• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq hints at a timeline

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Link

Minister Sees Need for U.S. Help in Iraq Until 2018


By THOM SHANKER
Published: January 15, 2008
FORT MONROE, Va. ? The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq?s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.

Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir?s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.

President Bush has never given a date for a military withdrawal from Iraq but has repeatedly said that American forces would stand down as Iraqi forces stand up. Given Mr. Qadir?s assessment of Iraq?s military capabilities on Monday, such a withdrawal appeared to be quite distant, and further away than any American officials have previously stated in public.

Mr. Qadir?s comments are likely to become a factor in political debate over the war. All of the Democratic presidential candidates have promised a swift American withdrawal, while the leading Republican candidates have generally supported President Bush?s plan. Now that rough dates have been attached to his formula, they will certainly come under scrutiny from both sides.

Senior Pentagon and military officials said Mr. Qadir had been consistent throughout his weeklong visit in pressing that timeline, and also in laying out requests for purchasing new weapons through Washington?s program of foreign military sales.

?According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,? Mr. Qadir said in an interview on Monday, conducted in Arabic through an interpreter.

?In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020,? he added.

He offered no specifics on a timeline for reducing the number of American troops in Iraq.

His statements were slightly less optimistic than what he told an independent United States commission examining the progress of Iraqi security forces last year, according to the September report of the commission, led by a former NATO commander, Gen. James L. Jones of the Marines, who is retired. Then Mr. Qadir said he expected that Iraq would be able to fully defend its borders by 2018.

Mr. Qadir was in the United States to discuss the two nations? long-term military relationship, starting with how to build the new Iraqi armed forces from the ground up over the next decade and beyond, with American assistance.

The United States and Iraq announced in November that they would negotiate formal agreements on that relationship, including the legal status of American military forces remaining in Iraq and an array of measures for cooperation in the diplomatic and economic arenas.

Negotiations have yet to begin in earnest, but both countries have begun sketching their goals, and Mr. Qadir?s visit certainly is part of measures by the Iraqi government to lay the foundation for those talks, which are to be completed by July.

?This trip is indicative of where we are in our military relationship with Iraq,? said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. ?We are transitioning from crisis mode, from dealing with day-to-day battlefield decisions, to a long-term strategic relationship.?

Mr. Morrell said the goal was to end a period in which Iraq has been a military dependent and build a relationship with Iraq as ?a more traditional military partner.?

Meanwhile, Mr. Qadir sketched out a shopping list that included ground vehicles and helicopters, as well as tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers.

Those, he said, are needed as Iraq moves toward taking full responsibility for internal security. In the years after that, as his nation assumes full control over its defense against foreign threats, Iraq will need additional aircraft, both warplanes and reconnaissance vehicles, he said.

Pentagon officials said that Mr. Qadir?s visit, which includes the usual agenda of meetings at the Pentagon, White House and on Capitol Hill, was expanded to include his first talks with commanders of American headquarters that are responsible for long-term military planning, training, personnel development and doctrine.

Mr. Qadir, a career armor officer who commanded Iraqi troops who fought alongside Marine Corps forces during the battle for Falluja in 2004, spent part of Monday here, at the headquarters of the Army?s Training and Doctrine Command, where he questioned senior officers on how the ground force trains its leaders, from sergeants through senior officers.

Even in wartime, ?it is a requirement for somebody to think about the future,? said Gen. William S. Wallace, the Army?s training and doctrine commander. While Army training cannot ignore ?the urgency of the next assignment,? General Wallace told his visitor, the complexity of modern warfare proved the importance of the Army?s program of pulling its leadership out of the fight on a routine schedule to take courses on tactics, operations and strategy, as well as logistics.

At a meeting with senior officers at the nearby Joint Forces Command, Mr. Qadir was told of the American military?s latest efforts at synchronizing the efforts of its ground, air and naval forces for combat, and to use computer exercises to train headquarters units for deployment.

?We are keenly aware that you are not engaged in an exercise in your country,? said Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander.

General Mattis acknowledged how different the dialogue with Mr. Qadir was on Monday from when the two served together in Falluja. Iraq is still at war, General Mattis said, but Mr. Qadir is carrying out the traditional functions of any regular defense minister.

It is a positive development that ?it is just the norm to have an Iraqi come and visit us,? General Mattis said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Rather optimistic considering that we have been in Japan and Germany for over 60 years. I would like to see them start paying some of the bills, as their economy blasts off.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?
 
we stay, they pay us for our stay.
they don't have money, therefore all your oil are belong to us.
 
