Withdrawl

The NY Times comes out today for withdrawl from Iraq and starts out its page long editorial with these words:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

I agree with the editorial. Bush would love to wait and hand off the mess to the next President, but that's not going to happen. There are too many Republicans who want to be re-elected in 2008 who aren't going to go down in flames over their support of the war.

The 2008 election is not going to be about Iraq the way the 2004 and 2006 elections were. We'll be well on our way out of Iraq by next November.

And that's a good thing. Because we've got bigger issues to work out.

Comments

[Douglas Karr]

Decisions are one of those things that have risk. I do not believe that people are holding the Republican Candidates responsible for the war as much as they are Bush.

If Republicans push to get out of the war prior to the elections and Iraq falls into mayhem, civil war, and Iranian influence - they will add instability to the region.

That will get them slaughtered by the press - who is drooling over getting a Democrat in the White House.

I'm betting that they maintain status quo and we continue fighting while gradually reducing losses and removing troops over time. This will put the onus on Iraq to fix their own problems and failing will not all be blamed on the U.S.

I would be willing to bet on this whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the White House next. In fact, I think there's a remote chance we'll still be talking about Iraq (and Iran... and Terrorism) in 2012.

[Peter]

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you on this one. Bush has made it very clear that he equates leaving Iraq with losing. We'll have the same number of troops on the ground either "surging" or about to start another surge until the next president takes office.

Politicians will verbally run away from the war the way many already have, but they won't actually take any action to end the war. They had the chance in February and very publicly came up short. It's nice that Lugar, Domenici and others are making speeches, but when it comes time to count votes, they stick with "one more chance," or "a new direction" talk and the war goes on.

[Oz]

Please read Natan Sharansky from yesterday's Washington Post:

http://tinyurl.com/3dwk3

This is certainly a man who has earned the right to be heard. Start reading Michael Yon (http://michaelyon-online.com/) and stop reading the Times and you will get a better understanding of the stakes involved.

Not the political stakes...but the actual stakes for both Iraqis and Americans.

[Trent]

While I agree with the sentiment that we should leave immediately, you are suffering from wishful thinking. While Iraq is likely to decline as a political issue, it will be after we've been there so long that nobody gives it any more thought. 50 years on we haven't left Korea. You really think we'll be out of Iraq in 4?

[charlie crystle]

That would be "withdrawal", not "withdrawl".

"Withdrawl" is how Bush speaks when talking to audiences in Texas.

[Sean]

From the editorial:

"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs."

So while their own paper reports success happening in Anbar (remember it was "lost" 6-9 months ago)with increasing local participation in the police, etc

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08burns.html?ex=1341547200&en=794a8c7902ff002b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

they advocate leaving those same people to reprisal killings and genocide.

That makes sense to me.

[avneron]

i don't think there is any chance Bush is going to withdraw from Iraq. reduce a bit the number of troops, maybe.. (after pressure from GOP).

a complete withdrawal will require a strong push by Congress which i don't believe will happen.

i would say it is more likely that Bush will choose to invade Iran before the end of his term than withdraw from Iraq...

[Régis]

Destroy eveything. Replace dictature with anarchy. Leave the mess and go home.

I don't think that it's a good idea.