US to withdraw from Iraq

[Hippikos]

US in Iraq: We're out of here

America signals dramatic shift in strategy, saying Iraq will assume responsibility for security in '12 to 18 months'

In the firmest indication yet of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, America's most senior general there and its top civilian official have drawn the outlines of a political and military plan that could see a substantial pullout of US troops within 12 to 18 months.

Yesterday's announcement looked like a strategy change carrying implications for British troops in Iraq, although President Bush's aides deny any "dramatic shifts" in policy. It came after Mr Bush's spokesman acknowledged on Monday that the President had cut and run from his signature promise that America would "stay the course" in Iraq.

In a joint press conference in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, laid out a series of political steps that he claimed had been agreed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, including a crackdown on militias, a peace offer to insurgents and a plan for sharing oil revenues. The measures, to be taken over the next year, would amount to a new "national compact" between the Iraqi factions, he said. At the same time, General George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, said the training of Iraqi security forces - essential for any orderly US departure - was 75 per cent complete. Within 12 to 18 months, he said, they would emerge as "the dominant force in Iraq", even though some residual US military presence would be needed (as President Bush himself has indicated).

More...

Those who think that Iraqi security forces can protect the Iraqi population from the ongoing violence in 12-18 months, please raise your hands.

[Hippikos]

Update:

In a joint press conference in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, laid out a series of political steps that he claimed had been agreed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

Apparently al-Maliki didn't agree after all? Iraqi Leader Disavows Timetable Report

Don't tell me this "New Course" was because of the coming elections?

[Phase]

I could've swore I remember Bush saying he had no plans to start pulling troops out..

[Pie]

[Flint]

He said we've never been "stay the course" - not I've never said "stay the course" :::chortle:::

[Shawnee123]

What a maroon...what an ignoranamous.

[Flint]

"no! no! no! don't say that! what did you say?! oh shit!"

[Hippikos]

An overwhelming majority, 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the year. Among Reserves 90% favor withdrawal compared to 83% of the National Guard, 70% of the Army, and 58% of the Marines. Moreover, about three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within 6 months.

poll by La Moyne College and Zogby of active duty troops in Iraq

[Spexxvet]

What are the consequences of pulling out right away?

Will the slaughter of our troops will stop? Yes.
Will the cost of the war will be reduced? Yes.
Even if we have to invade again, will it cost less, overall? Yes
Will Iraq have a civil war? Yes
Will the Kurds likely break off into its own nation? Yes.
Will an independant Kurdish Iraq cause Turkey to attack them? Probably.
Will there be attacks on American soil? Maybe.
Will we be able to affect change in other parts of the world? Yes.

Any other pros or cons?

Are these consequences really that bad?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What are the consequences of pulling out right away?

Will Iraq have a civil war? Maybe. Iraq already is in civil war. Question is whether Iraq wants a wider war or one that just continues to slowly get worse. Remember, a deployed Iraqi battalion of 500 may only arrive with 50 troops because anyone can go home at any time. Iraqi military is about as good as it is going to get unless Americans leave.

Will the Kurds likely break off into its own nation? It has already happened, except constitutionally. Iraqi Army is, by law, cannot operate in Kurdistan. Kurdistan does not fly an Iraqi flag. Kurds fly a Kurd flag. One of the few in Iraq who still oppose an Iraqi breakup is Sadr - the Shia cleric with one of Iraq's largest militias. It’s not a question we should even be asking. It is a question that only Iraqis should ask ... and answer.

Will there be attacks on American soil? Absolutely not. Fear mongers (ie Rush Limbaugh) proclaim a world wide conspiracy. A world wide conspiracy would be planning attacks on the world enforcer. But the insurgency is Iraqi; thousands of Iraqis rising up against a military occupation. There is no central command as fear mongers invented.

If insurgents intended to attack North America, then they have done so previously and often. Where are these attacks? They don't exist because a George Jr myth called Al Qaeda does not exist. Attacks on the US are total nonsense promoted to those who make decisions using emotion; who forget to first learn facts.

Any other pros or cons? Yes, many more 100,000 Iraqis must die. But then those numbers of death were already inevitable when we created this mess. They are going to die whether we stay or go. If democracy is going to take hold, then democracy must be earned. Welcome to reality. Democracy cannot be enforced or imposed. Time for Iraq to decide if they want democracy. Sink or swim. Hundreds of thousands will die either deciding on democracy ... or driving out the Americans.

