Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that our troops can leave “any time they want.” He also says that “We are in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.”
So, the Iraqi leader says the Iraqis can take over security of the country. Terrorist groups use our presence there to recruit, fund raise, and train.
Is it time to take off the training wheels?
This is somewhat interesting, because, regardless of whether you think we need to stay or not, figuring out how to sell the choice is going to be tricky. We went in with the idea that we would stay until Iraq was up and running and able to defend themselves. Now they say they can. Do we decide they don’t know enough for their own good and stay anyways? Do we take their word, leave, and watch them collapse, potentially? Interesting.
Bush won’t leave until he is forced to by the Senate and House, which will not budge until the people force them to…He and his buddies went there for oil, under the guise of fighting terriorists, and we still do not have that oil yet. Iraq’s proclimation of self sufficency will be poo pooed by Bush, and he will stay the course, until the real objective of securing the oil is reached…
Monty, that is probably the single dumbest paragraph posted on this forum on this topic. I can’t believe that someone as intelligent as you really thinks that the U.S. went to Iraq over oil.
“I can’t believe that someone as intelligent as you really thinks that the U.S. went to Iraq over oil.”
Resources are definitely part of the equation. But Iraq’s location was the biggest reason we went in there, in my opinion. Not Saddam, not terrorism, not WMDs … Its all about Location. Location. Location.
Do you think if Saddam had ruled somewhere like Burkina Faso (with zero resources and zero proximity to Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) we would have sent in 150,000 troops and toppled his government? Never.
What is silly about Monty’s post is the idea we will be there until we get that oil. I think we gave up on that years ago.
Right now, whatever “supposedly” brought us there has very little do with why we are there now and what we will do in the future. But its where many think we really need to be: Right in the middle of things. (Like Mony I disagree: I don’t think our presence helps things in the Middle East).
Interesting poll on the news yesterday: The majority of Americans still don’t want us to come home, either immediately or gradually over the next year. But they do want to know what the heck the mission is now and to change it if necessary.
Monty, that is probably the single dumbest paragraph posted on this forum on this topic.
Damn, Jeremy beat me to it.
Things are changing in Iraq. It is looking more and more like it is time to win. Maliki in the same speech urged patience on behalf of America.
I do think it is funny that this US Congress is passing judgment on the ability of the Iraqi Congress to get things done like passing an oil law. If you were to objectively compare the effectiveness of the two organizations, it is pretty clear which would come out on top. After six months, the only piece of legislation other than renaming post offices and the like is the pork greased war appropriation bill.
Monty, if you think this US Congress is going to make a decision with consequences, you need to come back down to sea level because that mountain air is apparently leaving your brain oxygen deprived.
What is silly about Monty’s post is the idea we will be there until we get that oil. I think we gave up on that years ago. \
Actually, I said we would be there until Bush is forced out… He is still dreaming of getting oil, but it is long past that now, but doesn’t mean he still doesn’t believe. After all, he still thinks he can win a civil war there, whatever winning means… I agree that location was also a prime motivator in the beginning, but that will also not come to pass once the civil war gets into full swing…Our troops have their finger in the dike, but the cracks around are opening very quickly, pratically, and politically.
Monty, if you think this US Congress is going to make a decision with consequences, you need to come back down to sea level because that mountain air is apparently leaving your brain oxygen deprived.]]
I said that it will take the people to force them to do something, and you are right, I don’t believe they will do it, at least not for the next 3 or 4 months… Do I wish they would, that is another question, but I agree that now, they do nothing but blow hot air and posture for the stupid masses…
The cracks you refer to seem to all be centered around the US Congress.
This whole situation reminds me of a previous incarnation when I used to play competitive chess. It was easy to get discouraged while defending a tough position for hours so as to not realize that the position that developed was actually a winning position. Were you to look at the board with fresh eyes you would see it quickly. Instead, while carrying the mental baggage, the inclination was to give up or hope for a draw at best.
