U.S. in Iraq in 2009? 'President hopes so,' advisor says

...Again, Bush doesn't realize that nobody blames Ford for losing Vietnam.

Yet somehow Bush believes that by leaving Iraq for the next administration to resolve, he can pretend he handed the situation over in good health.

Despite all of the criticism President Johnson received, he at least had the good sense to admit defeat and not run for re-election. Bush wasn't about to do that and his strategy all along has been to pass the buck.

Further evidence that the war was a bad idea, was unwinnable from the start, and is a quagmire from which a future president will have to extract us.

"being there to protect, obviously, our own interests, which are to go after al Qaeda and make sure that al Qaeda can never use Iraq as a safe haven from which to plan attacks against us"

They don't need a safe haven in Iraq. We've allowed them one in Pakistan, where they have rebuilt their strength already.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118419067975963799.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Of course the President hopes we're in Iraq in 2009. By then he will be back in charge of Halliburton and he'll be hauling in millions in pay and stock options! Who knows what chimpy will be doing.

They don't need a safe haven in Iraq. We've allowed them one in Pakistan, where they have rebuilt their strength already.

Posted by: Tony | July 13, 2007 5:54 PM

Mr Bush should have thought about that and a myriad of other things before invading Iraq. What you should think about are the consequences of staying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101572.html

This is stupid. If the President is so concerned about performance and progress, then why would he "hope" we were still in Iraq in 2009? Does he want us to fail for another year and a half?

I would think, instead, that he would hope we would succeed sooner so that our troops could leave as soon as possible. Am I missing something here?

John W,

Nope. The President hates the troops.

John W., we never left Germany. We never left Japan. Don't you think that some sort of presence in Iraq will be necessary for several years yet.
I'm not really sure what the news value here is. Bush always has been candid about this war lasting beyond his presidency and probably even his first successor as president.
As many on the Left have noted, terror is a tactic, terror is a movement, etc. If the goal is to develop democracy and freedom in that part of the world to give the Arabs something to hope for other than despotic regimes, terrorist organizations, hate, struggle, whatever, then all of that will take time.
What is the alternative folks? For decades the U.S. and other countries tried a variety of treaties, meetings, etc. to bring some peace and stability to the region. Those efforts made little headway. One could point to the Camp David Accords, which Carter does deserve some credit, but the leaders of Israel and Egypt deserve most of it. And, yes, Mubarek isn't exactly democracy's best friend, but he has kept Islamic discontent to a minimum there. Jordan has a West-friendly government and leadership. There has been stability because of that. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same can happen elsewhere in the Middle East with the right leadership? With democracy? Many of the naysayers say that area has never gotten along and never had democracy. Well, until the U.S. formed 200+ years ago, where did democracy flourish?

I'm willing to bet every conservative would have scoffed at the notion five years ago that Bush would hope the US would still be in Iraq in 2009.

He has been hoping that all he had to do was invade, topple Saddam, and stick around chasing al-Queda. He assumed that the Iraqis would just fall into place on the deal. That it would be okay replacing an emergency put together type government, decent puppets those individuals were, with elections, gov still puppet-ish, as evidence a democracy is present and would just take off. That it would be okay placing a bunch of directives together to further denounce the deposed influencing a new social hierarchy, and replacing that with a Constitution, compounding social hierarchy with new political hierarchy, as yet more evidence of democracy. Meanwhile we are just running after extremists, and a few insurgents that ...darn it... just keep turning up as time goes by thanks to the way things were just meant to take course by themselves. Well that worked out like a charm.

