Iraqi president: U.S. troops should stay

[GaryC 7]

CAMBRIDGE, England -

Iraq's president, worried about growing opposition in Congress to funding for the war, said Friday he believes U.S. and British troops will need to stay in Iraq for one or two more years to help stem the bloodshed.

Jalal Talabani told students at the University of Cambridge that all of Iraq was safer because of Saddam Hussein's ouster and that many people were living "normal" lives.

"I think within one or two years, we will be able to recruit our forces and prepare our armed forces and tell goodbye to our friends," he said.

Talabani's visit comes as the Baghdad government is growing concerned about rapidly deteriorating support for the war in the United States and Britain. The government has dispatched senior officials to Washington this week to warn U.S. lawmakers that pulling out troops would have disastrous consequences.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a draft bill that would fund the war only through July. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, but it indicates the war's unpopularity among U.S. lawmakers and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

"We are concerned," Talabani said. "We hope that Congress will review this decision and help the American army to stay until the Iraqi army will be able to replace them and to protect the security of Iraq."

He offered assurances that Iraq's leaders were doing everything they could on the political front to pursue reconciliation among divided ethnic and religious factions.

But he gave no details on how, for example, minority Sunni Arabs would be given a greater voice in politics, a change that many hope would weaken support for the insurgency.

He also would not elaborate on another key American demand — to end delays in the passage of legislation outlining how oil revenues would be shared among Sunnis Arabs, Shiites and Kurds.

"We are planning to show some tangible achievements to the Congress that we are going forward for national reconciliation, for national unity, for fighting terrorism and achieving peace and security in our country," Talabani said.

He also expressed support for British Prime Minister Tony Blair's likely successor, Gordon Brown, who pledged Friday to learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war.

"I don't know him personally," Talabani said of Brown. "All those Iraqis who met him, including our excellent ambassador here, they are praising him and saying that he's a very clever man, capable, smart."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_...n_iraq_talabani

[Oath 0]

Hmm, seems to be very like what I had been saying, but I doubt many people will pay much attention to it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No surprise there - considering that the Iraqi Govt would likely be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No surprise there - considering that the Iraqi Govt would likely be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Bingo.

[GaryC 7]

Yeah your right, ** em. They are just trying to establish a democracy after a 30 year rule of a tyrant. I am sure that if we leave the various factions will stop fighting. I am sure that Iran will stop sending in weapons and IED's. I am sure that Al Queda is really filled with nice guys and we are only misunderstand them. After all we are the greatest evil in the world. We are the cause of all the suffering and pain. I agree with you that we should retreat to our borders and let the world do what it wants.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah your right, ** em. They are just trying to establish a democracy after a 30 year rule of a tyrant. I am sure that if we leave the various factions will stop fighting. I am sure that Iran will stop sending in weapons and IED's. I am sure that Al Queda is really filled with nice guys and we are only misunderstand them. After all we are the greatest evil in the world. We are the cause of all the suffering and pain. I agree with you that we should retreat to our borders and let the world do what it wants.

Get a grip Gary, at least try and find something to disagree with before you go off on some bizarre melodramatic rant.

Noone said "###### em". Its pretty obvious why the new Iraqi govt wants the US troops to stay, and from their perspective its totally understandable.

Less clear is to what extent the diverse peoples they represent share that opinion - given that there are a number of recent opinion polls which show otherwise. Ultimately its the civilian population who will ultimately determine policy - if they don't want us there and are actively working against the coalition efforts, I'm not sure what can really be achieved. You can't force people to accept western-style democracy overnight, or to forget centuries worth of sectarian animosity.

[GaryC 7]

Get a grip Gary, at least try and find something to disagree with before you go off on some bizarre melodramatic rant.

Noone said "###### em". Its pretty obvious why the new Iraqi govt wants the US troops to stay, and from their perspective its totally understandable.

Less clear is to what extent the diverse peoples they represent share that opinion - given that there are a number of recent opinion polls which show otherwise. Ultimately its the civilian population who will ultimately determine policy - if they don't want us there and are actively working against the coalition efforts, I'm not sure what can really be achieved. You can't force people to accept western-style democracy overnight, or to forget centuries worth of sectarian animosity.

Sorry, I just get frustrated when something that is so clear to me that seems to escape others. I am not saying what is happening in Iraq is perfect. There were a lot of mistakes made. But pulling out is the worse thing we can do. There is no way to unite everyone over there without a tyrant or a strong constitution. I prefer the latter. It took us a long time from the day we declaired our indipendance till we had a constitution that worked. People seem to want everything right away or they want to pull out and leave them to it. It's going to take a long time to stablize Iraq. We need to be in this for the long haul. The result of us loosing our nerve and pulling out will be anarhcy and more bloodshed.

