The most glaring mis statement of fact has to be from non Prof John with---About the only President I can think of that did exactly what he said he was going to do via military policy was Reagan who had been giving speechs about how to combat the Soviets for 20+ years and did exactly what he had spoke about.
Is Jonney talking about the same Reagan who admitted to selling arms to Iran and up to his eyeballs in Iran Contra?
But getting back to Iraq, what GWB, McCain, Obama , or Hillary does between now and some future then is raw speculation. And a troop withdrawal is a somewhat meaningless term. If we can call a small increase in troops a surge,
withdrawing even one brigade is technically a draw down. And as Non Prof John and others have pointed out, the current troop numbers in Iraq are unsustainable without major modifications and a draconian extension of tours of duty.
So I would not be surprised to see GWB point to those lesser numbers come summer and say, see we are withdrawing troops. The McCain plan is to somehow hope that the Iraqi occupation magically transforms itself into the equivalent of the German and Japanese occupations following WW2. And that the US drain in blood and treasure also magically reduces to some easily sustainable level. A great plan, but devils in the details hooker, McCain seems to have no real plan on how to get from the quagmire it is now to the paradise he wants.
As far as I can see, the Obama and Hillary plans are similar. And they somewhat promise to begin withdrawing troops almost immediately while saying to the Iraqi government, quit diddling around, we will be withdrawing and are going to
be handing it off to you. Best start getting your stuff together. And with either Hillary or Obama, there is some hope that
both will try something called diplomacy on something other than a my way or the highway basis. In short something GWB has never tried in the history of the Iraqi occupation and its perhaps the only plan that can offer any long term stability. And something that could get the international community to help pitch in.
The two jokers in the deck are Iraq itself and many of its neighbors. Gone are the days when the insurgencies could be called Saddam Hussein dead enders. The Iraqi insurgencies are now deeply entrenched, well armed, the insurgents have the hegemony and power on the local level, and that power once gained will not be easily given up. And Iraqi is in a constantly evolving state of flux. We are well past the birth pangs of a infant monster, its not full grown yet, and its certainly not well behaved. And just as we start taming the Sunni insurgencies, the much larger Shia insurgencies are threatening to have a temper tantrum. As I write this, an uneasy cease fire exists, and in situations like that, just one hot head is all it takes. For Iraq's neighbors, the situation is equally perilous, Even if they are perfectly behaved, an Iraq that threatens to burn down can't fail to threaten their house also. And thats their worse case scenario, a major civil war in Iraq is almost certain to spill across Iraqi borders. To pretend that Iraq's neighbors don't have contingency plans to turn from basically passive spectators into aggressive lighters of back fires defies logic.
So here we are in coming into early April, After all, Aprils fools day is tomorrow. We don't have much of a clear picture of what Iraq will look like in late August, or even come the November US elections. We are more captives to Iraqi events than the shapers of events. And any next US President must be deeply worried that getting out too fast may be
be extremely risky. Which partly explains why all candidates are being somewhat vague.
The real myth may be that Iraq is something even short term maintainable and we are the deciders. At any time and for any one of a large number of reasons, Iraq could go into a state of total civil war very quickly. And then the metric question may be can we get our troops out alive fast enough?
Facebook
Twitter