Personally, I think we should have arranged a puppet government of people willing to decide all those issues the Iraqi gov is deciding now on the Baghdad Clock; without giving into the opportunity to rob them blind of oil, ofcourse. They equate everything as American imposed anyway even if they voted on it. It could all have been set up to introduce and root some normalcy and expire in a couple of years when people could vote on things with the institutions necessary for a democracy already built. No credible security force, no democracy. No economic development (spare me the parks please employment is what I'm getting at to keep them from fighting when they don't have much to lose...or everything), no democracy. No order and understanding between groups, no democracy. We don't have time and never had time to fight terrorist on the side some how disaffected and able to wait on for the politics to resolve themselves. Actually, going back to Bush' s principles and not politics telling our troops what they will do or will not. Well I'm glad the politics of Iraq at least indirectly get to determine that...not.

Bush better sit on them to get their act together. I'm so serious about this. I want things to get better. Yet better does not take time when there is no vigilance, or selective vigilance. Its not fair that those dieing and having their lives turned up side down..US...Coalition... civilians stuck in between..aid workers...have their lives dangle in the air by those in power.

As far as our main man is concerned. Well he still will come out a victor. All he has to do is show how many al-Queda members have been killed, and point to the elected gov., and constitution as a sign of victory. Everything ales, can be chucked up to it takes time, the price for spreading freedom, and terrorist will always be a threat (confirming what we already knew) we need to be vigilant. Even though, the last two were already bequeathed by the British on Iraq, and how well did that go.

John D:

There is only one problem with all of what you have said. The problem is that even Duh'bya has said that he didn't want us to stay there any longer than needed.

Don't you remember his speeches to that effect? He very clearly stated that we were supposed to be implementing a form of "Iraqization" in which "as Iraqi troops step up, our troops step down." Don’t you remember this stuff? He clearly expected us to leave when we the Iraqis could provide their own security. That is a goal-based objective that is inconsistent with a stated period of occupation.

In contrast, a long term presence is entirely inconsistent with those goals. Unlike the People of Germany or Japan, against whom we waged a war of conquest, we do not purport, and never have purported, to be the conquerors of Iraq. We were only supposed to "liberate" the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein - just like the French did when they helped us liberate ourselves from the British in our Revolutionary War. Like the French, we were supposed to get out of Dodge when the peace was won.

I might also remind you that we are not welcome there. Our troops are not Muslims for the most part. Islam teaches Muslims that they should not be controlled or governed by non-Muslims in any fashion. So there is already a lot of tension and resentment, even apart from the Sunni-Shiite hatred. Even our closest allies in the region – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other gulf emirates – only tolerate our presence to the extent we further their goals. They don’t want us there any longer than necessary. Needless to say, this area bears no resemblance to Germany or Japan, wherein the defeated mostly welcomed or tolerated our reconstruction plans and complied with our requests.

Thus, to “hope” that we should still be there a year and a half hence is entirely inconsistent with everything else the President has said. If we want a peaceful solution, we should start recruiting other Muslim countries in the region to assist in, and accelerate, the peace and reconciliation process. It is in Iraq’s neighbor’s best interests to get involved. They are the ones already having to foot the bill for a lot of the displaced and homeless Iraqis who have fled the death and destruction. A number of these countries, like Egypt and Jordan, have already offered to help. We should take them up on their offer as part of a broader military, economic and diplomatic effort – like the one suggested in the ISG report. We should do this because we don't seem to have any reasonable prospect of success without their help.

P.S. We didn't leave Germany or Japan because we were concerned that the Soviet Union wanted to control these territories after the war. Not only did we have good reason to believe this, we also convinced the German and Japanese leaders that the Soviet threat meant that our continued presence was in their best interests. Having experienced the Soviets themselves in WWII, it didn’t take a hard sell to convince them. That, again, is not the situation in which the Iraqis find themselves.

Well, until the U.S. formed 200+ years ago, where did democracy flourish?

Posted by: John D | July 13, 2007 7:19 PM

Quit lying, John. You are the neo-con ad man. You don't care about the people of Iraq, OR Democracy. You sickos get a rush out of watching war on cable tv.

