LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteYes. more important than any political/stability concerns - the US government is out of money.
Yes
No
Back in September 2008, SecDef Gates commented that the US is in the "end game" in Iraq. Though the situation is far from perfect, the levels of violence in Iraq and American casualties are down dramatically, and the situation in the country has improved markedly. The United States and Iraq recently negotiated a new Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) in which US forces are agreed to withdraw from the streets of Iraq cities in less than seven months, with a complete withdrawal scheduled for the end of 2011. The Iraqi government has also negotiated SoFAs with coalition partners such as Australia and Iraq that schedules withdrawal by July 2009.
Do you think the United States is now in the "end game" in Iraq? Do you believe that the stabilization will strengthen and the security situation will continue to improve? Or do you believe that there are major unforeseen difficulties that could realistically emerge in the near future?
Yes. more important than any political/stability concerns - the US government is out of money.
Not a hope
There are too many factions in play for Iraq to have any normality in the short term future, and maybe not even the long term. No matter who gains power in Iraq, waring groups of fundamentalists who believe their version of Islam is the right version and will stop at nothing to make sure everyone else tows their line. The problem with that is every other faction is fanatical and will have nothing to do with the ruling Government and will do anything to gain power. The result may be all out civil war. Removing Saddam created a vacuum for all these factions to grow.
The US is now reaping the deadly harvest that it sowed many years ago, not only in Iraq, but also Afghanistan.
Freddie
Never hold your farts in, they run up your spine, and that's where shity ideas come from.
vēnī, vīdī, velcro - I came, I saw I stuck around.
Yes, it's stabilized enough for the Iraqis to take control of their own country.
Pull out and let them have their Civil War and whoever wins, gets the brass ring.
We've lost enough American blood there and far too many American lives.
Hamp
USS LCI (L) & (G) 450
WW ll Gator Navy
nutter,
whatever pressures are on the american enterprise in iraq, funding is not really it.Yes. more important than any political/stability concerns - the US government is out of money.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
and patienceOriginally Posted by astralis
It would depend on what the meaning of end game is and what the Americans expect long term. None of the structural problems of Iraq are solved, the Americans have simply managed to put a lid on it. Most of the alliances that have been with the US and another party not between the parties and the Iraqi government. The Kurds in particular have simply withdrawn from the state. In thier case there is a further problem that they are supporting the terrorist organizations against Turkey and Iran, anyone who thinks diferently is simply naive. This will create a natural leadin for outside involvement. Similarly with the Saudi supported Sunnis and Iranian supported Shiia. The only way to avoid this is to stay there in strength for the next fifty years. Even with that there would be periodic upswings in violence. Unlike the Korean anlogy there is not a narrow easily defended border and lots of potential enemies.
Ultimately it comes down to is Iraq strategicall important ehough for the US that it will commit its strategic reserve and huges amounts of money for the next 40 to 50 years. If not the time is right for withdrawal.
If the meaning is that things are quiet enough to withdraw without major immediate and direct consequences to the US then the US can withdraw. Without doing this the US has little strategic fleibility and much reduced ability to influence other countries. It must be remembered that unlike in the US, US pain in Iraq is regarded as self inflicted by the vast majority of the world and staying there does not get extra points. Withdrawal would cause a power vaccum and it is unlikely there is ultimately going to be a stable government much less a democratic one. While the US would be blaimed for instability by withdrawing, correctly in my opinion it would at least be reletively short term unlike a 50 year occupation.
Got to agree Doug .
TANKIE. ECO WARRIOR , SAVE THE TREES
The real question is how well Iraq can provide it's own security. And also how an unstable Iraq effects the world.
If you only look at what the media wants you to know the situation is out of control with no hope. The truth fortunately is far different from the bleak picture they paint for public consumption. I believe the US has gained allot of ground in reaching their objectives in Iraq and I feel the military should be allowed to finish the job. I do not want to see a conflict there every decade.
There are always going to be contingencies that cannot be accounted for. The US military cannot stay there forever obviously since it has been time-limited to 2011. Violence is going to be ever present in such a factional society as a recent suicide bombing attests to. The question is, is there anything that the US can do about it. I don't think so, some of these groups can never be rooted out since other ones will just take their place.
As long as the central government is stable; and it will be, Iran won't let it fall, then the US is in its "final end game." The focus is now on Afghanistan. Whatever Iraq becomes is what the US will have to live with; an anti-Israel, pro-Iranian, semi-theocratic regime, or a pro-Israel, pro-US democratic/capitalistic shining beacon for the Islamic world. The former is more likely than the latter.
The US is in a transitional period. Eventually, sooner or later, the US is simply going to declare victory in Iraq, and leave. At some point after that, Iraq will transition from having an American puppet government to an Iraqi government. Then we'll see what happens.
As president Obama is almost there, the end for US involvement in Iraq can not be a
question.
Boy…I don’t know, it's hard to know.
In my view, it depends how you define ‘a victory’.
If it means no more Sadam? Then we have achieved victory.
If Iraq will not be a threat to its neighbors? Then we have achieved victory in (with) post-1991 no-fly zones.
If it means no more Iranian influence in Iraq? That maybe more difficult to control. They had a bloody war during most of the 1980s.
Will Iraqi oil production repay the US taxpayers? again not sure (right now)?
Will Iraq share U.S. policy interests long-term in the region? Difficult to say – could be a moving target (current Gaza situation will not advance U.S. interests in Iraq - in my view).
We've just gotten started.
We're not out of there that easy. Caveats, restrictions, contingencies, training packages, etc.
This could take awhile. After the army, there should be a flood of business types, tycoons, madison ave. suits, rock bands on tour (Stones finally perform Bridges to Babylon Under the Arched Sabres), Holiday On Ice.
Naw. Beginning game of a long and tempestuous/contentious relationship where we play two ethnicities against one another while always keeping our foot in the door of the third in the interest of promoting pluralistic democracy.
We've earned our right to meddle and a bevy of neoconish possibilities just naturally beckon to come hither.
Oh! If you couldn't actually tell, I voted no.
"This aggression will not stand, man!"
Jeff Lebowski
LOL !!!We've just gotten started.
We're not out of there that easy. Caveats, restrictions, contingencies, training packages, etc.
This could take awhile. After the army, there should be a flood of business types, tycoons, madison ave. suits, rock bands on tour (Stones finally perform Bridges to Babylon Under the Arched Sabres
Naw. Beginning game of a long and tempestuous/contentious relationship where we play two ethnicities against one another while always keeping our foot in the door of the third in the interest of promoting pluralistic democracy.
We've earned our right to meddle and a bevy of neoconish possibilities just naturally beckon to come hither
Oh! If you couldn't actually tell, I voted no.
you forgot Jesus-Christ-Superstar with Bon Jovi - ON ICE!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: