Iraq withdrawl -

[rn79870]

Obama welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's suggestion to include a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops in an agreement under discussion that would set the terms for the American military presence in Iraq.

He criticized McCain for refusing to embrace it.

"This is not a strategy for success -- it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States," Obama said.

"That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war," he said.

No dates have been disclosed for Obama's expected visit to Iraq and Afghanistan because of security concerns.

Accompanying Obama on the trip will be Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat, and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican. Both have military backgrounds and have been vocal critics of the Iraq war.

Obama's speech on Tuesday will focus on U.S. concerns in Iraq and the region, his campaign said.

Obama said this month he might refine his plan to bring combat troops home within 16 months of taking office if conditions on the ground changedImagine that. A President who is willing to listen to the Iraqi President and honor his wishes. Imagine a timeline for getting out of Iraq that has the blessing of the people we are there defending.

Balance this with McCain’s “I don’t care if we’re there another 1000 years approach.

[skylndrftr]

As a 'liberal' who has been against the withdrawl, I am not sure how to take this.

My general concern is that all things in our government seem to be kneejerk reactions to when things go wrong. I dislike how the conflict in Iraq has been prosecuted at all levels. However I have always believed that we have an ethical responsibility to help fix the mess we have gotten ourselves into, and have pretty effectively destroyed there country. The goal of this was to make Iraq a better palce (for better or worse we're already ther) and the right thing to do is make the changes on the ground necessary for that to happen.

So my question to the PM is do they really want us out or do they want us out given the way things have been going?

[HashiriyaS14]

Ultimately, neither candidate will be able to stick to their promised plan perfectly.

Obama is promising a complete withdrawal much sooner than he could ever execute it, and McCain is advocating escalation when neither the Iraqi leadership nor David Petraeus feels it necessary.

Obama is in a convenient position politically right now because his promised farce is closer to reality than McCain's promised farce. It doesn't change the fact that either one is going to end up having to listen to Iraqi advice and especially to General Petraeus.

In my opinion, David Petraeus is probably the best General the US has had in command in wartime since the Second World War. He's unbelievably good at unraveling sticky situations on the ground while at the same time managing the expectations of Congress and the American People. I sincerely hope he runs for President someday and I'd likely back him regardless of what his personal social politics wind up to be just because he's just such a fiercely, undeniably competent leader of people.

[OriginalWheelman]

America birthed the new Iraq. We need to support the child we birthed. While I'm not opposed to a time table, the details should certainly not be public. Almost every major war in the last 50 years has been won on PR. Insurgents know that if they hold out until the administration changes they can potentially win by default, as the US troops will leave. Public opinion wins wars more than bullets. Regardless of why we went in, or how long it takes, we did this, and we need to stick it out to the end, or we will just create more resentment for the US. What if some county came in, ousted our entire government, and just changed their minds and decided to leave? You would be mad. We have a n obligation to Iraq, and we need to fulfill it, no matter who is at fault. I can not in good conscience vote for any candidate who simply demands unconditional withdrawal. It's just not the right thing to do.

[rn79870]

Let me ask all of you this...What weight should we give to the Iraqi governments desire to have us withdraw from the area? Should we leave the ultimate decision of when we leave to the Iraqi government, or to the American generals?

I'm referring in particular to this statement...Obama welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's suggestion to include a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops in an agreement under discussion that would set the terms for the American military presence in Iraq.

[OriginalWheelman]

What weight should we give to the Iraqi governments desire to have us withdraw from the area? Should we leave the ultimate decision of when we leave to the Iraqi government, or to the American generals?

All of it. If the Iraqis want us to leave, we leave. Then it's their fault. I'm not opposed to withdrawing, but I am opposed to unconditional withdrawal. I'm willing to bet that if we manage to work a timetable out with the Iraqis, it will be years before we are totally out. The American military were the only real keepers of order in Iraq for years. The Iraqi police and military have been developed in our time there, and training / implementing them has been a major focus of the current campaign. If you look closely, you will see that more and more of the military and police actions are being run / executed by Iraqi forces. We need to phase out, not disappear, and that is what we are doing. Just because troops aren't leaving does not mean that the Iraqis are not making progress.

