Mostly about Fantasy genre: Special emphasis on Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Deed of Paksennarion. Music, poetry and random ramblings. Actually, anything is up for grabs. Probably not politics, but everything else is fair game. Please ignore al
I enjoy seeing different sides of issues presented here on JU. Most of you are more than willing to participate in an intelligent debate of facts and ideas. I don't often participate in these debates, but I do read them. That being said, I do, occasionally, ask questions of JU. This is no different.

President Bush vetoed Congress' Iraq funding bill today because it contained what he called an "arbitrary date for beginning withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground, and tried to micromanage military commanders."

So, what I would like to ask is this: what exactly is the President's hopes / plans for Iraq? What conditions are supposed to be met before troop withdrawal? What do we expect to happen in Iraq? I've heard plenty of rhetoric about freedom for the Iraqi people, but no one has really detailed what that means.

What is it going to take before the troops can come home? What conditions are supposed to be met? How much "peace" are we talking for the Middle East before America leaves these people to take care of themselves?

And, side note: What happened to Bin Laden? Am I correct in saying that he has remained at large? Just wondering if I missed something...

Comments
on May 03, 2007
Heh, I'm looking forward to hearing what needs to happen before "mission accomplished (no, for reals this time)" is declared. BTW, your mention of Bin Laden gave me a "Mosh" (Eminem) earworm.
on May 03, 2007
Heh, I'm looking forward to hearing what needs to happen before "mission accomplished (no, for reals this time)" is declared.


I'm scared the answer is going to be absolute peace or Armageddon.

BTW, your mention of Bin Laden gave me a "Mosh" (Eminem) earworm.


I LOVE that song. I watched the video so often in one day that I had the words memorized. In fact, I think I'm going to listen to it right now.
on May 03, 2007
The condition for our withdrawal is the Iraq Government's ability for self-sustainment. Statistics from last week's Army Times showed the number of Iraqi Army, special operations combat forces or strategic infrastructure battalions has increased by 42 from June 2005 to February 2007. The number of these battalions that are either fully independent of our forces or operating with US Forces in an advisory role has gone from 24 to 92 in the same timeframe. With everything else being equal during that time (I'm not convinced that it is), the statistics are encouraging.

The Iraqi military, which we have had to put back together after we dismantled it, needs have a reasonable shot at keeping the government from collapsing. ... I might go into this more in-depth at a later date, but that's the one basic, yet unvoiced, condition that we do have.
on May 03, 2007

Reply By: pseudosoldier                                            Posted: Thursday, May 03, 2007

Well stated.  ANd I agree.

on May 03, 2007
You know what would have been a great idea? Have a post-Saddam plan BEFORE invasion. I mean, they spent almost two years planning the "invasion" part, and then, three weeks before we went in, Pappy Rummy said, "Oh . . . what happens when we get IN there?"

Arrgh.

Not a constructive comment at all.
on May 03, 2007
Oh, it occurs to me that I never answered your question. Well, here's my analysis:

The Bush administration, after disregarding hundreds of years of history and fighting, went in to a country and imploded the government. They had a lot of hopes that were completely unfulfilled - they wanted the Iraqi army to remain intact, they wanted there to be some sort of power structure that would survive the decapitation of the regime.

Didn't happen. So there was no army, no local police, and no governmental system whatsoever. And thanks to Uncle Rummy, the whole debacle was under-funded and under-trooped (for lack of a better word). I mean, the Army brass said that it would take 400,000 to 500,000 troops to stabalize Iraq, and Uncle Lovespuds Rummy said, "Oh no, we only need - maybe - 125,000." Strong work, asshat.

So here we are, under-trooped, and minus any form of stability in the invading country. We're talking a country the size of California with over 26 million people, and we're supposed to stabilize.

And that's fine, and stabilization is the apparent, stated goal of the Bush administration. But let's be honest - ol' Gee Dub doesn't want to only make a stabilized country, his goal is to recreate Iraq in our own image, with a representative government and sworn fealty to Uncle Sugar-Sam.

Oh well. It's messy, it's nasty, and we're not going to get out of there NO MATTER WHAT until Gee Dub isn't president anymore. Arrgh.

[/rant]