Originally posted by: PHiuR
we stay, they pay us for our stay.
they don't have money, therefore all your oil are belong to us.

Yeah that's a sure fire way to "win the hearts and minds" of the locals. :roll:

That is unless you're one of the "take the fight to the terrerists" types. Who knows, there's myriad reasons we've been given as to why we went and why we remain but the fact remains the only viable solution to this bullshit quagmire is diplomatic in nature. Unfortunately that pretty much rules out stealing there oil as a cost of our "liberation."
 
The worst part is that 1/3rd of this country still approves of Bush, who led the US into this mess. I see people here defend it, too, although the argument these days is "Let's stop arguing about whether it was right or wrong but rather what to do NOW", like they just want the bad dream to go away and it somehow puts their fvcking idiotic commander in chump on an even-footing with others, because all sides are trying to look forward.

So, the US has just gained another nice big border to defend just like it has in Korea and just like it has here although the one here is basically ignored, hence the 1-2M illegals who flood through it each year. Whoo hoo!
 
The point is that I can't defend my own home if a gang of armed thugs decide to break in. That is why most citizens of the US depend on their local police. And all in all it works out well.

And Kuwait could not defend their borders either. Nor can most of the small mid-east monarchies. But we all see what happened when Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. What it boiled down to, the international police forced Saddam out.

And by that analogy, a large set of Iraq's neighbors might want to basically take over Iraq militarily, but as long as the US and the international community stood ready to enforce Iraqi sovereignty, they would be out of their mind nutso to try the stunt. Nor would it per say take
ground troops, a massive build up, or a long lead time. Because even a nearby air craft carrier could basically inflict massive damage on the home infrastructure of any country foolish enough to try it.

So I see the issue of defending Iraqi sovereignty as a basic non issue in terms of having to leave a massive US troop presence until Iraq is ready to defend itself from foreign threats.

Iraqi internal security is another matter. And there has been no progress there. Were it not for Iraqi insurgents asserting some local control, the whole country would be in total anarchy.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that I can't defend my own home if a gang of armed thugs decide to break in. That is why most citizens of the US depend on their local police. And all in all it works out well.

And Kuwait could not defend their borders either. Nor can most of the small mid-east monarchies. But we all see what happened when Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. What it boiled down to, the international police forced Saddam out.

And by that analogy, a large set of Iraq's neighbors might want to basically take over Iraq militarily, but as long as the US and the international community stood ready to enforce Iraqi sovereignty, they would be out of their mind nutso to try the stunt. Nor would it per say take
ground troops, a massive build up, or a long lead time. Because even a nearby air craft carrier could basically inflict massive damage on the home infrastructure of any country foolish enough to try it.

So I see the issue of defending Iraqi sovereignty as a basic non issue in terms of having to leave a massive US troop presence until Iraq is ready to defend itself from foreign threats.

Iraqi internal security is another matter. And there has been no progress there. Were it not for Iraqi insurgents asserting some local control, the whole country would be in total anarchy.
The Iraqi defense minister says something different. Of course though, you know that's not the case, because you are in expert in what exactly?

 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?

It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?

I am proposing that we maintain our footprint there, until the region runs out of oil.

 
As Nebor says---It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.


Who precisely asked us to come liberate them Iraq? I hope you are not talking about Washington DC Achmed Chalibi who was raking in the big bucks hawking that message. That and his friend curve ball and screw ball. And when later asked why he lied, ole Chalibi said it got you into Iraq didn't it. Quite frankly, we should have just shipped Chalibi off to Jordan where he already convicted of bank embezzlement.

But meanwhile Nebor, who IN IRAQ of any standing asked us to liberate them.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Nebor
It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

:thumbsup:

LOL you don't really believe that, do you?
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Nebor says---It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.


Who precisely asked us to come liberate them Iraq? I hope you are not talking about Washington DC Achmed Chalibi who was raking in the big bucks hawking that message. That and his friend curve ball and screw ball. And when later asked why he lied, ole Chalibi said it got you into Iraq didn't it. Quite frankly, we should have just shipped Chalibi off to Jordan where he already convicted of bank embezzlement.

But meanwhile Nebor, who IN IRAQ of any standing asked us to liberate them.
Lots of people did, first and foremost the 100k+ Iraqis and 3k+ Americans who are now liberated from their lives.

--

The war was never about liberation. Ostensibly about WMD. In reality, who knows, but WMD was the tagline at the time.
 
