You speak like American presidents have the power to create their own reality as they wish.
What president “wanted” to see defeat in Vietnam?
Sometimes conditions beyond your control force you to accept what you would rather not if you had another option.
Nobody goes to the gallows willingly but, as they say in Spanish: “a la fuerza ahorcan” (they hang you against your will) and so, some people are hanged, even if against their will.
If anyone sees John McCain, can they ask him if this is “victory” or “waving the white flag of surrender”? The definitions seems to have eluded my grasp.
It was Congress that de-authorized the use of US troops in Vietnam-- once they were taken out, the president couldn’t put them back in. We had none there to defend the embassy. Obama (and the Democratic Congress) isn’t so stupid as to repeat that mistake. Ergo, we aren’t going to withdraw all the troops anytime soon.
How many troops do you figure we will need to defend the embassy? How many do we have in, say, Jordan? Isn’t defending the embassy largely the responsibility of the “host”? Why then should we expect that keeping embassy guards in Iraq has any real bearing on the issue of “troop withdrawal”. I suppose one could insist that if we have a clerk from Fort Dix supply stationed somewhere in Iraq, we could say that we have not withdrawn all our troops, but isn’t that pretty close to a semantic distinction?
So you assert that should the situation deteriorate to the point where the Iraqis want all Americans out then president Obama will escalate the use of force to any degree necessary to maintain the occupation of the country, not only against the will of the Iraqi government but also against the UN?
What happened to the fiction that Iraq was, you know, a “sovereign, independent, country”?
Luci, really, have you learnt nothing? It would be victory if a Republican did it and it will be “surrender” if a Democrat does it. The distinction cannot be clearer. Sheesh!
Actually, I’ve gotten to the point where if I learn something new, I’ve got to forget something else. I learned an interesting tidbit about the Defenestration at Prague the other day, and now I can’t find my keys.
To the matter at hand, interesting take on today’s press conference and the flexibility of vocabulary at ThinkProgress, wherein the delicious Ms Perrino advances the notion that these withdrawal agreements are “aspirational”. ’
(Warning! Center-left site, tighty righties advised to proceed Shields Up!)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/17/sofa-aspirational-deadline/
No, I mean real, combat-able troops. And yes, defending the embassy should be the host country’s responsibility. I hope that one day, it may very well be so in Iraq. Comparing our 5,000+ personnel embassy in Iraq to the one in Jordan isn’t much help in this discussion, unless Jordan had a near-civil war going on just a few months ago that I missed.
I assert no such thing. As for Iraq being sovereign, well isn’t South Korea sovereign?
Up to a point, Lord Cooper, up to a point.
Maybe they’re just putting the fast withdrawal out there for domestic consumption when behind closed doors they’ve known it would likely lead to catastrophe. I can see them saying (domestically) that they only agreed to three years because of US pressure, when an extended period is what they wanted all along. Don’t see where Obama makes a big impact in this though.
I do not think the American elections had anything to do with this. The Iraqi government were demanding way more than the Americans were willing to give. Both sides knew that whatever they agreed would never be acceptable to their parliaments so the idea was to try to bypass the Congress and the Iraqi parliament. The whole thing seemed like just an impossible mess and was dragging on and on. America was doing as much arm twisting as it could and I guess the pont has come where both sides have agreed on something which no side intends to really abide by. America just needs a paper, anything, saying they can stay a bit longer. They obviously do not like to sign anything that would subject Americans to Iraqi law but if that has to be conceded in order to get a signature then fine. When American troops do anything not in accordance with the signed document, there will be protests and investigations and conversations and meditations and hand-wringing but I can guarantee no Americans will be subjected to Iraqi tribunals for pissing outside the pot.
Again, the American elections had little or nothing to do with this. It is just that the time is running out.
This agreement is such a mess that it is meaningless or it just may mean what anybody wants it to mean. The USA needs something signed, anything, fast.
A mess