with a car bomb attack as an excuse for maintaining an occupation are hardly similar.
As I pointed out, it is one thing to strike a distant target where one does not have vulnerable targets and sitting in a hornets nest of potential adversaries, and a hostile hosting government. It will take more than a Gulf of Tonkin incident to keep American troops in a country where neither the occupying nation or the nation doing the occupying lack the political desire to see its continuance, and where the SOFA is the only thin thread of legitimacy that remains.
I don't know what you are guys talking about Bush's exit strategy is working like gangbusters. It will be someone elses problem on january 20th.
Perkins Well you don't win an occupation by thinking you win by kicking butt and kicking butt NOW. Heck, don't you want America to climax, I mean win.
I don't think America can win in Iraq, especially in Afghanistan. Its like another Vietnam.
Both wars are over, but the fighting continues. Its like the Arabs are constantly resurging, and one day they will get there. It will eventually end when the last American soldiers are airlifted from the middle of the battleground that was once Baghdad.
We went under the pretense of finding WMD's, which we didn't find and likely didn't exist. Then we decided we were there to liberate Iraq from Saddam, we did this. Then we said we were there to create a free and stable Iraq, and now that free and relatively stable Iraq is telling us to pack our bags and move on down the road. So, what will be the level of "security conditions" required in order for the US to actually finally leave Iraq? Will they be required to be safer than a Washington DC neighborhood?
What will be the next criteria in this never changing goal post?
there is an agreement awaiting Iraqi acceptance for a full wihdrawl by 2011, starting with a drawdown at the mid of next year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
