Bush Right After All?

[Boyar Son]

well, no bad news from Iraq that I can think of...it seems the surge worked. I dont hear car bombing of troop deaths in Iraq....

Is Iraq peaceful now?

Mission Acomplished?

[FactionHeir]

25 deaths in Iraq for January, which is quite low. Most recent troop death was Saturday.

Still, considering all those other operations that go on and that most attacks are suicide bombings, how long until they run out of people to send off? Also, the question is whether it is the "surge" that worked or whether it is the pro-US Terror Sunnis (Awakening Council etc) rising against the anti-US Terror Sunnis (AQ, local resistance). Add into that the sectarian strife, and that pretty much is the picture.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It's hardly "the surge", but the complete change of strategy in other aspects, especially in how to try and communicate, understand and cooperate with the locals, which has made the difference, and it would most likely have worked wonders even without a "surge". So the answer to your question is no. As for the final outcome, there's much left to do, and it's a little bit too early to cheer, however the current situation seems promising if the continuation takes advantage of the now arising opportunities. The whole oil stuff in Iraq hardly makes the Iraqis like the occupying forces even now, but now they're at least trying to and successfully managing to become more popular than the crazy random civilian bombers, which makes a big difference to their amount of success. The future of Iraq and Iraqi-American and Iraqi-British relations is still unknown.

[Lemur]

Ahem. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96704)

[Adrian II]

Is Iraq peaceful now?Yes, Iraq is peaceful. Go to sleep now.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Mission Acomplished?Yes, like a person who got in a terrible car crash and the ambulance crew finally managed to stelp that gushing artery wound. Now to attend to those guts spread out over the pavement...

The situation in Iraq has improved, yes. Which, considering the bottomless pit of hell it was, is perhaps neither surprising nor much to be jubilant about.

But it is something, that much is true. Cynicism alone is also misplaced.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cynicism alone is also misplaced.

I think we will continue to see improvements in Iraq and, in time, a significant draw down of US forces as Iraq regains more and more stability and real self-governance. My 13-year old is likely to be done with college by then, but I do believe we will get there.

Bush is to be credited with hanging in there and never giving up despite the opposition. His administration should also be credited with [finally?] listening to Patreaus [sic?] and providing the wherewithal to make a difference.

Plenty of blame to go around of course as well.

Was Iraq the best "next step" in the WoT when the balloon went up?

-- quite debatable.

Was sufficient planning in place to handle the problems associated with a post-Saddam Iraq once the inevitable crushing of Saddam's military was achieved?

-- I think it is pretty clear that this step could've been done better. As in, someone might actually have wanted to DO THIS BEFORE KICKING OVER THE %*!!@^# APPLE CART.

It might have been nicer had the conflict actually been "sold" to us on its real merits as opposed to --at the least -- overhyped and unconfirmable threats of WMDs.

[Geoffrey S]

Iraq is getting to the point where the goals before the invasion can actually be implemented, though just heaping the praise on the surge is probably more what Washington wants the world to see rather than the progress between Iraqi groups. Several years too late, true, but it seems that the Bush administration has at least learned from its horrendous mistakes enough to clear them up... it's a shame that the leading Democrats, who at a wild hunch I'd say have more chance of winning the elections than their Republican opponents, don't seem to have heeded those lessons at all and would prefer to remove the ambulance crew after the bleeding has been stopped, to hijack Louis' metaphor.

[Tribesman]

well, no bad news from Iraq that I can think of...it seems the surge worked. I dont hear car bombing of troop deaths in Iraq....

Well think ...and listen .
Its only just over half way through the month and there are already more than last month .
But hey its working , its amazing what you can do if you treble the number of patrols and increase by sevenfold the number of checkpoints .:dizzy2:


The situation in Iraq has improved, yes. Which, considering the bottomless pit of hell it was, is perhaps neither surprising nor much to be jubilant about.

