Withdrawal ain't just a river in Egypt

[we vs us]

From an AP article, as quoted on talkingpointsmemo.com:

quote: Iraqi security adviser says country will insist on timetable for withdrawal of American troops

SALLY BUZBEE
AP News

Jul 08, 2008 09:34 EST

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

[snip]

"Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong ... We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq," al-Rubaie said.

[snip]

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability. Iraqi officials have sharpened their public stance in the negotiations considerably in just the last few days.

It's at this point that I ask: pancakes, John McCain?  Are we still insisting that a hundred year occupation is the gold standard?  In light of these developments, can we at least moderate to a 50 year occupation?

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus, the 100 year occupation line is really over played.  Not only is it consistently out of context, it is often purposefully delivered so as to be taken out of context.  He basically said he would keep troops in Iraq 100 years if it was required "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."  Much like we still have a presence in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

I'll assume you were just ignorant of his actual statement.  He did not say he wants to stay 100 years, he said he would if need be... and even that had a caveat.  
- - -

My stance is, we need to stay until we fix the mess we created.  Like the war or not, we caused some chaos.  For our security (physical and economic), to save international face (don't abandon allies) and for the altruistic bennefit of the Iraqi's and the region... we can't just walk away.

BUT, if the sovereign government of Iraq wants us to leave.  We should honor their wishes.  It could be a great excuse to save face and walk away, any problems that arise were a result of their government asking us to leave.  

I don't want to be there, but atm... I trust our generals when they say we have to be to meet our goals.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I trust our generals when they say we have to be to meet our goals.

Isn't that like asking the electric company whether we're better served with efficient full-cutoff light fixtures or not?

Our military is in the business of war. Of course they're going to say we need to continue blowing things up (and getting blown up). Asking someone with a vested interest in the in an issue what to do and blindly following that advice isn't exactly bright.

That's not to say that an expert who happens to have a vested interest in one particular outcome is automatically wrong, but their opinion is suspect and shouldn't be taken on faith.

[cannon_fodder]

I agree Nathan, but the alternative is to belief politicians who have little or no clue what is actually going on in Iraq.  In the end of the day, I want the politicians in charge.  But if the question is "will Iraq be a secure nation if our troops leave,"  the only qualified groups to answer that question is a handful of military think tanks (Jane's), the Iraqi's, and our military.

And the military is just as invested in getting the hell out of Iraq.  We are destroying equipment faster than it can be replaced.  We are burning out our NCOs at an amazing rate.  As well as our young officer corps.  Certainly a protracted war is not good for the military when there is no sense of self preservation (ie. when we win we lay off half the generals).  And on an individual level, the vast majority of service members have had their fill.

[FOTD]

McSame said if the government of Iraq wants us out, we need to get out (2004). Now, McFlipflop sez we need to stay despite what the Iraqi's request of us.

We don't need 4 more years of the same we've had for 8. DO WE?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

McSame said if the government of Iraq wants us out, we need to get out (2004). Now, McFlipflop sez we need to stay despite what the Iraqi's request of us.

We don't need 4 more years of the same we've had for 8. DO WE?

1) It's hard to take you seriously when you consistently call people names.  It's funny from time to time, but all you do is make up childish names for people.  No wonder most people have given up responding to you.

2) Source?  Other than some conspiracy blog.

3) As I understand it, along with the rest of the world, McCain is clarifying his understanding of the demand.  I have found no source stating that he will keep US troops there in spite of an Iraqi demand to leave:

"The Iraqis have made it very clear, including the meetings I had with the president and foreign minister of Iraq, that it is based on conditions on the ground" - John McCain to MSNBC yesterday.  http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5icMg7uJLrzdcOx0lcwi9lv2TA9LQ

I understand that your position is what was implied by the Obama email, but there is a difference between what was said and what was implied.  McCain said nothing that invalidates his previous statement.

- We will have to leave if the Iraqi's tell us to.
- I think the terms need to be dictated by events on the ground.

That is not a refusal to leave upon demand, even in it's simplest form.  But don't worry... if you keep throwing enough crap on the wall something will stick.

