“That’s The Plan” in Iraq
For a long time I have been arguing for, well, exactly what Senator John McCain said yesterday:
“The fact is that if we can withdraw to bases and then eventually close those bases and come home, that’s the plan.”
So there is not much point in arguing for this anymore at NoSpeedBumps, because this is now the openly stated government policy.
And I bet even if a Democrat wins the presidency (especially Hillary Clinton) that he or she will maintain the same policy regardless of what candidates say now. A new Democratic president won’t want to be the initiator of a rapidly escalating humanitarian disaster in Iraq that will likely result from a quick withdrawal. And in reality he or she won’t have to. Once our troops are on bases within Iraq, the bulk of the complaints about the war will die down. The biggest problem in Iraq is that American soldiers are getting killed and wounded. Once the troops are mostly out of harm’s way, then we can all rest easier.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
As pointed out before, this plan assumes that the Iraqi can hold their own so our troops can stay inside. Is there any reassurance that is actually the case? If they could do the job, there would be no need for the “surge”.
Some may say, they will be ready soon. Well, this re-traning process has been going on for more than two years, and there is still no solid time table when they will be ready. The buttom line is that the we are no longer welcome there. Many of the ordinary people wants us to leave because they believe it is our presence that is causing the daily violence. On this side of the world the public (and congress) just had enough of hearing about Iraq. Given these are the cards on the table why pour more money into this sink hole know as Iraq?
June 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
nobody,
“Given these are the cards on the table why pour more money into this sink hole know as Iraq?”
Because, in terms of US interests, a failed state and regional instability could be far worse than a low-grade civil war in Iraq. Also, the potential for a humanitarian disaster is much greater.
No one knows for sure what will happen if we just leave quickly vs. stay on bases for a number of years. It is a gamble either way. Sure a lot of people there don’t want us there. But the risk of what might happen if we just leave quickly is very high.
This risk is what those supporting a quick withdrawal will not admit to, but I think this will sink in over time. That is why I wrote in the post above: “And I bet even if a Democrat wins the presidency (especially Hillary Clinton) that he or she will maintain the same policy regardless of what candidates say now.”
June 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have? The cost of stick around is not a few million dollars. It is in the billions. People are afraid that conflict in the region will disrupt oil export. For a couple of billion bucks, we could afford to give stablized fuel prices with subsidies. There is also concern that an broken Iraq would be a hot heaven for terrorist. What about the argument that our presence in those region is creating terrorists. America is far away from the sands of middleeast. The natives would be too tire fighting each other instead of us. The proponents of sticking around needs to make a better economic or national security argument for staying around.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
nobody,
“What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have?”
Who knows, if we had put troops on large bases in Vietnam and provided them with air cover, South Vietnam today might be a booming economic center (like South Korea) and a major trading partner. It might also be democratic.
Regarding Iraq, your position is that the risk of quickly leaving Iraq is not that great and that it costs too much anyhow. I say the risk of quickly leaving is too high. So we just come down on different sides of the issue.