Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=44298

Robert D. Novak:
Looks like U.S. troops will be leaving Iraq early next year
By ROBERT D. NOVAK

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the President or President-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his present national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials.

 

[duderon]

yeah, i can't see this happening..

 

[Prospero]

Looks like Bush is pulling out the Nixon '72 playbook.

 

[Incognito]

what the fuck?

 

[RiZ III]

Another Afghanistan. Yay.

 

[Saturnman]

Flip Flop!

 

[Flynn]

Courting those on the fence.

 

[Alucard]

Can anyone explain to me what US soldiers are still actually doing in Iraq? I'm being totally serious. I have almost zero clue as to what's going on over there. Has a government been set up or what?

 

[Saturnman]

Helping with the nation building part (what's left of it anyway), assisting pitiful Iraqi forces and keeping a US presence so that the permanent bases they were dreaming about before the war becomes reality.

 

[KingV]

Pulling out of Iraq would be catastrophic for the Iraqi people. A horrible decision. If Bush came out and said this was his plan, I'd vote for Kerry. Follow through, dammit.

 

[Incognito]

Kerry is finally getting to the point:

The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

 

[3rdman]

You must understand that all that is of interest to these people is the oil. For Iraq to break out into civil war would be great if it means continued, unfettered access to the oil fields. Let them kill themselves while we keep the "gold."

This administration has shown no remorse over the hell they've created over there...you expect them to care about the Iraqi people now?

Edit: Bush sucks.

 

[ErasureAcer]

The insurgents win if America leaves. The insurgents win if America stays.

Bush didn't plan this out very well did he?

Why does a moron like him have so much power to fuck with the world?

 

[NWO]

Can anyone explain to me what US soldiers are still actually doing in Iraq?

The President and VP can't even explain it so how is anybody here suppose to know.....

 

[Dan]

Kerry is finally getting to the point:

All well and good, but if he's elected what's he going to do about it? That's what needs to be said, or at the very least, that's what he needs to know if he plans on doing anything right if elected.

 

[KingGondo]

Guys, remember: this is Robert Novak, from the Daily Show:

"Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty"

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Guys, remember: this is Robert Novak, from the Daily Show:

"Robert Novak: Douchebag of Liberty"

And recent recepiant of the Politcal Douchebag Play of the Week.

 

[ErasureAcer]

He's also the moron who outed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent, as he learned through his connections with top administration officials.

 

[Flynn]

Can anyone explain to me what US soldiers are still actually doing in Iraq? I'm being totally serious. I have almost zero clue as to what's going on over there. Has a government been set up or what?

Here's what we do know: They're dying.

 

[iapetus]

All well and good, but if he's elected what's he going to do about it? That's what needs to be said, or at the very least, that's what he needs to know if he plans on doing anything right if elected.

Um. He's announced that. From the BBC News coverage of his speech on the future of Iraq:

He offered his own four-point plan for handling the conflict:

* Get more help from other nations

* Provide better training for Iraqi security forces

* Provide benefits to the Iraqi people

* Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

Hope this detailed plan for resolving the issues in Iraq is of use.

 

[Haddonfield]

Um. He's announced that. From the BBC News coverage of his speech on the future of Iraq:



Hope this detailed plan for resolving the issues in Iraq is of use.

that is an amazing plan... i wish it wasnt so detailed though, it makes it hard for me.. the layman.

 

[gblues]

Kerry is finally getting to the point:
The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

You think Bush made this up? No, he got it from his intelligence people.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.

When?

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

Apparently Kerry thinks Bush has some sort of time machine to see the future and know exactly how many troops were needed. How many other gov't projects have gone overbudget?

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

Bad intellegence again.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

More bad intelligence. And I would like to point out that Kerry, if he'd been in office at the time, would've gotten the exact same intelligence, and might have made the exact same decisions.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

And you would've done things differently exactly... how, Mr. Kerry?

Nathan

 

[BigJonsson]

Would have gotten more help from other countries?

Let the weapons inspectors conclude that there were no weapons?

 

[Makura]

He offered his own four-point plan for handling the conflict:

* Get more help from other nations

* Provide better training for Iraqi security forces

* Provide benefits to the Iraqi people

* Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

Is that it? These things are already being done.

 

[xsarien]

Is that it? These things are already being done.

Point 1 won't happen as long as Bush is in office.

 

[Dan]

He offered his own four-point plan for handling the conflict:

* Get more help from other nations

* Provide better training for Iraqi security forces

* Provide benefits to the Iraqi people

* Ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

Yeah, to my knowledge some of this is being done already.

Besides, when I meant that Kerry needed to say what he'd do exactly, I didn't mean what vague promises he'd make with absolutely no plan as to how they'd be implemented. Anyone can say random stuff about 'doing this' and 'doing that' but the how is what's important. Sure, this is a step up from just complaining about Bush, but it still doesn't paint any realistic picture of what he can hope to accomplish. He might as well say that he'll just magically make everything perfect, it's just as useful a statement as the above.

 

[videogamer]

You think Bush made this up? No, he got it from his intelligence people.



When?



Apparently Kerry thinks Bush has some sort of time machine to see the future and know exactly how many troops were needed. How many other gov't projects have gone overbudget?



Bad intellegence again.



More bad intelligence. And I would like to point out that Kerry, if he'd been in office at the time, would've gotten the exact same intelligence, and might have made the exact same decisions.



And you would've done things differently exactly... how, Mr. Kerry?

Nathan

It's Bush's fault for acting on the "bad intelligence". Where does the buck stop? I honestly doubt that we would be in Iraq this way if Gore were president.

 

[Fresh Prince]

To be honest it's in the past, what's done is done. Hopefully when Bush/Kerry gets elected they gets their shit together, so the people of Iraq have thier peace and democray and America and it allies don't suffer an 'blow back'. One's hoping anyway....

