The Crypt's Blog - Politico.comIraq Pullout Could Begin July 1 Under Democratic Plan
The House Democratic plan for funding the war in Iraq could force a pullout of U.S. combat troops starting on July 1, with all American units out of the country by the end of 2007, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday.
Even under the least aggressive timetable laid out by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, U.S. forces will have withdrawn from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008.
When the pullout begins depends on the progress that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes in meeting political and military benchmarks. President Bush would have to certify by July 1 that the Maliki government is "making progress" toward those goals, or a U.S. withdrawal would start immediately and be finished in six months.
If Bush says there is some progress in reaching the benchmarks, the Maliki government would have until Oct. 1 to formally enact them. If they aren't, pullout begins, and again, it's a six-month timetable to complete withdrawal.
If the Maliki government meets both those deadlines, and Bush certifies that it has, withdrawal would begin on March 1, 2008, with almost all U.S. units out of Iraq by that September.
So the range for U.S. withdrawal under the Democratic plan is as early as July 1, 2007, with departure no later than September 2008.
Giving a cutoff date gives the enemy incentive to 'lay low' until said date.
"We will fight until (pick a date)" is a silly way to fight a war.
If the insurgents are defeated, it doesnt matter if they know we're leaving.Do you think we are going to sneak 100k+ troops out of Iraq unannounced? They are going to know when we are leaving given a deadline or not and are most likely going to give the impression of being eliminated in both instances.
Telling the terrorists when we're going to pull out doesnt accomplish this.We need to stop fighting this war on the terrorists terms. We need to take back the control we should have had from the start of this war.
This is definately true, but on the flip side without being able to set any kind of specified date with real consequences for the Iraqi government, it is impossible to lay out clear disincentives for failing to develop, and thus we'll never be able to leave. When they stand up, we'll stand down, but they've shown that they're quite willing to lay down and rest while we handle it, and we've gotta be able to realistically say "Listen mother****er, STAND UP!!!"
We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.Goobieman said:The other option, of course, is for -us- to do what's necessary to eliminate the insurgency. Take off the gloves.
We've got plenty of troops capable of getting the job done, the rules of engagement are what're getting them killed, but then again, we have alot of squeemish people in this country and if we allowed the military to do it's job the old way, it would be far too messy for most americans' taste. And, um, well, many of the insurgents are terrorists, so, get rid of all of them and secure the country, then leave.We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.
We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency. Besides, we should be fighting terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents should be the problem of the Iraqi government.
We do... if we 'take the gloves off.We don't have enough troops to eliminate the insurgency.
This is definately true, but on the flip side without being able to set any kind of specified date with real consequences for the Iraqi government, it is impossible to lay out clear disincentives for failing to develop, and thus we'll never be able to leave. When they stand up, we'll stand down, but they've shown that they're quite willing to lay down and rest while we handle it, and we've gotta be able to realistically say "Listen mother****er, STAND UP!!!"
We've got plenty of troops capable of getting the job done, the rules of engagement are what're getting them killed, but then again, we have alot of squeemish people in this country and if we allowed the military to do it's job the old way, it would be far too messy for most americans' taste. And, um, well, many of the insurgents are terrorists, so, get rid of all of them and secure the country, then leave.
I think they are going about it the wrong way.
The US Govt should be honest and say:
"We screwed up, we thought there were WMDs but there weren't, we should not have invaded, but we did, and we've tried to set the foundations for a new govt.
We said when we invaded we had limited objectives to get rid of Hussein and what we thought were his WMDs. There were no WMDs, but we did get rid of Hussein. We said we would leave Iraq, that we did not want their oil or to country their country. We are doing what we said we would do, and in 12 months all US troops will be out of Iraq. If the Iraqis can establish a functioning Govt we will give that Govt assistance to help rebuild the damage our mistake has caused."
That would be the honorable thing to do. Some people would respect it.
In February 2003 the Administration circulated drafts of a resolution
at the U.N. that would have permitted military action against Iraq. While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for “regime change” in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East.http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceus/US_frenchrelations.pdf
We are at the beginning of the end anyway. What's left is the continual encouragment for the Iraqi government to come to political compromise between the sects with regards to economical securities and agreed upon rule of law. The Democratic Party is climbing aboard what is already in process.
But according to you it was all about WMD and we made a mistake. Why? Why do you insist on poretending that it was all about WMD when it was obviously not? With our vast satellite and spy network, why do you insist that our government actually was confused about something? If it was about WMD, guess what...there would have wharehouses of it. Get past your needs to select the portions of the truth that allows you your stage.
The OTHER important part of this article, however, is that Congress is trying to do something it doesnt have the power to do...
If this were a 'check' or 'balance' over the Article II powers of the CinC, it would not havew to go to the CinC to be signed into law.
The OTHER important part of this article, however, is that Congress is trying to do something it doesnt have the power to do...
If this were a 'check' or 'balance' over the Article II powers of the CinC, it would not havew to go to the CinC to be signed into law.
I am not in deep into the consitutional knowledge, but if this is indeed unconstitutional then...... congress has no authority.
I thought they had they authority on funding though, so are they using the funding powers unconstitutionaly to force a result, or is it a loop-hole they have exploited and within their powers???
So, we didn't go into Iraq to stop Hussein from acquiring WMD's and supplying them to terrorist cells?
Then why the hell are our troops there? Yes removing a dictator was good, but there are hundreds of dictators in the world, are we going to remove them all?
In February 2003 the Administration circulated drafts of a resolution
at the U.N. that would have permitted military action against Iraq. While the U.N. Security Council had agreed to inspections for WMD, the Administration began to add additional ideas. Administration officials called for “regime change” in Iraq, and the establishment of a democracy that would serve as a model and a spur for new representative governments throughout the Middle East.http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceu...hrelations.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?