Rumor has it that GW’s book of memoirs will be titled “Management Secrets of the Alpha Lemming”. (Remainder House, $29.95. OK, $24.95. Special offer, today only, for you, wholesale, $15.95. Look, yer breaking my balls here, ok, ok, $9.95…)
The could do all those things already. They know we’re leaving at some point, right; so how does having a date help them?
What, you think we put that contract out for bid?
Obama’s campaign essentially said withdrawal was happening in x number of months, with no qualifiers. Now that he is in office he is saying “withdrawal is happening in x number of months, however we are going to leave a force of around 50,000 to make sure Iraq remains stable, and our plan is based on the conditions in Iraq and is not set in stone.” That’s all the difference. During the primary campaign it was clearly given that Obama was withdrawing because of a “failed war.” The rhetoric on that honestly dropped off immensely after Obama secured the nomination, in large part because the war ultimately ended up being a success, not a failure.
Outside of the SDMB most people consider the Iraq war to be an amazing success, most importantly the White House is looking at it as the same way. Obama is concerned now about maintaining stability in Iraq when during the election it seemed like his opinion was that Iraq was a hopeless lost cause that we needed to get out of as quickly as possible.
I’m not sure why McCain’s comment about preferring to lose an election than to lose a war is relevant, we’ve won the war–McCain’s concern after Obama won election was most likely that Obama was going to approach the conclusion of the Iraq war in a reasonable manner that insure our gains there would not be immediately lost the moment we left the country–Obama is giving every indication that is precisely what he is doing.
Since the Iraqis want us out by 2011 or 2012 I’ve heard its not like Obama’s speech was a surprise. Add to that we can’t afford to stay. It costs a lot of money to maintain troops in Iraq. Sooner or later the cost would be more than we can bear, I’d wager.
And in more than actual currency. Recruiting standards have taken a hit to deal with retention. (Actually that does cost currency…wasted training on people that are apt to be chaptered out or just can’tr cut the mustard, etc).
I have a friend thats been in Iraq 75% of the time between 2005 and now. He’s missed his kids growing up, his wife and family, etc. He is not unique in that. That may not be a purely monetary cost, but it is an expensive one.
But I thought that citizens stocking up on weapons was a central tenet of conservative thought. Under your hypoothesis, we get shot at less, and Iraqis get to assert their right to bear arms. Isn’t that an all win situation?
It was a non-announcement. We already agreed to a general pull-out date with the last SOFA agreement which left open an unnamed amount of “support troops” for an undetermined amount of time. Nothing has changed. Given the continued reduction in violence there would have been a gradual pullout by mid-2010 anyway. President Obama restated the obvious.
Do you have a cite for that? Last Monday’s Rasmussen poll certainly doesn’t seem to support that assertion, at least among US voters:
That doesn’t sound to me anything like “most people” considering the Iraq war to be “an amazing success”.
Outside of the US, of course, the general opinion about the Iraq war is even more negative. So where are you getting your claim of this massively positive response?
AIUI, the point of the surge was to decrease violence in order to give the parliament breathing room so it could actually get shit done. The surge did little to decrease violence (Al-Sadr’s cease-fire was far more effective in that), and the Iraqi parliament did not, in fact, get anything done. Saying that they want us out is informative, but not constructive.
Er, what? Democratic gains were greater in 2006 than in 2008. And we’ve still got a hell of a long way to go, so that’s not just having more targets back then.
Please provide a cite to back up that absurd assertion.
I think you’re over-simplifying. There have been multiple groups fighting each other. Sunnis fighting Shiites, various Shiite groups fighting each other, Iraqis fighting us, foreign fighters who don’t give a damn about Iraqi sovereignty pouring into Iraq just to fight the west, and Iraqis fighting the foreign fighters.
I’ve never held that idea. As I’ve posted above, I know that there have been multiple groups with multiple goals.
I’m just saying that, with everything I’ve been hearing in the news, even though plenty of Iraqis have their differences, they seem to be, slowly, but surely, coming together as a nation.
Also, I don’t see any foreign groups taking over, as they don’t like the likes of the Taliban or al qaeda, and will turn their weapons on them.
I guess my only concern would be Shiites ethnically cleansing the Sunnis.
I think the poker analogy is stretched to say the least. For one thing, it’s impossible to pull out by surprise, and for another, the US has no real opponent or enemy in Iraq in the first place. It’s an occupation, not a war. The conflicts are between multiple factions of Iraqis, not between the US and anybody.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit what happens to Iraq after we get out. Let them have their civil war. As long as we get our own people out of the way, what do we care? Neither side is any better than the other. There are too many better things we can be spending that money on.
Who cares what happens after we leave? It’s not our problem anymore.
Sounds cold, but if we really gave a damn what happened to Iraqis, we wouldn’t have gone there in the first place. And we almost certainly aren’t going to resolve things by sticking around. This drama will have to play itself out at some point, and there is no time like the present.
That’s what people thought about Germany after WWI. That got us another war memorial and an ashtray full of Jews.
A pullout date is a good idea. As long as we take responsibility for all the heavy lifting ,the Iraq government has no sense of urgency. Just collect a paycheck and hide in the background. Give them a date and they will have to plan and coordinate . Whether the people will see them as Quislings ,remains to be seen.
This is probably the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. It doesn’t take much thought to figure out why.
We’re going to have to leave eventually, and there’s no way we’re going to keep that fact secret when it does happen. Delaying the withdrawl under the “they will mark their calenders!” line of reasoning will literally mean that we have to stay there forever, because they’ll always be able to outwait us. They fucking live there!
As an authorized reseller for Publishers Central Bureau, I can get you a copy for $2.98 
Of course you are right. But the thing is, “reason” has very little to with it, and in fact, “reason” never had much to do with the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
I suspect the OP meant that they would be informed, but the decision would not be more widely announced.
It seems like a good plan to me. By the following August I should think things will be even more stable in Iraq. Also, IIRC, Obama said he would pull out troops within 16 months of his taking office…this is pretty close to what he promised. I’m actually cautiously optimistic about this particular initiative.
If the whole country goes tits up at that point…well, we tried. Though it won’t be his fault I’m sure Obama will get blamed if that happens. Guess it comes with the job.
-XT