Well...this is certainly more logical than any position he came forward with during the campaign. I'm gonna excerpt a lot of it...if someone thinks I quoted too much, they can feel free to cut off parts at the end. Emphasis mine.

 

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines — a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

 

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

 

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

 

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

 

For this transition to work, we must finally begin to engage in genuine diplomacy. We must immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton Accords-like summit meeting. In a neutral setting, Iraqis, working with our allies, the Arab League and the United Nations, would be compelled to reach a political agreement that includes security guarantees, the dismantling of the militias and shared goals for reconstruction.

 

To increase the pressure on Iraq's leaders, we must redeploy American forces to garrisoned status. Troops should be used for security backup, training and emergency response; we should leave routine patrols to Iraqi forces. Special operations against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists in Iraq should be initiated only on hard intelligence leads.

 

We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool. Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil, and the United States will be able to maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence with rapid response capacity. An exit from Iraq will also strengthen our hand in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat and allow us to repair the damage of repeated deployments, which flag officers believe has strained military readiness and morale.

 

For three years now, the administration has told us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis. In fact, terrible things are happening now because we haven't gotten tough enough. With two deadlines, we can change all that. We can put the American leadership on the side of our soldiers and push the Iraqi leadership to do what only it can do: build a democracy.

Coulda won the election if he had said this in October of 2004, regardless of if it's realistic or not.

What good is this going to do? Everyone knows it won't happen, so it's just more s*** to spew to see what sticks with the AMERICAN public.

 

I wonder what else anyone can say to see what the AMERICAN public thinks?

 

These days it's all about what the AMERICAN public thinks. I wonder why the AMERICAN public is so important to these political hacks?

It's also terrible policy. Us leaving doesn't stop us from being a recruiting tool. Us staying doesn't stop us from being a recruiting tool. Us being seen as a positive force in the region - stopping poverty and helping to build a strong Iraq does. Unfortunately, nothing we've done in that arena has stuck - yet.

 

Before John Kerry ran for President in 2004, he was a good Senator - a responsible Senator, now he just grandstands.

It's also terrible policy. Us leaving doesn't stop us from being a recruiting tool. Us staying doesn't stop us from being a recruiting tool. Us being seen as a positive force in the region - stopping poverty and helping to build a strong Iraq does. Unfortunately, nothing we've done in that arena has stuck - yet.

 

Before John Kerry ran for President in 2004, he was a good Senator - a responsible Senator, now he just grandstands.

I agree with all of this.

 

The Iraq ware was a mistake, but once we invaded, we had no other choice but to stay the path. We have to do a lot more work before we acn leave.

 

And yeah, Kerry went downhill when his Prez campaign got into gear.

We don't have the option of "staying the course" either. We've done that and that is failing. What we have to do, is fulfill our responsibility to the people of Iraq. Which we aren't doing.

We don't have the option of "staying the course" either. We've done that and that is failing. What we have to do, is fulfill our responsibility to the people of Iraq. Which we aren't doing.

That is why I added the sentence immediately after.

I understand what you meant but I think a lot of people don't appreciate the idea of a third option besides "do the same thing" and "leave."

I understand what you meant but I think a lot of people don't appreciate the idea of a third option besides "do the same thing" and "leave."

There are always 3 doors.

 

When you think of some of the great leaders this country has had, that philosophy is at the heart of all their management styles.

We don't have the option of "staying the course" either. We've done that and that is failing. What we have to do, is fulfill our responsibility to the people of Iraq. Which we aren't doing.

 

So what would you do?

That's a great question.

 

Internationalize our operation. Fly under the flag of NATO, or the UN. I don't know that we can get enough cooperation from the UN because of our previously poor diplomacy there, but having an internationalized force (at least in a name basis) may go a long way to help stem the violence.

 

Get the Arab League involved to help with reconstruction.

 

Actually make reconstruction efforts work.

 

Get more Arab speakers into Iraq that can improve our PR scheme.

 

There are plenty of things that we can do that people way smarter than me have come up with. But its up to our administration to listen to them. So far, they've turned a deaf ear to ideas from outside the inner circle.

That's a great question.

 

Internationalize our operation. Fly under the flag of NATO, or the UN. I don't know that we can get enough cooperation from the UN because of our previously poor diplomacy there, but having an internationalized force (at least in a name basis) may go a long way to help stem the violence.

 

Get the Arab League involved to help with reconstruction.

 

Actually make reconstruction efforts work.

 

Get more Arab speakers into Iraq that can improve our PR scheme.

 

There are plenty of things that we can do that people way smarter than me have come up with. But its up to our administration to listen to them. So far, they've turned a deaf ear to ideas from outside the inner circle.

