Should we just stay?

Kevin Brown · 05-10-2007, 17:53 PM

Since the geopoltical ramifications of a US withdrawal from Iraq would be so extreme for the US and the region, I'm wondering would the US be better off just staying in Iraq for the time being. I know the costs have been very heavy so far in terms of blood and treasure, However I figure they would be alot worse if we pulled out before completing the job.

Any thoughts on this?

dalem · 05-10-2007, 20:15 PM

Sure. I figured it was a 5-10 year job when we were talking about going in. Nothing's changed my mind about that since then.

Personally, I've never really understood what the panic is all about.

-dale

Garry · 05-11-2007, 01:59 AM

If you stay and complete the job it is good for everybody... but if you would finally leave later with mess behind.... you've better done it earlier than later.

In general, Iraq needs some hard policing from local dominating force for few years.... And USA should have enough influence on that force with money, support, arms, etc. Just like Pakistani millitary control the country and are influenced by USA.... Democratic Pakistan would spit in your face.... Same here..... However, when situation is under control you may start rebuilding the country.... and this takes much longer - around one generation at least!!!

So - 5-8 years to stabilize and then 15-20 years to build new society.

Look at USSR, it collapsed 16 years back.... and only now Russia+CIS have new generation of 20+ which has NOTHING to do with communist ideology but focused on MONEY AND CONSUMING

Big K · 05-11-2007, 04:50 AM

no staying there anymore...bad for everybody...

Ray · 05-11-2007, 05:13 AM

Garry,

Are you suggesting that one should bring back another Saddam?

Big K,

If the US does not remake and stabilises Iraq, then there will be an independent Kurdistan and the whole area will then simply blow up and NATO will go for a six.

It may not sound nice, but if there is an independent Kurdistan, then the Islamists in Turkey will gain 'power' since the US would be blamed.

It will undo everything Ataturk stood for!

and while the US may have been able to remove Saddam, it would have made many normal countries like Turkey become another Islamist area hitting out at the US!

Big K · 05-11-2007, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Big K,

If the US does not remake and stabilises Iraq, then there will be an independent Kurdistan and the whole area will then simply blow up and NATO will go for a six.

It may not sound nice, but if there is an independent Kurdistan, then the Islamists in Turkey will gain 'power' since the US would be blamed.

It will undo everything Ataturk stood for!

and while the US may have been able to remove Saddam, it would have made many normal countries like Turkey become another Islamist area hitting out at the US!

sir,
ideally i am agree but practically it is impossible that US can bring peace there. please check the history only a few empires could do this...

about the Kurdistan,

in Northern Iraq theres already a Kurdistan....they have their own customs, they are collecting taxes etc...this is reality...no other Iraqi authority in northern Iraq...

Big K · 05-11-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

It may not sound nice, but if there is an independent Kurdistan, then the Islamists in Turkey will gain 'power' since the US would be blamed.

sir i am afraid that you are a little bit wrong on this case according to my opinion.
every day that a US soldier falls Islamists gain power...

this are not only my own opinion. this is also opinion of a CEO from Iraq from Erbil which i work with...sorry i can not give name opr company but know that hes one of the biggest invester and oil well digger and hes educated in England...

Garry · 05-11-2007, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Garry,

Are you suggesting that one should bring back another Saddam?

Hi Ray! Lets call him Musharaf..... would it be more acceptable? What I mean - a Benevolent dictator....

Nobody can call Musharaf democrat.... but his country would really fall apart if no dictator is rulling it!!!

ps. I read an article today from Perl... seems like former supporters of the war started looking for whom to blaim for the whole invasion idea.... if it goes like this USA will leave pretty soon.

Quote:

Editorial
How the CIA Failed America
Richard N. Perle
835 words
11 May 2007
The Washington Post
FINAL
A19
English
Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved

George Tenet sets the stage in his memoir by recalling a conversation he claims to have had with me on Sept. 12, 2001: "As I walked beneath the awning that leads to the West Wing[, I] saw Richard Perle exiting the building just as I was about to enter. . . . Perle turned to me and said, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.' I looked back at Perle and thought: Who has [he] been meeting with in the White House so early in the morning on today of all days?"

But I was in Europe on Sept. 12, 2001, unable to get a return flight to Washington, and I did not tell Tenet that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, not then, not ever. That should have been the end of the story: a faulty recollection, perhaps attributing to me something he may have heard elsewhere, an honest mistake.

So I was surprised when, having been made aware of his error, Tenet reasserted his claim, saying: "So I may have been off on the day, but I'm not off on what he said and what he believed."

On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Tenet argued that his version "seems to be corroborated" by a comment I made to columnist Robert D. Novak on Sept. 17 and a letter to President Bush that I signed, with 40 others, on Sept. 20. But my 10-word comment to Novak made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Neither did the letter to the president, which said that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Tenet insists on equating two statements that are not at all the same: that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11 -- which I never said -- and that removing Saddam Hussein before he could share chemical, biological or nuclear weapons with terrorists had become an urgent matter, which I did say. He continues to assert falsely that the president's decision to remove Hussein was encouraged by lies about Iraq's responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Understandably anxious to counter the myth that we went into Iraq on the basis of his agency's faulty intelligence, Tenet seeks to substitute another myth: that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein resulted from the nefarious influence of the vice president and a cabal of neoconservative intellectuals. To advance that idea, a theme of his book, he has attributed to me, and to others, statements that were never made.