[skylndrftr]

I agree with that Wheelman. However the issue then becomes what is the world view of us after we leave and it descends into madness. Regardless of fault, we still have to exist as a part of the world and need to avoid becoming a pariah. I'm not saying either way is better (we're ****ed either way) I'm just wondering if there is any good solution and how we ended up here in the first place.

[OriginalWheelman]

We ended up there because in true short sighted Americanism, public opinion was for the invasion, for the war. We went in on that and now that we are forced to face the consequences, we want to run. Typical America.

[skylndrftr]

Wheelman I think theres a little more to it than that...I think we were pretty seriously misled by many people in government. Unfortuantely thats irrelevant now and the question has to be not 'what happened and why' but instead, 'What do we do now?'

people in this country want us out because of whats going on there NOW with American citizens dieing.

[OriginalWheelman]

Wheelman I think theres a little more to it than that...I think we were pretty seriously misled by many people in government. Unfortuantely thats irrelevant now and the question has to be not 'what happened and why' but instead, 'What do we do now?'

people in this country want us out because of whats going on there NOW with American citizens dieing.

No one was mislead by the government. People didn't bother to pay attention. Public opinion was for the war, so the media reported the war in a favorable light, as they do with whatever is popular. Popular sells papers. As I've stated before, if anyone bothered to watch Colin Powell's address to the UN he flat out stated that we had no concrete evidence. This is why the UN refused to go in. Americans, still riled up about 9/11 were so desperate for vengeance that they favored the war anyway, because of the chance Saddam was supporting Al Queda. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PUT OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE AND THE SOLDIERS' BLOOD IS ON EVERYONE'S HANDS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT'S. We decided to do this, good or bad, it was our action and this is the culmination. Deal with it. People always want someone to blame. That way, they don't have to remember that they wrote their senator asking them to vote for the invasion. That way they don't have to admit any responsibility. That way they can sleep at night, continuing to think that they are right. Very few people in America are willing to stand up and take responsibility. That is the single biggest problem with America.

[96Qowner]

Great post, Wheelman.

[rn79870]

No one was mislead by the government. People didn't bother to pay attention. Public opinion was for the war, so the media reported the war in a favorable light, as they do with whatever is popular.

Whoa there Wheelman. I was extremely mislead. I was told that Sadam was sitting on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and at one time, that he had a thriving nuclear and/or germ warfare program underway. In fact, I continued to be misled as the troops invaded Iraq and searched unsuccessfully for those weapons.

Now, I'm not going to go so far as to say GW deliberately lied, but he undoubtedly misinformed us. So, when you say no one was mislead and that people didn't pay attention, I think you're misspeaking.

Honestly, if we knew then what we know now, I doubt congress, or the American people would have supported military action in Iraq. That is another story.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PUT OUR SOLDIERS OVER THERE AND THE SOLDIERS' BLOOD IS ON EVERYONE'S HANDS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT'S.

Again, they allowed the troops to go under the mistaken notion that they were riding the world of a dictator sitting on piles of WMDs ready to turn them lose on the world. Had we known the truth, things would have been different. But, the current admin can't accept that they have been involved in a moral disaster from the start in this matter.

[rn79870]

Here Wheelman, I dug a few little quotes up for us to think about...

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - d!ck Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorlst state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people. - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. - Colin Powell, remarks to UN Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. - George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since [UN Resolution] 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us.- Colin Powell, interview with Radio France International, Feb. 28, 2003

[Encryptshun]

Bob shoots...HE SCORES!

Thank you for digging all that up, Bob. I was hoping I wasn't the only one who, at the time, was presented with all this "evidence". Including, I remember a certain satellite photograph of a mobile chemical weapons production facility that ended up never being found.

[96Qowner]

Just remember that the Democrats were saying the same thing at the time - Clinton, Kerry, etc.

[OriginalWheelman]

On October 31, 1998 US President Bill Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act." [3] [4] The new Act appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy.

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

In 2002, Scott Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's turnaround in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[53] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.

