US withdrawal from Iraq?

[Bobblehead]

With a Democrat controlled Congress, there has been talk of passing a Bill to require troop withdrawals, but the Whitehouse has also made it plain that GWB would veto any bill that required that.

So an Iraq war spending bill ($122 Billion - about $20 Billion of which is pork barrel) was just passed - and in it the Senators included a withdrawal deadline. link

If the Bush administration wants the money then GWB cannot veto the bill. (or will he use "signing statements" to make changes on the fly?)

This is interesting, from a 3rd party point of view.

[Prototype]

Dubbya doesn't want to pull out, cause he doesn't have a son that can fix him major mistake in the future. I have more respect for GHWB, but Dubbya needed to kill Sadam more than anything in his mind.

[Azure]

Using politics to fight a war?

Say it isn't so!

Republicans started it, the Democrats continue it.

How about they just change the RoE, let the troops do their jobs, and then they won't need a freakin' timeline.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I don't like the idea of a timeline. I'm certainly not a supporter of this war, but I don't think pulling out based on a timeline is the right approach.

Pulling out when it will work is the only safe way now IMO.

[worth]

They will never fully withdraw. There will be US bases there for a long time to come. Just like Germany after WWII.

[Agamemnon]

I hadn't heard anywhere that the rules of engagement were the reason the US is losing/lost this war... you'd think if the problem was that simple Iraqis would be eating freedom fries in downtown Basra right now.

I don't think the US is losing because they're going soft on terrorists/insurgents.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by worth

They will never fully withdraw. There will be US bases there for a long time to come. Just like Germany after WWII.

Or bases in Saudi Arabia - one of Osama's stated initial reasons for targeting the US.

I was always of the opinion that the US should not invade Iraq, but if they ever did they would need to stay until order was fully restored.

I'm wondering if that will ever be possible as long as the US is there. The US forces are in a nasty catch-22.

[TheDragon]

Unfortunately, I don't think that the troops in Iraq will see an official timeline of when to expect to be out until the US gets a new Commander-in-Chief who isn't afraid of "emboldening the enemy" with an the expectation of an end.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Or bases in Saudi Arabia - one of Osama's stated initial reasons for targeting the US.

I was always of the opinion that the US should not invade Iraq, but if they ever did they would need to stay until order was fully restored.

I'm wondering if that will ever be possible as long as the US is there. The US forces are in a nasty catch-22.

Genocide is the only thing that could restore order to Iraq, which of course is completely unacceptable in this day of age.

Nothing short of a complete cultural removal would change the country.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Yesterday I saw a clip of Bush's response to the bill. It went something like this: (paraphrase)

"If we set a deadline, all our enemies have to do is mark their calendars."

Now: I'm no fan of Bush--and certainly no fan of the Iraq war. But am I being dense, or does he kind of have a point? I'm worried that the Dems are letting politics dictate policy here--rather than trying to genuinely find a productive way forward given the situation on the ground. Not saying Bush's "surge" is any better--but don't we need something better than a deadline?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yesterday I saw a clip of Bush's response to the bill. It went something like this: (paraphrase)

"If we set a deadline, all our enemies have to do is mark their calendars."

Now: I'm no fan of Bush--and certainly no fan of the Iraq war. But am I being dense, or does he kind of have a point? I'm worried that the Dems are letting politics dictate policy here--rather than trying to genuinely find a productive way forward given the situation on the ground. Not saying Bush's "surge" is any better--but don't we need something better than a deadline?

Well could a deadline be made in the form of accomplishments? Like we will leave after the insurgent force is down to 10% or after we clear so many cities of insurgents or something to that effect? Obviously determining what percentage a force like that is act is hard to determine, but I'm just throwing that idea out there.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Don't kid youself, there is no way in hell the Democrats let the funding for the troops run out because there is no firm deadline. They are trying to get one in, and good for them, but if they can't get by a veto they WILL fund the war without a withdrawal date.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well could a deadline be made in the form of accomplishments? Like we will leave after the insurgent force is down to 10% or after we clear so many cities of insurgents or something to that effect? Obviously determining what percentage a force like that is act is hard to determine, but I'm just throwing that idea out there.