It was easy to get discouraged while defending a tough position for hours so as to not realize that the position that developed was actually a winning position. Were you to look at the board with fresh eyes you would see it quickly. Instead, while carrying the mental baggage, the inclination was to give up or hope for a draw at best. \\
As a concerned American, I hope you are right… You play chess, I play poker, and Bush’s bluff had better work… We have the majority of our chips in this game, and are down to the river card… Weak, losing hands do often win, I hope this is one of those cases…
You know, its really easy to utter “we went in for the oil”, but I have yet to hear a single soul tell me how that was actually going to work. Were we going to take over their oil fields with US companies? We were going to force them to sell strictly to the US? If we were in it for the oil, why didn’t we just cut a deal with Saddam during the oil-for-food fiasco like the French? That would have been far better, easier, and cheaper, doncha think? If it was just for the oil, why did we take Baghdad? Why not just take over the north and the south, seeing as how the Sunni Triangle doesn’t have any oil? And, if we were bent on taking over a country just for its oil, why not Canada, Mexico, or Venezuela, all lots closer and all who sell more oil to us than the entire Persian Gulf combined?
Why is it so danged difficult to believe that Bush went into Iraq for the reasons stated?
Spot
Why is it so danged difficult to believe that Bush went into Iraq for the reasons stated?
Because they were either lies, or just plain wrong??? And I believe it was stated early on in the invasion, that Iraq oil was going to fund our operation, and we would pay very little as Americans, once we were welcomed as great liberators…
Because they were either lies, or just plain wrong???
There have been Congressional inquiries into the intel, and yes they were wrong, but it has been shown over and over again that they weren’t lying. And yes, it was stated that oil revenues were going to help rebuild Iraq, not fund the war operations…big difference. I also note you didn’t answer any of my other questions regarding how exactly the US was going to benefit from Iraqi oil. Do tell…
Spot
It is looking more and more like it is time to win.
Art,
Didn’t you already “Win”.
I think I saw something on the news a few years ago with Bush celebrateing with the troops on an aircraft carrier after the “win”. If you don’t mind me asking, why are you still there?
It is not a bluff if you can back it up.
Bluffing is urging your followers to martyrdom and then trying to slip away prior to the battle in a burka like some imams recently in the news.
We have relatively few chips in the game at this point, historically speaking. We are only down to the river card if we tell ourselves we are. The facts on the ground indicate otherwise.
We can only beat ourselves. No one else can do it.
**Why is it so danged difficult to believe that Bush went into Iraq for the reasons stated? **
Because the reasons keep changing.
Well, not really. The original reasons given were to rid Iraq of WMD and to bring democracy to Iraq and end their suffering under Saddam (mentioned in every single speech on the subject, not trotted out later when no WMD was found as is often claimed). And now that Al Qaeda is in Iraq in a big way, the reason given why we need to stay is to defeat the jihadists, but I don’t think that anyone in the administration is claiming that that’s why we invaded in the first place. The reasons never really changed, although the media often claimed that it did.
Spot
I’ll agree and disagree to a point. Going after WMD and helping the Iraqis under Saddam were constantly mentioned. However, it seemed pretty clear from the get-go that the lion’s share of the rationale was the WMD, with other benefits being secondary.
I would say that the administration did make many efforts to claim the need to go after al qaeda and jihadists prior to the war. Cheney was particularly adept at pushing the al qaeda linkages, even though many of those links had been discredited by our own intelligence agencies.
Yeah, I’ll buy that line of reasoning. The admin did try to tie Al Qaeda to Iraq, and now that we are there, that has unfortunately come true.
Spot
This war was not ‘just’ about the Iraqi oil but about strategic long term geopolitical interest in the region. We needed to have a secure foothold in the middle east with Iran’s influence increasing and the Saudi’s increasingly becoming an unreliable/unpredictable partner in the region. So as previously said its all about location, location.
But ultimately the stability of the region securing long term oil supply to the west is the driving force.
Of course things have gotten a bit out of control at this point. There were never any WMDs (and the admin. sure as hell knew that), there were no terrorists in Iraq but they sure are there now and we have a civil war that we will not be able to control. The question now is, can we just pack up because America is fed up with the casualties and the $2B we spend every month or was it every week. At this point we may have no choice and have to stay for 10 more years.