Forecasting Iraq Change (1 Viewer)

[Topsez]

The fact is we are in Iraq and victory is the objective. So, let’s look into the future rather than dwell on the past.

Current situation is we have approximately 140,000 US forces of which 40,000 are direct combat forces. We have a lack of progress towards victory or even a stable nation to exit.

There are approximately 110 Iraqi Battalions of trained forces that can be deployed but all but a half dozen can’t function without American assistance.

The America people have spoken and said they want change in direction in Iraq… the Prez has spoken and says we need victory and a stable country in order to leave. The Dem’s have started a snowball indicating staggered withdraw… So, how will this all come together that everyone gets what they want?

This is the time you have to think carefully and indicate what you think the US government will elect to do. Please think before typing something stupid… the train is moving and I think I know which way it will turn… time will tell who is right.

This is what I think they will do:

Large numbers of the 100,000 that are in support of the 40,000 will be redeployed to the US making the American people happy seeing a change of course. The services these soldiers performed such as support such as transportation, beans and bullets for the 40,000 will be contracted out to local or federal contracts. Air support will continue from aircraft carriers… the State Department will cry crocodile tears for the loss of those who support the “making life better” for the Iraqis.

The 40,000 warriors will remain but be kept mainly in reserve out of harms way… kind of a force you call for 911 emergencies. Specially trained combat teams will embed into the not ready for primetime Iraqi battalions taking the US face off the securing of Iraq. When necessary the warriors of the remaining 40K will join in and kick ***, but only when absolutely necessary.

By using this method, being approved through kissy huggy bipartisanship compromise, the candidates for both parties in 08 will have a basis of actions they will approve or disapprove of involving the war to kick the can down the road until 08 allowing victory a chance.

 

[Goobieman]

The dems in congress are going to try to force us to leave before the situation in Iraq is stable enough for us to do so safely; indeed, they are already discussing pulling troops out.

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/w...&ex=1164085200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

 

[Kandahar]

Of course we're going to cut and run (which is a good thing), but it will be done in a way that allows George W Bush to save a little face. My guess is that the Baker commission will recommend that we redeploy our troops to Iraqi Kurdistan and Kuwait. Since Kurdistan is still technically part of Iraq, Bush will be able to say that we still have just as many troops in the country, but they'll be out of the way of any violence.

Also, if we aren't going to do what is necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, then we may as well go for rapprochement. We should be in contact with them to help establish a situation in Iraq that, while not ideal, is at least tolerable for us and them.

 

[Topsez]

Of course we're going to cut and run (which is a good thing), but it will be done in a way that allows George W Bush to save a little face. Bet you a beer that Prez Bush will not make a move that simply saves face. Any reduction in forces will not be combat troops but service support troops for public consumption. Many of these troops are Army Reserve-National Guard... people across America will see them come home and after talking with them find out they never even heard a weapon fire or bomb go off in their entire tour in Iraq.

My guess is that the Baker commission will recommend that we redeploy our troops to Iraqi Kurdistan and Kuwait. Since Kurdistan is still technically part of Iraq, Bush will be able to say that we still have just as many troops in the country, but they'll be out of the way of any violence.

If Iraq falls apart Kurdistan will be in war with Turkey, some intel say Kurds are sponsoring anti Turk terror elements already.

Also, if we aren't going to do what is necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, then we may as well go for rapprochement. We should be in contact with them to help establish a situation in Iraq that, while not ideal, is at least tolerable for us and them.

Every nation in the ME is scared to death of Iran already, if we talk with them every nation in the ME will build nukes because they will think part of Iraq is being given to Iran. The Sunnis in Kuwait and the folks in Saudi Arabia would absolutely freak out if we don't insist Iran stop the nuke adventure.... to cut a deal for Iran to be even more powerful could result in the entire ME going to war with each other.

 

[Stinger]

Of course we're going to cut and run (which is a good thing), but it will be done in a way that allows George W Bush to save a little face. My guess is that the Baker commission will recommend that we redeploy our troops to Iraqi Kurdistan and Kuwait. Since Kurdistan is still technically part of Iraq,

Going to Iraq Kurdistan does nothing and what makes you think Kuwait will let us stage over 100,000 more troops there for an illegal immoral war to enrich Bush's friends?