I guess what is frustrating me most is a lot of people seem happy to bash Bush and the war but I hear no suggestions on what to do other than pull out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Get a grip Gary, at least try and find something to disagree with before you go off on some bizarre melodramatic rant.

Noone said "###### em". Its pretty obvious why the new Iraqi govt wants the US troops to stay, and from their perspective its totally understandable.

Less clear is to what extent the diverse peoples they represent share that opinion - given that there are a number of recent opinion polls which show otherwise. Ultimately its the civilian population who will ultimately determine policy - if they don't want us there and are actively working against the coalition efforts, I'm not sure what can really be achieved. You can't force people to accept western-style democracy overnight, or to forget centuries worth of sectarian animosity.

Sorry, I just get frustrated when something that is so clear to me that seems to escape others. I am not saying what is happening in Iraq is perfect. There were a lot of mistakes made. But pulling out is the worse thing we can do. There is no way to unite everyone over there without a tyrant or a strong constitution. I prefer the latter. It took us a long time from the day we declaired our indipendance till we had a constitution that worked. People seem to want everything right away or they want to pull out and leave them to it. It's going to take a long time to stablize Iraq. We need to be in this for the long haul. The result of us loosing our nerve and pulling out will be anarhcy and more bloodshed.

I guess what is frustrating me most is a lot of people seem happy to bash Bush and the war but I hear no suggestions on what to do other than pull out.

Well it isn't really all that clear, in my view. Trying to turn a deeply divided country made up of various different sectarian groups with feuds and internecine bloodshed going back decades obviously wasn't going to be an overnight job, but what was it that the public was actually sold? I mean, how long is too long? 10, 15, 20 years - you have to draw a line somewhere - moral obligations aside. How long are the American people prepared to pay to prop up the Iraqi govt when it seems:

1) They are unable to function without our direct support.

2) Corruption is endemic

3) The justice system is not far removed from the old regime (see this delightful story from the other day). Torture is commonplace, and the police force (according to our own military) is little more than a band of trained thugs infiltrated by sectarian militants intent on carrying out revenge killings.

4) The people don't seem to really want us there.

As for criticising Bush et al - that doesn't seem unfair or irrelevant. Even if we ignore all the "was it legal" stuff, there's still the issues over how the project was managed - not least certain claims that were made in the run-up to the war that we'd be "outta there" within 18-24 months. Clearly that was either a blatant lie or a gross exaggeration. To be honest with you - I don't think anyone who supported this war really considered what the implications were of completely rebuilding a country, and the longer we seem to stay there the further away we get from Bin Laden and his bunch - who have essentially gotten away with mass-murder.

Its up to the new government to rebuild the country's infrastructure so that they can at least defend their country and ensure some sort of long term stability. Can't have a constitution until major national institutions are in place - otherwise its just a piece of paper. Yet again with the corruption that's going on - rebuilding those institution isn't going to be quick or easy.

Edited May 12, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

[Well it isn't really all that clear, in my view. Trying to turn a deeply divided country made up of various different sectarian groups with feuds and internecine bloodshed going back decades obviously wasn't going to be an overnight job, but what was it that the public was actually sold? I mean, how long is too long? 10, 15, 20 years - you have to draw a line somewhere - moral obligations aside. How long are the American people prepared to pay to prop up the Iraqi govt when it seems:

1) They are unable to function without our direct support.

2) Corruption is endemic

3) The justice system is not far removed from the old regime (see this delightful story from the other day). Torture is commonplace, and the police force (according to our own military) is little more than a band of trained thugs infiltrated by sectarian militants intent on carrying out revenge killings.

4) The people don't seem to really want us there.

As for criticising Bush et al - that doesn't seem unfair or irrelevant. Even if we ignore all the "was it legal" stuff, there's still the issues over how the project was managed - not least certain claims that were made in the run-up to the war that we'd be "outta there" within 18-24 months. Clearly that was either a blatant lie or a gross exaggeration. To be honest with you - I don't think anyone who supported this war really considered what the implications were of completely rebuilding a country, and the longer we seem to stay there the further away we get from Bin Laden and his bunch - who have essentially gotten away with mass-murder.

Its up to the new government to rebuild the country's infrastructure so that they can at least defend their country and ensure some sort of long term stability. Can't have a constitution until major national institutions are in place - otherwise its just a piece of paper. Yet again with the corruption that's going on - rebuilding those institution isn't going to be quick or easy.

