Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gates: US In Iraq For "Protracted" Stay  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Which means, in my view, that Iraq cannot handle itself independently, and we're in there for a longer time than 2008. It also sounds like we plan to leave U.S. troops behind even if the war ends.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/05/us.iraq/index.html

It also tells me that the brass in the military, and the Admnistration has already concluded that the surge isn't doing what it hoped it would do.

We need to wait till September when reports are issued on the surge, and the situation in Iraq. But if the Administration already is giving these signals, I think you'll see not only Congress, but the American people, start demanding louder that we bring our troops home.

What say you?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1890 times:

As I said years ago . . .

Signed,

ANCFlyer
aka
Retired CSM

Does anyone else here find this to be a Non-News item?

I said before . . . we'll maintain a presence there. We will have bases there. We will be there for another decade.

I am not surprised . . . not a revelation.


User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1888 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Does anyone else here find this to be a Non-News item?

Pep, I see it as a newsworthy item:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
It also tells me that the brass in the military, and the Admnistration has already concluded that the surge isn't doing what it hoped it would do.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
It also tells me that the brass in the military, and the Admnistration has already concluded that the surge isn't doing what it hoped it would do.



Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 2):
Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
It also tells me that the brass in the military, and the Admnistration has already concluded that the surge isn't doing what it hoped it would do.

Inaccurate.

It's the same as I said years ago my friends . . .

It's the same as we did after every single major conflict (except 'Nam). We kept an expeditionary force - and sometimes larger - in place for years after the 'conflict' ended . . .a Stabilization Force. Yes, and no silly remarks about a "stabilization force" - I know they're coming (not necesarily from you or Falcon - but coming nonetheless).

Falcon, your impression is simply inaccurate . . . I said myself we'd be there for a long damn time - and that was well before there was any mention of the surge . . .


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21569 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
It also tells me that the brass in the military, and the Admnistration has already concluded that the surge isn't doing what it hoped it would do.

And yet there was that NYTimes article that said that things were finally settling down. If we are just starting to see an emergence from the disaster that was, what good does pulling out do?

The military can do a lot of good in Iraq. It should be allowed to. The alternative is to turn Iraq into a target for every single group that wants to spread influence in the region. That means such unsavory characters as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. If you think Iran is messing with Iraq now, wait until we're not there anymore to keep an eye on things.

The decision to stay in Iraq long-term was made back in 2003 when the invasion was ordered, and it cannot be reversed without drastic consequences. If only the people who made the orders were aware of that fact at the time.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
As I said years ago . . .

Signed,

ANCFlyer
aka
Retired CSM

Does anyone else here find this to be a Non-News item?

I said before . . . we'll maintain a presence there. We will have bases there. We will be there for another decade.

I am not surprised . . . not a revelation.

If it were in and of itself, Pep, and not less than a month before the report comes out on the surge and progress, or lackthereof, in Iraq, I would probably agree with you. But we're only a few weeks away from that report coming out, and this may be an indication as to what the brass on the ground in Iraq, and the administration is thinking, and may be tipping their hand as to what the report is going to say.

Coincidence? Possibly, I will not discount that. And I never said that I didn't expect some kind of U.S. presence AFTER the war, but this makes it sound like Bush COULD commit us for years-even though we all know that committment is only good through Jan 20, 2009.

It could be a real indicator, that's all I'm saying.


User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
We need to wait till September when reports are issued on the surge, and the situation in Iraq

In all honesty, I think the report from Gen. Petraeus will be used as nothing more than a political tool by either party (which is a shame of course). It will be spun by the President and his Administration to justify their position. It will be used by the Dems as a tool to say how wrong the President is, etc. etc. while meanwhile the Troops in Iraq keep on fighting their hearts out in 130 degree heat while simultaneously being used by the folks back in their air conditioned offices back in Washington. Sick really.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
It's the same as we did after every single major conflict (except 'Nam). We kept an expeditionary force - and sometimes larger - in place for years after the 'conflict' ended . . .a Stabilization Force.

But, how long do you keep the "surge" up? How long do you write the Iraqi government a blank check for? My point being, I'm wondering how long until we get to the point where our presence in Iraq is, as you stated, a Stabilization Force.

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
The military can do a lot of good in Iraq. It should be allowed to. The alternative is to turn Iraq into a target for every single group that wants to spread influence in the region. That means such unsavory characters as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. If you think Iran is messing with Iraq now, wait until we're not there anymore to keep an eye on things.

You have answered why no amount of surges or reports from Generals will change anything. Not even a tiny bit. As we all know Iraq is majority Shi'a. The region (i.e as you mention Saudia Arabia, Syria, but also other Sunni nations) will not allow another Shi'a power on their doorsteps.



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):

Opinion respected . . . but I submit - surge notwithstanding (and at this point irrelevent) - I said years ago we'd be there for decades . . .