UNSCOM encountered various difficulties and a lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government. In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal. After that Iraq remained without any outside weapons inspectors for four years. During this time speculations arose that Iraq had actively resumed its WMD programmes. In particular, various figures in the George W. Bush administration as well as Congress went so far as to express concern about nuclear weapons.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard, although "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament."

The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.[59] However, it concluded that without such foreign sources, it would take years at a bare minimum.

In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation".

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.

[rn79870]

Wheelman, Sorry, but when the American President appears before congress and the American people and tells of "intelligence" and "CIA" sources that verify the presence of WMD's, we listen. We're not used to being misled. I merely posted a few of them, I'll bet I could find dozens more.

Now, you want to call us inattentive because we didn't pay attention to the same sources that the President refuted in his presentation justifying military action. Not really fair of you to do that.

[Encryptshun]

Yup, I know that in the fever of patriotism and knee-jerk decision-making in the wake of 9/11 and the reality of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that the U.S. was fairly well polarized against Iraq. But I remember specifically having a conversation with a buddy of mine who, I considered to be much more moderate that I was (I was a huge neo-con back then) that I didn't understand why we couldn't focus on Afghanistan -- that Iraq was just looking like a target of opportunity rather than any legitimizable threat. Then the "evidence" started coming in from the very administration that I was just a huge fan of. And the fact that the support was bi-partisan was even more convincing.

Remember that the Dems and Repubs were both looking at intelligence which had already gone through processing. No one was over there, confirming things. But Saddam was not willing to let arms inspectors do their job, so that made him look guilty. We'd already had to *****-slap him once, so again that made him look guilty. The rest was just a matter of telling us what we (arguably) wanted to hear. I was waving the flag and using terms like "glass parking lot" as much or more than anyone. I was emphatically supportive of the war effort.

But we were all duped. Even when the first evidence that ran contrary to public understand started trickling in, I was emphatic that "this doesn't make action illigitemate -- it just means that the *real* reason was too sensitive to publicize. He was a tyrant, after all. He deserved it. Even Mick Jagger is saying that sometimes dictators need a slap on the wrist. We're still doing the right thing."

I made a mistake. At least 72% of us did.

[OriginalWheelman]

We're not used to being misled.

Isn't that exactly what you keep arguing the government is doing / has done?

There are two sides to every coin. The government showed you the side they wanted to see. They never ever provided concrete evidence. The people who opposed were lost in the wash of patriotism. I was one of the few against the war. Now, I'm one of the only ones for finishing it.

[rn79870]

... The government showed you the side they wanted to see. They never ever provided concrete evidence. The people who opposed were lost in the wash of patriotism...

You really think the public is going to ask a President for "concrete" evidence when he is that emphatic about there being WMDs in a foreign land. What concrete evidence could he have given us short of producing a few WMDs?

You're still saying we were unjustified in believing our President's claims? In hindsight you're right, we were duped.

[OriginalWheelman]

It just seems odd to me that this is the one thing that people seem to have trusted Bush on.

[skylndrftr]

Your using bad logic wheelman.

This all happened 5 years ago, well before we knew of the lies and disception that Bush felt he could use on the American public. The reason nobody trusts him is BECAUSE of this, not the other way around.

People did ask questions but the actual evidence was misheld and instead we were told there as evidence. Well the evidence said the opposite. Your trying to blame people for being lied to? How bout we be utterly offended that the president ignore people who did intelligence work for a living and said there was no evidence. When he says he listens to commanders on the ground, why didn't he listen to the intelligence people pre-war? That was the closest thing we had to commanders on the ground.

EDIT: your post is really continuing to bother me. Obviously politicians as a whole generally shouldnt be trusted when it comes to things like policy and campaign promises. but to extend that logic to a President starting a WAR? are you nuts? How can you possibly demean the office of the president that much? How dare you? regardless of the fact that this was the first real bush lie (as I discussed above) how can you possibly tell anyone its there fault that the president of the US lied to them to start a war? dude....
Modified by skylndrftr at 7:37 AM 7/16/2008

[Encryptshun]

The government showed you the side they wanted to see. They never ever provided concrete evidence. The people who opposed were lost in the wash of patriotism. I was one of the few against the war. Now, I'm one of the only ones for finishing it.

