Where are the clowns, bring in the clowns....

[pocketfullofshells]

The Left finally pushed until Bush budged? What do you mean by that?

Many on the Left demanded that we leave Iraq before there was any "surge" or any "awakening." That is not really pushing for anything.

It was never the plan of the Bush admin to stay in Iraq forever, and after the Awakening and the Surge, the situation became one that it was even possible to think about pulling back, which is what occurred.

I mean that without the left pushing very hard to get out of Iraq, and such...Bush would not have been nearly so eager to try to get troops out.

And it was the left who was talking about the insurgancy while it seemed Bush Co. seemed to think the war was over....Of course myself I was always far more worried about the insurgancy then the war....and was very unhappy with the lack of planning for it in the first part of the war...I did support the surge , back before even republicans where backing McCain on it ( I cant say before McCain as not sure when he started,,,but it fell in line with my thoughts of heavy hand and security first, then fall back,

 

[BigRob]

I mean that without the left pushing very hard to get out of Iraq, and such...Bush would not have been nearly so eager to try to get troops out.

Based on what?

And it was the left who was talking about the insurgancy while it seemed Bush Co. seemed to think the war was over....Of course myself I was always far more worried about the insurgancy then the war....and was very unhappy with the lack of planning for it in the first part of the war...I did support the surge , back before even republicans where backing McCain on it ( I cant say before McCain as not sure when he started,,,but it fell in line with my thoughts of heavy hand and security first, then fall back,

Well, there were numerous Bush officials that had the same line of thinking on the insurgency in places like the Pentagon. That said, if you look at the time line, the insurgency (the real insurgency at least) did not begin for a bit after the invasion. Part of that was because of the massive mismanagement after the invasion, and part of it was simply because Iraq has so many factions that all hate each other to begin with.

I am not sure that "Bush Co." was unaware there was an insurgency, and I am also not sure why an insurgency would be cause to quickly leave the country.

 

[PLC1]

It was never the plan of the Bush admin to stay in Iraq forever, and after the Awakening and the Surge, the situation became one that it was even possible to think about pulling back, which is what occurred.

Then, why build permanent bases there?

 

[BigRob]

Then, why build permanent bases there?

We are not able to simply build bases as we choose and then occupy them. Any base will have been approved by a SOFA with the Iraqi government.

Further, given that many of these bases were built while we were in the middle of fighting an insurgency, and thus needed them, I hardly find that to be proof that we "planned to stay forever."

 

[PLC1]

We are not able to simply build bases as we choose and then occupy them. Any base will have been approved by a SOFA with the Iraqi government.

Further, given that many of these bases were built while we were in the middle of fighting an insurgency, and thus needed them, I hardly find that to be proof that we "planned to stay forever."

Do you seriously believe that those bases were constructed simply for the duration of the war in Iraq, or that the US couldn't get a SOFA out of the Iraqi government if it wanted to?

We'll never know now, of course, since there have been political changes in Washington, but the evidence is pretty clear that the original intent was to stay, as Cheney said, "100 years" despite the assurances that the war in Iraq would be over in less than six months.

 

[BigRob]

Do you seriously believe that those bases were constructed simply for the duration of the war in Iraq, or that the US couldn't get a SOFA out of the Iraqi government if it wanted to?

Apparently we can not, since the consensus is apparently they "kicked us out" of the cities against our wishes more or less.

We'll never know now, of course, since there have been political changes in Washington, but the evidence is pretty clear that the original intent was to stay, as Cheney said, "100 years" despite the assurances that the war in Iraq would be over in less than six months.

That was McCain, not Cheney.

 

[PLC1]

Apparently we can not, since the consensus is apparently they "kicked us out" of the cities against our wishes more or less.

Um, yes, more or less. Now, the Iraqis have the power to "kick us out" when we don't want to be kicked? Somehow, that one is pretty hard to swallow.

No, I think we were more than happy to get out and show that the war in Iraq is finally at long last winding down. Let's just hope it was more than show, and that the six months or less war is finally and at long last starting to wind down in reality.

That was McCain, not Cheney.

So it was. You're right.

It was Cheney who was told by the Iraqis that they didn't want permanent bases. They still got permanent bases, of course, but they told the VP no.

Maybe, since Cheney and his fellow Neocons are no longer in power, those bases will in fact turn out to be temporary.

 

[BigRob]

Um, yes, more or less. Now, the Iraqis have the power to "kick us out" when we don't want to be kicked? Somehow, that one is pretty hard to swallow.

