Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's the "more" that has doomed the bill. More pork, more special interest items,> The pork shouldn't be there, true. <more absurd add-ons like timelines which ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave.> We have set the stage for that to happen no matter when we leave. As some of us said before the invasion, if you create a power vacuum in an artificial country made up of historic enemies, there WILL be a power struggle ultimately. Bush is hoping to postpone that day of reckoning till 2009, and he and his supporters will inevitably try to place the blame on the next president. But people shouldn't be fooled - this mess is his making. <This bill will fail, the dems will capitulate and the funding will go to the troops. And the dems will look foolish when it's all over.> Actually, what will happen is the compromise (house/senate) bill will pass, Bush will veto it, and then he'll "own" this war more than ever. The Democrats will be able to say "well, we tried. We sent the message the voters sent us."
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The Democrats will be able to say "well, we tried. We sent the message the voters sent us." >>> That raises an interesting point. I do think that the bill that was passed by Congress much more closely reflects what the American people want at this point than the President's position does, but at the same time I think it's foolish. So, what is Congress supposed to do in such a situation? At the risk of contradicting myself a bit, let me comment on this: <<< "ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave" That will happen in any case. When you accept that, then the cut off is not a bad thing. Just get us out, let them kill each other and partition the land. That's simply going to happen if we leave now, in 2 years, or 10 years. >>> I think that's certainly a possibility, and it's a rather dismal outlook, now isn't it? Let's assume that we don't set an artificial timetable. What do you suppose the Administration's current view is on how long it will take before things are stable enough such that Iraq can maintain its own domestic security as well as protect itself from neighboring nations and external terrorists without falling apart? It would seem that anything short of that would mean that chaos would ensue should the US withdraw (I mean more chaos than there is today). I don't think I'm being too jaded in thinking that this is years and years away (could it happen even 5 years? 10 years?). Given that this is the case, what is the plan? I had never really thought about this before, but I wouldn't rule out the following as being the current plan for Iraq: <<< Bush is hoping to postpone that day of reckoning till 2009, and he and his supporters will inevitably try to place the blame on the next president. But people shouldn't be fooled - this mess is his making. >>> It would be very disappointing if this were the case, but I can't rule it out.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "...more absurd add-ons like timelines which ensure chaos and massive death the moment we leave." But that's just it. This is what I've been harping on when I say what part about 1500 years of sectarian violence didn't Bush understand? No amount of our occupation for the duration of a normal human lifetime will do anything to obviate that fact. To be so arrogant to think that 3-8 years of U.S. occupation will forever stop all that is what is absurd. If massive death and chaos are the primary stumbling blocks to a timeline, then bring on the timeline. They've already got it as it is. Massive death and chaos is what they'll have no matter when we leave. The sooner we all recognize that, the sooner this crap will be over.
Originally Posted By ecdc Those who want no timeline (like Dick Cheney) act as if that's all it takes for victory. Just stick around and someday, voilla! Iraq will look like Paris in no time. We have zero evidence that staying will do a bit of good. Z-E-R-O. It may postpone the inevitable, but in the meantime more American kids get limbless parents, or parents who come home in a box. This isn't like WWII where we could say, "It's taking longer than we've planned, but we've liberated Italy and reclaimed the Phillippines." There was discernable progress. There's none here. Instead, like Vietnam before, it's a Wack-A-Mole game. We move more troops to one area, the violence stops there and flares up somewhere else. We created this disaster, now there's no fixing it. It's time people realized that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "it's a rather dismal outlook, now isn't it?" Yes, it is. It is also realistic. "What do you suppose the Administration's current view is on how long it will take before things are stable enough such that Iraq can maintain its own domestic security as well as protect itself from neighboring nations and external terrorists without falling apart?" Last I heard, it was what, a decade? Then when that's up, another one? Then when we finally leave, it will still happen anyway. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of US soldiers are dead? Does this sound at all familiar?