Careful readers will see at once that what Tenet calls "corroboration" is nothing of the sort. But Tenet is not a careful reader -- a serious deficiency in a CIA director and a catastrophe for an intelligence organization. Indeed, sloppy analysis and imprecision with evidence got Tenet and the rest of us stuck in a credibility gap that continues to damage our foreign policy.

For years the American intelligence establishment has failed to show meticulous regard for the facts that are essential to its mission. The CIA's assessment that Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons was only the most recent damaging example. The president, the vice president, Congress and others relied on intelligence produced by Tenet's CIA -- and repeated CIA findings that never should have been presented as fact.

When Defense Department officials pressed the CIA to reassess whether Hussein's intelligence service supported terrorists, and had links to al-Qaeda, Tenet first resisted, then treated with derision the evidence of such links that CIA analysts had ignored. While he later acknowledged some of that evidence in a letter to then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), he continues to minimize it while targeting critics of the CIA.

But the greatest intelligence failure of the past two decades was the CIA's failure to understand and sound an alarm at the rise of jihadist fundamentalism. It is Wahhabi extremism and the call to holy war against infidels that gave us the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and much of the terrorism that has followed. In his attempts to blame others for CIA shortcomings, Tenet cannot say, "I told the president that our Saudi allies were financing thousands of mosques and schools around the world where a hateful doctrine of holy war and violence was being inculcated in young potential terrorists." Fatefully, the CIA failed to make our leaders aware of the rise of Islamist extremism and the immense danger it posed to the United States.

George Tenet and, more important, our premier intelligence organization managed to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist while failing to find links to terrorists that did -- all while missing completely the rise of Islamist fundamentalism. We have made only a down payment on the price of that failure.

The writer was chairman of the Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines [http://www.washingtonpost.com]

WP20070511OP-PERLE11

**Parihaka** · 05-11-2007, 08:40 AM

I thought staying there was the whole point, wasn't it? Not like actually engaged in combat in Baghdad, but having a decent standing army of about 80,000 constantly training in the deserts of Iraq?
You know, to keep a lid on the area and make the Iranians nervous?

Garry · 05-11-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I thought staying there was the whole point, wasn't it? Not like actually engaged in combat in Baghdad, but having a decent standing army of about 80,000 constantly training in the deserts of Iraq?
You know, to keep a lid on the area and make the Iranians nervous?

For this there was no point to start over all that activity with Democracy/nation building.... Much easier was to foce Iraq have a US base just like Cuba has to keep Guantanamo.... A limited millitary operation would have been more than enough!!!

**Parihaka** · 05-11-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

For this there was no point to start over all that activity with Democracy/nation building.... Much easier was to foce Iraq have a US base just like Cuba has to keep Guantanamo.... A limited millitary operation would have been more than enough!!!

The Saudi's wanted them out of Saudi Arabia, what with all the wahabi goings on: there's no way Saddam would have been happy to lease a bit of the desert to them any more than Iran would, and frankly the tosser had to go, because he was, well, such a tosser.
Being Americans, they thought everyone would agree with them when they cried 'clear and present danger' and even if they didn't they'd go along because Saddam was after all, such a tosser.

Their sweet and innocent naivity of course hauled up on the rocks of European cynicism and bloody mindedness (as well as the Euros eye for dosh), and so did their 'they'll welcome us with open arms'.

In the end though, the military have the skills necessary to finally get the job done, and for all the democrats pious mitherings and shoving things up George's behind, the senior members of the party are no more interested in giving away such an essential strategic advantage than the Republicans are.
The current passing of veto-guaranteed legislation is mere posturing for the hoi-polloi, what is essentially the same force will be re-branded as 'reconstruction and stabilisation teams' and the 'war on terror' will become the 'International Peace Initiative' before Hillarys bum hits the seat.

Garry · 05-11-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

The current passing of veto-guaranteed legislation is mere posturing for the hoi-polloi, what is essentially the same force will be re-branded as 'reconstruction and stabilisation teams' and the 'war on terror' will become the 'International Peace Initiative' before Hillarys bum hits the seat.

Well.... I did not think of this alternative. it is much better than dropping off and evacuating from Iraq. It is important that Government understand that once they got in they have responsibility to stabilize it.....

Kevin Brown · 05-11-2007, 11:41 AM

However keep in mind we maybe leaving if a Democrat gets in office in 08, Because the Democratic Out Of Iraq Caucus is gaing more support, Including from moderate Republicans. So if Hillary Clinton or Obama were to win the White House in 08, I think we would most likely begin pulling out of Iraq within the year.

