Feel better?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yet for years they refused to state our intentions were short-term or even recognize the idea of a time line for withdrawal. We're not talking about a "date" mind you but even the idea.

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I'd also note that the SOFA mentioned above was largely a product of the Iraqi government trying to get us to leave, not Bush itching to get the troops home.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

Obama has been in charge for a year and has been negotiating Middle Eastern politics along the way. Though the security situation in Iraq had certainly improved by the time Bush left office, that's no guarantee that it would remain better, continue to get better or that the political situation, which is still quite fragile, could not fall apart.

This is what the Bush administration planned on--continuing improvement that would allow withdrawal.

So the voters think the Iraq war was a mistake, and it's off the table to challenge your opponents for supporting a failed foreign policy?
-spence

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And --"I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The "idea" for withdrawal was when either the Iraqi government demanded it (not pretended for their constituents that they wanted it) or when it was safe to do so. Time lines, as it has been argued, can be a signal to the enemy when they can wait to safely have a massive "resurgence." Stated time lines that have no relation to conditions on the ground are stupid, political poop.

I think there are plenty of reasons to not agree with this. First, the writings of Bush's most trusted advisors his first term appeared to strongly believe in a long-term US military presence in the region.

Second, the construction of gigantic military bases and the $770M embassy, the largest in the world.

And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

The Iraq government mouthed political verbiage about wanting our troops to leave in order to molilfy Iraqis who hated "the occupation." But the Iraq government did not demand immediate withdrawal (they knew that could be a disaster), nor even gave a stupid "time line" to do it. Their "dislike" of our "occupation" was a CYA political sham, knowing full well that our troops were the only guarantee of their safety and existence. Even the Iraqi people, when polled, wanted, something like 60% to 40%, our troops to stay till it was safe to leave (no time line).

I'd like to see a source for that poll as what I've read indicates otherwise.

If you'r referring to my chutzpah comment, I didn't say the chutzpah belonged to the voters. It belongs to Biden claiming that Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of" his administration. And "you're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government." Which is exactly what the Bush administration was derided for (by Biden, Obama, nearly the whole political left)--nation building--imposing democracy in the Middle-East where it was supposedly impossible. And "I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences"--when he had wanted to partition Iraq into 3 states.

As I've said, the Obama inherited this mess and for them to see it to a positive milestone is absolutely an accomplishment they should be taking credit for.

So Biden's viewpoint may have shifted based on the observations from the ground? Isn't that exactly why you claim time tables are stupid? Because they need to reflect reality?

Again, it's reinforcement that the Obama Administration is more pragmatic than people are giving them credit for. Hell, this "left wing radical" is scaling up US military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen!

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;746876]And third, a SOFA position that bargained for a long-term US presence with nearly complete autonomy. It was this position that the Iraqi's rejected and led to a time line for withdrawal.

-SPENCE.

The "Iraqi's" were not some inimical force combatting the Bush administration. They were the governing body that was originally put in place by Bush to govern. They had to start from zero, to learn the democratic process (with the aid of American Iraqis, many of whom were picked by the Bush team) and to go through elections, I think it was three by the time of the SOFA agreement. (I love the irony of our liberal pols jubilantly celebrating the first election held in Bosnia AFTER TEN YEARS of our occupation--of course that was Clinton's war, so it was a good one. But three elections, or two, I don't recall now, in six years of the bad war in Iraq were . . . OK . . . but . . .) And, yes, Bush did envision a long stay in Iraq--we're still in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., etc., but he did promise to abide by Iraq's will in the matter--democracy is what he wanted to establish in Iraq, and eventually in the Middle East, not American occupation. And it was the plan that Iraq, as a democratic state, had the final say. It was to be negotiable, the Iraqis still needed help, but the ultimate decision was to be theirs. So their rejection of US proposals and creation of a time-line was done hand in hand with Bush, not against him. Whether that time line stands, may depend on future conditions on the ground. The Iraqis felt, at the end of 2008, that conditions were good, so, probably for political reasons rather than security ones, they went for it. And Bush, maybe to wrap it up in time to hand Obama the gift--or the poison pill, said OK.