Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

[Zkribbler]

The presence of American troops on Iraqi soil will be a recruiting tool for the insurgency for as long as we remain there.

We need an exit strategy, and leaving our troops there for years doesn't fit the bill.

[Alexander's Horse]

now, now, you shouldn't cut and run

You Americans need to change your attitude

these colours don't run? Who said that?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The presence of American troops on Iraqi soil will be a recruiting tool for the insurgency for as long as we remain there.

We need an exit strategy, and leaving our troops there for years doesn't fit the bill.

Well, the way things are going, if we don't pull out, and don't institute a draft, then eventually there'll be no more US troops there!

See, it's an exit strategy after all.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
The UN had problems with Saddam. The issue was never about whether it was a good idea to eliminate him or not, but rather, given that he's deposed, what next?

While I think the rest of your post was excellent, I have to disagree with you on this point. It was never clear that large swaths of the UN membership (and the Security Council in particular) thought that eliminating Saddam was a good idea, whether because of economic reasons (Russia, France) or resistance to approving the toppling of an authoritarian regime (China). It's become increasingly clear that Saddam was counting on the UN to stop any invasion by the US and the UN came through for him as well as they could. If Bush hadn't said "Screw you bastards, we'll do it anyway!", Saddam would probably still be in power today...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Saddam would probably still be in power today...

And al Qaeka -- remember al Qaeda? -- al Qaeda wouldn't be firmly established in Iraq today but instead would be on the run world wide.

[Drake Tungsten]

How is Al Qaeda firmly established in Iraq? Are bin Laden and Zawahiri running training camps in Iraq ala Afghanistan that I don't know about? And do you really think the members of Al Qaeda in Iraq aren't on the run in a country with ~150,000 US troops + Iraqi security forces looking for them? They have a presence, certainly, but they had a presence before the war with Ansar al Islam and their current presence in Iraq isn't any firmer than their presence in numerous other countries. You just hear about them more because they have a better chance to kill and be killed by American soldiers than al Qaeda affiliated groups in the Sudan or the Phillipines or wherever.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The main proble here, and God I hate to say this, is the same as Vietnam. Politicians running the show. Said it before though.
Should have been, "Secure these cities. Call me when it's done".

Which politicians besides the administration? Hell, Congress can't even get off of its ass to stop obvious cases of torture so we hardly have an activist Congress. No, we just have an administration getting free hand to get in way over their head on things they are just to incompetant to deal with. This is what happens when elections are decided not because of a candidate's skill or experience but because they say they're against abortion and that god talks to them in their head.

[Dinner]

Basically the only politicians who've gotten involved in this war have been the administration. They told the military they didn't need the invasion force size the military wanted, the administration didn't get make sure the money to rebuild Iraq was actually used to rebuild Iraq in a timely manner so the Iraqis turned on us, the administration cut back forces before the election because they wanted to pretend things were getting better thus allowing the insurgents to roam more freely, the administration allowed middle men to syphon off most of the reconstruction cash which did arrive to late so that things on the ground still haven't recovered to their pre-war levels. If any politician did anything in this war then the blame falls on the administration since Congress has done nothing but suck the President off.

Hell, Bush is currently breaking the law with illegal wire taps and allowing torture yet the Congress is still sucking him off. Throw the bums out and let's get Congressmen who will actually do their job.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Basically the only politicians who've gotten involved in this war have been the administration. They told the military they didn't need the invasion force size the military wanted...

... and ran the Army's top General into retirement when he said we'd need 400,000 soldiers on the ground for the mission. I wonder how things would have gone had Shinseki's advice been followed?

[DaShi]

Is it a quagmire yet?

[Alexander's Horse]

probably better

[SlowwHand]

It's not just this administration. I cited Nam. Ditto Korea. Whenever generals don't make command decisions, you're pissing into the wind.

[Dinner]

Like I said, when the Army said "this is what I need" the Administration said you'll do it with 150k instead of 400k. The Army said "we won't be able to effectively occupy and control the country with that small a force" to which the administration said the people will welcome them as liberators so they won't need a proper invasion force.

In the beginning most of the Iraqi people were willing to give us a fair chance to see if we could do things right. There was a one year window where people were cautiously optimistic but when a year went by and there was still lawlessness because there weren't enough troops to maintain order, there were only a few hours of electricity and running water per day, the bridges hadn't even begun to be repaired, and a million other similiar things then that was when the Iraqis turned on us. Everyone but the administration seemed to know we had a narrow window and we had to show results but true to form the administration thought they could just make a few nice speeches and not actually follow through on anything. Just like in Afghanistan.

Sadly Bush still hasn't learned judging by the fact he's done the exact same thing in New Orleans and with every other new policy directive he's come up with (cutting oil use in the country, his mission to Mars plan, etc). It's clssic Bush: Make a few speeches about something dramatically different, hope the papers give you front page and a few voters like what you say, then delay the program a few days later, then cancel it a couple of months after that. He never follows through on anything and he never intended to.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How is Al Qaeda firmly established in Iraq? Are bin Laden and Zawahiri running training camps in Iraq ala Afghanistan that I don't know about? And do you really think the members of Al Qaeda in Iraq aren't on the run in a country with ~150,000 US troops + Iraqi security forces looking for them? They have a presence, certainly, but they had a presence before the war with Ansar al Islam and their current presence in Iraq isn't any firmer than their presence in numerous other countries. You just hear about them more because they have a better chance to kill and be killed by American soldiers than al Qaeda affiliated groups in the Sudan or the Phillipines or wherever.

Ansar al Islam was in the Kurdish-controlled portion of Iraq. That's one of the few things you can't hang on Saddam. Usama bin Laden hated Saddam because Saddam is about as religious as a scorpion.

However, the Baathist and al Qaeda have now formed a working alliance in Iraq. All those wacko suicide bombers are coming from al Qaeda. They aren't anymore on the run than are any bunch of guerillas---they all use hit and run tactics. We keep killing them, but our presence there brings them more new members than the guerillas we are killing off.

[Alexander's Horse]

but Rumsfeld knew better