Nothing politically correct here. There are no good options. Good options were available back in 2003 when American instead decided to believe liars - to be dumb - to think Saddam attacked the WTC. These are the inevitable consequences of an American public that actually thought George Jr (Cheney) had a plan. One here was bluntly warning of these consequences in 2003. Learn from that history.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

snip~
Will there be attacks on American soil? Absolutely not. Fear mongers (ie Rush Limbaugh) proclaim a world wide conspiracy. A world wide conspiracy would be planning attacks on the world enforcer. But the insurgency is Iraqi; thousands of Iraqis rising up against a military occupation. There is no central command as fear mongers invented.

If insurgents intended to attack North America, then they have done so previously and often. Where are these attacks? They don't exist because a George Jr myth called Al Qaeda does not exist. Attacks on the US are total nonsense promoted to those who make decisions using emotion; who forget to first learn facts.~snip

I disagree. Why were we attacked repeatedly, prior to 9-11, all over the world?

Because the radicals needed an enemy to build their ranks and power. The war in Iraq was an Allah send for them and their recruitment efforts. Without that, they must continue to provoke us into being the devil they say we are.
Gotta keep the troops riled up and being a, make that the, chief supporter of Israel isn't quite enough.

That said, we can handle the dickheads with a small fraction of the resources being currently squandered in Iraq.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I disagree. Why were we attacked repeatedly, prior to 9-11, all over the world?

Because the radicals needed an enemy to build their ranks and power.

Exactly. The world changed when? The naive say 11 Sept 2001. But the world changed on 1 Aug 1990. We promised to leave and did not. Only then did Americans become targets - and only because we exasperated the problem. We did not leave as we had promised. American occupation of Saudi Arabia is specifically why bin Laden ended his crusade against communism in Yemen to take on a greater threat - United States.

What those with 'big dics' hope you don't do - learn from history. We promised to leave after doing what extremists so wanted - driving Iraq out of Kuwait. (Remember the lie about bin Laden and Saddam being enemies?) Then we did not leave. We only became a new target - having replaced the USSR in Afghanistan, communists in other nations, secular Middle East governemnets, and Saddam in Kuwait. It "exacerbates the security problems" – as Gen Dannatt so accurately noted in direct contradict to American ‘big dics’ who say “Stay the Course”, “Road forward”, and “Mission Accomplished”.

Notice your perspective or bias was completely ignored. That perspective is 100% irrelevant. Posted is from a perspective that matters - what Muslim Brotherhood sees. Same concept was defined back in 2002. Notice the Muslim Brotherhood who was actively attacking Assad in Syria and Sadat in Egypt suddenly had a new enemy after 1 Aug 1990: America. And then we made it even worse because we stupidly believed preemption from Project for New American Century. Cheney et al believe we must “secure our oil”.

Originally Posted by Dannatt

We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.

24 million more to be recruited to Muslim Brotherhood the longer we remain.

We were attacked only after we lied and did not leave. There is no universal world wide terrorist organization. Iraqis, et al are only doing what any decent American would do in the same situation. Do you think Abu Ghriad is an exception? Abu Ghriad accurately reflects ‘big dic’ American government attitude and objectives.

xoxoxoBruce, you are doing just what ‘big dics’ want. You are promoting fear and you are completely ignoring the facts. We exasperate the problem only because we liberated people who did not want to be liberated. Radicals need an enemy. American 'big dics' in the White House provide what they need. 1 Aug 1990 – when the world changed. But then xoxoxoBruce, how many years must I keep repeating that date – 1 Aug 1990 – so that myths from White House ‘big dics’ are exposed as lies.

[Undertoad]

"They" is radical Islamists.

Show me where this "they" is some united international conspiracy to get us.

Absolutely trivial. I hope you can just think about this for a moment and realize you're slinging the bullshit this morning.

American occupation of Saudi Arabia

When you just make shit up it is a sign you're losing the argument.

[Hippikos]

Again xoxoxoBruce uses logic that also gave credence to Lindzen – a political hack masking as a scientist.

Al Bore would easy fit that description. As for Lindzen, he is another victim of the Enviromentalist Taliban.

Science does not work by consensus. It is based on evidence. Those scientists who try to intimidate other scientists show such little respect for the norms of science that it is hard to take their opinions as seriously as they probably merit. Heavy-handed attempts to bludgeon dissident scientists into submission does not advance the cause of science, even if (as seems more likely than not to me) the main cause of global warming. And, of course, even if much of the orthodox view of global warming eventually turns out to be correct, those doing the bludgeoning are probably correct about the cure for global warming may be worse than the disease.

Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister from 60 expert scientists.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw is using spin like Rush Limbaugh this morning, piling on superfluous crap and trying to make people think I said things that readers clearly didn't read in my posts.
To wit.....

Show me where this "they" is some united international conspiracy to get us.

Since my posts are usually short and to the point, instead of rambling garbage, it's easy for the readers to discern I never said or even implied that was true.

So once again tw shoots himself in the foot (feet?).