Thread: For Michaelr

Start by the end of the year buddy!!


Bush says Iraq troop cut possible with success

Mon Sep 3, 2007 1:09pm ET



By Andrew Gray and Matt Spetalnick
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Monday his top officials in Iraq had told him the present level of security could be maintained with fewer forces if what he called current successes continued.
Bush raised the prospect of a troop drawdown during a visit to a desert air base in restive Anbar province in western Iraq, where he said violence had declined after local Sunni Arab tribal leaders had turned against al Qaeda militants there. The president flew to Iraq with his security team to meet with U.S. commander General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker for a final review of the war before a showdown in Congress over troop levels.


"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces," Bush said.
Bush is visiting Iraq a week before Petraeus and Crocker testify to Congress on September 10. They will report on the impact of Bush's decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq, a move that increased force numbers to 160,000. Bush has signaled that he wants to maintain a troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar for now, although his latest comments indicated he may be open to some adjustments....

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...rpc=22&sp=true

FOXNews.com - In Surprise Visit to Iraq, Bush Says It's 'Possible' to Start Bringing Troops Home - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum



......"Every day you are successful here in Iraq draws nearer to the day when America can begin calling you and your fellow servicemen home," Bush said.
Bush received a "hoorah" when he said he would not base his deployment decision on "nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."
"When we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do so otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likely that they would attack us at home," Bush said.
Earlier, Bush told reporters that his top deputies there have said it is possible to reduce troops if progress continues......

justone, perhaps you could help me with my problem:
I don't see how even drawing down troops will help create a sustainable foreign US policy. Iraq will still be a very big drain on the resources of our nation, on the military capable people, on the machinery used, on the supplies, and on the fuel.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

justone, perhaps you could help me with my problem:
I don't see how even drawing down troops will help create a sustainable foreign US policy. Iraq will still be a very big drain on the resources of our nation, on the military capable people, on the machinery used, on the supplies, and on the fuel.

Well there are lots of countries that are a big drain on us financially. Not just Iraq. Iraq will become less and less of a drain.

Originally Posted by justoneman

Well there are lots of countries that are a big drain on us financially. Not just Iraq. Iraq will become less and less of a drain.

Well, no country is really that much of a drain on our overall economy; if it was, trust me, the US congress would do something about it.
IE - if Chavez decides to cut off oil, there would be murmurs in Congress to try and topple him.

But the point is that Iraq is costing a billion a week or so. Even if it drops down, that's still a friggin lotta dollars. Even more than dollars, men, fuel, machines, supplies, are all wasted when people are killed or blown up. No other nation destroys the resources of America as much as Iraq is doing right now.

How can we turn Iraq into a sustainable policy? Do you think we have the capability to maintain our presence in Iraq for years? How about decades?

Is there any evidence to show that the cost of the war per week is going down, or that we will be somehow able to recoup the loss of resources that have already occured?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

Well, no country is really that much of a drain on our overall economy; if it was, trust me, the US congress would do something about it.
IE - if Chavez decides to cut off oil, there would be murmurs in Congress to try and topple him.

But the point is that Iraq is costing a billion a week or so. Even if it drops down, that's still a friggin lotta dollars. Even more than dollars, men, fuel, machines, supplies, are all wasted when people are killed or blown up. No other nation destroys the resources of America as much as Iraq is doing right now.

How can we turn Iraq into a sustainable policy? Do you think we have the capability to maintain our presence in Iraq for years? How about decades?

Is there any evidence to show that the cost of the war per week is going down, or that we will be somehow able to recoup the loss of resources that have already occured?

what makes you think Iraq would want us there for years?

Originally Posted by justoneman

what makes you think Iraq would want us there for years?

that's not my point.
My point is that good policy needs to be policy that can be sustained for an extended duration of time.
If a policy cannot be sustained, then a nation is living beyond its means. If a war cannot be sustained, then it should not be engaging in a protracted war, simply because the continuity of a nation is more important than the loss of prestige that would follow withdrawing from that war.

If you are factoring into the plans of the future that at some point in the future the elected government of IRaq will want us out of Iraq, then you concede that our presence in Iraq is not sustainable. And an unsustainable policy is more detrimental to national security then drastically reducing our presence there could ever be.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

that's not my point.
My point is that good policy needs to be policy that can be sustained for an extended duration of time.
If a policy cannot be sustained, then a nation is living beyond its means. If a war cannot be sustained, then it should not be engaging in a protracted war, simply because the continuity of a nation is more important than the loss of prestige that would follow withdrawing from that war.

If you are factoring into the plans of the future that at some point in the future the elected government of IRaq will want us out of Iraq, then you concede that our presence in Iraq is not sustainable. And an unsustainable policy is more detrimental to national security then drastically reducing our presence there could ever be.

the policy is for Iraq to take over their security. that is not new policy. That has been the stated goal all along.

Originally Posted by justoneman

the policy is for Iraq to take over their security. that is not new policy. That has been the stated goal all along.

and do you think:
A) That's feasible
B) Political re-conciliation is feasible.
C) It will be beneficial to the US

Originally Posted by The_Bear

and do you think:
A) That's feasible
B) Political re-conciliation is feasible.
C) It will be beneficial to the US

Since the Iraqi army is about 340,000 strong I would think it very feasible.

Political concilliation is certainly feasible.

If we wanted benefit to the USA we would be taking the oil and controlling the country as our colony.