Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmccarrell
The difference is that you cannot set a timetable when we're not winning. Once the surge started to work and we were able to let the Iraqi's secure more of their territory without our help, a timetable doesn't have the drastic repercussions it would if we were getting killed all the time, like we were. Defining victory now is easy. When the generals agree that the Iraqi security forces can secure an area without our help, like the recent turnover of Anbar Province, then that is how you win a battle. When Iraq can secure their own country without our help, then victory is finally achieved. They are very close to this goal, the Bush administration was estimating that it would be won inside of two years. As much as this was a stupid idea, pulling out too early has horrific consequences.
|
I doubt that, and disagree with, anyone who says that we can pull right out of Iraq. That would be the dumbest thing ever. Second to that might be staying. Our troops are on the line, aren't even being protected to the best of our ability, doing other peoples work. We need to send a sign to the Iraqis that shows we will not stay for ever, aren't split down the middle, we mean what we say. Right now they have a black check from a divided, indecisive world power to fight their civil war. If we just leave, however, things will get worse than they were before, and our drawing Al-Queda there and re-igniting tensions did not help. Do we even know why we are there, other than we were misled by, and lied to by, the Bush Admin & Co?