Not that I'm a military genius or anything, but I daresay, with a number of notable exceptions on this site anyway - I made the call . . . and there was no surge in site 24- 18- 12 months ago.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 6):
But, how long do you keep the "surge" up?

I wasn't for the surge in the first place.

And this topic isn't about the surge anyway . . . .

This topic is about remaining in Iraq for a longer time than 2008 . . . .

Bottom line . . . anyone thinking we'd have been gone in '08 missed the boat.


User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
The decision to stay in Iraq long-term was made back in 2003 when the invasion was ordered, and it cannot be reversed without drastic consequences. If only the people who made the orders were aware of that fact at the time.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. We'll stay there, be with troops, ambassadors, "counselors", contractors, or just handing out aid, but if we are a responsible nation we'll try and help clean the mess we started.

That the administration is finally willing to accept that fact in public, that is truly newsworthy. They led us to believe that the "liberation" of Iraq would be a quick thing, a matter of months even, kinda like flipping the light switch in your bedroom. Hope the next administration (Republican or Democrat, doesn't matter, they are all politicians) has higher morals than that and doesn't outright lie to the public.


User currently offlineDavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
And this topic isn't about the surge anyway . . . .

This topic is about remaining in Iraq for a longer time than 2008 . . . .

Understood, but [imo] the two aren't mutually exclusive. My point in bringing up the surge was that if indeed we are there past '08, what will the troop numbers look like? I'm not discussing whether the surge was a good idea or not, I'm wondering about the sustainable number of troops on the ground in Iraq. Do you keep the current numbers, or do you revert back to pre "surge" numbers if indeed we will stay past '08?

Of course it will depend on the Iraqi government, but so far they haven't shown much promise to be willing to progress Iraq into a "democracy" of some sort. So, to expand on the previous point, if the troop numbers are elevated as to control the violence, how long will this administration allow the Iraqi government to use our troops at their disposal? When will enough be enough?

Btw, good to see you posting Pep, seems like you've been busy this summer  Smile.

Dave



Yesterday we've sinned, today we move towards God. Touch the sky....love and respect...Safe Star!
User currently offlineAirportSeven From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 6):
But, how long do you keep the "surge" up?

Six more months, six more months, six more months. You see, the next six months will be key to the future of Iraq. And then in six months we will have a plan for One More New Way Forward in Iraq. Then we'll need six more months for that plan to work itself out. Then we will announce a plan for Another Way Forward That Is Not At All Like The Previous Way Forward, and that Way Forward will need six months of implementation. By then we will have a new commanding general because Petraius will have come to the realization that Iraq is no longer a military problem but a political problem and a problem of a lack of Iraqi will, and he will be sacked when he communicates as much to the Commander In Chief. Then the next commanding general will need another six months to put his plan into action, but of course we we can't make any big moves before the 2008 elections, because we wouldn't want any actions in Iraq to look like political manuevering.

Hopefully, everybody is OK with Iraq leading the headlines, because we aren't getting out of there any time soon, and that is by design. The September report, whether it is positive or negative or just middle of the road, will be another justification for six more months. There will be no troop reduction while Bush is CinC. "We'll stand down as they stand up" was another lie (or "overly optimistic assessment" to put it into the political parlance) in the midst of the dozens of others used to get us into Iraq and keep us there.

I'll say it again, the military has done its job in Iraq. The civilian leadership has failed miserably to manage the post invasion realities in Iraq, the realities that were clearly spelled out in 2002 and early 2003.


User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1039 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

I believe that we should give the troops more time in Iraq, but at the same time I'm for removing the Republicans from power from the White House in the next election and here's why...

1) Since the invasion of Iraq, the country has become a locust of terrorist activity. It is now a rallying point, training ground, and fundraising tool for terrorist all over the world. We must stay until this nest of terror activity has been dealt with to a reasonable degree. This is why I think the troops should stay.

2) But the only reason that Iraq is a locust of terror activity today is because this administration decided to invade Iraq. It was not a chaotic, terrorist spawning country before the invasion; in fact, Saddam's government was secular and Bin Laden hated Saddam for that. The whole Iraq policy is a failure and elections are the best thing to punish government officials for that.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3503 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
What say you?

Never planned on leaving. What part of "enduring bases" suggests otherwise?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Does anyone else here find this to be a Non-News item?

Yes.



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Max999 (Reply 12):
) But the only reason that Iraq is a locust of terror activity today is because this administration decided to invade Iraq. It was not a chaotic, terrorist spawning country before the invasion; in fact, Saddam's government was secular and Bin Laden hated Saddam for that. The whole Iraq policy is a failure and elections are the best thing to punish government officials for that.

