http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ Does the new embassy being built in Iraq make you think the discussion about withdrawal is a joke. ?They are not going through this expense just to abandon it. This is a huge and permanent installation.
Define “we”. “We” will, of course, have an embassy with diplomatic staff in Iraq, just as we do in all other countries that we have diplomatic relations with. The size of this embassy means we need lots of security and expect to have lots of influence in Iraq for the years to come.
If by “we” you mean the military, then no, this does not mean the military is staying (beyond what is needed to defend the embassy). Also, keep in mind that this is pretty much Bush’s war, and he’ll be out of power in 2 years.
This is far beyond an embassy.
Who’s “They”? The Bush administration? The Bush administration is going to be gone in 2008. Sure, Bush isn’t going to withdraw from Iraq, he’s going to muddle along until his term ends. Then whoever is elected in 2008 will have to decide what to do about Iraq, and it will be the key issue of the 2008 election. And the issue won’t be, “Should we withdraw from Iraq”, but “What’s your plan for withdrawing from Iraq, and why is it better than your opponent’s plan for withdrawing from Iraq?”
So yeah, an expensive embassy/viceroyal palace certainly can be abandoned. The argument “Wait, we can’t leave because we’ve spent a lot of money building this embassy!” won’t be compelling, because we’re spending much more (in money and lives) on the war itself. All expenses in the war will have to be written off, the embassy included, unless Iraq forms a new government with which we can have diplomatic relations.
And it’s far too small to quarter a functioning army, which is what you seem to be implying it is for. I can see us having a military presence in Iraq for many years to come, but not on the scale we have now. And it won’t be big enough to strong-arm Iraq into any particular policial position, so if they want to kick us out, we’re out.
So, I repeat my first statement: Define “we”. And define how Bush is going to influence what that “we” consists of after Jan 2009 (when the embassy will be less than 2 yrs old).
Since this is more of a debate rather than a question with a factual answer, let’s try Great Debates.
samclem GQ moderator
No implication . I do not know what it is for. It so far is 23 buildings. What is it? I could speculate . But it is surely not being built to be abandoned and it is not just an embassy.I was hoping some one had inside info.
Similarly, I seem to recall reading in a few places that we have troops stationed in countries around the world; not for military purposes, but simply in connection with the embassies there.
We can hope, at least. Alternately, the Republican candidate could be obsessed with staying there and protecting against a civil war (and thus hand the race to the Democratic candidate). What the American public wants doesn’t seem to matter to Bush right now, but it certainly will in 22 months, and I doubt it’ll be more moderate at that point.
The linked article clearly states that the large size of the complex is due to the plan to house and feed some 5,500 workers running the mechanisms of our presence in Iraq. My memory may be faulty, it seems to me that at the height of our presence in South Viet Nam, the US Embassy in Saigon was amongst the largest we had anywhere. I welcome correction if that was not in fact the case.
Other than that, IMO, the grandiose size of the planned complex comes down to two things: 1) a greater degree of optimism about the length of our presence in Iraq back in '04, when this project got under way; and 2) our administration’s never-ending, and really rather touching, concern that its chosen contractors not be short-changed on the size or values of their contracts.
How big a rooftop helipad does it have?
Brilliant!
Why? That is one Vietnam alalogy that doesn’t make any sense, except as a cheap shot. It’s highly unlikely we’ll be chased out of Iraq. In almost any conceivable outcome, we’re still going to have diplomatic relations with the government of Iraq even when our combat troops are withdrawn.
I’m sure the North Iraqians will be rolling tanks down the streets of Baghgon a year or two after we pull out…
As to the OP…well, its a bit silly (as usual for the OP in question). Why exactly would the size of the embassy effect whether or not we are planning on staying in Iraq? Besides which…when has Bush ever said he was going to withdrawl? I sense a disconnect here in the OP (imagine that)…I mean, Bush isn’t talking withdrawl, so why shouldn’t he go forward with plans for a mega-embassy?
-XT
For one thing, what would you call what’s happening now other than being chased out? You’re assuming there will be only 1 Iraq, for another thing. For a third, you’re assuming the fall of the Green Zone won’t occur until after our withdrawal, or else there won’t be a government for us to “still” have relations with. Yes, indeed, the Thieu operation existed for a few days after the last US helicopter out of Saigon, but is *that * the point you wish to defend? We still don’t have full relations with the successor government there, ya know.
Note, btw, that the road to the Baghdad airport is still not secure, and helicopters are indeed the method of choice to get into the Green Zone. And out of it.
Think a little more before you take more potshots about posts being “cheap shots”, willya? :dubious:
Many times. When there is a stable, functioning democracy in a safe, unified Iraq. Which perhaps has something to do with the term “*long * war”.
I must have missed it. Do you have a cite of Bush saying we should withdraw? For bonus points, do you have a cite where Bush is saying we should withdraw in such a way that would make this embassy moot?
-XT
The bolded reason is why I like it. 
Seriously, though, I forgot that I was in GD when I posted that, so I apologize for not contributing to the discussion.
Google “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”
I think you should re-read that article more carefully. I dinna think Bush means what you seem to THINK he means there Elvis.
Bush isn’t talking about bolting here…he’s talking about a phaed withdrawl of US troops (to some minimum level) if/when the Iraqi’s can take up the burden themselves. As they don’t look to be able to do this any time soon, I’m not seeing Bush asking the Generals to get the planes warmed up and ready to roll. Regardless, if Bush’s fantasy world of a peaceful and happy Iraq, standing up and taking the burden of its own defense on itself, living in peace and harmony ever came to pass, we’d certainly still need that embassy…right? 
-XT
Adding more troops = being chased out? Thanks for clearing that up for us! 
Bush is not the only player in the game. There is a lot of talk about winding down and having the Iraqis take over. Yet we continue to build a 1.2 billion dollar embassy. Bigger and with more buildings than ever before. The neocons will not always be in power. (i hope not) Yet the huge and permanent embassy larger than the Vatican is being built with that knowledge.
It is not a works project because the labor is apparently imported.Even though the unemployment rate in Iraq is near 70 %.
Early in the conflict I read wen were building 16 permanent bases while Bush denied any. This has been practically ignored and is huge.