One of these guys is either delusional or a liar

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.

Ok, now we're starting to get something tangible.  Darwin predicts that we will "bail out" of Iraq shortly after the election in 3 weeks.  He further predicts some sort of change in the public discourse surrounding said "bail out."

Let me ask you this:  Who (Democrats? Republicans? Congress?  White House?) will make the decision to perform this bail out?  What will be the results of this bail out in Iraq?  What will be the results of this bail out in the US and the rest of the world?  Please answer in the form of tangible events and outcomes, not in vague predictions of doom and gloom.

We're getting closer to a tangible prediction, but we're not quite there yet.

regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.

We'll only be able to see if you're right or wrong if you actually make tangible, testable predictions.  "Doom and gloom, right after the election" doesn't cut it, because anyony can take a situation and find reason to describe it as awful or as hopeful, depending upon their agendas.  If this is your prediction, then we'll be right back where we started one month from now, arguing about whether the current events connote "doom and gloom."  Just look at the two quotes that kicked off this thread.  

If you want to be proven right, you have to make predictions that are more specific than the vagueries you've been spouting so far.

[Darwin]

Who (Democrats? Republicans? Congress?  White House?) will make the decision to perform this bail out?  What will be the results of this bail out in Iraq?  What will be the results of this bail out in the US and the rest of the world?

Who will make the decision? The administration will, based on the recommendations of Baker's committee. They will continue to pretend that things are going well to keep the loyal base that has bought into this line of B.S. on board through the mid-term election, then try to put the best face possible on the withdrawal.

What will be the result? Probably all-out civil war, with Iran gaining even more control of the area's oil supply. Once that situation settles itself, there will be tremendous problems between the Kurds in the north and the Turks, as well as between the Arab Shiia and their Persian Shiia neighbors in Iran. Ironically the troubled Sunni triangle may be the calmest place in a post-U.S. occupied Iraq because they have a relatively stable relationship with the Syrians. In fact the Sunni triangle will likely become a defacto extension of Syria. As far as our relationship with the rest of the world, that could hardly get worse than it has been the past four years and will most likely start to improve once we are out of Iraq.

Now how about some specific preditictions from you? How do you see this shaking down? Will we finally defeat these dead enders who are in the last throes of their insurgency and the Iraqi people will finally greet us with flowers as democracy flourishes in the region?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I predict the following:

There won't be any sort of monumental shift in our policy towards Iraq.  There may be small revisions, perhaps to include deadlines for the Iraqis to be fully independent.  There may be a reduction of troops in Iraq, mostly withdrawn from areas that have long been passified, or perhaps a shift towards support for Iraqi.  But there won't be any sort of "bail out."  The American left will scream utter and total American defeat despite any reason, much like they have been for years.

Insurgents will still try to kill Iraqi army and police members.  Iraqi people will still line up to join the Iraqi police and army to try to defeat the insurgents.  American and Iraqi units will continue to kill and capture insurgents at a rate that far exceeds the losses the insurgents inflict.

Sunnis will continue to murder Shiia, and vice versa, as has been happening for centuries.  Such killings will not destabilize the new government.  

The Kurdish territory will remain peaceful.  There will be no war between Kurds and Turks for the forseeable future.  Iran will still exert its under-the-table influence on the Sunni-Shiia thing, much as it has been for the past few years.  The most influence Syria will have would be to exert a similar under-the-table influnece, such as the Iranians will do.  Neither Iran nor Syria will gain overt control of Iraq for the forseeable future.

Bottom line:  I predict any chances after the election will be modest revisions in our policy towards Iraq.  I predict there will not be any sort of "bail out", and the US will not abandon Iraq to fend for itself against Turkey, Iran,  Syria, or the insurgents.  The political situation in Iraq and the middle east will be more similar than different compared to what we see today.

[Darwin]

So you're basically saying we will "stay the course." Care to make some sort of wager on that?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So you're basically saying we will "stay the course." Care to make some sort of wager on that?

I'm not predicting "stay the course."  I suspect that there will be changes in our policy in Iraq.  I simply don't beleive that they will be as radical as you predict.

The opeative term in all of this is "bail out."  You think the US will bail out of I raq.  I don't.  

There's a wide range of possibilities between "stay the course" and "bail out."  I predict that the new policy will fall somewhere midway between these two extremes.

[Perd Hapley]

FORMER US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported today.

CHENEY: On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now... If you look at the general overall situation [which is a helluva mess], theyre doing remarkably well.

Does that help?  Baker was referring to the overall situation and Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.

