He’d have to send troops into Iraq on a third invasion, but this time it wouldn’t be as part of driving Saddam from Kuwait, or WMD, or ties to AQ, or even humanitarian reasons. It’d be purely about oil, and keeping terrorist groups as well as rogue states like Iran and Syria from it. That’s why the 50,000 troops are not slated to be removed by XX/YY/ZZ date.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What will happen if the Sunnis do rise up after the majority of the U.S. forces leave (minus the 50,000 “peacekeepers?” If Iraq’s own forces are able to quell the uprising, then Obama would be able to claim that the overall timetable was correct, and will probably take the credit. But if Iraq’s government cannot suppress an uprising, what are Obama’s options? Withdraw the remaining troops, allow Iraq to fight a civil war, and blame Bush for mishandling the operation? Let the UN handle it? Or would Obama feel pressured into sending troops back into Iraq?

I’m not too sure that the Sunni population is all that willing to maintain the status quo.

Jeff V

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The entire point of the Revolution was to prove that no man must bow down before another-especially an American bowing to someone else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott. He still a professional campaigner. Don’t know what he campaigning for but appears he has his eye on replacing Allah. That’s about as high as an Islamist can go. He wasn’t bowing to the king, he was going to the floor to kiss the kings feet and thought better of it. Almost fell when he tried to right himself.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Scott Malensek:

I’m saying the SOB should have listened to them before when he was a Senator and professional campaigner. It might have hurt him politically, but helped us nationally in a war.

Bears repeating, exactly!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dave, Bush said the same thing in 2003. He said the US troops had to stay in Iraq rather than withdraw too fast. He was always conditions-based rather than timeline based. Yet Obama opposed that strategy, and now he not only supports it, but ADVOCATES and thanks people for it.

You cannot wish for success, and oppose it.

How does one thank people for doing something, and then appear sincere for all the years he opposed their doing that same something?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Odom was wrong. He suggests that Iraq can only be solved by Iraqis ALONE. Obama disagrees (for a myriad of reasons), and the Iraqi people have disagreed by their actions (understandably so). After 30yrs of tyranny (centuries really), they are reasonably fearful of literally Biblical reprisals if they stand up (see also Gen Bing West’s book, The Strongest Tribe). As such, they have been reluctant to stand up and resolve things on their own in such a way that would bring them peace and peace to the region. It wasn’t until the Awakenings started in 06 that things began to turn. I agree w Pres Bush and Pres Obama that Iraqis will in the end take care of themselves and be a peaceful nation, but Odom is wrong that ONLY they can do that. They have been terrorized in the worst possible manner, and need support. That’s what Pres Bush and US forces have been trying to do for years-to support them. President Obama opposed that, and now he not only supports it, but advocates it.

Odom is a man of outdated thinking. It’s like taking a master carpenter and asking him how to build a 100 story steel building. He’s simply not trained in the Middle East, in Holy War (and that’s what Jihad is), in terrorism, or in Iraq (and that’s been going on long enough now to have an entirely unique school of thought/training).

Larry, you say Obama’s just following the advice of his generals. Those are Bush’s generals. They advised Bush. I’m not saying he’s wrong now. I’m saying the SOB should have listened to them before when he was a Senator and professional campaigner. It might have hurt him politically, but helped us nationally in a war.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott,

There is absolutely no contradiction in opposing the invasion of Iraq, or an ongoing troop committment to Iraq, and then later thanking the troops for bravely and dutifully performing the mission given them by their then Commander In Chief.

As Larry points out, Obama is avoiding a precipitous withdrawal. He is not making an indefinite commitment of troops. He has set August 2010 as the date for the withdrawal of approximately 100 troops and 2011 as the date for the withdrawal of the remainder of our troops. He is fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw as carefully, as we went in carelessly.

NAS1916,

I think the troops are hanging on until they can go home to their friends and family.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

“…based on political pragmatism.”

Now there is a core principle! Don’t do what you think is right based on ethics or morality, just do what is politically pragmatic. You must be proud but I have to give you credit – you’re being honest this time.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Odom was wrong,

How can you know this?

And what’s your personal opinion of the analysis of Thomas Ricks (quoted above)?

Obama’s doing what he’s doing because it’s the path of least political risk and because it prevents Iraq from being a distraction from his economic goals. He can’t be criticized for following the advice of the military, and the military devised their strategy to deal with conditions on the ground which existed because of Bush’s decision to invade. So Obama is basically taking a hands off approach to Iraq (essentially leaving it on autopilot), based on political pragmatism.

- Larry W/HB

Like or Dislike: 0  0