Should I be concerned? - the Iraq War

[Pedrique]

Ok so I'm reading how our state department met with Iran and it was a "successful" discussion of the state of affairs in Iraq. I don't want to blast the various articles on what the definition of "success" is, rather I'd like to discuss what the next 7 months will be like for Dr. Paul if indeed the new troop surge and General Petraus' plan actually bring about positive change in the country.

What if there are real steps to begin bringing troops home in such a way that Bush et al could actually declare that they were right all along about the need for patience?

If Dr. Paul has pigeon holed himself on the Iraq issue, does that spell the end of his campaign? And if so how do I feel about needing to bank on continued Iraq failure in order to see his chances improve?

Many will say that the likelihood of this actually happening is remote. And I tend to agree. But if it does, or if current trends before the primary suggest it could, I still would like to see Dr. Paul in the oval office for his many other principled stands that have already been discussed on this site.

How can we avoid this problem? How do we counterattack? Is it simply a matter of focusing on the broad foreign policy issue rather than Iraq? Or am I overreacting altogether? Please discuss.

 

[Brandybuck]

I used to think that Bush would time stuff so that we would be leaving Iraq just before the election, so he could claim he's victoriously bringing the troops home. But I don't see that happening now. His latest speech about how we're not even finished surging means we're probably in for the long haul.

But what if he does start handing over power to the Iraqis and starts bringing troops home? It will still have been our longest war in history (IIRC), our most expensive war in history, and one that spawned a new generation of terrorists. And we STILL haven't captured Bin Laden!

But the last thing we need to do is to hope for military failure! That's Democrat thinking. We have no business being over there, but that is no reason to wish for our troops to be killed and maimed, to wish that genuine civil war would break out in Iraq, to prove to the terrorists that we can be cowed.

Bringing our troops home is not military failure! It is an admission that our policy is wrong. We need to pay Iraq reparations for the damage we have done to their society, then leave in an orderly manner.

 

[NMCB3]

Its hard to say whats going to happen. Even pro-war republicans are coming to the conclusion that this policy is not working.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ns28may28,0,1676693.story?coll=la-home-center


By Robin Fields, Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2007
WASHINGTON — A conservative Republican senator who has ranked among President Bush's staunchest supporters said Sunday that he and most other lawmakers expect a reduction in the number of troops in Iraq come September, once the top U.S. commander in the region delivers his report on the war.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the reversal was all but inevitable. But he said Congress would wait for Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' report evaluating the current troop increase, designed to curb sectarian violence in Baghdad.

"By September, when Gen. Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down," Sessions said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We have to know that we can't achieve everything we'd like to achieve," he said.

"I don't think we need to be an occupying power," the senator said. "This is a fine line we've walked, and this surge has got to be temporary."

In January, President Bush ordered 21,500 additional combat troops and thousands of support personnel sent to Iraq. An estimated 146,000 American troops are on the ground.

In the past, Sessions has opposed Democratic efforts to impose timetables for U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

His latest remarks echoed a statement by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said Friday that he expected the president to go in a different direction this fall.

On the same program, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), questioned the need to wait for Petraeus' report before starting to bring U.S. troops home.

"Why wait until September?" Levin asked. "We've got men and women dying in Iraq right now."

 

[Pedrique]

Bringing our troops home is not military failure! It is an admission that our policy is wrong.

I hear what you're saying. And I get that even with "success" we can be critical of the way the war was engaged and started.

And by no means am I literally "rooting" for military failure. What I am saying is that Paul's position on Iraq will be used against him, without merit.

I realize that is already happening now - but here's a specific example of what I'm getting at.

Say November rolls around and lo and behold the sun is shining in Iraq. Violence is at an all time low and turnover of security to Iraqis at an all time high. Major troop reductions are being seriously discussed.

If I am any of the other candidates and Dr. Paul is now a legit player in the field - here's what I say: "If Ron Paul were president instead of Bush, we'd still have Saddam in power funding terrorists instead of a democratic Iraq. Is that best for America?"

And I can see the MSM lining up for the quotes from Iraqis who are now suddenly so THANKFUL that America helped them down this road. What is Dr. Paul's answer to this? Do we have or need a contingency argument? I'm just afraid that saying "it was the longest most expensive war in history and therefore it wasn't worth it" may not fly with the hoo-rah voters.

 

[EricH]

As much as I would welcome progress in some real form, I find it hard to listen to the word `Successful' coming from our media or gov on this subject. Keep in mind how many times the word `Progress' has been used in the same context.

Even in the unlikely event, there is some version of troops coming home, let's not forget the incredible amount of hardware, bases and Blackwater troops that will stay. Most likely along with an amount of Army troops to maintain the bases. I seriously doubt our large contractors will leave these enormous assets behind, given that they are positioned right next to each of the large oil assets in the region.
The oil share aggreements (if that's what you'd like to call them) are in place and even being discussed in public by many of the candidates. Amazing, considering how much talk there is of `Bringing Our Troops Home' by anyone.

As with so many political subjects - Troops coming home & oil share do not go together. One would have to be off the table, would it not?

 

[NMCB3]

Iraq will never be democratic, the best we can hope for is a tyrant thats friendly to the US.

 

[EricH]

We had one - Sadam - next

 

[Bossobass]

You don't build 14 permanent bases and an Embassy Compound that's bigger than the Vatican because you're planning to pull out.

The troop buildup is just to ensure the project gets completed as planned.

There is a similar buildup of Bases at the N/S Korean border. The S Koreans have been rioting against authorities over it, but the buildup continues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnxD1IMb_jw&mode=related&search=

Bushies don't care what we think. During the Vietnam era 76% of Americans said get out and we regularly clashed with riot police and National Guardsmen and we stayed in Vietnam 10 years. They will stay the course and so will every of the so-called 'top-tier' puppies.

Bosso

 

[DjLoTi]

Good point bosso.

I think Ron Paul is needed to fix *all* the problems with the country. It's not just the war. It's all the issues the American people are unjustly fighting against due to the legislation of the lawmakers (not the people). That's the real issue.

But I like what Pedrique said at the end about the MSM... I wouldn't be supprised if there's a major push by GW and the administration to put a lot of pressure in Iraq when we get closer to the elections

However, I think pressure in Iraq will just create more bloodshed.

There will be pressure on the media though.

 

[ButchHowdy]

If it walks like a duck . . .

Why in tarnations do you think we're building this massive $500M, 104 acre embassy and 14 permanent bases . . . so we can simply hand them over or abandon them? The answer is: Bush has NO intentions of bringing our troops home - look how adamant he was about the language in the recent bill.

We are there to protect Israel and our new oil business.

In direct answer to the post; beyond Iraq, we still have many years of rewinding the damage caused since 1914.