[roo_ster]

Darwin:

It usually takes about 10-12 years to defeat an insurgency without massacreing or dispersing the population.  The Philippines & Maylaysia are two 20th century examples.

If the USA finds the resolve to tough it out, Iraq might end up like the PI under Marcos or Indonesia under Sukarno/Suharto.  Not a Switzerland, but better than any other country in the ME with the exception of Israel, decency-wise.  I would have been happy with rubbling the country, seeing as they weren't exporting much oil to begin with.  

If we leave before the Iraqi gov't is strong enough to fend for itself, we can expect the Kurds to do just fine & the Sunnis to take it in the face, good & hard, unless the Shiites splinter.

[Darwin]

Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.

I see. That's sort of like my saying that my mother, who has terminal lung cancer, is doing remarkably well. Like the current Iraqi government she probably won't hold together until Christmas, but given that, she is doing remarkably well.

Does that mean you think Cheney is agreeing with Baker that Iraq is well and truley scrod?

Jfruser, I sort of agree with you, except that I think Syria will back the Sunni with weapons and other tactical support to keep them from being exterminated by the Shiia, therefore prolonging the turmoil.

[The Rabbi]

You keep "predicting" these things but they have no basis whatsoever.
Maybe the Saudis will arm the Kurds.  Maybe the North Koreans will give the insurgents a nuke.  
You could fantasize a dozen different scenarios with no end.  But people were predicting the break up of the country before we even got to Baghdad.  And it hasnt happened.

[Darwin]

I'm saying the decision to pull out of Iraq will come by the end of this year. If I am wrong we will know shortly.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I did some digging into this quote by Cheney.  It was taken from an interview Cheney did with Rush Limbaugh a few days ago.  Taken out of context and edited as it was in Darwin's original post, it tends to make Cheny look like a dweeb.  Taken on whole, it's actually quite sensible and articulate.  I'll leave it to the reader to speculate on whether Darwin deliberately misrepresented Cheney's remarks to make him look (as Darwin describes him) "delusional" and "clinically insane".


Here's the full, unedited quote:

Well, I think there's some natural level of concern out there because in fact, you know, it wasn't over instantaneously. It's been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq, so I don't think it's surprising that people are concerned. On the other hand, this government has only been in office about five months, five or six months now. They're off to a good start. It is difficult, no question about it, but we've now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces. They've had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States. If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well. It's still very, very difficult, very tough. Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we're engaged there with this sort of, at present, the "major front" of the war on terror. That's what Osama bin Laden says, and he's right. It's very important that we prevail there, but we're engaged really on a global basis. We're very active in Afghanistan. We've got continuing activities in Pakistan. We've captured and killed more Al-Qaeda in Pakistan probably than anyplace else. We're active working with the Saudis and in many others in that part of the world. So it's a major conflict. It's going to run for a long time, and everybody needs to understand that. The campaign, I look on, as an opportunity to remind everybody what's at stake here, and in this particular instance it's especially important to point out to people that terrorists can't beat us in a stand-up fight. They can only win if we lose our will, and they're betting we will. They're betting we don't have the stomach for the fight, and I don't think that's true, and I think faced with that basic fundamental choice I think the American people understand that it's having gone on offense, having gotten aggressive, going after the terrorists, closing those training camps in Afghanistan and working to take down regimes like Saddam Hussein and to stand up democracies in their place as well as stop measures here at home. It's what's kept us safe for five years and is the reason why there hasn't been another attack like 9/11 on the US.

A transcript of the entire interview is posted on Limbaugh's website:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101706/content/eib_interview.guest.html

[richyoung]

If we are not in this to win, to pacify Iraq and prevent civil war, what are we in this for? To waste American lives five, ten at a time with no definable goals or exit strategy?

WWII has been over since 1945 - whats our "exit strategy" for the occupation forces of Germany, Japan, and Korea?  I'd like to know, 'cause as far as I can tell, we never left...

Still waiting for an answer....

Bueller?....Ferris Bueller?....

[Darwin]

I hate to reply because it is hard to do so without insulting you, but... we're still there. We're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea, fifty years down the road.

But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I hate to reply because it is hard to do so without insulting you, but... we're still there. We're still in Germany, Japan, and Korea, fifty years down the road.

But the comparison is as ludicrous as your entire argument. Before I explain it to you, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Tell me--what is the primary difference between our post-war occupations in the countries you mention and our occupation in Iraq?

The Libs aren't going apeshit over our presence in Japan, Germany, or Korea??

