The President's Iraq plan....
 

..interesting to see that the voices of dissent in the wake of President Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan are coming from Democrats, while some key Repubs are praising it. (McCain, Boehner).

My take is that it's a good plan. It's reasonable, it keeps with his campaign promises, and judging by the plan laid out by the President today, appears will we be executed in a responsible way. That's all one can ask for.

From what I understand there already 'overstaffed' over there with reserve troops held "just in case".

Now that Bush's 'failed policys' have acheived some stability in the region it may be time to put those assets somewhere else.

Sorry,you didn't leave a source. Whom were you quoting there?

Personally I don't think after the gigantic debacle that the Iraq war has been from the onset, there is just no way Obama could make it all 'good'. What is he going to do, put a cherry on top of it? So they say today they will leave in 2010 but that could be pushed back, and they could send more troops in. Or start another war.

They've been in Afghanistan since late 2001 and no sign of pulling out. Will it be five more years of war in Afghanistan? Or maybe ten? And how many casualties? If 9/11 was 3000 then Iraq + Afghanistan will in the end be more like 3 000 000. Maybe that's the ratio, for every American, kill a thousand 'rag heads'.

I see you didn't learn anything from your trip to the brig... :roll:

At least he hasn't called anyone a Nazi? :-?

so far...

The plan sucks because it leaves ALOT of room for "Extended Stay"

He ramatazed though the campaign talking about how we were going to be out VERY quickly then we hear this crap.

Here is a tip. Iraq is going to be Iran's ***** they want it that way and it does not matter if we leave now or 2015. The only thing that will win this war is for oil to go down to 20 dollars.

What are we as americans" going to do about this mess, I here people talk all kinds of "crap".. But what dose all this (CRAP) mean?

1. Is there a way out?
2. What are the chances we'll fail?
3. why did we not pull out sooner?
4. What will happen after we leave?
5. What will the people back home think about it?
6.Can we aford to leave now?
7. Where do we realy stand on this matter?

We will be present in Iraq for a long time. Sure, time to pull out as many as possible. I think that most will be pulling into Afghanistan. :-?

Which is where we ought to be. Terrorists in Afghanistan are who attacked us. Losing that war would be catastrophic.

And it is only due to the bravery of our men and women as well as those of other nations that we actually have a chance. As long as oil is over 20 USD Iraq is a lost cause.

That Obama would not pull put within 90 days after elction, should be no surprise. Different to his predecessor, he seems to be a man listening to others he asks for advice, in this case: the military. So the timetable looks okay.

Just that he wants to leave up to 50.000 as "instructors" and a rapid reaction force, made my eyebrow raise a bit. That is quite a lot of troops. It sounds more like maintaining the already established platform for an action-capable military presence in general, and projecting it's influence over Iraq - and beyond. The US has established a whole network of military basis throughout the Middle and Far East since the cold war ended, which serve as tripwires, ELINT basis and logistics nodes in the global network the US army is running, and while only some are very major and big in size, and while many of them are very small and unable to survive any dedicated military attack on them, each of them is capable to perform considerable intel gathering operations in it'S region. And again: they serve as tripwires and should dam both Russia and China, and help to remain in control distance of strategic hotspots like oil pipelines.

If it all is not already a little bit overstretched, or not, is worth a debate for itself.

Pelosi suggested a troop level of not more than 15-20 thousands. If it is about training the Iraqi army only, even significantly less would be sufficient. Anything exceeding this basic number indicates intentions leading beyond "army instruction and training" only.

Yea that's right, I need more 're-education', maybe in Guantanomo or Abu Ghraib.

A bit odd but I kinda miss Cheney, at least he could somehow be held accountable and I think he even made statements to the effect that given the chance they wouldn't go to Iraq. Now with a new leadership and 'government' the slate has been wiped clean and nobody is guilty anymore, of anything. This is a part of the US 'democracy' that I find strange. I don't miss Bush because he was just Cheney's puppet.

You know were still 'present' in alot of Europe and the far east after World War II.

Just food for thought.

I'm just curious: based on what experience or information are you determining that anything over 20K troops would be beyond "instruction and training" only? I didn't know you were an expert in the field...