John W., you make good points and I am sure the original goal was that we would not be in Iraq for several years. Having said that, just like we were in Germany and Japan to counter the Soviets (we also were there for up to 10 years stabilizing those countries after WWII ended), we are in Iraq now because if we leave it was fall back to a Hussein like situation or worse, with Al Qaeda in control (though all factions of Iraqis are tiring of Al Qaeda causing mayhem and death). We are also there to counter Iran's aims.
You are correct and incorrect about the Iraqis wanting us out. The government doesn't want us out. And while the people do want us out, they also want us to stay (many, certainly not all) because many Iraqis do see the need for us to stay there till the Iraqi govt and military can take control. Slowly, and yes too slowly, the Iraqi military is taking control or at least able to do more.

Mrs. J., drop the moveon.org hilarity points. I do not like watching war, I do not like watching people get blown up or their heads chopped off. And, if I am lying Mrs. J. about the roots of democracy, please tell me where it was flourishing before the 1700s or even the 1800s, OK?

JuanD,

Ask and ye shall find. It has been shown that many of the tenets of our republic the founding fathers built into the Articles of the Confederation, and later our Constitution, were taken from rules of law governing the Six Tribes of the Iriquois. Yes, Native Americans had Democracy before we did. They only went away after proto-neo-cons killed them off via whole sale genocide.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

Next lame republitard talking point?

"John D", don't waste your time even responding to people like "John W.", who actually say:

"Unlike the People of Germany or Japan, against whom we waged a war of conquest..."

Guess we attacked Japan on Dec. 7th, 1941! As part of our "war of conquest", of course!

And then "John W." gets really silly:

"If we want a peaceful solution, we should start recruiting other Muslim countries in the region to assist in, and accelerate, the peace and reconciliation process."

Yes, "John W.", all we have to do is wave a magic wand and the Good Fairy will appear and turn the terrorists into pumpkins. Reminds me of how Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were convinced that they could cure warts by swinging a dead cat over their heads.

Snitramc, you're being funny, right? Yes, us evil neocons killed all the Indians and put those we didn't kill on reservations. Us evil neocons also helped them set up their flourishing casino business as part of our collective plan to take all the money away from the Loony Lefties.

You're right about us staying in Japan and Germany for years after WWI,however, perhaps if we had stayed and "finished the job" and fought the Soviets at the end of WW II, instead of handing them various countries on a silver platter by Roosevelt and Churchill making deals behind closed doors with them and appeasing them, the world would have been a much different place and hence, no cold war and nuclear threat for 50 years. Even during the war, the U.S. told the Polish Resistance that we would help them if they mounted an offensive against the Nazis, and the U.S. virtually stabbed Poland in the back and refused to help their resistance efforts by totally abandoning their uprising against the Nazis because we didn't want to "upset" the Soviets, which led to 50 years of communism not only in Poland but in all of the other countries that we handed to Stalin behind those closed door meetings where the 3 leaders carved up a map of Europe. Even back then, we in effect "pulled out" of helping those countries and doomed them to 50 years of brutal Soviet oppression because we were too afraid to stand up to the Soviets and stay the course. Whatever else you can say about this President, he apparently is not abandoning Iraq because it is the politically correct thing to do or because of a desire to generate positive public opinion or to appease other world leaders. At the time that Gen. Patton said that we should fight the Soviets because he could see what was going to happen in Europe (and history ultimately proved him right) -that President took the easy way out and didn't have the courage to stand up to Stalin, and the rest is history. If we pull out of Iraq now - it will give the terrorists a free pass to start infiltrating and ultimately dominating the few semi-democratic nations in the region until they eventually gain total control of that part of the world - and do we really want that to happen?????????

RNC Bruce,

Time for 1st string RNC to get on the field.

Dude you are a guffaw's dream!

