When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fasternu426
16 years ago
Let’s see… listen to John Murtha, Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi or General Petraeus??
doug
16 years ago
P.M. Maliki:
…”I believe the American forces can draw down,” he told CNN Sunday in an interview. “I don’t believe the decision for a drawdown should be paused. … The more U.S. forces move back until all security responsibilities are handed over and coalition forces remain in a support role. And in a support role, you don’t need such a big number.” A senior government adviser said Mr. Maliki delivered that message to Mr. Bush in a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday.
The prime minister told Mr. Bush that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to the adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to disclose the confidential details.
…
-WSJ
And in a rather major turn of British media events the hawkish Daily Telegraph has called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq:
The prime minister told Mr. Bush that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to the adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to disclose the confidential details.
[…]
The British military has argued that they would stay in Iraq provided there was general consent among the population. But now that is no longer the case, there is nothing to be gained by kicking their heels at Basra air base simply to save face.
We’ve reached the point where we’ve done as much as we can to help with the post-Saddam reconstruction of Iraq, and by staying on we risk over-staying our welcome.
It would be far better to pull the majority of our troops out now and bring them home. It’s not as though there’s nothing for them to do elsewhere.
In essence, what you have here is Maliki acknowledging that the public-at-large is opposed to the foreign occupation and he’s publicly exercising that opposition to strengthen his political viability in aligning himself with the Iraqi majority.
Scott
16 years ago
I’m curious Doug…if President Bush were to order all US forces out of Iraq (or even the majority of them) before Feb 2009, and then the most likely scenarios came to reality (full scale civil war, genocide, neighboring intervention, regional war) would the left back a decision to invade Iraq a 3rd time or would the left prefer (particularly in the case of a President Obama) a worldwide depression as the result of regional war?
Scott: The lefties would just blame Bush even though he would be out of office by then. They’ll never accept responsibility for their own policy failures.
And Doug: If you want to cite sources great! But it would be best if you include a link so we could all go and read the full report ourselves. You don’t want to be accused of cherry picking do you?
doug
16 years ago
Mike,
I’m glad you mentioned linking. I’ve been either losing my posts or they ended up ‘awaiting moderation’ (and then sometimes never getting posted) whenever they had lots of links. I never have had a problem posting when I have no link in the post.
So, I simply decided to avoid losing my posts to blockquote.
Perhaps I’m doing something wrong, as I am new here.
I’ll try adding the links again. But I’m a bit worried I could lose my post.
I’ve noticed that the comment platform has been a bit shaky lately and some comments that should have been posted (links or no links) disappeared. If you are commenting on one of my posts I get an email notification of each comment and can verify that it is posted.
doug
16 years ago
Scott, I’m inclined, presently, towards a calculated draw-down (within no time-table).
You said: “if President Bush were to order all US forces out of Iraq (or even the majority of them) before Feb 2009…”
President Bush, along with his advisers, have mishandled the war so badly, I would rather he not handle a large troop withdrawal–as it’s the most dangerous aspect in a war– as I don’t trust him in this task.
I disagree with your supposition that “most likely scenarios” will be “full scale civil war, genocide, neighboring intervention, regional war…”. We see the war differently here. First, what’s absent from the facts about “progress” in Iraq is 1/6 or more of the population (4.5 million) has either been killed or displaced along with most sections of Baghdad’s Sunni’s ethnically swept away by Shia. Generally, therefore, we now have a post civil war segregated country with a lot less fewer left to kill,
With no snarkiness intended. Further, the mass dislocation of the Iraqi population has now been segregated into ethnically insulated pockets and regions where they are safer, more cautious and armed; thus, reducing future prospects for violence.
Second, former Sunni insurgents are presently being paid not to shoot us (for awhile) and need jobs and political voice. The Iraqi economy must be set to move as we prepare to leave and elections must go forth in oct.
Third, one of the largest armed militias in Iraq (JAM) has observed a shaky ceasefire needs a voice, too, in elections–even at the risk of upsetting Hakim which will in turn weaken Maliki. Democracy is messy, but that’s how it must play out here.
Forth, violence is still at unacceptable levels: Our occupation helps inflame much of the anger in Iraq and we need to take a military back seat, but still stay strongly engaged at all other levels.
Fifth, most importantly we need a full neighboring-countries and UN-backed frontal diplomatic, economic, security, medical, educational, etc. press on stabilizing Iraq as we prepare to leave. We must leave no vacuum for instability.
America needs to be militarily reticent now in Iraq. We are as much a part of the problem as part of the solution. Most of the country has no confidence in us and we have out-stayed out their welcome. Maliki is now beginning to politically speak out in this direction. The longer we stay, the more we will inflame their anger.
Of course, the above is an off-the-cuff riff of ideas in a informal chat-about and not to be interpreted as a formal-critical analysis of a planned withdrawal.
“President Bush, along with his advisers, have mishandled the war so badly”
The question is, would anyone else in the top job have handled it better? I don’t think so. War is always a minefield of unintended and unaticpated consequences. Every arm chair general has a different idea on how they would have done things differently, but what is unknowable is whether that difference would have resulted in GREATER negative consequences than the current strategy.
“America needs to be militarily reticent now in Iraq. “
We tried that strategy (at Democrat’s insistence) in 2003. It was a disaster because Al Queda simply used our pull back to base plan to foment the civil war which Democrats then screamed about. Never did they take responsibility for suggesting the strategy which had such negative consequences.
The current forward strategy is working. Why change it? And for every opinon that suggests Iraqis want us gone, I can point to five which say they want us to stay and finish the job.
I also disagree that the levels of current violence are out of control. The best thing would be no violence at all. While rates of violence roughly equal to some major U.S. urban areas hardly seems acceptable, it is worth noting that overall, the level of killing and violence throughout the war has been below that which Saddam Hussein inflicted on his own people for decades.
