I'm completly lost. I don't know what to think of this.

LeoZ 2004-11-22 07:02:22 ET http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/22/hawks_push_deep_cuts_in_forces_in_iraq?mode=PF WASHINGTON -- A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year. Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking. Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite. The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance. "Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war. Retired Army Major General William Nash, the former NATO commander in Bosnia, said: "I resigned from the 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' club four months ago. We have too many now." Nash, who supported Hussein's ouster, said a substantial reduction after the Iraqi elections in January "would be a wise and judicious move" to demonstrate that the Americans are leaving. The remaining US forces should concentrate their energies on border operations, he added. "The absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence." Yonadam Kanna, secretary general of the Assyrian Democratic Movement and a member of Iraq's interim National Assembly, also backed the US-led removal of Hussein. He now says Washington must "prove that the United States is a liberator, not an occupier."

SubSonik 2004-11-22 08:06:52 ET I knew this 4 fucking months ago. WTF is up with our government?

The Statutory Ape 2004-11-22 16:53:17 ET I'd say that especially with all teh scrutiny that the CIA and other intelligence organizations are dealing with right now they want to be very sure of any info or advice that they give. More than likely the idea behind staying as long as we have or planned to was that if we left too soon more than likely one of the fringe groups would try to take over and the situation probably wouldn't be any better than it was before.

Enamon 2004-11-22 22:04:07 ET It's simple. The situation is a goatfuck and the leadership has no idea what to do. The plan for the past few months has been to get the local elections up and running and then leave the area. Thus, any further fuck ups can be blamed on the Iraqis themselves. That and they don't want to get sucked into a potential civil war if the Shia, Sunnis, and the Kurds disagree on the Assembly and choose to duke it out. The whole problem with the Iraq war was not the fact that Saddam had no WMDs or that the intelligence reports were wrong. The problem was that in the 7 or so months that served as a run up to the war it became clear (if you'd pay close attention to news articles featuring interviews with the Bush admin. or Tony Blair) that neither the Bush Admin. nor Blair had any idea what they were going to do once Saddam was toppled and his military smashed. They were still making plans in February. Bush wanted to attack in October.

SubSonik 2004-11-23 04:15:30 ET heh the poor poor Kurds

Enamon 2004-11-23 10:32:00 ET Eh, I wouldn't really take sides based on nationality/religion. The whole thing is a mess.

The Statutory Ape 2004-11-23 13:51:53 ET It's not the sort of war that used to be waged back in the day. It used to be that you just walked into a place and trampled it and took it over. Either that or you were trying to beat an agressor off of your own or someone elses country and make them go home. I'd imagine it would be difficult to come up with a plan for a PC war where you make sure that there are as few as at all possible civilian casualties and then turn the country over to the people and let them put a new government in place. The only similar sort of wars I can remember reading of were always a country helping an already existing military and political force dislodge the one currently in power.

SubSonik 2004-11-24 04:35:50 ET no, see, the whole problem is whichever side wins the upcoming election.... the Kurds lose. No one likes them. They're the Iraqi version of a palestinian. ONly the rest of the world likes them

Enamon 2004-11-24 08:27:27 ET Actually everyone's screwed if the country breaks out into a civil war. Also, a lot of you people are under the impression that the Kurds are not Sunni nor Shia. Actually the majority of the Kurds are Sunni and a minority of them are Shia. They held some prominent governmental positions in Saddam's Iraq but mostly the Iraq government sided against them due to their support of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (Kurds are of ethnic Iranian origin). However what the Kurds want is their own region and thus they have also fought against Iran too. And Turkey. They were granted autonomous regions in the 90s that were protected by the US but those were marked by infighting as various Kurd pacts claimed governmental title. And no, Kurds aren't the Iraqi version of Palestinians. Their situation is totally different. Mind you, they've more history with Turkey not Iraq.

SubSonik 2004-11-24 08:56:40 ET On a basic level the problem is a people that have been displaced from what was once their land

Enamon 2004-11-24 10:55:27 ET What land have they been displaced from? And by whom?

Return to LeoZ's page