**TopHatter** · 05-11-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Brown

However keep in mind we maybe leaving if a Democrat gets in office in 08, Because the Democratic Out Of Iraq Caucus is gaing more support, Including from moderate Republicans. So if Hillary Clinton or Obama were to win the White House in 08, I think we would most likely begin pulling out of Iraq within the year.

You're probably correct.

It's likely that the Democrats will win, simply because they aren't the Republicans. In addition, the 2006 elections were a possible precursor of the 2008 elections.

A Democrat administration and Congress: a sure and certain combination resulting in a swift pull-out.

Ray · 05-11-2007, 13:49 PM

Garry,

I don't care what the propaganda machine does.

CIA, in my opinion, is one of the best professional organisation that any country can have.

It is a question of if the country deserves such an organisation.

I wonder where would the US be without the CIA.

No organisation is perfect. The CIA is possibly near perfect!

There is an American saying -Looking a gift horse in the teeth and checking if it were made of GOLD!

I wish my country had the CIA.

05-10-2007, 17:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kevin Brown New Member Join Date: 05-10-07 Location: Leesburg VA Posts: 16 Country:	Should we just stay? Since the geopoltical ramifications of a US withdrawal from Iraq would be so extreme for the US and the region, I'm wondering would the US be better off just staying in Iraq for the time being. I know the costs have been very heavy so far in terms of blood and treasure, However I figure they would be alot worse if we pulled out before completing the job. Any thoughts on this?

05-11-2007, 04:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
Big K HürGeneral *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-11-06 Location: Istanbul Posts: 1,042 Country:	no staying there anymore...bad for everybody... __________________ When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent. -Fuzuli

05-11-2007, 05:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 25,850 Country:	Garry, Are you suggesting that one should bring back another Saddam? Big K, If the US does not remake and stabilises Iraq, then there will be an independent Kurdistan and the whole area will then simply blow up and NATO will go for a six. It may not sound nice, but if there is an independent Kurdistan, then the Islamists in Turkey will gain 'power' since the US would be blamed. It will undo everything Ataturk stood for! and while the US may have been able to remove Saddam, it would have made many normal countries like Turkey become another Islamist area hitting out at the US! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA Last edited by Ray : 05-11-2007 at 05:17 AM.

05-11-2007, 08:40 AM	#9 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,336 Country:	I thought staying there was the whole point, wasn't it? Not like actually engaged in combat in Baghdad, but having a decent standing army of about 80,000 constantly training in the deserts of Iraq? You know, to keep a lid on the area and make the Iranians nervous? __________________ In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

05-10-2007, 20:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,185 Country:	Sure. I figured it was a 5-10 year job when we were talking about going in. Nothing's changed my mind about that since then. Personally, I've never really understood what the panic is all about. -dale

05-11-2007, 01:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
Garry *Defense Professional* Join Date: 06-18-04 Posts: 1,526	If you stay and complete the job it is good for everybody... but if you would finally leave later with mess behind.... you've better done it earlier than later. In general, Iraq needs some hard policing from local dominating force for few years.... And USA should have enough influence on that force with money, support, arms, etc. Just like Pakistani millitary control the country and are influenced by USA.... Democratic Pakistan would spit in your face.... Same here..... However, when situation is under control you may start rebuilding the country.... and this takes much longer - around one generation at least!!! So - 5-8 years to stabilize and then 15-20 years to build new society. Look at USSR, it collapsed 16 years back.... and only now Russia+CIS have new generation of 20+ which has NOTHING to do with communist ideology but focused on MONEY AND CONSUMING

05-11-2007, 11:41 AM	#13 (permalink)
Kevin Brown New Member Join Date: 05-10-07 Location: Leesburg VA Posts: 16 Country:	However keep in mind we maybe leaving if a Democrat gets in office in 08, Because the Democratic Out Of Iraq Caucus is gaing more support, Including from moderate Republicans. So if Hillary Clinton or Obama were to win the White House in 08, I think we would most likely begin pulling out of Iraq within the year.

05-11-2007, 13:49 PM	#15 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 25,850 Country:	Garry, I don't care what the propaganda machine does. CIA, in my opinion, is one of the best professional organisation that any country can have. It is a question of if the country deserves such an organisation. I wonder where would the US be without the CIA. No organisation is perfect. The CIA is possibly near perfect! There is an American saying -Looking a gift horse in the teeth and checking if it were made of GOLD! I wish my country had the CIA.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No choice: Stay the course in Iraq	Ray	The War in Iraq	4	04-04-2007 10:06 AM
Mercenaries are in the Military to Stay: Get Used to It!	TIC TAC	Political Discussions	7	02-24-2007 15:45 PM
In Mexico, 'People Do Really Want to Stay'	troung	Political Discussions	2	01-07-2007 23:47 PM
Some injured GIs decide to stay in Iraq	TopHatter	The War in Iraq	1	06-10-2006 22:07 PM
Foreign madrassa students allowed to stay on	Ray	Political Discussions	3	01-06-2006 14:46 PM