I agree with Bush
May 2, 2007Stop the presses. Check the temperature in hell. Is the grass still green?
I agree with Bush. Putting a date of retreat on a military plan on how to deal with Iraq is kind of, well. stupid. For once, I fully agree with Bush when he says:
I believe setting a deadline for a withdrawal would demoralise the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments.
Of course, the whole war in itself is a big mistake, a mess, and should have never been started in the first place. The Iraqi people were better off with Saddam than with the chaos and anarchy they live in now.
But, this is the situation we have to deal with now, there’s no use in looking back. The United States and Great Britain committed themselves to this war, and it is their responsibility to return Iraq to a safe state, where people can safely walk across the streets. By setting a date for retreat you give ‘hope’ to the terrorists, and that is not a signal you want to give to a bunch of mental idiots with bombs.
It’s now a civil war (as so many analysts said would happen before they even went in Iraq against a UN mandate, plus the missing WMD and nuclear devices) and the US and UK are seen as occupiers.
Comment by C — May 2, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
If you don’t set a date for withdrawal of troops, exactly when DO you take them out? What does finishing this mission actually mean?
Comment by Adam — May 2, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Finishing the mission means getting the Iraqi government & military to the point of supporting themselves against the terror attacks.
The sad part is, I believe going in was exactly the right thing to do, and being there now is still. I’m just losing faith in the new government over there. The story on the news today is their new parliament wants to take a 2 month vacation instead of working to help themselves.
If we set a date for the withdrawal, the terrorists will simply sit back, build their forces, and wait until the day after we pull out to start their strikes again. The best option is for us to temporarily increase troop levels, secure the cities that are being attacked, and train Iraqi soldiers to take our place. We pull out as they are ready.
But I do believe if the Iraqi people don’t get off their asses and try to help themselves, at some point we tell them all to go to hell, pull out and let them kill each other any way they want.
Oh, and Thom, about them being better off under Saddam, why don’t you go ask the families of Saddams victims about that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq
Comment by John S. — May 3, 2007 @ 2:37 am
@Adam:
If you don’t set a date for withdrawal of troops, exactly when DO you take them out? What does finishing this mission actually mean?
Finishing this mission means returning Iraq to a state where its citizens are at least as safe as they used to be during Saddam’s regime. Saddam was a vicious dictator, but he did keep Iraq together, something the Americans and the current Iraqi government fail at miserably (and that’s putting it very mildly).
Now, the Kurdish part of the country (the north) is relatively safe (apart from the recent military invasion threat from Turkey), so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Kurds starting to move away from the rest of Iraq, maybe even gaining something not at all dissimilar from sovereignty (they deserve it any case). Were this to happen, the shit is really going to hit the fan.
How to achieve these goals? Beats me, I ain’t no military leader, nor am I responsible in any way for what is currently happening over there, but I do know one thing: retreating the western forces ain’t gonna do this situation ANY good. At all.
In Dutch we have a saying. If you say A, you sure gotta say B as well.
@John:
Oh, and Thom, about them being better off under Saddam, why don’t you go ask the families of Saddams victims about that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq
It’s easy for us, here, comfortable in the rich and free west, to arrogantly assume that the Iraqi people actually give two shits about ‘freedom’. Freedom is overrated. Freedom don’t feed your children or keep your grandma safe from being blown up at the market.
Just about any Iraqi being interviewed on the news and reporter shows in my country, either on TV, radio, or the newspaper, confirm: Saddam was an asshole, and his regime sucked, but at least they were safe and had food and water to feed their children.
Freedom don’t mean SHIT if you don’t have safety and food.
Comment by Administrator — May 3, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
At first sight, you’re right.
The problem is in the presentation.
If one says, “if we say when we’re leaving, they’ll be waiting for it and create a coup. Result: civil war or dictatorship.”
Sounds very bad.
Until you look at the current situation.
What is that situation? People get blown up every single day.
By the dozens and more.
Doesn’t make it into the news anymore.
So Bush’s warning is, to say the least, misleading. There already *is* a civil war in Iraq and people are *not* free (to go places they get, do things they like).
Another problem is: we don’t know a thing about Iraq. Any real journalists left there? What do we know about what’s really going on? Who creates all those press releases on all those attacks? Who perform all those attacks? And why?
As far as I’m concerned, I’d say the forces behind the US army, big oil, the Pentagon, State Department, White House, all have vital interests in *staying* in Iraq and dragging this thing on. More budgets, more weapons, more troops, more control, more time to take the oil (oil fields have been turned into concrete fortresses by now, contracts, if at all needed have been signed for decades to come), more work for Halliburton ‘to reconstruct Iraq’, more lasting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran, and a lasting presence in a generally extremely strategic place on the globe (Mesopotamia has been that for thousands of years).
Let us not be so naive as to pretend Bush’s argument is being in any way genuine here.
Monkeys do not lay eggs.
Comment by Herman — May 3, 2007 @ 9:29 pm