Regarding the evidence, one can't have it both ways. One cannot say "the evidence cannot be presented because it compromises the security and secrecy of the effort" and then say "no one showed you any evidence, so why did you believe them?".

[rn79870]

It just seems odd to me that this is the one thing that people seem to have trusted Bush on.

In hindsight yes, but at the time, it seemed reasonable and necessary.

[WDRacing]

The debate of why we are there now or were sent in the first place is kinda stupid IMO. Cause it doesn't matter...We WERE sent in and we ARE still there...lol. Arguing things that appear in hindsight is stupid. Even if you feel you were lied to...still doesn't matter. Already happened, can't change it. Iraq was mismanaged...that is universally accepted.

3 years from now we'll be arguing over why we should have withdrawn under different tactics and using a different time table. Because things will be clear at that point. Circumstance dictates further circumstance. Without the initial action there isn't going to be a reaction...so one never truly knows what's going to happen until it's over.

The debate is about how we withdraw from the current scenario. We should all be able to agree that we no longer need to be in Iraq. The majority of the American people don't want us there and the Iraqi Gov doesn't want us there. So how do we go about the actual act of withdrawing?

If you're for "Finishing the job" then what exactly would you have us finish? What are the goals and reasons you feel this way. Don't just say finish, or stay until we're done. Explain yourself...in YOUR words.

If you're for leaving immediately, realize that your position is based purely on emotion because there can't be an immediate anything when you're talking about 100's of thousands of soldiers and the resources it takes to wage a long and ugly war like the one we are currently trying to end. Some resources will be redeployed to Afghanistan, some will come home and some will undoubtedly stay on for at least 3-4 more years during the rebuilding phase and the removal of resources phase.

My opinion is simple. Let General Petraeus finish his job the best way he sees fit. Support him and the troops until HE says we're done. Then let the Mobility Command deal with removing all the resources while the Politicians decide how best to render aide to Iraq in support of the rebuild.

What we can't do is handcuff the General and our troops by pressing our views on them and forcing their hand. Remove resources to early and cut off the budget and all you're going to get is more soldiers killed.

Explain the end goal to General Petraeus, let him decide how best to withdraw and on what he finds to be a realistic time table. But leaving Iraq needs to be a priority in the planning. We can attain our current goals while working towards withdrawal. We just need to get on the same page and support whatever decision comes to fruition.

WD

[rn79870]

If you're for "Finishing the job" then what exactly would you have us finish? What are the goals and reasons you feel this way. Don't just say finish, or stay until we're done. Explain yourself...in YOUR words.

If you're for leaving immediately, realize that your position is based purely on emotion because there can't be an immediate anything when you're talking about 100's of thousands of soldiers and the resources it takes to wage a long and ugly war like the one we are currently trying to end. Some resources will be redeployed to Afghanistan, some will come home and some will undoubtedly stay on for at least 3-4 more years during the rebuilding phase and the removal of resources phase.

My opinion is simple. Let General Petraeus finish his job the best way he sees fit. Support him and the troops until HE says we're done. Then let the Mobility Command deal with removing all the resources while the Politicians decide how best to render aide to Iraq in support of the rebuild.

I'll address these points. You're not that far from my position in this matter. We should not pull up and leave tomorrow UNLESS the Iraqi people want us to. We need to listen more to what they feel is necessary and respond to their wishes. Also, if they want us there beyond tomorrow, then perhaps they should start sharing in the cost of us being there.

The other problem is see is similar to one you've hit on above, that is, what is the criteria for winning. When will I (as a citizen of the US) know we have won? Is this going to be a matter of when the generals tell me? It's not an easy question. No specific goals, instead, some very general ones.

If I was a terrorlst, I'd sit back, let the generals think they won, and the minute their plane took off stateside, I'd start my crap again.

[skylndrftr]

The debate of why we are there now or were sent in the first place is kinda stupid IMO. Cause it doesn't matter...We WERE sent in and we ARE still there...lol. Arguing things that appear in hindsight is stupid. Even if you feel you were lied to...still doesn't matter. Already happened, can't change it. Iraq was mismanaged...that is universally accepted.