Bush will be able to say that we still have just as many troops in the country, but they'll be out of the way of any violence.

Why on earth would Bush just want to be able to say that?

Also, if we aren't going to do what is necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nukes, then we may as well go for rapprochement. We should be in contact with them to help establish a situation in Iraq that, while not ideal, is at least tolerable for us and them.

Why would anyone in Iran want to put their future at our stake when we cut and run when the going gets rough? No one will want us to do anything after we cut and run from Iraq, we will no longer be trusted to see it through.

 

[Kandahar]

Going to Iraq Kurdistan does nothing and what makes you think Kuwait will let us stage over 100,000 more troops there for an illegal immoral war to enrich Bush's friends?

Not for a war. They'd just be there in case they were needed (theoretically), just like they have been since the first Persian Gulf War. But in reality it would be the same as withdrawing them and bringing them back home, just without Bush having to admit that he royally screwed the pooch.

Why on earth would Bush just want to be able to say that?

For political reasons, obviously.

Astute observer, c. 2008: "Your Iraq policy is a disaster."
Bush: "There was only one American casualty in the last six months."
Astute observer: "That's because the troops are out of harm's way now."
Bush: "We haven't withdrawn any troops from Iraq."

If they were in Iraqi Kurdistan, he'd technically be correct.

Why would anyone in Iran want to put their future at our stake when we cut and run when the going gets rough? No one will want us to do anything after we cut and run from Iraq, we will no longer be trusted to see it through.

Yep, Bush really ****ed this up, putting us in a situation where we had two such terrible alternatives to choose from.

 

[Stinger]

Not for a war. They'd just be there in case they were needed (theoretically), just like they have been since the first Persian Gulf War. But in reality it would be the same as withdrawing them and bringing them back home, just without Bush having to admit that he royally screwed the pooch.

Even more so then, why on earth do you believe Kuwait would let us sit over 100,000 troops there when that is why Al qaeda is attacking in Iraq and our being in the ME makes us the enemy and breeds terrorism according to your side of this? And especially for an immoral, illegal war that is only being fought to enrich Bush and Cheney and their friends, you keep ignoring those Democrat points.

For political reasons, obviously.

Obviously Bush has no political stance in this anymore. Why would he "just" want to be able to say the the troops are still there?


If they were in Iraqi Kurdistan, he'd technically be correct.


Me>> Why would anyone in Iran want to put their future at our stake when we cut and run when the going gets rough? No one will want us to do anything after we cut and run from Iraq, we will no longer be trusted to see it through.

Yep, Bush really ****ed this up, putting us in a situation where we had two such terrible alternatives to choose from.

If we cut and run it is on your side, so why would any other country begin to believe they could change throw out their despots and rely on us to back them up?

 

[Topsez]

Like Goobieman said in post #2 the dems leadership have made up thier minds... But, I watched the entire Prez Press conference (Tony Snow) today and over and over he told reporters we are in for victory... the reporters tried every way they could to get info about the Joint Commision that met with the Prez but Tony didn't budge but insisted that the prez places his trust in the generals on the ground and repeated victory.

This leaves very little wiggle room, congress can meet Bush in the middle or they can cut funds entirely. Prez Bush can give them the choice to either fund in total to support victory or he will blow everything in place and bring the soldiers back to the barracks on the blessing of the Democrats. If Prez Bush isn't going to get victory he will not take less in my view of this mission so it is going to be a Bush win or a dem loss. No funds there will be a living hell in the ME to vote on in 08 and the Dems will be the blame for it.

 

[oldreliable67]

All the reasons in the world don't matter one whit right now. With Murtha, Pelosi and Reid in control, what do you think is going to happen? Just review their rhetoric. The Dems will push for one thing and one thing only: cut and run. The Dems will give no thought to Bush "saving face" - unless what the Dems want and what Bush wants just happen to be the same thing - fat chance of that.

The only possible way that it won't be cut and run is if a handful of Dems desert the party line - again, this quickly in the Dem controlled session, fat chance of that.

