Interesting development reported by the LATimes:

quote:

In a departure from past statements, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi troops has advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops probably will not be needed for much longer. President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in which aides say he is expected to proclaim the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for withdrawing U.S. forces. ... Some analysts say the emerging consensus might have less to do with conditions in Iraq than the long-term strain of the deployment on the U.S. military. And major questions over the readiness of Iraq's fledgling security forces pose risks for any strategy that calls for an accelerated American troop withdrawal. As recently as late September, senior U.S. military commanders told a congressional hearing that just one Iraqi battalion, about 700 soldiers, was considered capable of conducting combat operations fully independent of any U.S. support. Administration officials now dismiss that measure of military readiness, saying more Iraqi units are able to perform advanced operations each day. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

IF, and that's a big "if", but IF we assume this action is true, then I think we can make some conclusions as well as some fun political speculations on this whole affair that's blown up in Congress as of late with Murtha, Schmidt, and others.

Conclusion 1: The is no real debate about troop withdrawal here. It's now a reality, and it seemingly has been for some time. Everything from this point on has been and will continue to be nothing but political posturing. And that leads to point #2:

Conclusion #2: Does this mean Bush is a chickenshit coward like Murtha who wants to "cut and run"? (And no, I don't think Murtha is a coward, just in case anyone who doesn't know me is wondering).

Now in regards to posturing, it's going to be interesting to see how the Republicans are going to spin this development. Are we to really believe that Iraq is that well off, and shall we ignore the realities of just how unprepared the Iraqi troops are themselves in fighting their own battles?

Conclusion #3: What spot does this put those Democrats like Biden, Joementum, and Hillary who believe we should stay the course and even increase the number of troops there?

Again, an interesting twist on those Dems. left who believe we need to remain and fight for an Islamic fundamentalist regime.

And if you haven't guessed yet, I'm not a fan of Hillary, Biden, Bush-lite Lieberman, Kerry, and the rest of the idiot Washington Beltway Dems. who haven't a fucking clue as to the pulse on the rest of America.

Speculation #1: This was expected considering the '06 elections and the miserable poll numbers by this Administration and the GOP Congress. This is a bordeline conclusion, but I'll leave it as a speculation for now.

Speculation #2: Is this just a headfake to begin with? Some speculate, given our oil and neocon geopolitical interests, that we'll never leave and will have a very insignificant troop withdrawal.

This is an interesting speculation too, one that I'm not quite ready to give into, but it does raise a flag high enough to keep an eye on just how many troops are being withdrawn. If we're only talking about a few thousand, maybe say under 30,000 total - then I think we can pretty much safely conclude it was nothing but a headfake to try to win over the public again. That way Bush and his minions will say, "See, we did bring home the troops!" While the remaining 120,000 troops are still there with no end in sight.

Speculation #3: Significant troop withdrawals so we can deploy troops to another country to target for invasion. Syria or Iran comes to mind. This one I'm pretty far from entertaining, again because of Bush's very low numbers and worldwide lack of credibility. You still can't put too much past George, though.

Like I said, interesting development. Feel free to add conclusions and speculations if you so desire.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I am all for removing the troops as soon as possible, but there are 2 major problems. One is that we are in too deep and only 3 of the some 100 battalions have trained the Iraq army to be self sufficient or to fight on their own. The second problem is the lack of an established government. Even though I personally want to pull out now, the correct decision would be at least to solve those 2 major problems I have outlined. It's as simple as that.

Until Iraq can fend for itself, according to international law we must keep troops in Iraq to keep the peace.

The allies shud hav thought about that b4 invading a indoctrinated country.

___________________
"It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy The allies shud hav thought about that b4 invading a indoctrinated country.

With Rummy, Cheney and Wolfie calling the shots, I don't think they had much choice.

quote:

In his address to the nation on the evening of Sept. 11, Bush decides to include a tough new passage about punishing those who harbor terrorists. He announces that the U.S. will "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." To many observers, the president's words set the tone and direction for the Bush administration's policy on Afghanistan and Iraq. Wolfowitz v. Powell Wolfowitz speaking at a Pentagon briefing Two days later, Wolfowitz expands on the president's words at a Pentagon briefing. He seems to signal that the U.S. will enlarge its campaign against terror to include Iraq: "I think one has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to be a broad and sustained campaign." Colin Powell and others are alarmed by what they view as Wolfowitz's inflammatory words about "ending states." Powell later responds during a press briefing: "We're after ending terrorism. And if there are states and regimes, nations that support terrorism, we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing that. But I think ending terrorism is where I would like to leave it, and let Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...q/etc/cron.html

i say we get them out as soon as we finish the job. if we leave now or significantly pull out troops that country will go to shit faster than you can snap your fingers. and if its not iraq it'll be somewhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by hiram i say we get them out as soon as we finish the job. if we leave now or significantly pull out troops that country will go to shit faster than you can snap your fingers. and if its not iraq it'll be somewhere else.

Well you see, I used to share this view too. But then I got to wondering-

what exactly is the "job" in qualitative measurements, and how exactly do we know it is "finished"? IOW, what is our measurement of accomplishments on anything? That's been the fundamental problem with this Administration's philosophy - they have not clarified in any manner exactly what we can measure and mark as qualitative progress. What exactly is that?

And furthermore, did our job ever truly entail installing an Islamic fundamentalist regime that has the approval of Iran? Is that why we're still there? Because it doesn't represent a so-called "democracy" in any manner. So what exactly is our brave men and women fighting for again?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well you see, I used to share this view too. But then I got to wondering- what exactly is the "job" in qualitative measurements, and how exactly do we know it is "finished"? IOW, what is our measurement of accomplishments on anything? That's been the fundamental problem with this Administration's philosophy - they have not clarified in any manner exactly what we can measure and mark as qualitative progress. What exactly is that? And furthermore, did our job ever truly entail installing an Islamic fundamentalist regime that has the approval of Iran? Is that why we're still there? Because it doesn't represent a so-called "democracy" in any manner. So what exactly is our brave men and women fighting for again?

yep youve got a point. but if we pull out now or in 6 months any progress that we've made so far would go down the drain. things need to get a little more stable before we can get out

all i have to say is ...UH OH.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

I really don't see anything coming to an end with Iraq, nor do I see the Bush Admin. doing anything to improve the war situation abroad and domestically. With no infrastructure and stable military in Iraq, the country is weak.

___________________

$5 says we'll have a draft to "support the withdrawl"

Watch everyone try to run to Canada.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lover Boy Until Iraq can fend for itself, according to international law we must keep troops in Iraq to keep the peace.

Where? What law? Funny how this administration didn't follow the letter of the law before it caused the needless deaths of tens of thousands. But in the meantime since you were brainwashed to believe we have to stay:

For Sale
Bridge in Brooklyn
Inquire Within

___________________