The Race is On: Inauguration Day or Collapse of Iraq?

[hgc]

In which I start on the premise that Bush is engaged in a holding action with the U.S. military being held hostage in Iraq in ransom for Bush's place in history as the non-loser of a catastrophic war.

But if there's anything the last 4 years have demonstrated, it's that the world does not bend to the will of G.W. Bush, CinC. His wish, though most fervently, if inelegantly, expressed, is not reality's demand. Everyone now understands this, except for the man at the center of the storm. He intends to keep this thing afloat until Jan 20, 2009, when he can walk away with his head held high and the sure judgement of future generations on his side.

Then there's that pesky reality: Iraq continues to collapse into anarchy and a revived legislative branch of government back home. Will reality catch up with Bush and force withdrawal during his presidency?

 

[Schneibster]

I read your post before I voted; had I voted based on the thread title, I might have voted "yes." I think that Iraq will collapse into warring factions, with a few warlords emerging a la Somalia. The Kurds, the Baathists, the Sunni split about fifteen ways, a couple more Shi'a groups, al Qaeda, al Sistani, al Sadr... hell, you can't keep track of 'em all. And they're all killing each other, all the time. You've only got to look at the numbers of dead to see that. There's no way we can impose a solution. The very idea is ludicrous.

On the other hand, frat-boi ain't smart enough to figure that out. He still thinks if we wait around long enough we'll be able to "win," or at least if we don't pull out until after his term is over, he won't have "lost." I keep hearing otherwise responsible people saying Harry Reid said we'd already lost the war; what he REALLY said was, "As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost." But that's never what you hear quoted by the "liberal media."

 

[gumboot]

This is really badly worded...

I guarantee the US will withdraw forces from Iraq before that date. In fact I'd be willing to bet various forces are being withdrawn AS WE SPEAK.

The question is, are they being replaced?

Do you mean withdrawal of all forces? Some? How many qualifies? Any, at all? (Even one soldier?).

Frankly, Planet X.

-Gumboot

 

[hgc]

This is really badly worded...

I guarantee the US will withdraw forces from Iraq before that date. In fact I'd be willing to bet various forces are being withdrawn AS WE SPEAK.

The question is, are they being replaced?

Do you mean withdrawal of all forces? Some? How many qualifies? Any, at all? (Even one soldier?).

Frankly, Planet X.

-Gumboot

I didn't care to define it further. I leave it to each respondent to define "withdraw" for themselves and vote. For me it's nearly completely withdrawn, allowing for a few thousand left over.

 

[fuelair]

Actually, a few days back, CNN or MSNBC ran Reids' full line - though they did not make a big point of it- three or four times (repeat material). Not sure which because politics and watching same on news is my wifes' thing (she is near-glued to the Gonzalez stuff) and she often switches between those two at commercials.

 

[Puppycow]

If it was down to 60,000 troops by January 20, which of those poll answers would that mean?

If I had to guess I'd guess it'll still be over 100,000 at the time, so I guess that means no, but I could envision scenarios such as if Petraus says the surge isn't working where the pressure to withdraw would become more than even this stubborner-than-a-mule president could resist. (But first even Laura and Barney would have to start carrying Troops Home Now! signs around).

 

[slingblade]

if we don't pull out until after his term is over, he won't have "lost."

Agree. Surprisingly, but still.

 

[hgc]

If it was down to 60,000 troops by January 20, which of those poll answers would that mean?

If I had to guess I'd guess it'll still be over 100,000 at the time, so I guess that means no, but I could envision scenarios such as if Petraus says the surge isn't working where the pressure to withdraw would become more than even this stubborner-than-a-mule president could resist. (But first even Laura and Barney would have to start carrying Troops Home Now! signs around).

Interesting point on Petraus. I would like to see compiled statistics of how many times his name has been invoked by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Bartlett, Boehner, Lieberman, McCain, etc, etc, etc, since he took over command of the occupation and escalation. "Petraus" is like a magic talisman that is supposed to ward off all criticism of a demonstrably failed and continuiously failing policy.

