Troops to stay in Iraq for years.

ThunderBolt

New Member
I just want your guys opinion on this, and by the way i think that this will also effect relations of US/Canada. But troops to stay in iraq for possibly until 2008 is just insane.

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -

President Bush said Tuesday that American forces will remain in

Iraq for years and it will be up to a future president to decide when to bring them all home. But defying critics and plunging polls, he declared, "I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out."
The president rejected calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, chief architect of wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan. "Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy," Bush said, acknowledging mistakes as the United States was forced to switch tactics and change a reconstruction strategy that offered targets for insurgents.
He also rejected assertions by Iraq's former interim prime minister that the country had fallen into civil war amid sectarian violence that has left more than 1,000 Iraqis dead since the bombing last month of a Shiite Muslim shrine.
"This is a moment the Iraqis had a chance to fall apart and they didn't," Bush said, crediting religious and political leaders with restraint.
The president spoke for nearly an hour at a White House news conference, part of a new offensive to ease Americans' unhappiness with the war and fellow Republicans' anxiety about fall elections. He faced skeptical questions about Iraq during an appearance Monday in Cleveland, and plans another address soon on Iraq.
Public support for the war and for Bush himself has fallen in recent months, jeopardizing the political capital he claimed from his 2004 re-election victory. "I'd say I'm spending that capital on the war," Bush said.
The White House believes that people appreciate Bush's plainspoken approach even if they disagree with his decisions.
"I understand war creates concerns," the president said. "Nobody likes war. It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country."
Bush has adamantly refused to set a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Asked if there would come a day when there would be no more U.S. forces in Iraq, Bush said, "That, of course, is an objective. And that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."
Pressed on whether that meant a complete withdrawal would not happen during his presidency, Bush said, "I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say."
White House officials worried Bush's remarks would be read as saying there would not be significant troop reductions during his presidency. They pointed to comments Sunday by Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who said he expected a substantial troop reduction "certainly over the course of 2006 and into 2007."
The

Pentagon announced last December that U.S. force levels would be reduced from the baseline figure of about 138,000 to about 131,000 by the end of March. The total currently is 133,000. In late February the Pentagon told Congress that "it will be possible to consider" additional reductions as the political process moves forward and as Iraqi security forces gain experience. No timetable has been set for deciding on additional cuts.
More than 2,300 American troops have died in Iraq. At home, nearly four of five people, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq, according to a recent AP-Ipsos poll.
"I am confident — I believe, I'm optimistic we'll succeed," the president said. "If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way."
Bush said U.S. forces were essential for the stability of Iraq and restraining al-Qaida in the Middle East.
"Their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States," he said.
Despite pleas from fellow Republicans, Bush has rejected calls for a White House staff shake-up, saying he was satisfied with his aides. He did not rule out bringing in a savvy Washington insider, as some have suggested, but said, "I'm not going to announce it right now." Aides said later he was not trying to signal any appointment.
Bush defended his administration's warrantless eavesdropping program whose legality has been questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike. Putting his remarks in a political context, he said, "Nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the of the terrorist surveillance program."
Bush accused Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) of "needless partisanship" for urging censure of the president for authorizing the surveillance program.
On the economy, Bush sidestepped a direct answer when asked whether he was concerned about rising interest rates. He simply said the U.S. economy was very strong. He expressed disappointment that Congress shelved his

Social Security overhaul and said the system won't be changed without the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans together.

I think that President Bush, should go with the majority of the votes.
 

Rich

Member
Opinion on what? On the force structure capability in sustaining successful operations against terrorists fighting a guerilla campaing? Are you asking opinions about weapons capabilities? about training?

Or is this another Canadian/European "I hate Bush/America thread"?
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Iraq.

As an Australian I think it would be a disgrace to leave the country until the job is done. War as we all know is an awful buisness but it must be followed through to its ultimate conclusion. I'm sure we could agree that some things could have been approached and handled better I,m sure but to bitch and moan when the job is still ongoing is just bad form. PS This is just my opinion :cool: .
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
The last thing these terrorist criminals would expect is for an increase in troop numbers for a small period of time combined with no date for exit 'until the job is done'.

Saddam thinks we will leave before he is sentenced to death and that sentence is carried out. Walk straight out of prison into the palace.

Thats what all this psychological warfare, terrorist PR is about to force a withdrawal. Well George W has made it clear that is not going to happen.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Permanent Basing?

