Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p="
What comments has Bush made that lead you to believe he is peeved or that he does not want the elected leaders of Iraq to take over security duties?
|
Because everytime anyone says that the US troops need to be removed and the Iraqi's put in charge, the Karl Rove and the republicans in general start whining about "cut and run". Show me one place where a member of this administration has made anything close to this kind of statement, that the Iraqi forces would be in charge of the country by years end. So why would Bush be peeved, because this is not the "stay the course" policy that he expouses.
Quote:
|
I agree. They cannot do that immediately. He is right, we are there in a support and educational role...not to do their work for them.
|
Well then, why don't we. You are kidding me if you think we are there as a support role now.
Quote:
If we leave too early, the insurgency will exploit the opportunity to create more chaos and try to destroy the democracy.
Iraq's elected leaders know this. That is why they have asked us to stay.
|
More Choas? Come one, they kill and the US forces are doing next to nothing to stop it. The deaths are continueing unabated and our presence is NOT stopping the insurgancy, or even making much of a dent in it. We can't. That would require the population to turn against the insurgancy. Which will not happen while we are there. And you do realize that we are already "securing" towns and then leaving and then "securing" them again. If our troops do what is proposed and start to withdrawl, and the country falls into civil war. We will then support the exisiting democratic government, and if that is not enough, we can re-engage militarly. Withdrawl DOES NOT mean the country will become a fundamentalist taliban regime. Stay DOES mean that the country will not stabilize itself.
Quote:
|
Which is irrelevant if the State is unable to defeat them on it's own.
|
Like I said, let's see. And if they then need more help, we can return with more help.