 

[Mandark]

The "bad intelligence" talking point is so lame. At the start of the war, the dominant meme was Bush had forced the calcified, prejudiced intelligence community to take a new look at Iraq. And now we have gblues attaching it to issues that are obviously no intelligence-related (welcomed as liberators).

Of course Bush doesn't have soothsaying powers, but he really didn't need them. His own generals said they'd need more troops, and previous peacekeeping efforts showed a precedent for much larger troop levels.

I do think Kerry would be preferable to Bush in terms of Iraq, for several reasons.

1) For the goals and strategies they share, Kerry is more likely to accomplish them. Or rather, Bush and his adminstration have already shown they can screw them up.

Both candidates agree on the need for economic reconstruction, but under Bush, only a tiny fraction of the budgeted amount has been spent. Both agree on the need to train troops, but the effort to create an Iraqi security force has been a farce so far.

I don't know how successful a Kerry administration would be in executing their plan in Iraq, but I already know how badly the Bush administration has mismanaged the situation.

2) Kerry actually admits that Iraq isn't doing so well, whereas Bush is "pleased with the progress." If someone makes a mess, then doesn't acknowledge that it's there, I have no reason to believe they'll clean it up.

3) Kerry would have a bit more leverage in terms of internationalizing the effort. This is another thing on which I'm not sure how well he could do, but it's obvious he'd do better than Bush. European leaders would generally have to deal with less domestic opposition to cooperating with the US, and Kerry wouldn't do silly things like limit reconstruction contracts to countries in the Coalition of the Willing.

4) Kerry has proposed to do things that Bush has not. The most prominent is a conference among the countries neighboring Iraq to make sure they respect its border, and to get Iraq's domestic leaders to pledge to protect minority rights (which Kerry sees as an easy pretense for outside interference).

Syria, Iran, and Turkey all have motivations for meddling in Iraqi affairs, and I don't think anyone here thinks the consequences of that would be good.

All in all, I'm not sure that we will "win the peace" in Iraq, or that it is even possible now, by the original mission goals. The situation is bad and has been getting progressively worse; anyone would be very hard-pressed to find a working strategy for it. However, I do know that giving four more years of authority to the people who got us to this point just does not make sense as a solution.

 

[sc0la]

You think Bush made this up? No, he got it from his intelligence people.



When?



Apparently Kerry thinks Bush has some sort of time machine to see the future and know exactly how many troops were needed. How many other gov't projects have gone overbudget?



Bad intellegence again.



More bad intelligence. And I would like to point out that Kerry, if he'd been in office at the time, would've gotten the exact same intelligence, and might have made the exact same decisions.



And you would've done things differently exactly... how, Mr. Kerry?

Nathan

Just because his intelligence was bad doesn't mean they were not wrong. There are also some who claim that the administration sets the tone for the intelligence community. No one is faulting him for not being able to tell the future, no one can, they are faulting him for presiding over a system that has been categorically wrong over and over on the issue.

What Mr. Kerry would have done (or any one else, Gore etc. for that matter) is largely moot. What they will do now is what is most telling.

EDIT: Beaten by mandark who owned more thuroughly.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

He's keeping his plans close, I think it would be a big mistake for him to announce his plans completely so soon before the Debates.

 

[Loki]

The "bad intelligence" talking point is so lame. At the start of the war, the dominant meme was Bush had forced the calcified, prejudiced intelligence community to take a new look at Iraq. And now we have gblues attaching it to issues that are obviously no intelligence-related (welcomed as liberators).

Of course Bush doesn't have soothsaying powers, but he really didn't need them. His own generals said they'd need more troops, and previous peacekeeping efforts showed a precedent for much larger troop levels.

I do think Kerry would be preferable to Bush in terms of Iraq, for several reasons.

1) For the goals and strategies they share, Kerry is more likely to accomplish them. Or rather, Bush and his adminstration have already shown they can screw them up.

Both candidates agree on the need for economic reconstruction, but under Bush, only a tiny fraction of the budgeted amount has been spent. Both agree on the need to train troops, but the effort to create an Iraqi security force has been a farce so far.

I don't know how successful a Kerry administration would be in executing their plan in Iraq, but I already know how badly the Bush administration has mismanaged the situation.

2) Kerry actually admits that Iraq isn't doing so well, whereas Bush is "pleased with the progress." If someone makes a mess, then doesn't acknowledge that it's there, I have no reason to believe they'll clean it up.

3) Kerry would have a bit more leverage in terms of internationalizing the effort. This is another thing on which I'm not sure how well he could do, but it's obvious he'd do better than Bush. European leaders would generally have to deal with less domestic opposition to cooperating with the US, and Kerry wouldn't do silly things like limit reconstruction contracts to countries in the Coalition of the Willing.

4) Kerry has proposed to do things that Bush has not. The most prominent is a conference among the countries neighboring Iraq to make sure they respect its border, and to get Iraq's domestic leaders to pledge to protect minority rights (which Kerry sees as an easy pretense for outside interference).

Syria, Iran, and Turkey all have motivations for meddling in Iraqi affairs, and I don't think anyone here thinks the consequences of that would be good.

All in all, I'm not sure that we will "win the peace" in Iraq, or that it is even possible now, by the original mission goals. The situation is bad and has been getting progressively worse; anyone would be very hard-pressed to find a working strategy for it. However, I do know that giving four more years of authority to the people who got us to this point just does not make sense as a solution.

Great post. You know how I feel about voting (lesser of two evils, blah blah), and so I'm not about to vote for Kerry (or anybody), but this is about as good a synopsis of the pertinent electoral issues vis-a-vis Iraq as you'll find.