AQ has long wanted an Islamic state to call their own, one from which they can export their efforts to rebuild the Islamic caliphate. They may now get their best chance ever to do so.

 

[Topsez]

All the reasons in the world don't matter one whit right now. With Murtha, Pelosi and Reid in control, what do you think is going to happen? Just review their rhetoric. The Dems will push for one thing and one thing only: cut and run. The Dems will give no thought to Bush "saving face" - unless what the Dems want and what Bush wants just happen to be the same thing - fat chance of that.

The only possible way that it won't be cut and run is if a handful of Dems desert the party line - again, this quickly in the Dem controlled session, fat chance of that.

AQ has long wanted an Islamic state to call their own, one from which they can export their efforts to rebuild the Islamic caliphate. They may now get their best chance ever to do so.

This is my entire point that Prez Bush will place the responsibility of leadership in Iraq from him to the Democrats in power with a choice of support victory without strings or refuse to fund forcing cut and run. Prez will not play the game of nickel dime drawdown to allow the dems cover to the next election cycle... he will make it a January cold choice to do it my way or offer a way to victory I agree to or it belongs to you. Watch and learn...

 

[Gordon Shumway]

The dems are not going to push for "cut & run." They abandoned that idea the morning after the election (that was the big lie that so many bought into). They aren't going to "defund" the war either.

We'll likely see a redefining of what a victory is. A redployment is also likely. The war will either be wrapped up or at least begun to wrap up by the 2008 elections & both sides will claim they're the ones bringing our troops home.

We'll likely begin to see lists compiled for news release of each accomplishment of the war (removed Saddam, interim government, elections, constitution, etc.). Then there'll be more of a push towards the Iraqis taking over their own security. This has already been happening. It will be a main focus in the redefining of victory. The battle cry used to be that we'll leave when Iraq is secure & stable. That will still be the goal but it will be placed on the Iraqis to do their own security & stablization. Thus claiming victory for the USA.

 

[Topsez]

The dems are not going to push for "cut & run." They abandoned that idea the morning after the election (that was the big lie that so many bought into). They aren't going to "defund" the war either.

We'll likely see a redefining of what a victory is. A redployment is also likely. The war will either be wrapped up or at least begun to wrap up by the 2008 elections & both sides will claim they're the ones bringing our troops home.

We'll likely begin to see lists compiled for news release of each accomplishment of the war (removed Saddam, interim government, elections, constitution, etc.). Then there'll be more of a push towards the Iraqis taking over their own security. This has already been happening. It will be a main focus in the redefining of victory. The battle cry used to be that we'll leave when Iraq is secure & stable. That will still be the goal but it will be placed on the Iraqis to do their own security & stablization. Thus claiming victory for the USA.

That is exactly what Prez Bush has said victory in Iraq is... he has been saying that for months... He clearly stated the killing doesn't have to stop before we leave, he has stated Iraqi government simply needs to be able to deal with the internal problems. That is the stay the course he has repeated over and over... The only missing componet from our troops leaving right now is an Iraqi security force that can do what we now do to call it victory. Prez Bush has clearly stated over and over that the country can still have internal problems to resolve and still be a victory and the only thing keeping us there is that Iraqi government cannot currently maintain authority on its own to secure the government authority over the forces that may overthrow it.

You are endorcing stay the course as an alternative to stay the course. The dems want to cut and run and let the government fall if it can't stand on its own power and that is the defining difference.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

You are endorcing stay the course as an alternative to stay the course. The dems want to cut and run and let the government fall if it can't stand on its own power and that is the defining difference.

I am not endorsing anything. You asked what we think will happen. I'm telling you that not much will change. And, the route I think they're going to go trying to explain their "new" direction.

According to NPR 61% of Americans want a change in Iraq strategy but do not support cut & run. The dems have to make sure that their plan doesn't look like cut & run & the reps have to make sure their plan doesn't look like stay the course. That's the reason for redefining victory & to some extent what our real objective is.