True , its a matter of if it can be maintained and if the Mahdi army decide to extend their temporary ceasefire .


Still, considering all those other operations that go on and that most attacks are suicide bombings, how long until they run out of people to send off?
If this month carries on like it is then the number of suicide bombings will exceed each of the past 8 monthly totals

[Papewaio]

in place to handle the problems associated with a post-Saddam Iraq once the inevitable crushing of Saddam's military was achieved?

-- I think it is pretty clear that this step could've been done better. As in, someone might actually have wanted to DO THIS BEFORE KICKING OVER THE %*!!@^# APPLE CART.


it is a good general rule in life that if you can't fix it, don't break it.

A lot of business plans start with the exit strategy and then build from there.

[spmetla]

I think we will continue to see improvements in Iraq and, in time, a significant draw down of US forces as Iraq regains more and more stability and real self-governance. My 13-year old is likely to be done with college by then, but I do believe we will get there.

Bush is to be credited with hanging in there and never giving up despite the opposition. His administration should also be credited with [finally?] listening to Patreaus [sic?] and providing the wherewithal to make a difference.

Plenty of blame to go around of course as well.

Was Iraq the best "next step" in the WoT when the balloon went up?

-- quite debatable.

Was sufficient planning in place to handle the problems associated with a post-Saddam Iraq once the inevitable crushing of Saddam's military was achieved?

-- I think it is pretty clear that this step could've been done better. As in, someone might actually have wanted to DO THIS BEFORE KICKING OVER THE %*!!@^# APPLE CART.

It might have been nicer had the conflict actually been "sold" to us on its real merits as opposed to --at the least -- overhyped and unconfirmable threats of WMDs.

It amazes me how much your point of view is almost identical to mine on this issue. This last year has taken me from being pessimistic to cautiously optomistic. I just hope with the current improving trend in Iraq the next president doesn't screw everything up by making drastic unnecessary changes.

[KukriKhan]

Bush Right After All?

Of course he was. Iraq had WMD's and we got 'em. Dad skipped Saddam's overthrow, but we fixed that too, with a fair trial and dignified sentence. Baghdad and Kabul greeted us liberators with flowers, and are now shining beacons of democratic freedom, spreading American values throughout their regions.

Osama bL is tucked away in a quiet cell in Kansas, fully repentant of his errors, now that he's found Jesus. Record numbers of Americans own their own homes and have good jobs to pay for them. Businesses are flocking to our shores. Europe loves us, grateful for our guidance. Africa begs us to repeat our Iraq & Afghanistan success there. Asia can't wait to throw down their nukyuler ambitions and join the US-led brotherhood of nations. Americans trust their government more than ever before.

Yup. Mission accomplished. Cue the aircraft carrier.

[Navaros]

I've heard many reports since the War on Iraq started that say "things have turned around now", which were then contradicted a few months later by reports like "this has been the worst month since 2004".

So no, Bush wasn't right. It remains to be seen if the current effect will last.

And anyhow the only reason violence is down is because of Insurgents turning on each other to ally with the US army --- it has nothing to do with "the surge" whatsoever. But chances are eventually a lot of them are gonna turn their guns on the US army in the not too distant future.

[Husar]

Of course he was. Iraq had WMD's and we got 'em. Dad skipped Saddam's overthrow, but we fixed that too, with a fair trial and dignified sentence. Baghdad and Kabul greeted us liberators with flowers, and are now shining beacons of democratic freedom, spreading American values throughout their regions.

Osama bL is tucked away in a quiet cell in Kansas, fully repentant of his errors, now that he's found Jesus. Record numbers of Americans own their own homes and have good jobs to pay for them. Businesses are flocking to our shores. Europe loves us, grateful for our guidance. Africa begs us to repeat our Iraq & Afghanistan success there. Asia can't wait to throw down their nukyuler ambitions and join the US-led brotherhood of nations. Americans trust their government more than ever before.
What a scary scenario Kukri, I heard the antichrist will make that happen. :fainting:

Anyway, I guess it remains to be seen what will happen in Iraq, a bunch of indoctrinated, hateful suicide bombers is usually hard to appease and no I'm not referring to all Iraqis, just the indoctrinated, hateful suicide bombers.

