| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Bush announces withdrawal conditions for US forces in Iraq |
| 2004-09-15 |
| The following address was delivered by George W. Bush to the people of Iraq on Monday, November 8, 2004. It was broadcast on prime-time TV and radio with a running translation in Arabic. It was also printed, in English and Arabic, as a leaflet, which was then widely distributed in Iraq. ... I am appearing before you tonight to tell you that the U.S. component of that expeditionary force will soon be withdrawn from your country. It is the judgment of the U.S. government that the principal aim of those U.N. resolutions — namely, that Iraq no longer be a threat to the peace of this region by the fact of possessing weapons of mass destruction — has been fulfilled. It now seems possible, in fact, that Iraq was no such threat even at the time our troops landed in your country. However, the Saddam dictatorship gave us every reason to believe otherwise, and we acted accordingly, with full justification. We do not, and never shall, apologize for our actions. It is the further judgment of the U.S. government that Iraq no longer represents any threat to our country and her interests; or, at any rate, no threat that requires our continued presence in your country. Other nations in the Coalition must make their own judgments; but we believe your country will soon be free of foreign troops altogether... Iraqis must choose their own future. The number of possibilities from which you can choose is small, and the United States reserves the right, in our own interests, to foreclose some of them. One. You may become a prosperous modern nation, enjoying freedom under a constitutional government. That is, and has always been, our hope for Iraq.Its a column in NRO - Conservative bastion. And it shows an exit strategy for the US from Iraq. Only flaw: doesn't cover the elimination of terrorism and its support inside Iraq. Other than that, very plausible. Read the whole thing |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #33 Looking at the totality of comments, I am surprised at how little consideration is given to the fact that this war is not optional choice. This is the front line in the war on terror. If not in Iraq, if not now, where? when? Perhaps in the US and perhaps very soon. Moreover, Iraq is not a place to withdraw from anytime soon. It is a staging ground for the ME region during the war on terror. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-09-15 11:24:24 PM |
| #32 For those who doubt, look to Kuwait. They run theirown affairs and are even liberalizing .. cautiously. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-09-15 10:38:59 PM |
| #31 F THEM, If they're unwilling to take their destiny and future in their hands and work towards a better Iraq for all peoples I'd say this is about as accurate a summary of what a majority of Americans feel right now as I've seen anywhere. Forget bloggers, or MSM talking heads or OpEd writers. Most Americans, unlike myself and most Rantburgers, do not care about grand strategy or democracy-promotion or national greatness or the outside world generally; they care mainly about being left alone. If they are not shown a clear path toward victory in Iraq, and soon, then the demands to bring the boys home will become overwhelming. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-15 3:56:52 PM |
| #30 #21, #22 As I've said before, isolationism runs deep in America. As deep in Republican as Democrat veins. I thought exactly the same thing. It's partially Jacksonian and partially realistic thinking. Basically saying, F THEM, If they're unwilling to take their destiny and future in their hands and work towards a better Iraq for all peoples. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-09-15 3:47:20 PM |
| #29 The pseudo speech said American troops would be gone by 2009, which gives plenty of time to deal with Iran and Syria. I would imagine such a withdrawal would start by the US pulling back into bases in Kurdistan. As Iraq fell apart in civil war and eventually into three countries we could be in position in the only semi-stable, democratic, region and ensure the Kurds don't get overrun by Turkish special forces. It's not a bad idea because it makes it clear we're not occupiers, it ensures the US doesn't look like its running when we finally leave after some hard knocks, it makes the Iraqis fully responsible for thier own nation, and it could help the Kurds get their own state without breaking any promises. Such a move should only occur after Falluja is cleaned out and Sadr is dead though, and hopefully when the US is ready to take on Iran. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2004-09-15 2:31:30 PM |
| #28 Susan? Susan Estrich? Hey, I guess you had to go somewhere when Fox News stopped using you for color commentary. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-09-15 1:46:55 PM |
| #27 Sue, Sorry that sort of fear-mongering won't wash here. Too many folks on this site are too historically oriented to fall for it. Also, a high percentage of us are vets, active, reserve or retired. We mourn our brave dead, but we know that what they are doing is essential to a future where we don't have to eyeball every passenger when we board an airplane. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2004-09-15 1:24:14 PM |
| #26 And doesn't Susan seem ecstatic about that! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-09-15 1:21:48 PM |