I'm not saying I support or don't support this "new" plan --- I'm just saying that I believe this will be the route they'll take. It's the reality of both sides trying to set themselves up for victory in 2008. Make no mistake about it; the conclusion of the war has everything to do with the 2008 elections.

 

[Stinger]

According to NPR 61% of Americans want a change in Iraq strategy but do not support cut & run.

So what do these 61% want?

The dems have to make sure that their plan doesn't look like cut & run

Ahhh decieve the people so they don't know it IS cut and run.

I'm not saying I support or don't support this "new" plan --- I'm just saying that I believe this will be the route they'll take.

What plan? Cut and run or stay until the Iraqi can stand on it's own security?

It's the reality of both sides trying to set themselves up for victory in 2008.

I think the Bush side wants to finish the job, it's the Dems who have politisized this.

Make no mistake about it; the conclusion of the war has everything to do with the 2008 elections.

If the Democrats were honest in the rhetoric they have been spouting for the last 3 years then they only have one choice and that is to propose leaving immediately, every miniute there is a minute too long. If that is not what they are going to propose then they have been lying and our efforts there have suffered for it.

 

[Topsez]

I am not endorsing anything. You asked what we think will happen. I'm telling you that not much will change. And, the route I think they're going to go trying to explain their "new" direction.

According to NPR 61% of Americans want a change in Iraq strategy but do not support cut & run. The dems have to make sure that their plan doesn't look like cut & run & the reps have to make sure their plan doesn't look like stay the course. That's the reason for redefining victory & to some extent what our real objective is.

I'm not saying I support or don't support this "new" plan --- I'm just saying that I believe this will be the route they'll take. It's the reality of both sides trying to set themselves up for victory in 2008. Make no mistake about it; the conclusion of the war has everything to do with the 2008 elections.

But what you stated isn't new. It is the current plan, establish Iraqi forces that can provide security that American forces now provide and we will come home. Prez Bush has indicated he doesn't care if the Iraqi's are killing 500 a day when we leave as long as their government can secure itself and is not a threat to the neighbors. That is stay the course unless you think Prez Bush would agree to pre-announce troop reductions regardless if the Iraqi forces can fill the gap... I'm here to tell you he won't, he is for victory and will not let one soldier die for a staggered withdraw that ends in failure.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

So what do these 61% want?

If the Democrats were honest in the rhetoric they have been spouting for the last 3 years then they only have one choice and that is to propose leaving immediately, every miniute there is a minute too long. If that is not what they are going to propose then they have been lying and our efforts there have suffered for it.

According to NPR (so take it for it's worth) there seems to be no consensus to what the 61% want. Except; change.

Of course the dems have been lying for the past three years for political purpose.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I think the Bush side wants to finish the job, it's the Dems who have politisized this.

It doesn't matter who politicized it; it's political now.

The definition of "finishing the job" will be redefined, kicked around & given the appearance of something new. Secure & stable will not mean what it did three years ago. The meaning has already been changing.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

But what you stated isn't new.

Never claimed it was. I'm just saying they're going to try to repackage it to make people think it's something new. Guess what? Most Americans will buy into it. They'll take sides for who gets credit for bringing our troops home.

Ah, ain't politics grand?

 

[Stinger]

It doesn't matter who politicized it; it's political now.

I agree it's political now, later when it is viewed historically it will matter who politicized it and the consequences it brought.

The definition of "finishing the job" will be redefined, kicked around & given the appearance of something new. Secure & stable will not mean what it did three years ago. The meaning has already been changing.

I don't know, I think the Dems are perfectly satisfied to cut and run just to get us out, they believe it can't be won, that it is immoral, that it is illegal and that every minute we are there makes the overall situation worse. There is no "finish the job" if we are to believe them. And it's gives them a political victory if we do leave and Iraq falls apart. This is what they have been demanding and they just might get it.

They have demoralized the populace into beliving it is a hopeless cause, for the wrong reasons, for immoral and illegal reasons and we are only there because Bush is corrupt. The soldiers in the field are starting to see the more and more people support this thinking, they will start to have there morale compromised wondering why they are putting thier lives on the line when the public doesn't support them doing so. And our enemies see that the leadership has been weakened, the resolve diminished.