Seriously, the positions are very different.  McCain wants to stay in Iraq until the situation warrants a withdrawal. Obama wants to leave on a set timetable.  It's that simple.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, the 100 year occupation line is really over played.  Not only is it consistently out of context, it is often purposefully delivered so as to be taken out of context.  He basically said he would keep troops in Iraq 100 years if it was required "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."  Much like we still have a presence in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

I'll assume you were just ignorant of his actual statement.  He did not say he wants to stay 100 years, he said he would if need be... and even that had a caveat.  
- - -

My stance is, we need to stay until we fix the mess we created.  Like the war or not, we caused some chaos.  For our security (physical and economic), to save international face (don't abandon allies) and for the altruistic bennefit of the Iraqi's and the region... we can't just walk away.

BUT, if the sovereign government of Iraq wants us to leave.  We should honor their wishes.  It could be a great excuse to save face and walk away, any problems that arise were a result of their government asking us to leave.  

I don't want to be there, but atm... I trust our generals when they say we have to be to meet our goals.

The 100 yrs remark IS overplayed, but it's still around for a reason:  it's indicative of his hardline stance towards Iraq. He's been attacking Democrats, the media, even other Republicans on their willingness to set withdrawal dates, or to even consider the idea of leaving "before the job is done." That phrase, though, has become so empty, such a platitude, that it amounts to political excuse-making rather than any sort of policy.

I've heard the full text of the 100 yrs comment, and really find it only slightly less out of touch with reality than the soundbyted version. He's still pitching decades of occupation (namechecking WW2 and Korea lays that out pretty plainly) and essentially ignoring heavy public opinion on the US, and now the Iraqi sides of things. The "if required" caveat is just another version of "until the job is done."  What job?  What are the goals and the benchmarks?  What is "done?"  He won't say any of that.  But the problem is, trying to keep it secret from terrorists also keeps it secret from the American people. And I think it's becoming obvious that USians are about done with that set up.

And really, leaving Iraq is going to take upwards of a year or so, so it's not like the insurgents are going to be caught looking around at each other going, "wha? where'd they go?"

[Crash Daily]

We need to oblige the Iraqi request. I suggest we begin the preparation of withdrawing our troops by gathering them in a convenient location. I think the most convenient and best suited location would be along the border of Iran.

For those who might think I'm talking about yet another occupation, no I'm not. We simply move through Iran, in to Syria and then turn around, go back through Iran, rinse and repeat until our message is fully understood. What message you say? We're not going to occupy your nation, because unless you straighten up and fly right, there'll be no nation to occupy. Let's make that the moto for both Syria and Iran.

We don't really suffer many casualties when we are using the full might of our military. Mainly, just friendly fire. This is a way to complete our current critical objectives in the Middle East and get our troops out of Iraq without losing Iraq to the flood of terrorist in Iran. They'll be to busy dying in Iran.

I'm sure that if they understood we don't intend to take no for an answer, that we could come to an amicable agreement after the 3rd or 4th time through.  []

[FOTD]

Go figure....

U.S. Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13military.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"One factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there."

Right out of the Obama playbook.



Stupidity is the Conservative's revenge for having been misinformed..... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?th&emc=th  

[Crash Daily]

Shouldn't the rest of the WORLD be helping us more in Afghanistan? I understand the Iraq situation, but I'm pretty sure everyone was in agreement on removing the Taliban.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Crash Daily

Shouldn't the rest of the WORLD be helping us more in Afghanistan? I understand the Iraq situation, but I'm pretty sure everyone was in agreement on removing the Taliban.

The devil believes the rest the world woke up to our poor leadership long before the sheeples of the U.S. "Was" is past tense. Besides, $144.00 oil is their weapon. What's ours? John McSame?

The taliban is the Conservative's revenge for having been asleep at the wheel.....

[Crash Daily]

It sure isn't Obama. Unfortunately, I agree with you. McCain isn't the right man either, though the way I look at is, like Bush, he'll be shooting holes in our boat with a shot gun, whereas Obama is going to use a bazooka. At least we may be able to eventually patch the shot gun holes, but not the bazooka.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Crash Daily

It sure isn't Obama. Unfortunately, I agree with you. McCain isn't the right man either, though the way I look at is, like Bush, he'll be shooting holes in our boat with a shot gun, whereas Obama is going to use a bazooka. At least we may be able to eventually patch the shot gun holes, but not the bazooka.

Lame out.....