President Bush initially opposed the 2011 timetable, but seeing as how the agreement for our forces to operate had to be ratified by the Iraqi government, they did indeed have much of the power in this situation.

No, I think we were more than happy to get out and show that the war in Iraq is finally at long last winding down. Let's just hope it was more than show, and that the six months or less war is finally and at long last starting to wind down in reality.

Well which is it, are we happy to get out or do we want to stay forever and build bases?

So it was. You're right.

It was Cheney who was told by the Iraqis that they didn't want permanent bases. They still got permanent bases, of course, but they told the VP no.

Maybe, since Cheney and his fellow Neocons are no longer in power, those bases will in fact turn out to be temporary.

You cannot claim a base is permanent when it is managed by a SOFA that ends at a given date and must be renewed.

 

[PLC1]

President Bush initially opposed the 2011 timetable, but seeing as how the agreement for our forces to operate had to be ratified by the Iraqi government, they did indeed have much of the power in this situation.

In reality, they have as much power as we're willing to let them have.

Well which is it, are we happy to get out or do we want to stay forever and build bases?

We were happy to get out of the cities and allow the Iraqis to take over their defense. We wanted to stay in Iraq forever, which is why we did build bases, much as we're staying forever in Germany and other nations where there are no hostilities and haven't been for decades.

Since there have been changes in Washington, it seems unlikely that we will continue to have troops stationed in Iraq 65 years after the end of that war. Not impossible, mind you, but unlikely.

You cannot claim a base is permanent when it is managed by a SOFA that ends at a given date and must be renewed.

You can if you have the power to see that it is renewed.

 

[BigRob]

In reality, they have as much power as we're willing to let them have.

So we "let" them tell us to leave against our wishes? Even though we had the power?

We were happy to get out of the cities and allow the Iraqis to take over their defense. We wanted to stay in Iraq forever, which is why we did build bases, much as we're staying forever in Germany and other nations where there are no hostilities and haven't been for decades.

We stayed in many places around the world due to the Cold War. Further, if they wanted us to leave, they could tell us to leave based on the SOFA.

Since there have been changes in Washington, it seems unlikely that we will continue to have troops stationed in Iraq 65 years after the end of that war. Not impossible, mind you, but unlikely.

It seemed unlikely under both administrations.

You can if you have the power to see that it is renewed.

Which we apparently do not have since they told us to leave.

 

[PLC1]

So we "let" them tell us to leave against our wishes? Even though we had the power?

We let them tell us to leave, since we wanted to leave anyway. It was in our best interests to leave, and show the nation that the war in Iraq was finally starting to wind down, many years after it was supposed to have been over.

We stayed in many places around the world due to the Cold War. Further, if they wanted us to leave, they could tell us to leave based on the SOFA.

The cold war is over. We won about 18 years ago.

It seemed unlikely under both administrations.

Despite what the previous administration said and did?

Which we apparently do not have since they told us to leave.

Having it and finding it is desirable to use it are two different things.

We'll soon leave Iraq. Should the government there be stable and at least semi democratic, then both the Republicans and Democrats will take credit for that fact. Should the situation deteriorate, then the Democrats will blame Bush for having started the whole thing, while the Republicans will blame liberals for not letting us win, and in those exact words.

Either way, we'll get partisan talking points.

 

[BigRob]

We let them tell us to leave, since we wanted to leave anyway. It was in our best interests to leave, and show the nation that the war in Iraq was finally starting to wind down, many years after it was supposed to have been over.

Why was it in our best interests to leave? There were/are plenty of good reasons to stay.

Further, I do not buy that we "let them tell us to leave." If that was the case I do not think the White House would have openly opposed the plan for so long.

The cold war is over. We won about 18 years ago.

OK, but that does not change why we stayed in Europe. Further, the threats around the world have only increased since that time. China is rising, Russia is attempting to rise (different issue), we have proliferation, terrorism, etc etc.

If our presence was not required, we would be asked to go.

Despite what the previous administration said and did?

Wanting to win and wanting to stay forever are two separate things in my view.

Having it and finding it is desirable to use it are two different things.

What is the point of having so much power if we never "desire" to use it? It is like saying oh, a nuclear armed Iran is a terrible thing that we cannot tolerate, but I do not "desire" to do anything about it. That is garbage, by admission, that is an admission you are in fact willing to tolerate it.

We'll soon leave Iraq. Should the government there be stable and at least semi democratic, then both the Republicans and Democrats will take credit for that fact. Should the situation deteriorate, then the Democrats will blame Bush for having started the whole thing, while the Republicans will blame liberals for not letting us win, and in those exact words.

Either way, we'll get partisan talking points.