[Proletariat]

Bush being linked to the recent upswing in Iraq is a stretch. The suggestion the OP states is dishonest. Iraq is doing better finally, and there's nothing pointing towards it being to Bush's credit (unless you'd like to argue his hand-picked first crew was retarded, and his second hand-picked crew isn't. Basically a coin toss' chance). Marrying the two is silly. Let's see if this upswing is sustainable before we forgive the Idiot in Chief and give him the benefit of the doubt.

[HoreTore]

Wait until Al Sadr's ceasefire runs out....

[Husar]

Bush being linked to the recent upswing in Iraq is a stretch. The suggestion the OP states is dishonest. Iraq is doing better finally, and there's nothing pointing towards it being to Bush's credit (unless you'd like to argue his hand-picked first crew was retarded, and his second hand-picked crew isn't. Basically a coin toss' chance).
:yes:

Also keep in mind that even if his new crew is better, it's not necessarily their achievemnt if it gets better. I know if I hated America to the deepest depths of my heart I wouldn't just stop because their new minister of defense has a nicer smile than the one before, I probably wouldn't stop whatever they do as they'd either turn more evil(if they advance/patrol more) or show how weak they are(if they stay back), either would be a reason to bomb them to hell in order to bring us(the terrorists in my mental experiment) closer to victory. At least in the short term that is, and that's why only time can tell. I do hope they also get tired of hiding and bombing after a while, although history suggests otherwise.

[Redleg]

Insurgency warfare has two patterns that develope once the government/occupation forces gain the upper hand. They either begin to wither and decay because they can not substain the pace - ie they were not as popular as they thought, or they become much worse when they have had the chance to regroup.

What we dont know from the media reports that I have seen, is if pressure is still being applied to the insurgent forces in such a manner that they have no ability to organize beyond the small cell operations that sucide bombings and spread out IED attacks.

If the people of Iraq are indeed fed up with the insurgency and are cooperating with the Iraqi police and the US Army - then the downturn in violence should gain momentum. If the people are only wanting to catch their breath and have a chance to regroup - then there will be pure hell to pay later.

Al Sadr's cease fire would be an indication of how the people will react, will he renew the cease fire - an indication that the people are not willing to support the zealots any longer. Will he expire the cease fire and not renew attacks on the government and the US Army - another indiciation that the people are tired of warfare, or will it come down to more violence?

THe way I see it if the reducation of violence is based upon the Iraqi people the first two are the most likely outcome, if its only based upon the increase of US troops - then the third option will be the outcome.

Its a gamble but the odds are slightly in the favor of a moderate type of peace with limited violence happening. The more stable Iraq can be made - the lower the likelyhood of violence escalating beyond the current level.

[Pannonian]

I think we will continue to see improvements in Iraq and, in time, a significant draw down of US forces as Iraq regains more and more stability and real self-governance. My 13-year old is likely to be done with college by then, but I do believe we will get there.

The above scenario doesn't address the real issue with Iraq, and is actually an anti-solution, as far as the current situation goes. What happens to Iraq wrt its neighbours when the Americans leave? While there has been brinkmanship so far, the presence of an American garrison has so far staved off regional power games by the regional powers. What will happen when this deterrent goes and leaves behind a seriously weak Iraq? And if you beef up the Iraqi military, what are the chances of Iraq remaining amenable to western interests, or for that matter what are the chances of the Iraqi state holding together and not using that military against themselves?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The above scenario doesn't address the real issue with Iraq, and is actually an anti-solution, as far as the current situation goes. What happens to Iraq wrt its neighbours when the Americans leave? While there has been brinkmanship so far, the presence of an American garrison has so far staved off regional power games by the regional powers. What will happen when this deterrent goes and leaves behind a seriously weak Iraq? And if you beef up the Iraqi military, what are the chances of Iraq remaining amenable to western interests, or for that matter what are the chances of the Iraqi state holding together and not using that military against themselves?