NO way, the last the thing the US would want is a permanent presence in Iraq, not to mention it is totally uneeded, with simliar bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, the UAE, Oman, ltd access in turkey, and Army level logistic base in Kuwait etc etc. Any permanent bases will be turned over to the Iraqi Security forces, domestically for the US it would be polital suicide to keep troops in Iraq, plus needless risk, as the Iraqi have had 20 years to build up anti US sentiment, Hitler had less time to gain control of Germany than Suddam had. The only way will be equipping the ISF properly and cutting out all the Burecratic BS with all the supplying and private contracting for reconstruction.:hippie
 

Scorpius

New Member
they have pulled out of Saudi Arabia.Got command facilities in Kuwait and Qatar.They will keep some bases in Iraq.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Saudi Arabia

I guess that was the deal the Suadi's get the base once Iraq had been 'handled' the Prince Sultan Airforce base, was a fine air base, I jsut hadn't realised they had got it back already, did that rather quietly didnt they?
 

ThunderBolt

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Opinion on what? On the force structure capability in sustaining successful operations against terrorists fighting a guerilla campaing? Are you asking opinions about weapons capabilities? about training?

Or is this another Canadian/European "I hate Bush/America thread"?
I want your opinion on what you think of US troops staying in Iraq, and no i am not a Bush/America hater, what made you think of such a thing so fast, i just found this news interesting so i posted on the web to see what the people think of it all over the world.
 

Black Legion

New Member
The US has, strategically speaking, lost Iraq ... there is no option for victory. They lose if they stay, they lose if they leave.
Politically and strategically, Iraq has become an untenable situation far beyond repair by the US or any other nation....
 

ThunderBolt

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
This remindes me of the Vietnam war, where the US lost just like they are losing right now in Iraq.
 

Stryker001

Banned Member
ThunderBolt said:
This remindes me of the Vietnam war, where the US lost just like they are losing right now in Iraq.
I don't think that is the case at all, things in Iraq will turn around very quickly. The fact that the turn out to vote was so high is a sign that the majority of Iraqies what democracy.

If Canada was concerned with world stability send some troops to help out.:soldier

AT the very least Canada should take a more robust stance on the contraban coming over the boarder into the USA. :ban
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
O' Canada

Well things are looking up with Prime Minister Harper coming in his strong commitment to Afghanastan and the turn around in public opinion about the deployment and if he can bump spending from 1.1 to something a bit better. Hey I jsut realised arent NATO members supposed to spend at least 2.0 of GDP to be members or was that just the provision for new members from Eastern Europe?
 

ThunderBolt

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Stryker001 said:
I don't think that is the case at all, things in Iraq will turn around very quickly. The fact that the turn out to vote was so high is a sign that the majority of Iraqies what democracy.

If Canada was concerned with world stability send some troops to help out./quote]

No i don't think Canada is about to send any troops to Iraq, they have already taken control of Kandhar in Afghanistan which has sparked anger in the public. Sending troops to Iraq means canadian hostages will be taken in Iraq, and most likely executed, unlike in the past when they have been granted freedom, i hope this never happens to anyone no more. Canada never thought that going to i Iraq was a good idea and i am proud of that.
 

Analyst

New Member
I don't beleive the situation in Iraq is nowhere as bad as in Vietnam. Remember that the Vietnam war happened in a very different context and following very different strategic concepts: It was done within the context of the competition for sphere of influences of the 2 superpowers and it was highly motivated by the fact that the White House / Pentagon planners were seeing maniland asian countries falling to seemingly popular communists government. A situation that is not present in the Middle-East and clearly frame the prospects of US withdrawal from this quagmire. Furthermore, there were more US casualties in Vietnam in a week then there is in a month of fightin in Iraq.

The US line in international politics is this: NEVER ADMIT DEFEAT! EVER! that's the problem with quadmires, because they are perceived as defeats by other countries. Thus, US must find an exit plan that projects the impression that it is sataisfactory to US interests. Such as the detente and the withdrawal from Vietnam.

My proposition is this: What if the US decided to to split the country between the 2 nationalists faction + the kurds? US could bring the three sides into a temporary agreement for the internal borders with a buffer zone and then ask the UN for blue-helmets deployment to secure these borders long enough to pull-out troops.

Or something like that?

...

I really don't get the rationnale behind the war in Iraq: Saddam was not a religious leader, the Baa'th party was socialist and was relatively secular and was opposed to religious movements. Religious leaders loathed Saddam, especially Chi'ites. There were no WMD, and even if there would, special intelligence operations would heve been far more effective to get rid of them. As for terrorists, I think there are a lot more to be found in Sudan, UAE and Saudi Arabia.
 
Top