Nicely stated, Iraq had a dictator pre-2003, but not thousands of terrorist nor was it breeding them. Which brings me to another question: what are we doing about Bin Laden? Wasn't he the mastermind of 9/11? How come there's no "surge" to capture the ones that really attacked the US? If we had in Afghanistan the military might that we employed in Iraq there's a chance that we might have captured him by now. 6 years after the twin towers fell and still no sign of him. Pathetic!


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1758 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 14):
Nicely stated, Iraq had a dictator pre-2003, but not thousands of terrorist nor was it breeding them.

Saddam WAS the terrorist. So, we got rid of one, and what entered in his place: thousands.

So, ask yourself, is Iraq better off without that lowlife? He's gone-a good thing. But what is there in it's place is just as bad, and killing proabalby just as many Iraqi's.

Maybe Iraqi's should ask themselves the old American political debate question: are you better off than you were 4 years ago?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21569 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1757 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 14):
Iraq had a dictator pre-2003, but not thousands of terrorist nor was it breeding them.

Iraq did support terrorists under Saddam. Whether those terrorists included members of al-Qaeda is still unknown, but there was terror money coming out of Iraq.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 14):
How come there's no "surge" to capture the ones that really attacked the US?

Because the one that really attacked the US is likely sitting in Pakistan right now, enjoying the fact that he's protected by Pakistan's sovreignty and the fact that Musharraf doesn't want to get him for fear of pissing off the radicals in his country and risking being thrown out of power.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 836 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1755 times:

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 10):
Of course it will depend on the Iraqi government, but so far they haven't shown much promise to be willing to progress Iraq into a "democracy" of some sort.

This is a common complaint. That the Iraqi government haven't moved towards democracy. How can anyone expect this to occur in the middle of a full blown civil war??

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Iraq did support terrorists under Saddam. Whether those terrorists included members of al-Qaeda is still unknown, but there was terror money coming out of Iraq.

You aren't serious are you? and if you are you forgot to mention all those WMDs that Iraq had.....

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
Because the one that really attacked the US is likely sitting in Pakistan right now,

You sidestepped the point. They were in Afghanistan. However the military action suddenly took a back seat to Iraq. Why?



Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21569 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 17):
You aren't serious are you?

I'm quite serious. Saddam had terror ties. One would be hard pressed to say that those ties were definitely a threat to the US, but they were there.

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 17):
you forgot to mention all those WMDs that Iraq had.....

Yes, we screwed up on that one. So did everybody else in the world. I don't know of any intelligence service that said that Iraq definitely did not have WMDs. It was proven after the fact that though he didn't have them, he did want them, and was actively looking to get them. But Saddam didn't help himself there - he sure as hell acted as if he had them. If you come across a guy who you know has shot someone on at least two occasions in the past, and he has his hand inside his jacket and refuses to show it to you to prove that he's not packing heat, what are you supposed to think?

Quoting CupraIbiza (Reply 17):
You sidestepped the point. They were in Afghanistan. However the military action suddenly took a back seat to Iraq. Why?

Because Saddam Hussein was considered to be more of a threat than Osama bin Laden. I'm not sure whether that's true or not, but keep in mind that we were already going after al-Qaeda by denying them the capability to conduct business - freezing assets, monitoring conversations, etc. I'm not trying to sidestep the point at all - I believe the reason that we're not going after bin Laden and others in al-Qaeda is because they're in Pakistan, and we don't want to piss Pakistan off. Musharraf, despite his many faults, is going to be more friendly to the US than the radicals who might come to power if he fell. Pakistan is a nuclear power, and those weapons in the hands of a radical Islamic government would be very bad.

I would love it if we could go and get him, and I wish we would tell Pakistan that we'll keep it as quiet as we can, but if they don't do something about Waziristan we will go in there. I do, however, understand the reluctance to do that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US "arrogant And Stupid" In Iraq posted Sun Oct 22 2006 16:06:29 by Gkirk
US Govt :"Foreigners Should Not Interfere In Iraq" posted Tue Jul 22 2003 13:23:13 by B747-437B
McCain: American Lives "Wasted" In Iraq posted Fri Mar 2 2007 02:19:50 by AeroWesty
Cheney: Blunders In Iraq Have Hurt WH: "Hogwash" posted Wed Jan 24 2007 23:50:48 by Falcon84
Farfetched: U.S. Testing "Pain Ray" In Iraq? posted Mon May 22 2006 17:22:04 by AerospaceFan
Swede Arrested In PRG For "terrorism" posted Tue Dec 13 2005 18:12:40 by Checo77
How Many Different Words In English For "toilet"? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 10:19:46 by UTA_flyinghigh
"Woman Locked In Shed For 25 Years" posted Fri Sep 9 2005 21:58:48 by RedDragon
Essay: "How To Win In Iraq" posted Sun Aug 28 2005 10:35:02 by Mir
"Democracy In Iraq" posted Sun Aug 7 2005 00:34:22 by ME AVN FAN