Probably so, but I think we would have left regardless sooner or later, regardless of the administration.

 

[PLC1]

Why was it in our best interests to leave? There were/are plenty of good reasons to stay.

It was in the best interests of the government, because it could then say that the war is being won. The voters are getting a little bit impatient with this war that was supposed to have been over in less than six months.

Further, I do not buy that we "let them tell us to leave." If that was the case I do not think the White House would have openly opposed the plan for so long.

What the white house says, and what it actually wants are often two different things. Never take at face value what a politician says.

OK, but that does not change why we stayed in Europe. Further, the threats around the world have only increased since that time. China is rising, Russia is attempting to rise (different issue), we have proliferation, terrorism, etc etc.

If our presence was not required, we would be asked to go.

So, our presence is required to protect the rest of the world? Who anointed us the world's cops? How much longer can we afford to play that role?

What is the point of having so much power if we never "desire" to use it? It is like saying oh, a nuclear armed Iran is a terrible thing that we cannot tolerate, but I do not "desire" to do anything about it. That is garbage, by admission, that is an admission you are in fact willing to tolerate it.

Having a lot of military power is a deterrent. As long as we have it, it is unlikely that anyone is going to mess with us. The down side is that having a lot of power encourages the current CIC, whoever that might be, to use it, for example to invade a sovereign nation whose government we dislike, or to go fighting Communists in the rice paddies of SE Asia. It is a two edged sword.

Probably so, but I think we would have left regardless sooner or later, regardless of the administration.

We'll never know whether or not you are right.

 

[top gun]

Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of defense. I think a proactive approach abroad is a good defense at home. Additionally, without the F-22, in less than a decade, we would be directly challenged for air dominance by rising peer competitors.

I'm for having enough defense that we can never be invaded and that we could be a help to our allies. We will continue to do that excellently without the F-22.

And the F-22 technology isn't going to just disappear because we stopped production of additional jets. There are already F-22's... and there will be something we come up with better than the F-22... and then better than that... and that... and that...

I'm fine with building test planes... just not for big military production spending boondoggles.

That is interesting, seeing as how we have yet to spend the vast majority of it.

The Bush Recession the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression is not an overnight fix. If you look you'll see economic indicators are starting to rise and as I've said many times let's talk at the end of 2010. That is enough time that the economy will be vastly improved as the stimulous has had time to be fully injected and trickle down through the entire economy. We will be hitting on all cylinders by late 2010.

We have three easily identifiable major power threats on the horizon. Some view us as serious threat and are organizing their army to fight ours. We should not be cutting back in my opinion.

I see no mass military problem with Russia or China. And they would be the only other possible mass military threats. It won't be that long until we can downsize once again.

I think it was a huge black eye, but not among those who you are saying. I seriously doubt anyone who did not hate us before started after GITMO.

We pretty much agree. The problem is it's a thorn in the paw. That thorn keeps festering & hurting until it is finally removed.

I can assure that in 2012, President Obama will take credit for "getting us out of Iraq" in his reelection campaign.

I hope so!

The fact is he will be THE President when they come home. And he campaigned on bringing them home way before Bush ever went along with a time table... in fact President Obama spoke out against invading Iraq in the first place.

And had it not been for all the heat caused by the Democrats on this issue which politically could easily be seen as an election problem for the Republicans I would tend to absolutely believe Bush would have fought much harder against Maliki to not set a date of withdraw.

The last thing Bush wanted for his Party right before a Presidential election was to be seen in the eyes of the American public as saying... We're staying no matter what you say! His hand was "politically" forced.

 

[BigRob]

It was in the best interests of the government, because it could then say that the war is being won. The voters are getting a little bit impatient with this war that was supposed to have been over in less than six months.

Call me stupid, but I believe there are more important national interests at stake here than elections.

What the white house says, and what it actually wants are often two different things. Never take at face value what a politician says.

I agree, look at their actions.

So, our presence is required to protect the rest of the world? Who anointed us the world's cops? How much longer can we afford to play that role?

This just sounds like an argument between passive and active foreign policy.

Having a lot of military power is a deterrent. As long as we have it, it is unlikely that anyone is going to mess with us. The down side is that having a lot of power encourages the current CIC, whoever that might be, to use it, for example to invade a sovereign nation whose government we dislike, or to go fighting Communists in the rice paddies of SE Asia. It is a two edged sword.

So do you support the elimination of our nuclear arsenal as long as we maintain a string conventional force?

The downsides of that plan are vast. Further, we have huge power as it is, and people continue to "mess" with us on a daily basis.