Posted on 09/20/2004 4:30:46 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
>>Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. <<
Oh yeah? Who?
Doubt it is as fast a that makes it sound, but really wish we would let it become 3 states.
Ah... I heard that Bush wanted to do whatever possible to speed up the reconstruction and the training of the security forces in Iraq.
Oddly enough, the sooner the Iraqis can handle their own security, the sooner we can bring home a bulk of our troops.
Minimally, we might station 30-40k there for a longer period of time, probably outside of Baghdad.
(I think of a major offensive to clean out the terror and insurgent hideouts is carried out soon, the end of next year is feasible for most of our troops to have been phased out. At least half should be back by then. Optimistically.)
The American traitor from the Kerry campaign says this. So?
What is this? NOT!
You tell ME! YOUR post...lol.
Novak forgot to tell George W.
LOL!
It took me about three seconds to realize this was a Bob Novak hit piece. This dude has no shame.
Oh yeah, I think Bush has been saying this for a while...
When the job is done, the troops start coming home. The faster the job gets done, the faster they come home. Let's do the job right, and make sure we don't have to send troops back. Etc, etc.
Any one of the thousands of Clinton loyalists who were never purged from the government payroll after January 2001.
If GWB is re-elected, I would LOVE to see a top-to-bottom scrub of the Executive Branch, just like She Who Must Not Be Named orchestrated after taking power.
If W is re-elected you can bet that the job will be finished in however long or short it takes.
This is hopefully nonsense. We will be there for years, just like we have been in Europe and the Far East. If we pulled out, it would be the biggest failure of leadership since Chamberlain. The result would be more death than we can imagine, and we would eventually be back with even greater dangers.
Novak and Burkett......perfect together.
"Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world."
I am not sure Iraq is ready for democracy either. I wish they were, but they have a long history of politcial instability and some really warped thinking.
The more I think of this the more I am convinced Novak is either listening to the wrong people or is taking this position on his own.
This is not a typical guerrilla war. It seems more like a band of criminals who use IED's, suicide bombers and kidnappers as their means of ascent. Sooner or later, the Iraqis will really tire of this and begin (if they have not already) first turning on the outside fighters and then second on the criminal element who kidnaps and kill not only Coalition Forces but, more often than not, Iraqis.
All those initially against the war as well as those who just can not stand long term military conflicts are the targets of a campaign designed to convince everyone the war is lost by concluding the war is lost and then looking for support of this position.
Most people thinking like this believe this 1968, this is the Tet Offensive and so forth and so on. Need one say there is no organized large unit foe nor any T-54 tanks nor any form or manner of naval or air power to dispute the coasts or the terrain.
This is more like the American West after the civil war or England after the War of the Roses. In both instances violence and criminal activity ruled but was not organized around a political entity.
I agree - there's no way Bush is going to bring all forces home - has this idiot heard something called TERRORISM? Just what we need is a new Afghanistan - a virtual clearinghouse for terrorists around the globe, in the form of the new & completely splintered Iraq.
As bad as we all want out of that place, the objectives are far from over - and to leave now would mean that the American sacrifices really would be in vain. I hope they can find a way to minimilize our presence, but exiting quickly & completely ain't gonnna happen.
Bush doesn't have to leave Iraq. He's getting the worst advice. Just move all the troops to the Kurdish section. Put Kirkuk and Mosul under Kurdish control. Now the U.S will have a base, control of 9 percent of the world's oil.
All the Kurds support America. Its stupid to be in the Shiite and Sunni section to create some Democratic state.
Its not happening. The only all we got there are the Kurds.
"If GWB is re-elected, I would LOVE to see a top-to-bottom scrub of the Executive Branch, just like She Who Must Not Be Named orchestrated after taking power."
From your lips to God's ears...
...with the scrubbing concentrated at State Dept.
Exhaustive journalism bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.