Wednesday, March 22, 2006
"As Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down"
Notwithstanding Bush's recent musing that future presidents - not he - will decide when and how to exit Iraq, he has been fond of saying, "As Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down".
This would seem to mean the exit strategy isn't at all tied to a neat ending, but to whether we can train a proxy army to take over the task of engaging the sectarian violence for us.
On to Iran ... until we prop up a semblance of a government there to take our side in a civil war.
// posted by Erik @ 3/22/2006 09:55:00 PM
permalink
| email post: 
Post a Comment
Comments:
I think the President was saying that the War on Terror will continue to be fought under future Presidents, which will not end when Iraqi forces take over securing Iraq. Iraq is one facet of the War on Terror you know.
I'm sorry, but Bush was rather clear that he's not planning on ever ordering a complete withdrawal:
Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
You didn't post the follow-up question:
Q So it won't happen on your watch?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.
The President has been pretty clear he will not give a timetable! You have got to admit that to tell the opposition when we plan on leaving is rather stupid.
Q So it won't happen on your watch?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.
The President has been pretty clear he will not give a timetable! You have got to admit that to tell the opposition when we plan on leaving is rather stupid.
Like Lebanon/Israel, the insurgency will claim they drove the Americans out even if we declare victory before we leave.
Regarding no time-table: would it be acceptable to leave Iraq during a civil war based solely on whether Iraq has a competent well-functioning army?
I mean, the UK has a competent army, but would that be a reasonable argument for not helping them fend off an aggressor?
Regarding no time-table: would it be acceptable to leave Iraq during a civil war based solely on whether Iraq has a competent well-functioning army?
I mean, the UK has a competent army, but would that be a reasonable argument for not helping them fend off an aggressor?
Okay, Spinmeister, your first paragraph is called "speculation". And you assume there will be insurgents left when we leave Iraq.
Secondly, your comment about civil war is ridiculous, the Bush haters keep saying there is a civil war in Iraq, or that it is headed there so many times that you actually believe it is true! Even if it were true, then the President would not leave Iraq, he has said he would not leave until the Iraqi security forces could sustain themselves. So your question is moot.
Secondly, your comment about civil war is ridiculous, the Bush haters keep saying there is a civil war in Iraq, or that it is headed there so many times that you actually believe it is true! Even if it were true, then the President would not leave Iraq, he has said he would not leave until the Iraqi security forces could sustain themselves. So your question is moot.
Lots of people are concerned that Iraq is spinning into civil war. Labeling all of these people "Bush haters" does nothing to refute the possibility that Iraq may be headed for (or already in) a state of civil war.
As for the idea that we may stay in Iraq until there are no more insurgents... preposterous. Look, for example, at how long insurgencies continued after the US Civil War. That's not an unusual case. None of us will live long enough to see an Iraq with no insurgents. And no politician would argue for keeping troops in Iraq until each and every insurgent was gone.
As for the idea that we may stay in Iraq until there are no more insurgents... preposterous. Look, for example, at how long insurgencies continued after the US Civil War. That's not an unusual case. None of us will live long enough to see an Iraq with no insurgents. And no politician would argue for keeping troops in Iraq until each and every insurgent was gone.
Secondly, your comment about civil war is ridiculous, the Bush haters keep saying there is a civil war in Iraq, or that it is headed there so many times that you actually believe it is true! Even if it were true, then the President would not leave Iraq, he has said he would not leave until the Iraqi security forces could sustain themselves. So your question is moot.
So two different groups in Iraq killing each other is not civil war? Then what pray tell is it? And why the hell should our kids be killed in the middle of a civil war, opps, I mean sectarian violence? Who's side do we take in the - sectarian violence?
So two different groups in Iraq killing each other is not civil war? Then what pray tell is it? And why the hell should our kids be killed in the middle of a civil war, opps, I mean sectarian violence? Who's side do we take in the - sectarian violence?
Post a Comment