| #25 1000 dead and 30,000 injured ! |
| Posted by: Susan 2004-09-15 1:18:42 PM |
| #24 If our goals include establishing a US base long-term, and a reasonably stable, normal, somewhat democratic Iraq in the near term, then the logical course of action would be to partition Iraq and establish a US base in Kurdistan. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-15 12:00:06 PM |
| #23 The hypothetical problem with getting out would be a reduction in our leverage with Iran. Of course, this leverage has bought us very little with respect to Iran's nuclear program. A more serious problem with a withdrawal is that it would deprive us of a base from which to invade either Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, if that becomes necessary. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-15 11:57:09 AM |
| #22 lex: As I've said before, isolationism runs deep in America. As deep in Republican as Democrat veins. This isn't isolationism. He's not proposing foreign base closures - just rapidly speeded up Vietnamization. As long as the US is willing to provide air support, no US-supported Iraqi government can fall, either to domestic or foreign enemies. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-15 11:39:47 AM |
| #21 As I've said before, isolationism runs deep in America. As deep in Republican as Democrat veins. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-15 11:21:36 AM |
| #20 With Sistani around, the likelihood of the Iraqi Shia going to Iran is remote - as long as the US helps them stabilize their economy and close their borders to Iranian infiltrators. thats why this is a contest between US and Iran - IF Sisanti ends up (indirectly) leading the oil-rich southern areas into an independant nation, and it does not knuckle under to Iran, then Sistani ends up being the Head Honcho for Shia Islam - because he holds BOTH of their highest Shia mosques. Thats what worries the Iranians - the lose the ability to be The voice of authority for Shias even inside Iran. Thats why they are fighting this hard - they lose the ability to use Shia/Islam as a government force - when the guy next door at the Shrine of Ali can come out and directly contradict them, publicly. Thats why Iran cannot allow the Iraqi Shia to succeed - if they do then the current government if Iran will lose its religiosu shield, and when that happens, the mask will be off and they will be defeated by their own population (with plenty of covert support from the US) as being just another dictatorship of thugs. And the current Murat is not the same one, I think. All Turks had better get used to the idea of Kurdistan - or else help the US keep Iraq in one piece. Thats their choice. Think how many Kurds are in Turkey. Now think of them well armed, trained and sheltered and financed by oil revenues from Kurdistan next door in what used to be former Iraq, around Mosul. Turkish nightmare. (and yet again, more pressure on Iran as well as a bonus). If Turkey has chosen to oppose the US, so be it. Our relationaship witht hem was for the cold war, and now for basing help in Arabia and Iran. With Kuwait, Iraq (and Kurdistan in this scenario) open for us to move our bases to, we don't need them if they do not want us there. The Turks will soon realize that the USA is (as the Marines say) "no better friend, no worse enemy." |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-15 11:03:36 AM |
| #19 Folks, folks - this is just a hypothetical scenario being put out by John Derbyshire. He is suggesting that withdrawal is a live option. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-09-15 11:02:23 AM |
| #18 This sounds like a MEMO TO FILE, SUBJ: CYA. :D I think this might be a proposal on record to have of an exit strategy. But I don't think it's legit. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-09-15 10:50:25 AM |
| #17 Whoa! Murat baiting! |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-15 10:45:08 AM |
| #16 OS, are you really that worried about the Shia? It seems like Sistani is back in the saddle and the Turbans of Tehran gave it their best shot with Sadr and fell short. Give the Kurds their blue water port in North Syria, support the Shia in the south and where is the US nightmare that is worse than what we have today? I also think smacking Turkey would be good for every other U. S. "ally" thinking about going wobbly. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 10:38:17 AM |
| #15 Washington, DC, with about 600,000 residents, had 262 murders in 2002. The population of Iraq is about 25 million. At the Washington, DC murder rate, Iraq would have had 16,375 murders in 18 months. Our troops in Iraq are probably safer than Washington, DC residents. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-15 10:29:55 AM |