So yeah, why stay any longer. Get em home and hunker down.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I agree it's political now, later when it is viewed historically it will matter who politicized it and the consequences it brought.



I don't know, I think the Dems are perfectly satisfied to cut and run just to get us out, they believe it can't be won, that it is immoral, that it is illegal and that every minute we are there makes the overall situation worse. There is no "finish the job" if we are to believe them. And it's gives them a political victory if we do leave and Iraq falls apart. This is what they have been demanding and they just might get it.

They have demoralized the populace into beliving it is a hopeless cause, for the wrong reasons, for immoral and illegal reasons and we are only there because Bush is corrupt. The soldiers in the field are starting to see the more and more people support this thinking, they will start to have there morale compromised wondering why they are putting thier lives on the line when the public doesn't support them doing so. And our enemies see that the leadership has been weakened, the resolve diminished.

So yeah, why stay any longer. Get em home and hunker down.

You're correct when speaking of the extreme left. However, I firmly believe that this congress with the president will claim the war has already been won & start promoting these accomplishments I previously talked about. Then they'll attempt to redefine our current goals & strategy to allow us to leave with the American people believing we won whether we did or didn't. That will be the goal & the timing will be right in line for the 2008 elections. I'm not saying I like it or dislike it --- it is what it is.

 

[Stinger]

You're correct when speaking of the extreme left. However, I firmly believe that this congress with the president will claim the war has already been won

The war in Iraq against Saddam and the former Iraq government ended when the statute came down. The war again the Terrorist and Islamic Radicals will continue no matter how Iraq ends. Having a safe and secure and somewhat democratic Iraq was/is of very key startegic importance. No one will be fooled if we don't accomplish that.

& start promoting these accomplishments I previously talked about.

And when they fall...............

Then they'll attempt to redefine our current goals

It won't be a redifining them it will be an outright retreat from them because we do not have the will to continue. Our enemy sees it, OBL predicted it, it will empower them. THAT is what matters. The goals, in spite of the phoney proclimations of the Dems/Left have been well known and spoken of for years. We are close, but the Dems/Left have won the war here to end it.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Having a safe and secure and somewhat democratic Iraq was/is of very key startegic importance. No one will be fooled if we don't accomplish that.

The results of this most recent election tell me a different story.

 

[oldreliable67]

The results of this most recent election tell me a different story.

It isn't very often that I agree with a NYT editorial point of view, but in this case, they have it right, IMO:

The Democrats will not be able to savor their victory for long. Americans are waiting to hear if they have any good ideas for how to get out of Iraq without creating even wider chaos and terrorism.

Criticizing President Bush's gross mismanagement of the war was a winning electoral strategy. But criticism will not extricate the United States from this mess, nor will it persuade voters that the Democrats are ready to take back the White House. . . .

The Democrats will also need to look forward--and quickly. So far they have shared slogans, but no real policy. During the campaign, their most common call was for a "phased redeployment"--a euphemism for withdrawal--of American troops starting before the end of this year.

The Democrats have rightly pointed out that Republicans acted without gathering all appropriate data and the data that they did have was inaccurate and/or misleading, thanks in large part to a dysfunctional intelligence community, leading to problems like Iraq. Yet now they're poised to do precisely the same thing.

With all due respect to the Democratic leadership, I'd be impressed to learn that this move was being made on the basis of extensive discussion with military and political leaders from the U.S. and Iraq. Instead, the Democrats have pretty much always wanted to be out of Iraq and want to get the question of Iraq off the table, mainly in order to regain political power. I have no doubt that they're sincere in their belief that getting out of Iraq is the best course of action available to us, but sincerity is a lot less important than whether or not getting out is the right thing to do. And I am not convinced the Democrats have made that determination yet.

It is not sufficient to demonstrate that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. Regardless of whether one holds that belief, the fact remains that we are there now, and we have to move forward based on where we are, not where we wish we were. We therefore need to ask the right questions about what will happen if we stay or leave Iraq, and make our decision based on that. I'm not convinced the Dems are looking beyond the immediacy of domestic politics to the future of the ME and radical Islamic aspirations.