The President's Speech

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I did not see it, but I read it and it reads well. I have to say that however necessary it may be to remove 30,000 troops by next summer (assuming that the conditions for removal are met) and thus return to pre-surge conditions, the return to said conditions makes me tremendously nervous and causes me to worry that we may lose all tht we have gained through the surge. I really would like to see more evidence that the Iraqi security forces are up to the challenge of filling in for the departing Americans who made up the surge and as of yet, that evidence has been lacking. This is not to say that I believe the Iraqi security forces will never be ready. Far from it. But their timeline is accelerated.

One beneficial effect from any withdrawal of troops is that it will allow us to test the proposition--advanced by Democrats--that a troop withdrawal is just the thing that we need in order to spur the Iraqis into reaching a political settlement. Logically, the chances of such a settlement coming about are supposed to go up with a troop withdrawal, right? If we are no closer to reaching a settlement as the surge comes to an end, are we as a nation then prepared to admit that a mere troop withdrawal will not be enough in order to prompt a political settlement in Iraq? Will the argument that the only way we can save the domestic situation in Iraq is to leave thus go the way of the dodo?

Because in those circumstances, it should.


« We need more COIN in the Afghan realmComments (0) | Supporting The TroopsComments (3) »
The President's Speech 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I haven't read it nor watched it, yet, but I believe it might be possible. One of our troops' mission in Iraq is to train Iraqis to defend themselves. As more and more Iraqi forces can step up and lead missions, that makes it a possibility.

In addition, you've got the politics of the thing in the form of a deeply religious country with extremes in the different sects divided on the way forward, unlike when this country began its bid for independence from an uncaring monarchy. Considering our own government... which has been established for over two hundred years... has spent the better part of a year now accomplishing very little, you'd think there'd be some understanding that it's not so easy to unite a divided nation.

We won the war a long time ago. It's the peace that has us bogged down. We have a Democratic Congress who thinks it should dictate the terms of government in an independent country not their own in addtition to other Middle Eastern countries not liking the idea of a free independent Iraq.

On the whole, I'm confused why everybody complains about the war in Iraq. Yeah, it has gone on an uncommon length of time but the personal sacrifices within this country haven't correlated with the length of time spent over there. Congress complains about the money spent over there when there is no shortage of money here to do the things that need doing and some besides when you count all the pork stuck in some of the weirdest appropriations bills.

For the most part, the average American gets up, goes to work, does the same things day in, day out buys what he wants when he wants and doesn't even think about the war on a daily basis. In short nothing has changed much in the daily life of the average American.

It's only when the numbers are floated, 3000+ deaths, $100 billion that things get crazy. They think of those in terms of their immediate surroundings and funds rather than the overall picture of the entire nation.

There are more deaths in a month in just about any decent sized city than have happened in the the whole 5 years of the Iraq war. As for the money spent, do these people think that $100 billion is going to go back into their pockets when the Democrats (all) have stated they're going to raise taxes even if they stopped spending money in Iraq and on the military?

but I think politics has a lot to do with it.

If very modest drawdowns are made between Christmas '07 and the end of summer '08, the surge will be affected very little. It will let the public know that Bush is committed to reducing our presence in Iraq, a positive thing for Republicans. Meanwhile, the next twelve months should be enough time to remove the worst of the bad guys, assuming that we target the Mahdi army after we chase AQ out of Iraq. Stability in Iraq between Sept and Nov enhances the Republican chances of keeping the White House, and hopefully, regain some of the seats in Congress.

Callously political, right? Calculating, even. Trading lives for votes, right?

BUT, what happens in Iraq and the Middle East if the Republicans lose? Even if Hillary wins, the most hawkish of the Democrat candidates, she could pretty much decide to withdraw the troops in 2009, let brown stuff impact fan, and hope that the excitement is over by by the election of 2012. She wins with the anti-war group, and she can blame Bush for the loss. Our worst fears are realized: religious thuggery, occupation by Iran, spreading chaos and losses in the Middle East. Increased chances of terrorism here at home.

If Edwards or Obama wins, no change in outcome, only the rhetoric.

It has to do with politics, but, as Republicans keep reminding the base, elections have consequences.

http://www.modernconservative.com/

All this talk about troop withdrawals, retreat, and benchmarks is totally trumped by one fact: We're never leaving Iraq.

President Bush told us so last night.

After all, our 62-year military presence in Germany may be starting to wind down and our 54-year deployment in ROK is likely to be over soon as well.

Or, never is a reeeeeeeally long time.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

http://www.modernconservative.com/

...actually, I am FOR a long-term military presence in Iraq, and all over the globe. Please read the entire article to see that. Thanks :-)

if we were leaving the extra 30,000 troops in until the general, without any political pressure, tells us Iraq will be stable as they are drawn down. Yes, they've helped. Yes, the Iraquis are improving. If the Iraquis are good enough to hold their own, that means some of our troops should be able to enjoy some short term R&R (well at least as much as you can given the situation) in one of those areas where they are maintaining law and order. And when they can consistently enojoy that R&R, then we should start rotating people home.

Has he steered us wrong since taking charge?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service