Thats a crock. In terms of policy it doesn't matter why or how we're there only that we are there. HOWEVER, when we start figuring out who we should listen to now it does very much matter. The people who lied to get us there have no credibility to tell us whats going on there now or how we should proceed. Thats a very important distinction.

Quote »My opinion is simple. Let General Petraeus finish his job the best way he sees fit. Support him and the troops until HE says we're done. Then let the Mobility Command deal with removing all the resources while the Politicians decide how best to render aide to Iraq in support of the rebuild.

What we can't do is handcuff the General and our troops by pressing our views on them and forcing their hand. Remove resources to early and cut off the budget and all you're going to get is more soldiers killed.

Explain the end goal to General Petraeus, let him decide how best to withdraw and on what he finds to be a realistic time table. But leaving Iraq needs to be a priority in the planning. We can attain our current goals while working towards withdrawal. We just need to get on the same page and support whatever decision comes to fruition. WD[/quote]The president is the commander .in chief all this sililness about letting General Petraeus do his job is stupid beyond comprehension. The good general is going to do what hes told. Thats his job. If you want his opinion on Iraq or his policy on Iraq then elect him. We're a democracy run by civilians (even the pentagon). Commanders on the ground should not be making major policy decisions. Your going to respond that your saying tell him what we want and he'll do it. Well theres a little more to a war than simply requesting something.

[WDRacing]

Thats a crock. In terms of policy it doesn't matter why or how we're there only that we are there. HOWEVER, when we start figuring out who we should listen to now it does very much matter. The people who lied to get us there have no credibility to tell us whats going on there now or how we should proceed. Thats a very important distinction.

Which is why I was saying IMO we should let the Commanding General make the decisions about when and how to remove the troops. YES I know they aren't HIS decisions...so just stop. But we should listen to his thoughts because no one is in a better position to make an informed opinion on the matter. I don't trust anyone in politics to ever make the right decision for me. My point about arguing about being lied to was simply to point out that we should ALSO be discussing our opinions on the withdrawal, NOT simply why we are there and under what pretense we arrived.

The president is the commander .in chief all this sililness about letting General Petraeus do his job is stupid beyond comprehension. The good general is going to do what hes told. Thats his job. If you want his opinion on Iraq or his policy on Iraq then elect him. We're a democracy run by civilians (even the pentagon). Commanders on the ground should not be making major policy decisions. Your going to respond that your saying tell him what we want and he'll do it. Well theres a little more to a war than simply requesting something.

Two things...

Lose the attitude with me. All I posted was MY opinion in a clear concise manner. Don't for a split second think you are any better then me or anyone else on this forum...because YOU ARE NOT.

Two, I am a Veteran of 3 foreign wars...I know how they are run. Until you have watched someone bleed to death while you keep him from falling out of the helicopter or willingly flown into a storm to rescue civilian foreign nationals from being swept out to see...never assume you actually KNOW what war is about or attempt to instruct me on how they are run. Have you been through the Military War College? Have you studied doctrine for 12 years? Have you made decisions that kept other alive but condemned some to die?

Your point is that Civilians run the war...Civilians make the key decisions...well look how good they have done it. My idea was to look at an alternative idea...that's all. Ask anyone that has actually BEEN to war and they will tell you the same thing. We could do it better and faster if it weren't for the civilian politicians being in charge. Party Politics kills soldiers...period.

What you just tried to massacre was simply my opinion on how I'd like to see things handled. They were what I think we SHOULD do... But you attacked them as if I was saying they are policy. We are here discussing the best options to achieve a common goal. Thats all...

Make your points in a decent manner so we can go on arguing point and counter point. It works like this...I offer something, then rather then destroy what I said, you simply disagree and make a counter point which consists of your idea's and why you think they would be better then mine. Maybe together we could work towards a resolution that we can agree on. Taring someone down and offering nothing is how things get drawn out for years and nothing is ever solved. It is also arrogant and NOT needed in this forum as it breeds hostility and is poor for communication in general.

WD