Posted on 11/11/2006 5:38:22 PM PST by FairOpinion
A commission of experts appointed by President George W Bush will advise him to abandon his dream of cementing a new democratic system in Iraq and instead tackle the security crisis so that the withdrawal of American troops can begin.
The advice from the Iraq Study Group, a high-level bipartisan panel headed by James Baker, the former Republican secretary of state, will sideline the so-called Bush doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Mr Bush will meet the panel tomorrow and Tony Blair is expected to offer his views via a video-conference call on Tuesday.
Mr Gates is a member of the Iraq Study Group and has been a strong critic of his predecessor's handling of policy in Iraq and the use of pre-war intelligence. He will provide the White House with the political cover for changes that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.
The Baker panel, which has been charged with looking at all options for Iraq, is expected to recommend a phased US troop withdrawal, timed to accord with deadlines for Iraqi forces' taking responsibility for specific security zones.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Excellent post. Your assessment is spot on.
No our troops defend this nation by going overseas.. It is best to bring the fight over there.. Not here...
I see you have the habit of the DEMS ....you pick one sentance..and even part of that sentance...to make YOUR point.
If you read that article, the Americans were in the BACK...observing while the different factions were "fighting" it out...in a MEETING..not with IEDS!!
THAT is a wonderful thing...and so what if it took a little American intervention to get it to happen..did you not read the part about how that city had 65 DEATHS A DAY...before the Americans came..and now it is down to 3???
You want to throw out the imperfect, to attain the perfect...and that will never happen on this earth.
True I mean the military did prevent 9/11 when the terrorist came here on student visas..
How is this different than the current plan?
Our response should be to just continue with the mission.
What was the mission again? What about tours of duty? Endless in number? Maybe we should just assign every available ground combat unit "for the duration."
but if the Iraqi people are to stupid or foolish to appreciate the gift given to them by our soldiers, is it worth anymore American blood? They have had the chance to get it right, and give our forces the names and locations of the "insurgents" they don't deserve anything more.
The don't have VICTORY as a criteria for withdrawal.
"It is a legitimate funtion of the military"
Yes. We are, by definition, being invaded. People are coming into our country in large numbers without permission. A function of the miltary is to 'protect the several states against invasion'. There is no higher calling of the military than to do just that. By all means, put troops at the border. This does not mean create a fortress America, it means protecting our society.
This article and others are laying the foundation for the false credit-claim.
Well the military did not repeal Pearl Harbor...
Of course not. You were preaching to me about what war entails.
Yes. I think you are correct. If we cannot handle 3000 casualties in 3 years, our military might be the best, but the will is lacking.
Look we would be miles ahead in the W.O.T. in general had we not went on a nation building binge in Iraq but rather fought it as elimination of an enemy at all cost. Soldiers were sent there. There job was to kill. It was not to be U.S. goodwill ambassadors for the U.S. State Department and U.N. nor promote a democratic government for them neither. It was to take out all enemies in Iraq and potential enemies of the future along with any structure or means that could be used against us in the next several decades. That means innocents die as well. That means leaving a nation barren and destroyed unable to fight. That was the downfall. Our POTUS and our congress yet again failed to understand the agenda of war and it's purpose. We've been in Iraq almost as long as WW2. Thank goodness in WW2 and previous wars we had leaders then who understood that responsibility.
I'm not anti-war and I am pro-defense. But I am 100% against rewarding nations we are still for all practical purposes fighting against. If Congress and Bush wanted to re-build Iraq they should have sent Jimmy Cater there instead of United States Armed Forces. Iraq will be a stronger nation than Saddam for their next dictator who will likely be fundie Islamic.
BTW Saddam should be room temperature as well from a U.S. military tribunal. The man will still be alive with a DEM house and senate because of the nation building mess and that so called civics lesson for the new Iraqi government. Another very stupid move. Go to war? Fine so be it. Fight it as such with wars absolutes which up through WW2 were the rules and the unconditional goals of this nation for going to war.
You've nailed it. We can tolerate 25,000/year dying because of drunks, but can't handle 3,000 dead in 5 years to build a democracy FOR OUR OWN GOOD.
Sorry for the shout, but we're in Iraq because it is good for us. The good for the Iraqis is incidental.
I hate study groups. If it isn't being chaired by the POTUS, then the POTUS is abdicating his authority and responsibilities. GWB is supposed to LEAD, not parrot his generals or SECDEF or some study group.
Any group like this should have had GWB chairing, and its deliberations should have been Top Secret.
I'll confess it - over the last 2 years, I've come to despise President Bush. He's like a boat getting tossed about by every wave, when he needs to set a course and drive the show. He was never a conservative, but he's gone wobbly on the war on terror.
The Commander in Chief doesn't have public study groups form his opinion (and let's face it - there is no way GWB will refuse to accept their 'advice'). He can consult in private, but only he is tasked with making decisions about how to proceed.
This makes me sick to my stomach...
Isn't "Iraqi forces' taking responsibility for specific security zones" synonymous with victory.
I cannot let this go unanswered.
This is not true.
In fact, what our military has done in Iraq up to this point is bring honor to our country and our cause of liberating and trying to bring peace to their country. Any service member who has given their life, been injured, or provided service, to this cause, should be honored as having given the greatest sacrifice in support of our principles of freedom and democracy.
What needs to be recognized is that the "mission" has to transgress OVER TO IRAQ to CONTINUE THIS EFFORT!!!!!! - and that is MY POINT ENTIRELY!
We SHOULD NOT BE THE "GUARANTORS" OF IRAQI DEMOCRACY!!! This has to be accomplished by the IRAQIS themselves not the U.S. MILITARY!
Our national security IS threatened by terrorists. The best way to stop the terrorists is to build a democracy in their midst. Do that, and we cut their legs out from under them and transform the middle east.
That is why terrorists have gone to Iraq from around the world (and died there). They KNOW they beat us there, or nowhere.
And the dems, aided by this ridiculous study group and a President that has abdicated his responsibilities, are seeing to it that they beat us in Iraq. Not militarily, but politically here at home.
Not the military, but the politicians and pundits, who refuse to see what is going right, and focus on what is going wrong, and loose the will to fix it - to fight harder and persevere.
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.