Good queries.

Iraqi military strength must be improved; though I suspect we'll keep their birds relatively short-ranged with a minimal tanker fleet and their armor limited. We want a force that would be little offensive threat to their neighbors but clearly well-trained and equipped and a real hassle to overcome if on the defensive.

As this will take years, more time will be there for the (and admittedly most difficult component of a stable Iraq) coalesence of a new Iraqi state that does not emphasize its own sectarianism. This has not been and will not be an easy task.

Lastly, while I think the US presence will eventually be significantly drawn down, I suspect that we'll have some troop presence there for a very long time. Maybe it'll be the new permanent basing for the 1AD or something. As with Korea, the USA numbers are less significant per se than their presence in this scenario.


Instead, we'll likely end up with a Dem president, no permanent basing effort and a draw-down to advisors only by the end of that Presiden't first term. Unfortunately, I think that such a draw down would NOT provide the cushion necessary to address your valid concerns. Then the inanities of our early occupation -- which allowed too many issues to fester and worsen before we took real steps to deal with them -- will be compounded by the debacle of an ealry withdrawal and the accompanying fullup civil war (as opposed to the tentative one that's been winding down a bit of late).


Redleg: Excellent points, thank you.

[Redleg]

Instead, we'll likely end up with a Dem president, no permanent basing effort and a draw-down to advisors only by the end of that Presiden't first term. Unfortunately, I think that such a draw down would NOT provide the cushion necessary to address your valid concerns. Then the inanities of our early occupation -- which allowed too many issues to fester and worsen before we took real steps to deal with them -- will be compounded by the debacle of an ealry withdrawal and the accompanying fullup civil war (as opposed to the tentative one that's been winding down a bit of late).




This scenerio is also likely with any Republican President also. US politics gets very self-centered during election years with unpopular decisions of previous presidents forcing all to go toward the popular idea. We will face some very short sighted politicians who will compound our error of not providing adequate force for an occuppation to restore our overthrow of a regime.

Short sighted politics followed by another set of short sighted politics will only compound the problem and create more instability in the region with the vacumn we will create upon an unplanned and well executed withdraw from the country.

In short I see a failure of the surge and its consequent politicial success from our own internal politics because of the election year and the nature of the decision in the first place, starting out as lukewarm in the first place in the public opinion aspect and growing more and more unpopular.

[Lemur]

Fareed Zakaria has some thoughts about this, Redleg, and he's always worth a read. Snippets (http://www.newsweek.com/id/96371):


Pity the U.S. presidential candidates. They had their positions on Iraq all worked out by last summer and have repeated them consistently ever since. But events on the ground have changed dramatically, and their rhetoric feels increasingly stale. They're fighting the Iraq War all right, but it's the wrong one.

The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to "ending the war" and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it. [...]

This is why Republican rhetoric about Iraq is also somewhat unhinged. John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge. But the notion, articulated by many Republicans, that if we just stay the course a bit longer we will achieve "victory" is loopy. Iraq is seen—and will be for years—by the rest of the Middle East as a cautionary tale and not a model.

"Our initial goals in Iraq—WMD, democratic transformation—are impossible," says Biddle. "What remains is a negative objective, stopping the war from spilling over, within Iraq but also outside it." It's similar to the challenge the Clinton administration confronted in the Balkans in the 1990s—where the mission was to end a civil war and keep the peace.

The problem with such a mission is that it requires lots of troops. By most estimates, peacekeeping in Iraq would take more foreign troops than are there right now. While it is all well and good to say that the United States should not be policing a civil war, the fact is that we are, and were we to leave, it would likely start up again. This is not the war that we signed up for and it is not really about fighting Al Qaeda, but it is the reality.

