a free Iraq smack dab in the middle of the middle east can quite possibly create the setting for a rennaisance.

Sonosam on July 9, 2008 at 9:46 PM

So with all the $hit in the Islamic world you just know there has got to be a pony around there someplace.

Islam and renaissance are at war with each other.

MB4 on July 9, 2008 at 6:46 PM

I stand by it.

When the soviets fell a great number of the countries that fell under their oppression have had promising entry into the free world.

And, they are generally supporters of efforts against tyranny being fresh from such a state.

What do they know?, right?

You bet,

a free Iraq smack dab in the middle of the middle east can quite possibly create the setting for a rennaisance.

That, boys and girls, is surrender.

Really, it’s not that hard to understand.

jl on July 9, 2008 at 8:13 PM

If you view the Islamic nation building as some kind of sports event and/or are into Dolchstosslegende redux.

Really, it’s not that hard to understand.

the Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s are trying their damnedest to screw a victory in Iraq too!

byteshredder on July 9, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Beware the Dolchstosslegende redux.

The shame is you will be happier if this happens so as to be able slam Bush,

By that “logic” a doctor is shameful if he diagnosis a patient with cancer instead of lying to him.

more than if Iraqis do run a legitimate country and start the renaissance for the middle east.

Sonosam on July 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM

“renaissance for the middle east”. LOL.

Yes, they didn’t say “surrender in Iraq,” but they sure weren’t calling for victory in Iraq either. So, you make the logical leap about what they were calling for.

Keith_Indy on July 9, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Accusing those who think we should leave Iraq of being for “surrender” is simular to calling those who do not believe in Al Gore’s Apocolyiptic Global Warming, “deniers” or calling those who do not believe in “affermitive action” racists or calling those who do not belive in McCain/Kennedy “Immigration reform”, “nativists”.

It’s all the same show, just under a different tent.

I think Iraq would be better off if we’d pulled out in 2003.

And we’d have had an extra trillion dollars to spend on things that actually matter to America.

I doubt Maliki will win next year’s elections.

Look for someone who demonizes America and loves Iran to take over Iraq next year no matter what we do.

Probably some al Sadr stooge.

alphie on July 9, 2008 at 11:52 AM

The shame is you will be happier if this happens so as to be able slam Bush, more than if Iraqis do run a legitimate country and start the renaissance for the middle east.

Timetables for Iraq?

IMO, an Iraq timetable would be a massive mistake!

Past PC politicians have screwed up every conflict we’ve ever been in. Not to be outdone, the Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s are trying their damnedest to screw a victory in Iraq too!

Yes, they didn’t say “surrender in Iraq,” but they sure weren’t calling for victory in Iraq either. So, you make the logical leap about what they were calling for.

Iraq has been talking about a timeline for US withdrawal.Iraq’s prime minister said Monday his country is now proposing an interim deal with the United States on the presence of American troops instead of a more formal agreement — and…

Democrats wanted timetables for withdrawal in order to surrender in Iraq

That claim is absurd as I have never heard anyone call for “Surrender in Iraq”.

We will probably be down to 7 by the end of 2009.
The only reason it will be this long is we are using our combat brigades as partner units for new IA formations in combat operations. (OJT) also, the IA does not have sufficient Engineers or any Field Artillery yet. Those are planned for 2009/10.

By 2011, the Iraqi ground force should be built to sufficient levels. We will be down to covering the air bases and providing Air Defense. Training the IZAF is the long pole. 2018/20 before they can do that alone…

Iraq has less than 1/10th of our population.

Every 300 Iraqi civilians killed = one 9/11 to them.

Recalculate…and imagine America if we were suffering through a 9/11 every few weeks.

Victory?

Seriously though, will McCain and the rest of the “just like South Korea” crowd throw the permanent base idea under the bus? I noticed that there was no mention of that in Ed’s piece.

I wondered the same. Ed didn’t explicitly mention it, but the article seems to. Moreover, as a capella said above, a base might no longer be necessary if the Iran threat is off the table.

The State Dep’t spokesman said:

“Two things we’ve made very clear from the beginning of the process — the first is that we’re going to deal as sovereign nations working towards an agreement that satisfies both of our needs,…

What about the impending genocide? No mention of that hysteria either. I guess the factions have suddenly found common ground?

Genocide averted. The good guys are mopping up now. We won. Sorry to have to tell you the bad news Chen. You can commiserate with Al-Qaeda.

You guys can spin this as some evidence of “victory”, but I saw it as inevitable

.

Yes Chen. You’re absolutely right. We lost. Iran took over Iraq. Most of our soldiers were killed. The lucky ones got out on the last camel.

The Iraqis have favored a timetable all along, and I’m sure it never occurred to you guys that the reason why we’ve encountered so much resistance there for so long is related to the fact that the administration had been so opposed to it.

ChenZhen on July 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Link or slink. Or do we just take your word for it?

With a timetable for withdrawal set by Iraq, that means we can have a VI (victory in Iraq) day with an accompanying parade. Yes?

That’s how many we had in Germany during the post war reconstruction period. Of course, part of those were facing the Russians, but not in the beginning.

I would say that the number of troops for a more significant and focused reconstruction will depend on how much you want to get done by when and how much you want to give it to the Iraqis to figure out.

A democratic state in the Middle East that is an American ally………………Bush, you magnificent bastard!

Politically, at least, it’s unrealistic of mission supporters to remain obstinately opposed to timetables after the victory has been secured.

I’ve not heard anyone stating that we should stay in Iraq beyond when Iraqis want us to leave, or don’t need us anymore.

As far as permanent bases, it’s always been with the understanding, if the Iraqis agree to it. I think it would be a good idea to have bases there, but that’s an opinion, not an inflexible policy (like exiting Iraq no matter what the conditions.) If it makes sense for our national security, we should try to negotiate for bases, if it doesn’t we don’t.

“So let me get this straight … when the dems called for a timetable it was a defeat, when the Iraqis call for one it is victory and a job well done?”

Yes,
That is correct.

The whole point of this exercise was to get the Iraqi govt to tell us when they are ready for us to leave.