http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._rumsfeld_dc_11

Is this a sign that the current administration may be trying to set the stage to bug out of Iraq before it is settled and safely democratic?


Is America obligated to stay in Iraq till the goal of a democratic nation is established?
Was this not the goal of the Bush Administration? Was this not the real reason for invading Iraq, right next to the proliferation of WMDs being orchestrated by Saddam?



If it looks like the idea of a democratic Iraq will not occur and the United States pulls our troops out with a "We did all we can do" "or a "you can lead a horse to water" excuse what will that do to the reputation of our country globally?

Yes, we told the world that our goal in Iraq is to establish democracy. If we pull out, we will lose immense support. We've already lost several allies, we don't need another enemy. However, what needs to be done is to rebuild alliances through negotiations and peace talks. If Kerry is elected, he'll be able to go to the ambassadors of our former allies and say, "I apologize for what the previous administration did. There is little I can do about it now. Pulling our troops out prematurely would ruin Iraq's chances for becoming a sustainable country. We need your help." You know that old stereotype about men not asking for directions? I think it may apply to President Bush as well.

Here's my question (and, as always, it's purely hypothetical):

What would occur if the Iraqi people elect someone less-than-favorable as their President? What if the President elect of Iraq pardons Saddam Hussein, thereby releasing him? What if Muqtada al-Sadr is elected? Will we go in and "correct" things?

I realize these are mostly absurd questions, but I'm a rather pessimistic person. I mean, really, what if Saddam Hussein is pardoned of all his crimes?

Politics in iraq are done with tanks and rpgs right now, and i dont see it getting any better being each side will not take any kind of bipartition stance to resolve issues. I still want to know what democracy in iraqs culture is or what the people would like to see as a leadership, i dont know if either side cares to hear about that. in light of the vietnam it is, i feel very bad for the general population of iraq, for they are the ones that really suffer from all of this. Its nice to sit on a ranch and say things over and over again that dont reflect reality, and hold brevity also while speaking on it, but the situation in iraq is horrid, and no plan by anybody exists save the stasis of combat that exists right now. so i dont see democracy coming along like in some fairy tale type sense any time soon, so i dont really see the need to talk on it, seems to distract from the reality of the situation if i may reduce in such fashion. The combatants in iraq are going to strive and thrive if you will from what could be their political base, and without being able to get some form of uniformity in that, the situation will probably repeat while iraq is slowly destroyed.

Is America obligated to stay in Iraq till the goal of a democratic nation is established?Was this not the goal of the Bush Administration? Was this not the real reason for invading Iraq, right next to the proliferation of WMDs being orchestrated by Saddam?

Isn't that the goal? I assumed that both Bush and Kerry want to se democracy established in Iraq. I want to democracy established in Iraq. The Iraqi people want to see democracy established in Iraq. The world wants to see democracy established in Iraq. If we make a goal we must STAY THE COURSE.

If it looks like the idea of a democratic Iraq will not occur and the United States pulls our troops out with a "We did all we can do" "or a "you can lead a horse to water" excuse what will that do to the reputation of our country globally?

That would indicate that there was only one reason we went to Iraq. Oil. Once we got the oil we left.

People say "there are no go zones" and "people dying every day in Iraq" therefore, "how can you hold 'free' elections?" Well there are 'no go zones' (every major city) and 'people dying' (every major city) in the US so how do we have free elections? Or do we not have free elections? We have low voter turn out, is that because we don't have free elections? And without free elections does this make us a democracy?

It looks like Rumsfeld is preparing for just the opposite of your goals, yehoshua: Rumsfeld: Iraq Troop Pull-Out Possible Before Peace. Now, before we get into an argument of what "peace" means, I think we can both agree that democratic elections will not magically engender peace. I think we can also agree that stability and war are mutually exclusive properties. This is why I started the thread on "Success" in Iraq. I foresee the current administration modifying is stated goals in order to be able to claim "success". I want the goals clearly stated beforehand, so that we can evaluate whether or not we have achieved them. If the goals are not clearly stated, then there is no accountability. It's like beginning a debate thread without a clear debate topic.