You could, but target like those you mentioned would be tought to measure or impossible to maintain. The US has removed the insurgents from areas a number of times, only to see them return. And how do you count insurgents?
Perhaps you can use something you can count, like X thousand trained police officers and an army, but outside of that I think you are SOL.

At what point do you have to admit that it won't turn out the way you would like?
When do you just hop in the chopper on the roof of the embassy?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Don't kid youself, there is no way in hell the Democrats let the funding for the troops run out because there is no firm deadline. They are trying to get one in, and good for them, but if they can't get by a veto they WILL fund the war without a withdrawal date.

No doubt... it'll be a cold day in hell before Congress cuts off funding to a US army in the field... a freezing day...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Don't kid youself, there is no way in hell the Democrats let the funding for the troops run out because there is no firm deadline. They are trying to get one in, and good for them, but if they can't get by a veto they WILL fund the war without a withdrawal date.

It's kind of a game of chicken. If Bush vetoes the bill, then technically HE'S the one who's cutting off funding. It sounds like he's planning to do that and then try to blame it on Congress--which raises two questions:
1. Will that work? Or will the American people (and the troops) blame Bush, since he's the one who vetoed the bill? Whoever feels like they're going to take the political fall for this is guaranteed to blink first.
2. Why are both sides playing politics with this instead of trying to find real solutions? Is it that they're not interested, or is it that both sides realize that real solutions are impossible, and the next best thing is to shift blame to the other party?

[Daradon]

The forces won't leave until there is a new president, plain and simple.

The date circled by the Dems is NEXT summer anyway. By then Bush will be on his way out in 6 months. If there is a big political battle there will be a lot of noise made, but no action until the seat of power changes.

So they should be there for nearly 2 more years.

[Jayems]

^^ yep.

Get em out by 2008 just in time for a grand iran invasion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Krieger99

They should withdraw troops from Iraq, so they can send them after Iran, who seem like they want to start World War III.

Why bother withdrawing them, they could just move from one country to the next in the region... oops, I forgot, then civilian contactors couldn't get paid 30 billion dollars to transport the stuff back and forth... my mistake.

[LouCypher]

As much as I dont support the war in Iraq it would seem accountability and blame falls right on to Bush and his cronies which are of course representing the USA and are viewed overseas as such. While all responsibility for the war and its after effects including the eventual long term resolution is something many in the US would rather avoid, shifting the blame to an incompetant President while accepting very little responsibility themselves.

Obviously the Democrats are using whatever means they can to force a withdrawal by placing the budget and withdrawal conditions on this bill. When all is said and done if they are successful in bringing all or the majority of troops home who will assume responsibilty? Likely the people of Iraq who have no choice nor voted for their country to be invaded and thrust into the chaotic state it is in now. Will the Democrats simply then ignore the problem as their goal of bringing the troops home seems to be their clear cut solution to fixing a country it has also been part of helping destroy. I would think the Iraqi people will not look at Republicans and Democrats any differentely if they still have to live in unsafe and shattered homeland.

[Daradon]

^^^

Exactly, I was against the invasion saying it would cause problems just like those that are being experienced there now. However now that it's taken place, I'd like to see the U.S. be responsible and do their best to try and fix it. Their citizens voted for Dubya, their citizens allowed themselves to be lied to when the rest of the world was asking them to wake up, they should be prepared to go the distance with it. Or at least try harder.

The only problem with that is, I don't know that there is a solution. (Which again, a lot of us 'liberal tree huggers' mentioned before the start of all of this to constant ridicule) I don't know if more troops, or staying longer is going to make a difference, and I'm not sure what will.

Their foriegn policy the last 40 years has involved a lot of going around and messing things up, creating bigger problems for later. Especially in that region. I mean, they've had dealings with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and it's all coming back to haunt them.