Posted by: John W. | July 13, 2007 11:09 PM

Boy do I agree with you. I think it would be better if we were the ones to work some agreements out (even if that would involve Iran somehow in the mix) backed by threat of force, in the case of foul play, then pull out and have the Iraqi gov. have to turn to the Iranian gov. for security if their forces aren’t enough (some officials within the two governments have a cordial relationship).

As I see it, should we leave without a credible force, and no ME force agreement to at least secure the border the Iraqi government would put aside their morals and wrongs when their lives - first - and political power - second - is at stake. Us leaving without making some deals involving ME countries, and a weak gov turning to Iran alone would mean Iran would get to control Baghdad politics. That would threaten us more than the resulting Iranian militias turning on the Sunni, who are being backed by Syria in response to al-Sadar militias and Iranian force, or that terrorist would have a place to run around; the latter, not really since the militias would go after them as well. The Iranian militias would go after the Sunni that would most likely put aside their morals too out of necessity for al-Queda backing. They wouldn't stand a chance in the long run. Yet I would hate if normally good people, forced to act otherwise under the circumstances, would be the casualty with the bad apples. Those who settled just outside the Iraqi border would want to join in, but the militias could secure the border. It would be a mess, and I'm only limiting the fighting to two countries should it play out like this. To secure the Iraqi Kurd region from Turkey’s invasion the Iraqi Shiites would yet again lean even more on the Iranian militias bc Shiites and Kurds are more closer than Shiites and Sunni; putting differences aside. Alternatively, they could do nothing and easily try to subordinate the Kurds; try to settle their disputes over lands by force. I’m guessing the Kurds would have to eventually look to some other party for support; maybe even join the Sunni.

I think it would be for the best if we put aside the whole neo-con black list for now and get some mixture of agreements with ME countries backed by threat of force. I think we still have some ingenuity in our gov. Make something that wouldn’t threaten us, but still be effective. They need to come up with something while sitting on the Iraqi gov to wake up.

PS. We could still draw down, and stick around training. There is not doubt in my mind that we don't have time. Congress is restless and too concerned with playing Iraq to the tune of their party politics, and the forces might not be trained enough. At least cohesive enough for the long haul to get the rest of the country to be like the Kurd region. That means they need support and that support should come from ME countries we put together. Maybe squeeze in a UN force. Though, the problem with that is that a UN force alone would find the environment hostile. Iraqis would see it as westernization and "white supremacy"; just like Africans do when UN or international intervention is now being considered in Africa.

Bruce:

You are being silly.

First, the manner of waging war and the objectives for which a war is fought are determinative of the nature of a war – and not the order of attack. A war of conquest means a war fought to defeat and control another nation. That is exactly what we did in WWII. Once we were attacked by Japan, and after Germany declared war on us for declaring war on Japan, we proceeded to wage a war of conquest against both of them IN RESPONSE to their actions. We did not stop at their borders. We fought until they and their allies were defeated, their lands were occupied and their people were under our governance.

Second, contrary to your erroneous assumptions, I never said that getting other Muslim countries to help would be ”sufficient,” in itself, to secure peace. I said that recruiting their help was ”necessary” if we realistically expect to see peace in the region. Please learn the difference between “sufficient” and “necessary” causes. Your failure to do so, along with your babbling about magic wands, good fairies or the escapades of Tom and Huck, makes you look ignorant.

ps:

You are probably correct for the most part. What you have done, however, is merely illustrate the difference between a foreign policy driven by realpolitik concerns and one driven by idealism. The policies of the U.S. and its allies in the wake of Nazi Germany’s defeat were driven more by practical concerns than they were by political doctrine or ethics.

The U.S. and its allies had just fought a war of conquest against Germany. We had, at that time, rest from four years of warfare. Our allies had been fighting even longer. We had little stomach for more war, especially against what appeared to be a much larger army. We knew the Soviet Union had destroyed upwards of seventy five percent of the entire German army under horrible wartime conditions – which is something we couldn’t have done ourselves without a substantially greater loss of life and treasure. And so, out of purely practical concerns, we satisfied ourselves with a policy of containment toward the Soviet Union.

