Posted on 05/15/2004 3:11:06 AM PDT by snopercod
Iraq is not a US territory, on that Bush and Powell have not wavered. There will be a turnover, to a government that is as friendly to our goal as possible. This is a little hard to arrange, and it is a huge gamble on which ~everything~ depends. To help with this turnover, the new Iraqi government will have at their disposal the best fighting force in the world.
But we aren't going to fight ~for~ a government that does not want us there. Nor would we want to. Think about that for a minute. So the hypothetical question "will we leave if the new government asks us to?" Of course. For that reason it is vital that we enable a government there that shares our mission. For this thread hypothetical to succeed, everything else has already failed.
Powell is tasked with diplomatic relations with this new government. It is vital that the new government is one that is working with us (even when we are out of the room) as opposed to being at the end of our leash. Only way to know for sure is to take the leash off and pray. But don't think for a minute there isn't a parallel plan to protect ourselves if it turns on us. And Powell knows what the plan is. He's at the same meeting. But his job isn't to present that. His job is making a friendly government possible.
See my 61. This is not wavering. This is the plan as it was conceived originally.
LOL! Would it matter? It the freaking puppet government asked us to leave, it would turn into another media dog and pony show, and the administration would be forced to leave! LOL! And now that our *Secretary of State* Colin Powell said we would, that just sealed it.
The joke is on us.
I don't think he understands much. Powell doesn't even get along with the Secretary of Defense. According to some articles, he has completely different opinions than Rumsfeld, and they are completely polorized. It's no secret, and this is not a good thing.
Personally, to be truthful, I think Powell is a lousy Secretary of State.
I disagree. I think he is a class act. I think the accounts of discord and disagreement between Rumsfeld and Powell are played by a media that would love for us to believe that. I also think they have very different roles, and to think their current work is supposed to be the same is faulty.
Rumsfeld's job has been to plan a winning war, and execute when ordered to.
Powell's job before the war was to hold the door open for diplomacy (to be the guy they could always call if they wanted to talk) until the moment war began, all the while knowing that Rumsfeld was planning that war. Some of you pretend that because these guys have parts of their job that run on parallel potential futures that they don't know and cooperate with the other. To believe Powell is running counter to Rumsfeld is to believe that Bush isn't in command of both.
Three points
1 It IS their country. and we don't stay where we're not wanted.
2 Remember why we went there in the first place.
3 We'NOT going anywhere for a while now. 6-30 is not going to change anything on the ground. It's the second step on the road to an Iraqi government.
Waaay to many people around here are always ready to scream "the sky is falling the sky is falling...we're doomed", at the least thing they don't like.
How did we get to that squishy point from "We're going after the terrorists"? We were NEVER invited into Iraq, we went there to 1. Topple Saddam (mission accomplished); 2. Find WMD (still looking); and 3. Fight terrorists on their home turf (we've backed off on that, apparently).
With our "mission" changing every few weeks, it's brings into question the alleged reasons for us going there in the first place. What Bush/Powell have done here is to prove that Kerry and the rest of the RATs have been right all along: Iraq really is turning out to be like Vietnam, and Bush's rationale for war was fabricated.
Look, if y'all want to give your government free reign to do whatever it wants, you should realize that you are advocating a dictatorship or an autocracy, not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I'm sorry, but I am opposed to putting the American military at the disposal of any other country or group of countries.
Our mission hasn't changed... Maybe your argument for it has, but not theirs. What exactly is your argument? That we don't install a government there? That we are a perpetual occupying force? That was never Bush's mission.
I think we should be over there to kill terrorists, period. They are never going to love us.
If you follow the logic of the Bush defense team, the fix is in. The government being set up for takeover on 6/30 appears to be handpicked and loyal. We're planning to keep our troops there at full force at least until the end of 2005. If the new government feels they are being threatened, they will just sic our military on the insurgents to remain in power. But the government that is going to be installed has our stamp of approval on it whether the citizens of Iraq want them or not.
When do we leave, in your scenario? "we are over there to kill terrorists, period" does not address that ~a~ government needs to run the country. Who does that?
We're there at full force through 2005. We are the government through that time and will be long after.
You agree that the first step in the mission was to topple Saddam. It isn't Bush (or me) who failed to see that toppling Saddam implies the need to install something else, or make it a US state. I don't think Bush ever proposed the latter, so his mission, as it has always been, is to install a replacement government we can live with.
I know that. I am trying to get snopercod to articulate what exactly he thought was gonna happen.
That would not make a sovereign state then would it? Don't the people have a say in who their leader is in a sovereign state?
It will be a government with training wheels. IMHO, by virtue of winning the war, we have a right to a say in who we hand over power to. Their true sovereignty is a sovereignty that will be earned over time. Whether it really works, whether in free elections the choices we help put there can gain the acceptance of the people and successfully run Iraq is one of the great unknowns of our time.
Then they are not a sovereign nation and should not be called as such. They are an occupied nation and will remain so until whatever US established government is either truly freely elected by the people or a free election replaces them. But they are not a sovereign nation.
What is your point? This distinction is not lost on me... I think it is a complicated thing to juggle. They are as close to on their way as we should risk. Selling this government to the people, an arranged marriage of sorts, is going to take work.
Sre we will. Pack up and leave to Kurdistan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.