[CountArach]

Yes, I am sure the Iraqi civilians would agree with you...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
"The most violent 12-month period in Iraq’s recent history extended from July 2006 to June 2007, with 29,625 to 31,852 civilian deaths recorded."

Year Civilians Killed
2003 10,077 – 12,010
2004 9,741 – 10,573
2005 13,071 – 14,324
2006 25,699 – 27,519
2007 22,586 – 24,159

"Perhaps the most accurate description of the security situation for Iraqi civilians in the past year is that it was less bad than if the worst of the late 2006 levels had been sustained throughout 2007. To herald ‘security improvements’ in 2007 is to overlook not only that security remains at an abysmally low level, but that for some 24,000 Iraqi civilians, and their families and friends, the year was one of devastating and irreparable tragedy."

[KukriKhan]

Iraq was a pig-in-a-poke to begin with, that we tried to buy on the cheap.

Though better-managed today, after 4+ years of trial-and-error (mostly error) mismanagement, it remains, a pig-in-a-poke today, that is:

an unknown product, of dubious progeny, which, even after trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have been spent trying to make it a suckling pig, will still be what it is: a half-starved, pissed off, bent on revenge, scrawney cat.

We missed our chance to "do good" 2 weeks after the invasion. Then is when "the surge" would have made sense, like March 28, 2003. This 07-08 surge is an attempt (which I support, because it cuts down on US casualties, and covers our withdrawal) to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (to totally mangle the porcine metaphor).

Civil war? So what? Internecine conflict? And? (Deplorable as those are, it's not our buisness, and doesn't seem to bother us anywhere else in the world).

What is the over-riding interest of the US in Iraq? We searched for WMD, deposed and killed the guy in charge, and his family. Mission was "accomplished" in March '03. Let the Iraqis decide, whether by ballot or bullet, what they want their country to be, and how they're gonna get there - just like we did 232 years ago.

Move those troops to Afghanistan to hunt, find, and bring to justice the alleged mastermind of 9-11.

Is tomorrow inconvenient? How about next Thursday?

[Proletariat]

^^ is what I'dve liked to have typed last night instead of what I did while PWD. I may have to install a breathalyser on my keyboard in order to use it if this keeps up.

:bow:

[Whacker]

What is the over-riding interest of the US in Iraq? We searched for WMD, deposed and killed the guy in charge, and his family. Mission was "accomplished" in March '03. Let the Iraqis decide, whether by ballot or bullet, what they want their country to be, and how they're gonna get there - just like we did 232 years ago.
I'm eagerly awaiting to see who flames you into oblivion for this. (I agree with you, for the record) I was saying the exact same thing months/years ago, and I got reamed by all the bleeding do-gooders on the board that we need to "stay the course". Bah I said, and still say, it was evident to me years ago that Iraq was a losing battle and we were/are trying to force values and stability in a region where there can essentially be none. Time for the Iraqi people to step up and decide their own fate.

[Xiahou]

I'm eagerly awaiting to see who flames you into oblivion for this. (I agree with you, for the record) I was saying the exact same thing months/years ago, and I got reamed by all the bleeding do-gooders on the board that we need to "stay the course". Bah I said, and still say, it was evident to me years ago that Iraq was a losing battle and we were/are trying to force values and stability in a region where there can essentially be none. Time for the Iraqi people to step up and decide their own fate.
Well, I'd start by asking how he supports the surge while advocating a prompt and complete withdrawal. I don't see how adding more troops gets us there. Second, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves may seem like an attractive idea to those disheartened by the ongoing conflict, but it's really not. The logic was that we were supposed to be toppling a thug regime that was destabilizing the region and was a potential threat to the US and it's interests. (save the debate of the factuality of those claims for another thread- they were the claims). Kukri claims mission accomplished, and narrowly, it is. However, what's the point of turning around and walking out to let all the Al Qaeda thugs we've spent the last few years killing take over? Do we wait for the whackos to get thoroughly entrenched again and then decide to fight our way back in when the country is an even bigger mess and completely destabilizing the region?