You may argue all you like that this was a cop-out, or that Patton was right and we should have “finished” the war then. But the United States had already secured its foreign policy and political goals with the defeat of Germany and Japan. The interests and fates of Poland, Czechoslovakia and other eastern European countries simply weren’t on the agendum.

John W., Bruce did have valid points, though your explanation you just gave of "conquest" is what I thought you meant in that we waged war to defeat their government. But, and I am sure you will agree, our conquest was not intended to occupy those countries for a length of time. Ironically, Americans and the media back in the late 1940s were tired of our occupation of those countries as well and our occupation in the sense of running those countries lasted longer than planned as well. It's not that much different with Iraq today. Our "occupation" is lasting longer than planned and the goal is to have a government there that can run things so we can leave. Our war with Iraq also was one of conquest, defeating the Hussein regime and forging a free, democratic government, just as was done in Germany, Italy and Japan. That is one reason why the former Soviet satellite countries and Eastern European countries are on board with the U.S. and understand what we are trying to accomplish.

And, Doug, it's time you did something more than just spout RNC Bruce stuff all the time. Makes you look silly and guffawable too.

John D.,

Your house is made of glass.

John D:

Bruce no valid points in his last post whatsoever.

He wrote:

"Guess we attacked Japan on Dec. 7th, 1941! As part of our "war of conquest", of course!"

- by which it is clear that he was arguing that we did not wage a war of conquest because we were the victims of an initial attack. That was a red herring. That we were sufficiently provoked to war by the initial attack doesn't mean we didn't respond with an offensive war of conquest. History shows otherwise. As such, Bruce's little sarcasm didn’t hold any water at all.

Then he tried to suggest that I was fantasizing because I suggested that peace would come if we got other Muslim nations in the region to assist us. The problem is, I never said any such thing. I didn’t say getting Iraq’s Muslim neighbors to help would be sufficient, in itself, to insure peace. I suggested that getting Iraq’s Muslim neighbors to participate in the peace process would enhance the chances of peace, and might even be necessary to attain peace since we weren’t getting the job done by ourselves. In short, the ideas which Bruce attributed to me and then attacked were entirely non-existent.

So, tell me again, how is it that Bruce had valid points?

BTW – I did not say that a war of conquest consisted of defeating a government. I said a war of conquest is one “fought to defeat and control another nation.” A “nation” is not a government; it is a country’s people. To conquer a people, one must control them in their own land. In contrast, a war of “liberation” is one in which a foreign army or oppressive government is driven away or destroyed to free a people in their own land to govern themselves.

And, no, I do not agree that we didn’t intend to have an extended stay in Germany and Japan after their defeat. We had an agendum of political, legal and military goals to complete in each county, and completing those agenda took time. The stay was extended when it also became apparent that Western Europe would require a greater infusion of American capital in order to rebuild their own economies and resist Soviet expansion.

In stark contrast, we were supposed to “liberate” the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and then hand control over to the free Iraqis. Since we did not likewise intend to subjugate the Iraqi people or their land, this war could not be characterized as a war of conquest – and your attempt to make a contrary argument fly just doesn’t work.

Also, we are not there to forge a democratic government. Iraqis ratified their Constitution in 2005, and elected a full time, democratic government later the same year. We are not the sovereign power in Iraq. The Iraqis are. We are there only to help keep the peace long enough so the Iraqis can effectuate a plan for political reconciliation and peace.

Finally, the Iraqi’s attitude toward us can be summed up in the words of a Sunni politician who said recently, “I would be very glad to see the last American leave Iraq today. But, then, who would keep the peace?” We are not welcome there. We are tolerated only to the extent we are useful to the Iraqis. After we leave, our efforts will not be appreciated and they will only blame us for everything that goes wrong. Don’t fool yourself into believing anything else.