But what about when the facts on the ground overwhelm even the grandest of corner-turning optimists? What then "Petraus?" Just like how that dope Tenet was invoked repeatedly with his "slam dunk" to justify bad pre-war decision making, so will "Petraus" become the new expert who told me it would work out just fine. Believe you me, Bush will never own up to his bad decisions, and Petraus is a pre-determined foil. I've even heard the repeated rejoinder to Dems that they confirmed Petraus as commander in Iraq unanimously in the Senate. They are already setting up Dems to participate in the failure of the escalation to turn the corner.

 

[rikzilla]

Inspiring a military defeat in order to profit politically is, in a word, despicable. The modern US Democratic Party can now only fail in their political ambitions if Iraq succeeds in theirs. Is it any wonder that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are cheerleaders for defeatism?

All actions have consequences. We went into Iraq:

• Defeated the entire Iraqi Army
• Captured Saddam
• Fostered a fledgling democracy freeing millions of Iraqis from tyranny.
• Fought the terrorists with our Army instead of allowing them safe havens from which to do further 9/11-scale attacks against us.

...and it came with a huge downside; an insurgency that bleeds our forces every day with no end in sight.

Tell me, all of you, what do you think are the possible/probable consequences of leaving Iraq to anarchy and civil war? Eh? Or do most of you think it'll all be puppydogs and butterflies once the troops come shuffling home?

Honestly, we need a political solution in Iraq and the military is ill suited to providing one. We rely on begging the Iraqi government to set aside their differences and work together for the betterment of their nation.

But then when they look to Washington they're only apt to see another example of internecine political warfare...hypocrisy...betrayal.....just like home.

In the immortal words of Rodney King:
"Can't we all just get along?"

Sorry Rodney, the answer is no.

-z

 

[hgc]

Inspiring a military defeat in order to profit politically is, in a word, despicable. ...

Precipitating a defeat by failed policy, and then blaming your opponents of that policy for inspiring your defeat, is beneath contempt, beyond despicable.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In which I start on the premise that Bush is engaged in a holding action with the U.S. military being held hostage in Iraq in ransom for Bush's place in history as the non-loser of a catastrophic war.

But if there's anything the last 4 years have demonstrated, it's that the world does not bend to the will of G.W. Bush, CinC. His wish, though most fervently, if inelegantly, expressed, is not reality's demand. Everyone now understands this, except for the man at the center of the storm. He intends to keep this thing afloat until Jan 20, 2009, when he can walk away with his head held high and the sure judgement of future generations on his side.

Then there's that pesky reality: Iraq continues to collapse into anarchy and a revived legislative branch of government back home. Will reality catch up with Bush and force withdrawal during his presidency?

I voted yes, as I believe that no US forces will remain in Iraq on that day in 2009, but there will be US forces in Kurdistan. I am guessing two brigade/regiment sized task forces, with some organic air support, and considerable command and control facilities. The rest will have gone south before then in a six to eight month retrogade movement into Kuwait and points elsewhere.

Iraq is slowly but surely starting to not exist. It seems to me that many people are not noticing that.

DR

 

[Regnad Kcin]

• Fought the terrorists with our Army instead of allowing them safe havens from which to do further 9/11-scale attacks against us.

???

 

[hgc]

I voted yes, as I believe that no US forces will remain in Iraq on that day in 2009, but there will be US forces in Kurdistan. I am guessing two brigade/regiment sized task forces, with some organic air support, and considerable command and control facilities. The rest will have gone south before then in a six to eight month retrogade movement into Kuwait and points elsewhere.

Iraq is slowly but surely starting to not exist. It seems to me that many people are not noticing that.

DR

I wonder if under those conditions, US forces in Kurdistan would have use of Incirlik AB. Heads up asses don't have a good view of the battlefield. Bush can't help but knock something over every way he turns. He's like Jerry Lewis, except it's not funny.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Bush can't help but knock something over every way he turns. He's like Jerry Lewis, except it's not funny.

Brilliant.

Dr