Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > October > 21 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USIraq to U.S.: Go! No, stay. No, go! Stay!
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Iraqi government needs U.S. forces to stay, at least for a while longer, for military reasons.
But for political reasons, it can’t admit that fact to its own people.
As a result, Iraqi approval of a new status-of-forces agreement has been postponed and may not happen at all, a possibility that is making U.S. officials nervous. With no agreement, U.S. forces would legally be required to leave by Jan. 1.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Iraqi leaders Tuesday that “we are clearly running out of time.”
“It’s time for the Iraqis to make a decision,” he said.
As written, the draft agreement calls for US forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by June — that’s just eight months from now — and be gone altogether by the end of 2011. But apparently many Iraqis want even that timetable pushed up.
However the short term problem is resolved, it’s pretty clear that in the long run the U.S. will not attain permanent bases in Iraq, which had been the hope of many top American officials in launching the invasion.
John McCain was clearly among that group. He had been pushing for the removal of Saddam Hussein long before before Sept. 11, and like others he seized upon the attacks on New York and Washington as a pretext for that strategy. His later infamous statement that he was willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years was not a commitment to a 100-year war, as Barack Obama suggested, but it did reflect McCain’s plan to keep US forces in Iraq long-term, just as they have been stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan and other nations since the end of World War II.
That had been the plan from the beginning. In launching the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration and its supporters believed they were also permanently expanding U.S. military power in the Middle East, to the point that they would be able to impose military solutions to the region’s many problems. In one of the more ludicrous statements of the time, it was even argued that the road to peace in the Middle East ran through Baghdad, with Iraq becoming a pro-Israel ally in the Arab world.
We’ve spent a lot of lives and resources learning the folly of that line of thinking.
Comments
By Mrs. Godzilla
October 21, 2008 7:48 AM | Link to this
On the subject from Think Progress
By Joey
October 21, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
So, in 2001 or early 2002 John McCain, and others, “siezed upon the attacks on New York and Washington as a pretext for” a strategy to remove Hussein and establish a perminant military base in Iraq, specifically Bagdad.
McCain’s plan is to keep troops in Iraq long term, “just as they have been stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan and other nations since the end of World War II.”
Are we to infer that US Military occupation of Germany, Italy, Japan and other nations is continuing at the insistance of Bush? And will continue if McCain is elected. But end if Obama is elected.
And Jay is labeling people who disagree with him as wacko-nuts. No shame.
By Bud Wiser
October 21, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Who ever made the statement from our government that Iraq would become ‘a pro-Israel ally in the Arab world”, Jay? Officially speaking, that is? Who? Link, please.
Or is this another piece of revisionist history, written by libs, feeding the shark pool of libs, or an extrapolation to show the very idiocy of its existence by saying such?
Pro-US, maybe, pro-Israel, what hallucinatory drugs have you been taking?
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this
The Iraqi gov’t will never become self-reliant if they don’t have to and if America continues to occupy their country. It’s past time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis — it’s their country, not ours.
By Middle Class Tax Payer
October 21, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this
Get out of Iraq now and bring the $120 billion back to America along with the troops. This is a simple solution.
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
Joey
October 21, 2008 8:13 AM
No, infer that as long as we have troops in Iraq they will continue to be killed. The same policy won’t work there.
To his credit, Bush has started pulling troops out of the rest of the world.
By Donovan
October 21, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
What you see is what you get and what you read is what you get from a dedicated left wing kook such as Jay Bookman. Now, go broaden this scenario and think about who could become the next president of this country.
By Truthman
October 21, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
I’m so proud of the Iraqis exercising their democratic rights as a sovereign nation and not signing the SOFA with the U.S.
They know all they have to do is wait a little longer until President BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is sworn in, and they’ll be able to deal with a rational administration based upon the rule of law and mutual respect for the peoples of the world.
Great job, Iraqis!! Keep being a democracy!!
By E
October 21, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Timelines in war are stupid.
However, we are not in a war in Iraq. It is an occupation. The war ended in April of 2003, and we all remember Bush declaring victory.
Prime Minister of Iraq al-Maliki has stated that the Obama timeline sounds about right.
Let’s take him at his word.
Obama/Biden ‘08
By Brian Disco Snell
October 21, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
With no agreement, U.S. forces would legally be required to leave by Jan. 1.
Oh, Jay, you silly man. Do you really believe that, after almost 6 years, this administration is going to be bothered by legal requirements? That they won’t misintepret, or rationalize, or just plain declare that the law just doesn’t apply to them because they’re engaged in such important work??
By Brian Disco Snell
October 21, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
With no agreement, U.S. forces would legally be required to leave by Jan. 1.
Oh, Jay, you silly man. Do you really believe that, after almost 6 years, this administration is going to be bothered by legal requirements? That they won’t misintepret, or rationalize, or just plain declare that the law just doesn’t apply to them because they’re engaged in such important work??
That’s so cute…
By Brian Disco Snell
October 21, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
With no agreement, U.S. forces would legally be required to leave by Jan. 1.