I don't see it that way. As Allawi had stated to "Congress" (or the members who at least had an active interest in Iraq), "The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat- ready Iraqis. By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis." (Allawi's Speech) So if Rumsfeld is planning to remove troops by the same amount
that come in, then did we really remove troops? Or if we remove more troops, yet the people of Iraq respect Iraq troops more then American troops, then did we really remove the troops?

As Rumsfeld said, "Our goal is to invest the time and the money and the effort to help them train up Iraqis to take over those [security] responsibilities." I don't see this as being different then me saying as a goal to establish democracy. A nation that allows people to govern themselves and protect its people, is at the heart a democracy.

Ah, yes, the equivalency principle. Specifically, you are suggesting that Iraqi troops are equivalent to US troops. Hmm...if that were the case, I wonder why the initial invasion of Iraq was relatively easy? In fact, why not just create a whole Iraqi army to keep the peace as it were? Why have US troops at all? These are equivalent, right?


This is the goal today; tomorrow it will be a different goal. How many goals have we had so far? ridding of WMD, ridding of potential WMD-related activities, regional stability, democracy, peace, reducing terrorist threat, bringing terrorists to justice for 9/11, bringing Saddam to justice (hey we achieved that one), there's probably more... What's the policy on Iraq today? Rumsfeld says one thing, Powell says another, Cheney...well...who knows what comes out of Cheney's mouth, Dubya says all sorts of things: we can't win the war on terror...oh no wait a sec...we can win...yes, that's it, that's the ticket or we're safer, safer, safer except we should expect terrorist attacks at any time.

If it looks like the idea of a democratic Iraq will not occur and the United States pulls our troops out with a "We did all we can do" "or a "you can lead a horse to water" excuse what will that do to the reputation of our country globally?

If nothing else it would further prove the illegitimacy of the war. It should show the people who are fooled by warmongering that you can not invade to give representative government to a scared people. Also, considering the damage that we have done in the past and currently, if we were so worried about Arab terrorism we wouldn't leave the most watched Arab country on the planet in total shambles after blasting it to bits. Rumsfeld is going the standard apologist route to make for the fact that people are catching on to the scam before the election is over.

Actually I was suggesting that Iraqi troops are now better then US troops. Here are my reasons:

1. Better train then under Saddam.
2. Better weaponry and armor then under Saddam.
3. They are IRAQIS. Iraqis will listen to other Iraqis before the listen to the US.

Here is the thought behind the last one. If we were invade, i would be more press to listen to an American then to my foreign occupier. Iraqi is better off with Iraqis in control. Now by know means does removing troops equal no longer supporting Iraq. Nor does it mean helping Iraq to obtain a free society. It only means that Americans will no longe be patrolling like police officers Iraqi streets. The Military and the Police are two completely differently run organizations that should not be under the same category.



Lets not count the goals we have, but the ones we have accomplished.

1. Ridding of WMD - CHECK, there are no WMD in Iraqi, possibility of WMD have moved.
2. Ridding of potential WMD-related activities - CHECK, no WMD used during war, future use falls under the guid of possible transportation of existing WMD.
3. Regional stability - CHECK, despite a couple of 'No go zones' as compared to the country being a 'no go zone' prior to the war
4. Democracy CHECK, established a temporary government with aspirations of elections and a trial
5. peace - that wasn't a goal
6. reducing terrorist threat CHECK fighting terrorist in Iraq as opposed to the US
7. bringing terrorists to justice for 9/11 - that can't be done, the terrorist died in the crash. And that was not a condition for Iraq.
8. bringing Saddam to justice (hey we achieved that one)

I believe the statement should be taken in context.



Bush has always stated that we will stay the course.



