Originally Posted By TomSawyer Rummy's gone, and the James Baker recommendations will be released in the next couple of weeks. Do you think this signals a significant change of strategy in Iraq? It gives Bush and Congress both the ability to save face over the issue, and let's Bush take action without really admitting that the strategy so far has been less than successful.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Do you think this signals a significant change of strategy in Iraq? It gives Bush and Congress both the ability to save face over the issue, and let's Bush take action without really admitting that the strategy so far has been less than successful.>> It also lets the Iraqi insurgents agree to lay down their arms while saving face, just like Iran released the hostages after Reagan was elected. They can say that the American people have shown their distaste for the war and George Bush, and that the primary architect of the war has been forced from office. They can declare victory and talk about how they defeated the World's Superpower. Then they will negotiate with the Iraqi government to end the violence that I'm sure they are tiring of too. If they want to claim they won, that's fine with me. As long as we have a way out and leave an Iraq that has a chance at succeeding, I don't care what the insurgents say.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If we leave...and the place isn't at least somewhat stable...we'll be going back. Actually, we'll be going back regardless whether it is Iraq or someplace else in the region. Don't be surprised if we see permanent bases in that part of the world ala Turkey, Germany, etc.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, I think establishing permanent bases in Iraq was a big reason why we went there in the first place. The Saudi bases were deemed untenable in the long term, and the "obvious" place for new ones was Iraq. Saddam would never allow it, of course, so getting rid of him would be "two birds with one stone." It's pretty much all in the PNAC.
