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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bullshit, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm being realistic, since they have attacked us, proven they can, proven it will provoke action that is beneficial to their cause, there is no reason to expect they won't try to do it again.
I also said, which you conveniently forget, we can handle it.

You are whistling in the dark thinking if we pull out of Iraq everything will be all better again. You think a bunch that still holds a grudge about the Crusades is going to forget Iraq? Get a grip.

Plus what about Afghanistan? Lebanon? Philippines? Kuwait? Et al?
They don't forget any slight....real or imagined.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bullshit, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm being realistic, since they have attacked us, proven they can, proven it will provoke action that is beneficial to their cause, there is no reason to expect they won't try to do it again.

Again xoxoxoBruce uses logic that also gave credence to Lindzen – a political hack masking as a scientist. For example, who is this "they". Use of "they" is how Cheney et al promoted a WMD myth to the weak minded and to those who "know only because they fear". Who is this "they"? Show me where this "they" is some united international conspiracy to get us. You cannot because 'they' do not exist. Even your examples only prove tw as correct. In each case, it only happened because, first, we were there. Your 'they' exist where fear is entertained. This 'they' was only a problem when we did not leave and when our top leaders failed to do their jobs. Americans kill thousands of Muslims and then call it liberation. That is a reason to fear. Why do you deny why every one of your terrorist examples exist? Because you forgot to learn underlying facts and details?

Your terrorism fears sound more like 'War of the Worlds' only because Mars exists and Orson Wells knows how to spin a myth. And yes, the weak minded also went wacko with fear using same logic you are posting now.

If being realistic, then when do you cite relevant facts and numbers such as 100 dead Americans this month, 800 causalities, tens of amputees, and thousands of dead Muslims only because America 'feared' mythical WMDs. Instead, I hear another Domino Theory.

Why do we fear "they"? Same reasons that 'proved' Saddam had WMDs. Same myth that said Saddam was planning to attack America. Such myths could only exist where logic and reality were not first learned. Amazing how you know "they" are coming to get us. Amazing how you forget in each example what happened to promote each attack. Amazing your fear of a mythical 'they' when even a political hack called Lindzen was your only source on global warming. Amazing that you know these things and yet, for example, could not first learn the science in one issue of Scientific American. xoxoxoBruce's fears are rampant when he knows without bothering to first learn the facts. "They" are who?

It is an insurgency no different than 1960 America's KKK. Did the KKK send attackers to "kill nigers in Africa"? According to your logic - yes. "They" is everywhere - when the boogeyman is under our beds.

[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.