Like it or not, the only way we can leave Iraq is when it's in some semblance of stability. It doesn't have to be perfect, but Iraq should at least be more or less in control of it's territory and not openly hostile to us.

[Tribesman]

However, what's the point of turning around and walking out to let all the Al Qaeda thugs we've spent the last few years killing take over?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It isnt the Al-qaida thugs that are going to take over , they have been pretty much buggered in Iraq since 2004 .


It doesn't have to be perfect, but Iraq should at least be more or less in control of it's territory and not openly hostile to us.
That is why your mission will never be acomplished .
It is only the presence that maintains any semblance of territorial control , yet the presence feeds the hostility .
You want two things that don't work together .

[Husar]

This armcheir general thinks the problem with letting them fight it out themselves is that the peaceful, America-loving folks will not only not take up any arms to fight for usperiority, they will also be rather disenchated because those Americans left them in such a mess...
So you end up with the bad guys taking the throne and the good guys turning neutral or bad because you left them behind, great way to solve the problem. :rolleyes:

[Oleander Ardens]

A clear answer to a part of a murky question: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

So that everybody can read who said what when and how. :book:

OA

[Slyspy]

Iraq was a pig-in-a-poke to begin with, that we tried to buy on the cheap.

Though better-managed today, after 4+ years of trial-and-error (mostly error) mismanagement, it remains, a pig-in-a-poke today, that is:

an unknown product, of dubious progeny, which, even after trillions of dollars and thousands of lives have been spent trying to make it a suckling pig, will still be what it is: a half-starved, pissed off, bent on revenge, scrawney cat.

We missed our chance to "do good" 2 weeks after the invasion. Then is when "the surge" would have made sense, like March 28, 2003. This 07-08 surge is an attempt (which I support, because it cuts down on US casualties, and covers our withdrawal) to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (to totally mangle the porcine metaphor).

Civil war? So what? Internecine conflict? And? (Deplorable as those are, it's not our buisness, and doesn't seem to bother us anywhere else in the world).

What is the over-riding interest of the US in Iraq? We searched for WMD, deposed and killed the guy in charge, and his family. Mission was "accomplished" in March '03. Let the Iraqis decide, whether by ballot or bullet, what they want their country to be, and how they're gonna get there - just like we did 232 years ago.

Move those troops to Afghanistan to hunt, find, and bring to justice the alleged mastermind of 9-11.

Is tomorrow inconvenient? How about next Thursday?

So you go into Iraq for a variety of reasons loosely based on the goal of regional stability. Having done the easy bit you make a half-arsed attempt to occupy and rebuild in the face of great hostility. Then you get fed up and decide to leave. Have you helped achieve regional stability?

[Oleander Ardens]

But of course is Bush right after all! Especially when spending money for the right things! A good deal of it he sunk for finding non-existant weapons of mass-destruction, building up a country he destroyed and catching its number one target. And all had of course no influence on the public dept. No, not at all.

US Public Dept

01/22/2001 5,728,195,796,181.57
01/17/2008 9,187,584,466,089.71

from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

:idea2:

[Rameusb5]

I'm still not entirely sure exactly what our (the US government's) goal in Iraq was in 2003 or is today. It's pretty difficult to determine if something is "successful" if you don't have any success criteria defined.

The original statements made by those in charge were that Iraq posed a serious threat to our national security, both because they were developing WMDs and that they were harboring terrorists. So, one COULD argue that our success criteria was to remove that threat. Except these threats never actually existed.