Which brings me back to my original question. Other than pointing fingers and blaming Bush what constructive suggestion has those opposed to the war made? Everyone would agree that pulling out now would result in a bloodbath on a scale much larger than what we have now. It would also be reasonably assumed that pulling out would result in all out civil war with Iran probably ending up controlling Iraq. Is that what those that have been bashing Bush and the war are suggesting we do? Do you have a better alternative? I am open to discussing any reasonable alternative to just letting them have it out on their own. I just want some constructive suggestions and not more of the same "Bush lied" and "pull out now" rhetoric.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which brings me back to my original question. Other than pointing fingers and blaming Bush what constructive suggestion has those opposed to the war made? Everyone would agree that pulling out now would result in a bloodbath on a scale much larger than what we have now. It would also be reasonably assumed that pulling out would result in all out civil war with Iran probably ending up controlling Iraq. Is that what those that have been bashing Bush and the war are suggesting we do? Do you have a better alternative? I am open to discussing any reasonable alternative to just letting them have it out on their own. I just want some constructive suggestions and not more of the same "Bush lied" and "pull out now" rhetoric.

Its not like there hasn't been debate - didn't they have congressional hearings back in the New Year to discuss a way forward? I forget his name - but the general who was brought in to answer questions basically poo-pooed every suggestion that was made.

Withdraw = bad

More troops = bad

Partition = horrible

As I've said before I think we have allowed ourselves to be maneuvered into a Catch 22 situation where there are really very few options. People are rightly angry at the government for that (again not only for justification but for planning and implementation) - but of course that doesn't address the problem about what to do with Iraq. Bush will be out in little over a year anyway so the mess will be inherited by the next administration.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Well it isn't really all that clear, in my view. Trying to turn a deeply divided country made up of various different sectarian groups with feuds and internecine bloodshed going back decades obviously wasn't going to be an overnight job, but what was it that the public was actually sold? I mean, how long is too long? 10, 15, 20 years - you have to draw a line somewhere - moral obligations aside. How long are the American people prepared to pay to prop up the Iraqi govt when it seems:

1) They are unable to function without our direct support.

2) Corruption is endemic

3) The justice system is not far removed from the old regime (see this delightful story from the other day). Torture is commonplace, and the police force (according to our own military) is little more than a band of trained thugs infiltrated by sectarian militants intent on carrying out revenge killings.

4) The people don't seem to really want us there.

As for criticising Bush et al - that doesn't seem unfair or irrelevant. Even if we ignore all the "was it legal" stuff, there's still the issues over how the project was managed - not least certain claims that were made in the run-up to the war that we'd be "outta there" within 18-24 months. Clearly that was either a blatant lie or a gross exaggeration. To be honest with you - I don't think anyone who supported this war really considered what the implications were of completely rebuilding a country, and the longer we seem to stay there the further away we get from Bin Laden and his bunch - who have essentially gotten away with mass-murder.

Its up to the new government to rebuild the country's infrastructure so that they can at least defend their country and ensure some sort of long term stability. Can't have a constitution until major national institutions are in place - otherwise its just a piece of paper. Yet again with the corruption that's going on - rebuilding those institution isn't going to be quick or easy.

Which brings me back to my original question. Other than pointing fingers and blaming Bush what constructive suggestion has those opposed to the war made? Everyone would agree that pulling out now would result in a bloodbath on a scale much larger than what we have now. It would also be reasonably assumed that pulling out would result in all out civil war with Iran probably ending up controlling Iraq. Is that what those that have been bashing Bush and the war are suggesting we do? Do you have a better alternative? I am open to discussing any reasonable alternative to just letting them have it out on their own. I just want some constructive suggestions and not more of the same "Bush lied" and "pull out now" rhetoric.

Take a look at the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, then. That's a way forward. More plausible and comprehensive an approach than the White House has ever offered. Of course, Bush ain't listening to what this commission had to say. After all, those are experts and where the ** would this nation be if the experts had anything to say...

[Leney 0]

The answer is, there is no plausible or all encompassing answer or I'm sure it would be attempted by now. The problem is, this situation is beyond the realms of most people's comprehension. Experts, military leaders, politicians do not have answers. They have a wait and see if the bullies get sick of picking on the fat kid attitude currently, because they really just don't have the ability to get their minds around this situation. The people who know the situation best are people that are dealing with the situation presently, and don't have the time to sit in a board room for a few hours doing a brain storming session with heads of state.

You can be an armchair military leader, armchair political expert, etc - but the thing is we will never understand what is going on fully, and all we can do is support our troops.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You can be an armchair military leader, armchair political expert, etc - but the thing is we will never understand what is going on fully, and all we can do is support our troops.

Isn't asking our government to take and act on expert advise supporting our troops? There are strategies out there. They're not in line with Bush's ultimate goal: Handing the Iraq quagmire off in January of 2009 so someone else can get blamed for his home-made debacle. Supporting Bush is opposite of supporting our troops. He's just getting the boys killed over there in the desert.

Edited May 12, 2007 by ET-US2004