His point is a very valid one for all those many people who claim that we need to give up in Iraq because we've been there for too long, that it's a failure because we haven't won yet.  We haven't been there too long.  There isn't any such thing as "too long" when it comes to protecting the interests of the United States.

We're still in Iraq for the same reasons we're still in Japan, Germany, and Korea:  because it's in our best interests to remain there.

[Darwin]

I guarantee you that if we were still losing 100+ soldiers per month four years into an occupation of Germany, Japan, or Korea, we'd have pulled out then, too.

But like I said, we'll know soon enough if I am right and you are wrong.

[The Rabbi]

I guarantee you that if we were still losing 100+ soldiers per month four years into an occupation of Germany, Japan, or Korea, we'd have pulled out then, too.

But like I said, we'll know soon enough if I am right and you are wrong.

If we had lost 15,000 on one day of the initial assault there would be screams to pull out too. But in fact the U.S. lost that many on D-Day and I dont recall anyone wanting to stop.
What will you give us all if you're wrong?

[Darwin]

The difference between WWII and Iraq is that we were the attackees in the first instance and the attackers in the second. Part of the reason the American people bought into attacking Iraq was because we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators by a grateful populace. That, like every other pre-war assertion made by the Bush administration, turned out to be a bald-faced lie. If we had been dragged into WWII under false pretexts, it is doubtful that the government would have retained the support of the people for four years. As it was, support was wearing dangerously thin by the time the war ended. This in part drove the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, even though the country was practically defeated already.

[Perd Hapley]

Cheney was referring to how well the new government was coping with it.

I see. That's sort of like my saying that my mother, who has terminal lung cancer, is doing remarkably well.

Iraq can be a "helluva mess" without it being a terminal mess.  And, no, Cheney wouldn't be saying that your mother is "doing remarkably well."  The analog to his statement is "The physicians treating your mother are doing remarkably well."  Now, if your mother's disease is curable (as Cheney would say that Iraq is curable), then Cheney is simply saying that your mother is very sick, but the physicians treating her are doing a good job of restoring her health.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Part of the reason the American people bought into attacking Iraq was because we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators by a grateful populace. That, like every other pre-war assertion made by the Bush administration, turned out to be a bald-faced lie.

Have you any firsthand knowledge to back up this claim?  I ask because all of the people I know who've lived Iraq say this statement is wrong.

The people I know who've lived in Iraq tell me that this assertion made by Bush was anything but a bald-faced lie.  I'm told, again by several people who've lived in Iraq and have firsthand knowledge about which they speak, that the Iraqis did greet us as liberators and that they definitely do not want to see us leave.

[The Rabbi]

The difference between WWII and Iraq is that we were the attackees in the first instance and the attackers in the second. Part of the reason the American people bought into attacking Iraq was because we were promised that we would be greeted as liberators by a grateful populace. That, like every other pre-war assertion made by the Bush administration, turned out to be a bald-faced lie. If we had been dragged into WWII under false pretexts, it is doubtful that the government would have retained the support of the people for four years. As it was, support was wearing dangerously thin by the time the war ended. This in part drove the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan, even though the country was practically defeated already.

No, the difference is that in WW2 the enemy spoke German and now they speak Arabic.  The difference is that in WW2 soldiers carried M-1s and now they carry M-16s.  The difference is that Iraq is a lot hotter than Germany.
And I don't recall the Nazis attacking us per se.  Or the Italians for that matter.
The population is grateful, for the most part.  Expressing that too loudly there will get you killed however.  Nor is it in the media's interest to report support.
The people here supported the war because in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush made a persuasive case that terrorism needs the support of nation-states to flourish.  Iraq was a good example of a state with a 20 year history of supporting terrorism.  Iraq also had a history of violating UN sanctions.  All of that was so clear that even Democrats in Congress could understand that.

[Darwin]

Edited to say: "Too much information for you people."

[wingnutx]

I'd put my money on Headless Thompson Gunner's prediction.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I have spoken with a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves who spent over a year in Iraq, along with a general who also spent considerable time in a command position over there. I don't know who has been providing your information, but the information I'm getting is that the situation is bad and deteriorating. What these commanders have been saying mirrors what I am reading in the press, up to and including the latest polls that say 60 percent of Iraqis approve of killing Americans.

Have you spoken with any civillians who lived and/or worked with Iraqis on a daily basis?

[Darwin]

Edited to say: "Too much information for you people."

[Perd Hapley]

Are you going to reconsider your thread title, or what?