| #14 Folks this is a "speculative fiction" column by John Derbyshire on how Bush can force the issue in Iraq. The problem now is that the Iraqis seem to be more busy with taking potshots at us than they are with fixing their country. This is Derbyshire's solution. Basically its a "F**k you Iraq, we tried to help and you refused to rise up as a people and help us help you". My estimation is that if this sort of thing did happen, it would result in a nightmare. But it would be a nightmare for a lot of people. Because Iraq would split into 3 nations. A Sunni dominated nation in the center and west, which Syria and Saudi Arabia would contend to dominate by proxy (Saudi nightmare), a Shia nation in the south whichthe US and Iran would contenf to dominate by proxy (US nightmare if we fail there), and the biggest nightmare of all: Kurdistan comes into existence with a fully secular democratic government, a functional capatilistic economy, a ton of oil revenues to float them, and a long history of solid military performance. Iran, Turkey and Syria immediately will have active, well trained and well financed guerilla movments supported from right across the border, and the US would guarantee the safety and integrity of the Kurdistan national borders - possibly by acquiring basing rights there and putting a brigade of US troops and an Airforce base up around Mosul. Both Iran and Turkey would be horrified if this were to happen - because the Kurds will eventually win independence for large chunks of territory inside both those countries. And they will completely destroy the current governments of both Turkey and Iran in the process. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-09-15 10:29:22 AM |
| #13 Read a history of WW1(can't remember title),seems the German High Command figured loss' at 10 men/meter ground siezed.Talk about"Slaughter on a massive Scale". |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-09-15 10:05:06 AM |
| #12 The point's been made before but 1,000 over 18 months seems a lot better than 3,000 in one morning. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-09-15 9:08:05 AM |
| #11 Just to put things into perspective. On the eastern front during WWII, the Red Army lost an average of 7,400 combatants per day for each and every day the war was fought, while the Axis lost an average of 6,400 combatants per day. That is just on the eastern front. I am not trying to quantify our own combat losses, but everything the media has tried to convey about the war in Iraq; the war is a quargmire, heavy combat loses, the people hating the US, just doesn't wash. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-15 8:57:14 AM |
| #10 The US lost 1,000 men during a rehearsal for D-Day. And didn't release the details of the incident for twenty years. When the USS Indianapolis was sunk while travelling under orders of strict radio silence, almost 900 men died. Many died because the order for radio silence kept a distress call from being made. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-09-15 8:28:36 AM |
| #9 A simialr speech will have to be given in the very near future if events in Iraq continue to cause heavy losses to the US army Just a guess, Susan: We won't be seeing you at any victory rally when the US Army finally does win the war in Iraq, will we? |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-09-15 8:15:39 AM |
| #8 Heavy loses? 1000 over 18 months? Don't get me wrong, every life lost is a bad thing... If things were done without interference from PC civilians, the figure would be, very likely, different. You need to get some perspective about losses during the time of war. Read some WWII figures. Statistically, the losses in Iraq are only slightly higher than occurences of all fatal accidents in US. |
| Posted by: Zarathustra 2004-09-15 8:13:57 AM |
| #7 A simialr speech will have to be given in the very near future if events in Iraq continue to cause heavy losses to the US army |
| Posted by: Susan 2004-09-15 7:45:05 AM |
| #6 Capt. America, I want to point out that this "speech" says that the US component will be withdrawn. It doesn't say TO WHERE it will be withdrawn. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-09-15 7:36:21 AM |
| #5 ya think? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-09-15 7:34:58 AM |
| #4 Guys, look at the date. This is not a speech Bush gave, or delivered. I have no idea where Derbyshire got this, but I suspect this is merely his suggestion. |
| Posted by: Ben 2004-09-15 5:27:16 AM |
| #3 Non-sense! Why on earth would we withdraw our troops who are on the doorsteps of Iran at a time when a ticking nuclear crisis is underway and the insurgency on the rise? While we are seeing the gradual transitioning of military operations (on small scale today) from Coalition to Iraqi forces, this force is no where need self-sustaining, now or on November 8th. A proclamation of this sort is conceivable say in April 2005 under certain conditions; namely (1) that Iraqi miitary reaches 200,000 and are fully trained and equipped, and (2) the Iranian nuclear threat has been eliminated. Otherwise, we stay beyond April 2005 and possibly start knocking down a few of the neighbors doors. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-09-15 2:56:43 AM |
| #2 The following address was delivered by George W. Bush to the people of Iraq on Monday, November 8, 2004. Thieves! Return my time machine! |
| Posted by: Alexander Hartdegen 2004-09-15 1:47:36 AM |
| #1 This is pretty good. If Iraquis were rational, this might even work. Iraquis will get the kind of government they deserve. Therefore - it will most likely be ruthless and violent. Its a shame, after so many coalition soldiers shed their blood in that dismal place. Pull out, and let the Iraquis sort things out. Later, once it is confirmed that Iraq is a rabid dog - put it down. Leave only the dazed, peaceful, disoriented few still standing, somewhere off on the fringes. Iraq has had its chance. They need to grow up quick - or depart the gene pool. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2004-09-15 1:42:30 AM |