Allawi has told us that his country is mostly secure, that most of the people in Iraq are grateful to America. We've all known we wouldn't stay there forever, but as long as is needed. We can't expect Iraq to be perfect before we begin to withdraw.

Is America obligated to stay in Iraq till the goal of a democratic nation is established?

I would leave it at an elected government. What if the people choose imams? What if Iraqis "protest" Allawi by staying home when the polls open as Iranians did in February to punish moderate reformers for not coming through on their promises?


Allawi's description of a secure Iraq (or more secure Iraq) is disputed back home. On the upper right-hand corner of this page is a video of the Iraqi reaction. I wish I could directly link the video but Fox's website won't let me. His statements in England that terrorists are "coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq" sound more dramatic but rings closer to the truth given the abductions and bombings.

No reasonable person would wait for Iraq to be "perfect" before pulling out, least of all families with servicemembers. We owe it to ourselves and the wo/men who died to hold off pulling out until a relatively secure Iraq is a reality instead of a goal.

When it comes to Iraq I feel like I have been tied spread eagle to a giant yo-yo called Expectations.

It could be that Rumsfeld was talking about a largely peaceful Iraq with only a few cities in enemy hands or a minor guerrila insurgency. I believe that we all would agree that fighting in that country would never stop 100%, I honestly doubt that the administration would leave Iraq in it's current state. They want the "green" zone to be a larger area, but whether or not that's going to happen is another conversation.

International law and agreements state that we are responsible for the plight of the Iraqi people and that we have an obligation to them since we stepped in and caused a halt to essential services. U.N. charter article 73 clearly documents our obligations that unless others agree to takeover or share with us, we are responsible for.




Nileriver is dead on in stating that we are setting Iraq up according to our dictates, and maybe not to the liking of Iraqis who want democracy but with "Iraqi characteristics" Free and fair elections, but outlawing sales of liquor and pornography or things more along that line. Amazing how both men for president talk about democracy, but we have yet to hear what the Iraqi people desire out of a democratic government which would be more attuned to their interests and values, not ours. Democracy and a desire for it should be driven by the Iraqis themselves, not Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush. It's very humorous that if we have elections, that somehow this whole insurgency will end-South Vietnam held elections, and no one really bought into it. Not certain how or why that will change in Iraq.

Is America obligated to stay in Iraq till the goal of a democratic nation is established?
I was under the impression that elections will be held in January. So, I suppose, it will be an "established democracy" then. Will it stay that way? Not likely unless we obtain stability and security in that area.

If it looks like the idea of a democratic Iraq will not occur and the United States pulls our troops out with a "We did all we can do" "or a "you can lead a horse to water" excuse what will that do to the reputation of our country globally? Obviously, we'll be discrediting ourselves. Unfortunately, we probably need more backing than we are getting, and more troops than we are maintaining, to do so. For all of those who believe that a democracy must be established from within so this is a bad idea, I'm curious what sort of government you think would work better at this time? Is there a different, preferable option, or is this simply a way of "wishing it all away"? It won't go away, we have involved ourselves, and giving the people a say in their government is probably the best option at this time.

Have to point out that this is absolutely false. The whole point of democracy is that Iraqi lawmakers (when a permanent body of such people exists) will have to power to control such issues. WE aren't setting up a democracy in any particular fashion. The process has been and will be determined by Iraqis. It's very humorous that if we have elections, that somehow this whole insurgency will end-South Vietnam held elections, and no one really bought into it. Not certain how or why that will change in Iraq.

The vast majority of the Iraq people say they plan to vote and that they want democracy.

I would agree that much more is being made out of Rumsfeld's remarks than is actually there. He simply means things may not be 100% settled before US troops withdraw.

Well, I would agree that they would be better in terms of running things over there. Undoubtedly, the Afghans are doing a wonderful job of being able to take out rebellious Afghans and village chieftains that are in the way to progress. Things are smooth over there because of it. Unfortunately, Iraqis are not showing the same propensity of taking out their fellow countrymen.


-source

How long have we been attempting to train these units?