Oh, Jay, you silly man. Do you really believe that, after almost 6 years, this administration is going to be bothered by legal requirements? That they won’t misintepret, or rationalize, or just plain declare that the law just doesn’t apply to them because they’re engaged in such important work??
That’s so cute…
By Bosch
October 21, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Let THE IRAQIS hire Blackwater or other mercenaries to back them up. They have more money than we do.
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
There will always be one more hill to climb in Iraq as long as U.S. troops are there. But how do you get them out without unleashing further chaos? We owe it to the Iraqis to do it in an orderly mannern with their safety the main concern. It will take years, not months, no matter who the president is.
By Bosch
October 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Dealing with Iraq is like dealing with a family member who is a drug addict - it’s time to cut them loose as painful as it may be.
I’ve personally seen two drug addicts bankrupt their families who have tried to help them, and left them with nothing but a broken family and no money - with the person responsible still doing drugs.
It’s time to get Iraq into rehab.
By "The Corporal"
October 21, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Jay
You know I have some mixed emotions on this one. Bottom line:
1) We should have gone into Iraq. 2) We should have gone in with overwhelming force (because of Rumsfield we didn’t). 3) Because of that, probably 75% plus of the American lives lost were unnecessary. 4) We should have sealed the borders (we didn’t). 5) We should have been gone long ago (and left the message, “if you screw up we’ll be back”).
All of that said, when we do leave they will go right back to where they were. Why? Because of this phrase in their new Constitution.
“No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.”
Sad, sad, sad …………
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
As Gen. Colin Powell stated in his press conference on Sunday:
{{“and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. …”}}
I hope so, too, General.. and with Barack Obama as president, we know that the true fight against Al-Qaeda and terrorism will be concentrated elsewhere and with other means than our military forces.
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
Corporal @ 9:11 —
WRONG. But I’m sure you just mis-posted and left out the words “NEVER should have gone into Iraq.”
No excuses for 2 thru 5 because we never should’ve invaded Iraq in the first place. Our focus should’ve stayed with Bin Laden and then we may not be in the same f@cked up mess we are in today, and Al Qaeda would not still be growing largers week by week.
By AmVet
October 21, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
In one fortnight, this greatest of all nations again engages in one of the greatest of all human endeavors.
It is irrefutable that the next leader of the free world will either be the junior Senator from Illinois or the senior Senator from Arizona.
Both are IMHO good men and great Americans. Both have their unique histories that have informed their views. One from a relatively obscure and lower-middle class upbringing, and the other from a background of prestige and connection.
It does not matter that much.
What does, is the integrity, intellect and vision of these two men.
Both have significant flaws to be sure. Both have made grievous errors in judgment. Both have chosen to associate themselves with very shady characters.
This does not bode well for the republic. Yet, this is where we stand.
There is no longer any relevant doubt that we have just endured perhaps the very worst presidency in the nation’s long history. And some of the least ethical and competent leaders/ideology in a century.
The height of this imperious and deceitful administration, of course, is the ongoing misguided and mismanaged invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yet the world’s number one criminal remains uncaptured. And he likely never will face justice for his evil deeds.
And especially in light of this undeniable situation, both Senators Obama and McCain are, in my opinion, just more of the status quo. And a BIG part of the problem in Washington DC. Given their unimpressive histories, they certainly seem to me, not the solution. And I believe this is the case on a vast array of issues.
And so, I will vote for neither of these candidates.
But we must soldier on in our efforts to undo the awful damage wrought in the past eight years. And mourn our losses. For our children and grandchildren, for the United States of America and for the entire world.
I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him. ~Abraham Lincoln
By Taxpayer
October 21, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
We should never have gone into Iraq. Planning to establish a foothold in Iraq and setting up military bases there was a stupid idea from the start and all it did was cost us trillions, by time this mess is behind us, to learn a lesson that we should have already known. Then again, whoever said that Republicans were good in history either — they slept through every class.
By "The Corporal"
October 21, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
To Goldie
“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of wa and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivilized who can.”
Author Unknown
By Bosch
October 21, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
I think some of you know that I’m kind of a sucker for animals.
And, well, that dog story, Ratchet, the pooch who came home from Iraq is just really great.
(Sniff) Excuse me.
Kudos to the people who got that dog home for that soldier. I’ll be right back, um, I have to go blow my nose.
By E
October 21, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Bosch at 9:34,
Here’s another sucker for animals.
I was so relieved to see this morning that Ratchet is in the US and will soon be reunited with Army Spc. Beberg. I love happy endings.
Obama/Biden ‘08
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Corporal @ 9:31 — as our future president Barack Obama has so correctly stated:
“I don’t oppose all wars… What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”
“So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Corporal— You being a warrior yourself should know better.
Obama/Biden ‘08 and ‘12!
By RealityKing
October 21, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
The goal was/is plain and simple. A long term successful democracy of free people in Iraq and Afghanistan, just like Europe. Where have you been??
I know, I know, that’s a really hard concept to grasp for today’s progressives since it doesn’t involve anything for their own self-centered benefit. Other than, of course.., seeing 57 million people having the same chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that they have had given to them.