I agree that basically all of those are good ideas. The problem is...things have gotten so bad over there that there's really no guarantee that even if we do all of them...things won't wind up in a full scale middle eastern war. It'd at least be an improvement over the "Stay the course" mess we've already gotten ourselves in, but there's a good chance that if we did all of those, the whole area would explode anyway.

 

But given that the whole area seems almost sure to explode if we do "Stay the course", at least trying that would be better than nothing.

If it explodes, it explodes. It will explode if we leave, which would be bad. There's a better shot that it won't if we stay and at least try to improve the situation.

If it explodes, it explodes. It will explode if we leave, which would be bad. There's a better shot that it won't if we stay and at least try to improve the situation.

I'm not even so sure about that claim...the U.S. troops in that country are a focal point for everyone to complain about, no matter who's command they're under. They're a target for the Sunnis and a scapegoat for the Shi'a. They prevent the Shi'a from grabbing power, and they can't provide security for any party. Clearly there needs to be a significant outside presence from somewhere...but the more U.S. troops stay, the bigger the U.S. footprint, and the harder it'll be for anything to get done.

I guess I used we in the larger sense. If left to its own devices, Iran will come in and take tactical advantage of the Iraqi situation.

I guess I used we in the larger sense. If left to its own devices, Iran will come in and take tactical advantage of the Iraqi situation.

As scary as this sounds, I think that is exactly what some are aiming for, if you know what I mean. It gives us the excuse.

Which would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Which would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Which makes it more and more likely that it's exactly what we're going to do.

Which would be exactly the wrong thing to do.

Oh, I agree - but I think they are setting up to say that Iraq was "infiltrated" by Iran - among other reasons - to start bombing the crap out of them.

That's just Bushbashing!

 

Honestly, I think you might have a point but it would be real difficult to motivate the American public to support an attack on Iran at this point. I don't know how doable that really is.

 

I sometimes get the feeling that the government is trying to condition us for a state of perpetual war. That kinda concerns me.

Honestly, I think you might have a point but it would be real difficult to motivate the American public to support an attack on Iran at this point. I don't know how doable that really is.

Remember, George W. Bush doesn't listen to polls; or at least he doesn't personally have to face voters again. No matter how unpopular a strike on Iran may be, if they decide they want to do so, there's nothing anyone could do about it. Unless the army mutinied, and you can guess how likely that is.

 

If I had to guess? I'll bet that they'll start talking a lot about Iran sometime in September (You don't introduce a new product in August, remember?) and they'll try to beat the Democrats over the head with it in the fall election as their only real national security issue they can point to. They won't push for a resolution or anything before the election, but after it happens...watch out.

 

Remember, under the War Powers act, the President can deploy U.S. troops without consulting Congress for 60 days. That's plenty of time for air strikes.

He can't follow the same pattern this time, the political climate is much different and much less forgiving. Although I could see an effort to make something happen - and perhaps limited air strikes, I just don't see a groundswell of support to make this stuff happen.

He can't follow the same pattern this time, the political climate is much different and much less forgiving. Although I could see an effort to make something happen - and perhaps limited air strikes, I just don't see a groundswell of support to make this stuff happen.

I think everyone's talk about "limited airstrikes" is shortsighted and dangerous. This is not Iraq, where we could (in 2002, say) have just bombed some targets and called it a victory. Iran has a significantly stronger military, with an air force with regional reach, and possibly nuclear weapons. Any limited strike would result in serious military reaction from Iran, not to mention it would close the door fully on any sort of negotiations on the nukes. And the thing is, we don't have the military strength available right now to handle it if Iran put an assault on Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

There is no halfway military plan with Iran. If we attack, which I hope like hell we don't, it's going to be WORSE than Iraq in every way. And I think BushCo is smart enough to know that. So there will be no Iran attacks in this administration, unless we are confident that Iran is near finishing a nuke AND we can take out that target. Even then, I suspect Israel would do the deed, not us.

You're right. Limited airstrikes = full scale invasion. I hope and pray that the folks running State and Defense understand that.

You're right. Limited airstrikes = full scale invasion. I hope and pray that the folks running State and Defense understand that.

Defense Department thinking:

 

Limited airstrikes = Iranian Nuclear program is disabled = Iranian people rise up against Iranian government = Walmarts in Tehran = flowers thrown at U.S. troops.

 

I think they really are willing to try doing this as limited airstrikes, because otherwise there would be ZERO talk about military options for Iran right now, since our army is slightly busy with a population 1/3 that of Iran. President Bush would not keep saying "All options are on the table" and so forth.