Ozoned asserts------The Iraqi defense minister says something different. Of course though, you know that's not the case, because you are in expert in what exactly?

You have it exactly wrong, I am not asserting expertise, I am applying logic tests to what the Iraqi defense minister is saying. And am pointing out it does not quite compute. And if I have any expertise, its in being fleeced by various so called experts I doubt because they can't meet the simple logic tests foolish people forget to apply. And since there are more fools than logical people, by majority rules, the fools set the policy. You can choose your group ozoned, but when you make foolish statements like you made, you done joined the fools.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ozoned asserts------The Iraqi defense minister says something different. Of course though, you know that's not the case, because you are in expert in what exactly?

You have it exactly wrong, I am not asserting expertise, I am applying logic tests to what the Iraqi defense minister is saying. And am pointing out it does not quite compute. And if I have any expertise, its in being fleeced by various so called experts I doubt because they can't meet the simple logic tests foolish people forget to apply. And since there are more fools than logical people, by majority rules, the fools set the policy. You can choose your group ozoned, but when you make foolish statements like you made, you done joined the fools.
It's not logical that Iraq can make some progress with our fostering.

~Heh... You aint no fool, your a tool.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Nebor
It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

:thumbsup:

Yeah that worked for Israel right, oh wait........

Yeah that worked for Russia after WWII, oh wait.......


I would say that we have a pretty horrible record of collecting on past debts, in both of these examples I cited the offending party basically told us to go fuck ourselves and we did.

If you expect Iraq to ever give us anything for what we have done you are a complete fool.
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?

It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

Funny, I don't remember the part where they asked.
 
Now ozoned makes a new statement totally unrelated to anything previously said.---It's not logical that Iraq can make some progress with our fostering.

Because you phrase it as a statement rather than a question, it implies either some missing logical steps from statement to conclusion or a case of you asserting some expertise. But anytime an assertion is made, it becomes logical fair game to examine it.

But in way of review, the ozoned statement is that Iraq can't make "progress" without the USA.

Now immediately need a definition of progress. And are we talking internal or external security progress? And because logic somewhat demands any statement be compared with its devil's advocate opposite, we can ask what happens if we leave Iraq tomorrow. And if so,
do we guarantee external or internal security for Iraq? And at the present rate of hemorrhaging money and lives, how long can we continue to do so in event of no progress?

But now your statement is taking us a long way from what the Iraqi defense minister is saying. And even if we agree with your argument that Iraq will go to hell in a handbasket if we leave, it still implies fast progress beats slow progress.

 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?

It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

Funny, I don't remember the part where they asked.

It was more of a common sentiment amongst the Iraqi people. They wanted it, but due to their oppressive government they were not free to ask for it. Iraqi ex-pats were asking for it loud and clear though. And the Iraqi people's support of it was clear when they cheered US tanks rolling through their towns.

I agree that the debt could be hard to collect on, but who are you to sign a contract with when one of your goals is demolishing the existing government?
 
He merely said that they can't take FULL responsibility until 2012/2018.

The proportion of bearing the burden should be ever increasing throughtout that time, meaning a reduction in commitment & resources.

And as far their ability to defend their borders from other countries, that can be at least partially accomplish through with NATO like mutual defense treaties. Before neighboring tanks proceed too far into Iraq we could launch air assualts from the Persian Gulf through Iraqi airspace.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre
We can't afford to be there that long. Hell, we can't afford to be there now.


At current market prices, Iraq has around 20 trillion usd dollars of oil in its sands,,,maybe more. We can hang around and pay 20 trillion for it, or leave and pay 100 trillion for it. I think we can afford to hang around for a bit longer...

Are you proposing that we steal it, via paying only for the occupation?

Or are you proposing the Iraqi gov't sell us that oil cheaper than they could elsewhere?

It's not stealing. It's collecting on debt. They asked us to come liberate them, knowing that they couldn't pay. So in the future when they're flush with money, they will repay us.

Funny, I don't remember the part where they asked.

It was more of a common sentiment amongst the Iraqi people. They wanted it, but due to their oppressive government they were not free to ask for it. Iraqi ex-pats were asking for it loud and clear though. And the Iraqi people's support of it was clear when they cheered US tanks rolling through their towns.

I agree that the debt could be hard to collect on, but who are you to sign a contract with when one of your goals is demolishing the existing government?

So your saying we should run our goverment by what other countries want? Or what we "divine" they want?

Verrry interestink.
 
Back
Top