US to Stay Beyond Iraq Handover

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3269817.stm



Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld said this could take at
least two years.

"There is no decision to pull out
early," Mr Rumsfeld said, despite mounting attacks on the
US-led troops.

On Friday, US helicopter gunships killed seven Iraqis near the
northern town of Tikrit, suspected of preparing rocket
attacks, the US military said.

The US general leading the military operation in Iraq, John
Abizaid, has announced that he is moving his headquarters
from the US to Qatar.

What a miserable MISERABLE FAILURE!

and regroup around the oil feilds/refineries.

It will be a hand-off for the headlines only, so Bush can lie about "doing the right thing" some more, about quickly giving the Iraqis back their country, when in fact he is running away to start campaigning. A campaign of lies.

More disgraceful behavior from the Disgracer In Chief.

They will leave some troops behind in heavily fortified bases so they can claim we didn't retreat. But you can bet your bippy if they are emphatically saying we're NOT leaving, then we will be leaving as soon as possible.

. . don't furget,

. . GeeDubya is still tryna figure out why HIS oil ended up under Iraqi sand !!

. . nope - nope - they ain't gonna leave that OIL behind !

Just My Humble Canadian Opinion

They may decide they've already done enough plundering using the war as an excuse to empty the US treasury.

They can pull back to a few fortified military bases around some oil wells and refineries, or they can decide that the oil is not worth losing an election...they can always come back after they steal another election...

Seems the infostructure is so bad it it would take more than they calculated to get a return. Also the Iraq reserves are not what they thought. I say leave now, no sense in losing more lives.

It's also said that Saddam greatly exaggerated the size of the reserves...

What arrogance!

Did not mean to sound arrogant. But in reality this part of the world and their cultures have not embraced 'Democracy' in 4000 years. I do not beleive one culture can impose its will on another culture. We will leave sooner or later and that part of the world will continue to live their religions (not just Sunday church). We leave with 400 hundred dead or 400 + .

This is the scenario I think they're aiming for:

1) Iraqis elect a government of their own, whose authority they will accept in a way they would never accept the authority of US forces.

2) That government will move to restore order and public services. As life returns more or less to normal, most Iraqis will settle down and become less inclined to engage in the insurgency.

3) US troops will be pulled out of the cities, thus avoiding day-to-day grievances, and will establish self-contained camps with well-guarded perimeters.

4) The outcome is that the US gets out of the way of major attacks, while retaining both bases in Iraq (very important now that the Saudi adventure is over) and the ability to insure a friendly government in Baghdad.


These are the problems I think are going to screw them up:

1) It will be impossible to create an Iraqi government that answers to both the Iraqi people and the US occupiers. If it serves the people, it will not be a pliable tool for the US. If it serves the US, it will quickly lose authority with the people.

2) Iraq will be ungovernable. Too many independent forces have been set loose -- Kurds and religious Shi'ites in particular -- which will never accept a government that does not meet their aspirations. A weak central government (since the US would hardly allow a strong one) will be unable to maintain control. The result will be civil war at worst, warlordism at best.

3) The insurgency may prove to be unstoppable. The guerrillas have caught the scent of victory and are not going to lay down their arms for a promise of normality and limited self-government.

4) The US neocons have their hearts set on Disneyland-by-the-Tigris and won't accept anything less. If they are allowed to continue running the Iraqi economy, resentment, sabotage, and routine assassinations of westerners will be the ongoing response.

5) Israel has its own agenda, which seems to require both a friendly government in Baghdad and free access to Iraqi oil (and possibly water.) That alone would put an intolerable level of pressure on any Iraqi government.


In short, the US was able to set things up as it did in post-World War II Germany and Japan because once those countries had been defeated militarily, their interests and the interests of the US were fairly compatible -- peace, stability, democracy, economic rebuilding. But in Iraq, the various parties involved have core interests that are completely and permanently incompatible, and I see no possible way that can be resolved. Somebody is going to have to win and somebody else is going to have to lose before this situation comes to a conclusion.

n/t

They just need to find the right Nuri al-Said.