If it weren’t for the horrific loss of another million innocent lives I’d say let the Democrats have their wish and pull out. But make sure they sign a pledge that when the worst happens they accept responsiblity and resign entirely from public life.
You and I both know they would never permit themselves to be held accountable at the same standard they daily demand of Bush and the Republicans.
Let’s see… listen to John Murtha, Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi or General Petraeus??
P.M. Maliki:
-WSJ
And in a rather major turn of British media events the hawkish Daily Telegraph has called for a complete withdrawal from Iraq:
In essence, what you have here is Maliki acknowledging that the public-at-large is opposed to the foreign occupation and he’s publicly exercising that opposition to strengthen his political viability in aligning himself with the Iraqi majority.
I’m curious Doug…if President Bush were to order all US forces out of Iraq (or even the majority of them) before Feb 2009, and then the most likely scenarios came to reality (full scale civil war, genocide, neighboring intervention, regional war) would the left back a decision to invade Iraq a 3rd time or would the left prefer (particularly in the case of a President Obama) a worldwide depression as the result of regional war?
Scott: The lefties would just blame Bush even though he would be out of office by then. They’ll never accept responsibility for their own policy failures.
And Doug: If you want to cite sources great! But it would be best if you include a link so we could all go and read the full report ourselves. You don’t want to be accused of cherry picking do you?
Mike,
I’m glad you mentioned linking. I’ve been either losing my posts or they ended up ‘awaiting moderation’ (and then sometimes never getting posted) whenever they had lots of links. I never have had a problem posting when I have no link in the post.
So, I simply decided to avoid losing my posts to blockquote.
Perhaps I’m doing something wrong, as I am new here.
I’ll try adding the links again. But I’m a bit worried I could lose my post.
I’ll let you know what happens.
Doug: If you notice something odd happening to your comments, drop Curt a line:
FLOPPINGACES@GMAIL.COM
I’ve noticed that the comment platform has been a bit shaky lately and some comments that should have been posted (links or no links) disappeared. If you are commenting on one of my posts I get an email notification of each comment and can verify that it is posted.
Scott, I’m inclined, presently, towards a calculated draw-down (within no time-table).
You said: “if President Bush were to order all US forces out of Iraq (or even the majority of them) before Feb 2009…”
President Bush, along with his advisers, have mishandled the war so badly, I would rather he not handle a large troop withdrawal–as it’s the most dangerous aspect in a war– as I don’t trust him in this task.
I disagree with your supposition that “most likely scenarios” will be “full scale civil war, genocide, neighboring intervention, regional war…”. We see the war differently here. First, what’s absent from the facts about “progress” in Iraq is 1/6 or more of the population (4.5 million) has either been killed or displaced along with most sections of Baghdad’s Sunni’s ethnically swept away by Shia. Generally, therefore, we now have a post civil war segregated country with a lot less fewer left to kill,
With no snarkiness intended. Further, the mass dislocation of the Iraqi population has now been segregated into ethnically insulated pockets and regions where they are safer, more cautious and armed; thus, reducing future prospects for violence.
Second, former Sunni insurgents are presently being paid not to shoot us (for awhile) and need jobs and political voice. The Iraqi economy must be set to move as we prepare to leave and elections must go forth in oct.
Third, one of the largest armed militias in Iraq (JAM) has observed a shaky ceasefire needs a voice, too, in elections–even at the risk of upsetting Hakim which will in turn weaken Maliki. Democracy is messy, but that’s how it must play out here.
Forth, violence is still at unacceptable levels: Our occupation helps inflame much of the anger in Iraq and we need to take a military back seat, but still stay strongly engaged at all other levels.
Fifth, most importantly we need a full neighboring-countries and UN-backed frontal diplomatic, economic, security, medical, educational, etc. press on stabilizing Iraq as we prepare to leave. We must leave no vacuum for instability.
America needs to be militarily reticent now in Iraq. We are as much a part of the problem as part of the solution. Most of the country has no confidence in us and we have out-stayed out their welcome. Maliki is now beginning to politically speak out in this direction. The longer we stay, the more we will inflame their anger.
Of course, the above is an off-the-cuff riff of ideas in a informal chat-about and not to be interpreted as a formal-critical analysis of a planned withdrawal.
I generally agree with Matt on Iraq. Here was his last post on the matter of worst case scenarios that I subscribe to presently on Iraq:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/zbig_speak_you_listen.php
The question is, would anyone else in the top job have handled it better? I don’t think so. War is always a minefield of unintended and unaticpated consequences. Every arm chair general has a different idea on how they would have done things differently, but what is unknowable is whether that difference would have resulted in GREATER negative consequences than the current strategy.
We tried that strategy (at Democrat’s insistence) in 2003. It was a disaster because Al Queda simply used our pull back to base plan to foment the civil war which Democrats then screamed about. Never did they take responsibility for suggesting the strategy which had such negative consequences.
The current forward strategy is working. Why change it? And for every opinon that suggests Iraqis want us gone, I can point to five which say they want us to stay and finish the job.
I also disagree that the levels of current violence are out of control. The best thing would be no violence at all. While rates of violence roughly equal to some major U.S. urban areas hardly seems acceptable, it is worth noting that overall, the level of killing and violence throughout the war has been below that which Saddam Hussein inflicted on his own people for decades.
If it weren’t for the horrific loss of another million innocent lives I’d say let the Democrats have their wish and pull out. But make sure they sign a pledge that when the worst happens they accept responsiblity and resign entirely from public life.
You and I both know they would never permit themselves to be held accountable at the same standard they daily demand of Bush and the Republicans.