I can only imagine how the the Citizens of the USA would feel if they were attacked by say, the Soviet Union, because the Soviets mistakenly thought that we posed some kind of nebulous and yet unproven threat to them. The outcry would be heard for centuries.

So now we have to ask ourselves if those who made the above claims actually knew beforehand that they were false. I mean, being wrong about the economy or domestic policy is one thing. Being wrong about your pretense for invasion is... well, quite another. So we can either assume that the Bush administration had another purpose for invading Iraq the entire time, and the reasons they gave the public were a "cover story," or we can assume that they truly did believe their incorrect information.

Once the original success criteria in Iraq were proven irrelivant, a new set of criteria was set before us: To transform the Iraqi government into a self-sustaining democracy. Once again, I must question whether this criteria is the legitimate goal of our leaders, or just a "cover story" for the public. In any case, I do not believe that a this particular goal is possible in the region, for a variety of reasons. The formost of which is the religious unrest which is the primary cause of the sectarian violence so far. In fact, I suspect that the moment that the US (and the rest of the countries involved in this adventure) pulls out of the region, a massive shift in power will occur, either within Iraq itself or from foreign intervention (hello Iran). I do NOT think that it will make any difference whether we pull out tomorrow or 10 years from now.

But there's something else we should be looking at as well, and that's NOT weapons, or insurgents, or even the Iraqi government. It's the distribution of Iraq's most valuable resource... oil.

According to Alan Greenspan, Iraq has somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 oil fields. Legislation has been pushed through the new Iraqi democractic government which sells the rights to 60 or so of these oil fields to American held companies. That seems... rather a lot. One must begin to question if this is simply an opportunistic endeavor by profiteers, or was this part of the plan all along. I mean, that's a LOT of oil. And considering how oil-starved we are becomming it would make a LOT of strategic sense to get our hands on it before the brown stuff hits the proverbial fan.


So, when one asks the question "Was Bush right?" I think you really have to respond to that question: "About what?"

If the invasion of Iraq was indeed to gain control over a large quantity of oil in the middle east, then I'd say he was right on the money. Big time.

But if that's not the case, then I'd have to say that Bush hasn't been right about a single part of Iraqi War II since he started scaring us with WMDs back in '02.

[KukriKhan]

So you go into Iraq for a variety of reasons loosely based on the goal of regional stability. Having done the easy bit you make a half-arsed attempt to occupy and rebuild in the face of great hostility. Then you get fed up and decide to leave. Have you helped achieve regional stability?

I'm not 'fed up' so much as out of hope for a good outcome in this half-century. Hey, I've been waiting for ShogunII:totalwar for 7 years - I'm a patient, persistent kind of guy. And by nature, an optimist. But as Rameusb5 wrote:


In fact, I suspect that the moment that the US (and the rest of the countries involved in this adventure) pulls out of the region, a massive shift in power will occur, either within Iraq itself or from foreign intervention (hello Iran). I do NOT think that it will make any difference whether we pull out tomorrow or 10 years from now.


That's how it looks to me as well. And I'm beginning to actually listen to the conspirasist's theories about the oil, as Ramebus5 (again) brilliantly analyzes above. If leaving Iraq next Thursday means I have to walk to work the next five years vs 5,000 or more US soldiers must die in that time, pursuing a "for the convenience of Americans" strategy of oil procurement: foot, meet sneaker.

And I guess I'm meant to answer:


Well, I'd start by asking how he supports the surge while advocating a prompt and complete withdrawal. I don't see how adding more troops gets us there.

I support the increase in troop strength levels, which the 'surge' provides, (that should have been maintained from the beginning). More eyes, ears, and heads looking, hearing, and thinking = fewer IED casualties. And the increased numbers make our departure more of a withdrawal, than a 'rout of Saigon' scenario, IMO. "Covering overwatch" tactic, and so on. Safer for soldiers, and better to coordinate their redeployment to Afghanistan, where we have more undone work to do.

After which we should leave, also.