John W, I think you are wasting your time 'debating' with Bruce and John D. They repeat talking points and ignore reasoned debate. The differences between WW2 and Iraq are light years apart.

"Ironically, Americans and the media back in the late 1940s were tired of our occupation of those countries as well and our occupation in the sense of running those countries lasted longer than planned as well. It's not that much different with Iraq today. Our "occupation" is lasting longer than planned and the goal is to have a government there that can run things so we can leave."

Ohh Johnny Torture, so so wrong again. I don't recall the Germans and the Japanese fighting our occupying forces in the late 40's do you? I don't recall thousands of US deaths as a result. I don't recall raging civil wars in Germany and Japan.

This occupation is nothing like those occupations. Nothing at all.

JuanD,

Funny about the genocide? Well, after throughly debunking your "We are superior because we are Americans and we invented democracy" ridiculous tirade of rnc talking points (So easy, it's a good thing I don't get paid for this, I'd have to return the money.) I felt it was permissible to toss in a little sarcasm. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Today, I am drunk, and you are stupid. Tomorrow, I will be sober.

Snitramc, you debunked nothing. If anything, you continued to just make yourself look silly, ignorant and pathetic. Our democracy came from the Indians??? And there was successful democracy before us in the 1700s? Ok, smoke some more dope, snitramic!

And, Tony, yes there was opposition in both Germany and Japan regarding our occupation. American troops were being killed, perhaps not to the extent in Iraq, but the German SS would do things like put wires across roads to which when a U.S. patrol would come by there would be a decapitation or two. It took Japan two years to develop its constitution and another year to enact it. Germany took four years to develop its constitution. Also because of the repeated bombings, especially in Germany, cities and towns were destroyed. Masse of Germans were homeless, hungry and no jobs. There was great discontent in both countries for several years after WWII ended.

American soldiers do not wave the white flag of surrender. Neither should the Democrats accept advice to do so from the extreme left of their party. Democratic leadership is leaving the
majority of its membership to a small radical fringe, a sure recipe for defeat in 2008.

Oh Johnny Torture, you're just embarassing yourself now. Please quit peddling urban myths.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p02s01-woiq.html

"In "Total War," Peter Calvocoressi writes that the werewolves were created in 1944, as a "last resort under Himmler's command." But the only death credited them is that of the mayor of Aachen, on March 25, 1945, before the Nazis surrendered on May 7 that same year.

"I couldn't find any mention in the US Army's official history of the German occupation of any American combat deaths," says Daniel Benjamin, coauthor of "The Age of Sacred Terror." "I think all the respected histories agree on this point - the occupation's problems had nothing to do with resistance."

http://www.answers.com/topic/werwolf-1

"...a sure recipe for defeat in 2008."

Ooooh. Great advice from someone named 'haightasbury'.

Hey loser, it's Haight & ASHBURY. We're not particularly interested in listening to Repuke. wannabes. Go back to listening to Rush Limpbaugh.

Haightasbury,

Even the idiots down here in the South know that you and your GOP friends have got us into a mess that we won't get out of until all the Republic Party members are gone from Congress and the White House.....and this will be coming your way in...2008!

So, Tony one guy says the problems after the war had nothing to do with resistance. No, Tony, all the Germans and Japanese were automatically OK with the U.S. occupying and running those countries after the war. One day were at war, the next day they surrender, we occupy and it's one big lovefest!!!
Tony, meet the Kool Aid cartoon. Kool Aid cartoon, meet Tony.

No Johnny, the official records of the US military says the incidents you claimed never actually happened.

Facts Johnny. Look into them sometime. I noticed you haven't documented a single instance of what you claimed, now, have you?

Face it, the occupations of Germany and Japan just are not comparable, as much as you would like them to be in order to hide the dismal failure of this occupation.

president bush will have no say when theres a new president either hillary clinton or barack obama will decide if not them then i hope we dont have ralph nadar