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Bosch @ 9:34 — I know, that pooch story just killed me softly, too. I get myself all worked up over lost pets and them finding their way home somehow.
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
A long term successful democracy of free people in Iraq and Afghanistan
Non-Reality @ 9:57 — so you propose that we continue bombing countries into accepting your vision of “democracy”? True democracy rises up from the people, not from bombs and foreign invaders. Maybe if you read some history books, you’d understand better what the term “democracy” really means.
By Goldie
October 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Also, Non-Reality @ 9:57 — even your guy McAngry has confessed that our invasion of Iraq was all about OIL… do study up some more, it will do you no harm.
By RealityKing
October 21, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
But the stalling really does make you think twice about the reported “secret deal” Obama made with the Iraqi’s while there eariler this year, don’t it?. You know…, the one the progressively corrupt media doesn’t want to talk about>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/
Some change..
By "The Corporal"
October 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
To Goldie
It wasn’t a dumb war but it was fought dumbly at least at the beginning.
No one gives Bush credit for the fact that since 9/11 terrorism has not touched our shores. I can assure you that there are things you don’t know about …….. if you did …. you wouldn’t sleep well. In spite of that, he has kept us safe.
Politicians (with very few exceptions) are ALL arm-chair generals and private Obama is just one of them.
If he is elected, it will be interesting to converse with you during/after his first crisis. Your tone may change.
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
AmVet
October 21, 2008 9:24 AM
Well said, but at least with Obama THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR GREATNESS.
(Caps unintended but decided to leave them.)
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer
October 21, 2008 9:24 AM
Don’t forget the lives callously sacrificed.
By Paul
October 21, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Jay
[[it did reflect McCain’s plan to keep US forces in Iraq long-term, just as they have been stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan and other nations since the end of World War II.]]
Which is essentially Obama’s plan, also. McCain just had the honesty (or political naivete) to say so. Obama has spoken of a very long-term presence in Iraq - he just says the soldiers aren’t ‘combat’ troops. He’s spoken of ‘repositioning’ soldiers from Iraq to other ME countries (which ones will take us? He’s not specific) as a ‘fast reaction’ force.
Try to paint it any way you want, regardless of their history, the future they offer for our presence in the ME is essentially the same.
Anyone care to take issue with this reading of Obama’s long-term plan for our presence in the ME?
By Copyleft
October 21, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
RealityKing: I must’ve missed the part where the Iraqis SAID they wanted a democracy and ASKED us to come in and help them set one up.
In fact, the Iraqi people aren’t particularly thrilled with our overthrowing their government and setting up a new one more to our liking—in THEIR country—and then refusing to leave THEIR country. I wonder why?
By RealityKing
October 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Well, well.., look at that! Proof that the selfish tendencies of progressive liberals is a biological disorder, passed down by their self-centered ancestors.
“Evolutionary theory predicts competition between individuals and yet we see many examples in nature of individuals disadvantaging themselves to help others,” said lead researcher Tim Phillips, of the Behavior and Ecology Research Group at the University of Nottingham in England. “In humans, particularly, we see individuals prepared to put themselves at considerable risk to help individuals they do not know for no obvious reward. Rather than helping out a friend or even a stranger in exchange for personal gain, altruistic behaviors are also used to woo mates. The results suggest the workings of sexual selection.
“For many years the standard explanation for altruistic behavior toward non-relatives has been based on reciprocity and reputation — a version of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, the lure of helpful mates could be traced back to our ancestors. The expansion of the human brain would have greatly increased the cost of raising children so it would have been important for our ancestors to choose mates both willing and able to be good, long-term parents,” Phillips said.
In fact, past studies have revealed such selfless behaviors in our closest common ancestor, chimpanzees. And in humans, research has shown that doing good makes you feel good and is linked with happier marriages. In this stereotyped environment, women would prefer a mate who is willing to unselfishly share power and resources.
Perhaps in the future, hopefully.., we’ll have a pill for Jay and his drunk band of merry liberals..
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
“The Corporal”
October 21, 2008 9:11 AM
We have a strong military so that it won’t have to be used.
Not to topple dictators that are no threat to us. Sending troops into Iraq and Afghanistan just escalated the violence and strengthened al Qaeda’s resolve. There was a covert role for the military in bringing bin Laden and his lieutenants to justice, but by doing it overtly we just reenforced their opinion of us as the Great Satan.
If I had been caught with my pants down around my ankles on 9/11 like Bush was, I might have done the same thing, but I would hope not. Richard Clarke couldn’t even get an audience with him because of Condi. She should have been fired, but instead was promoted because of her loyalty.
Al Qaeda could strike here at any time, but they’re planning something extra special for us. Look for something next year during the confusion of transitioning to a new administration, no matter whose it is. Just like 1993 and 2001, as Biden unfortunately said.
By TN Gelding
October 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
RealityKing
October 21, 2008 9:57 AM
The role for our military is to defend this country.
That’s 57 million people minus the millions that have been displaced or truly liberated for all eternity.
All things considered, I’d rather be buying oil from Saddam for 40 euros a barrel. His refusal to take dollars probably hastened his demise.
He could have been removed without a costly, destructive, immoral war.