What if they ask us to leave?

[billvon 3,172]

OK, so fast-forward a month or two. We hand over power to a provisional government in Iraq. Their very first act is to ask us to get the hell out of Iraq. (A recent poll showed a majority of Iraqis support an immediate withdrawal of US troops.) Al-Sadr runs for some government position on the platform that "I drove the US out of Iraq!" Al-Zarqawi becomes a folk hero by using the same angle. What's our response? Regime Change II? Do we just leave?

[TheAnvil 0]

That's a good question...and the possible resulting scenarios all seem to point to it being a poor decision to hand over power so early to a provisional government. I think another year with more infrastructure - administrative, personnel, and physical - in existence would do the region, the US, and the world a lot of good.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

If they are a sovereign government and they ask us to leave, then, we ought to leave as quickly and quietly as possible. To do otherwise would only point out that they are not soveriegn and we never intended to keep our word. This would only give them one more reason to hate us and would only cause more terrorist attacks.

It would be foolish of them to ask us to leave completely at such an early time, but the majority of Iraqis, something like 4 out of 5, want our immediate withdrawl.

It would be foolish of GWB not to comply and there are several advantages to him pulling out early if given the opportunity. He could then blame the resulting chaos on Iraq's own decisions and be done with it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

My understanding is that we won't be handing power over to the provisional gov't without some specific guidelines regarding our role there. Specically that our troops remain there to "maintain order" until general elections can be held and we can ensure they are valid. That will take awhile. Of course your scenario could play out after that, but I doubt we'd allow a "fair election" to elect someone like that.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

OK, so fast-forward a month or two. We hand over power to a provisional government in Iraq. Their very first act is to ask us to get the hell out of Iraq. (A recent poll showed a majority of Iraqis support an immediate withdrawal of US troops.) Al-Sadr runs for some government position on the platform that "I drove the US out of Iraq!" Al-Zarqawi becomes a folk hero by using the same angle. What's our response? Regime Change II? Do we just leave?

Interesting scenario. Unfortunately, this will never happen. While there is scheduled to be a hand over of power to the provisional government, the new Iraqi government will not control its armed forces, nor will it be able to make any laws or make major decisions without US approval. Futhermore, all current commissions which have supplanted the prior government ministries will continue in power, with their hand picked "advisors." The Coalition Provisional Authority has already envisioned your scenario and planned accordingly. That's why they get the big bucks.

[billvon 3,172]

>While there is scheduled to be a hand over of power to the
> provisional government, the new Iraqi government will not control its
> armed forces, nor will it be able to make any laws or make major
> decisions without US approval.

?? That's exactly what we have now. We have pledged to hand over sovereignty on June 30th. A sovereign government is one that is completely independent and that has the power of self-rule. Not giving them that is effectively cancelling the June 30th handover of power. I think that cancelling that would be a big mistake; nothing would send a stronger message that we are a permanent occupation.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We have pledged to hand over sovereignty on June 30th.

Based on the UN resolution:

Resolution 1483 was passed in the immediate aftermath of the invasion and the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. It contained few specifics as to how the Iraqi people were to freely determine their own future. That lacuna was addressed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511 unanimously passed on October 16 2003. There are four clauses in the resolution of particular interest.

Clause 1 reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and underscores in that context the temporary nature of the exercise by the CPA of its authority and obligations under Resolution 1483. Those powers are to cease when an internationally recognised representative government is established by the people of Iraq and sworn in and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority as set out elsewhere in the resolution.

Clause 4 determines that the Governing Council and its Ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration which embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transition period.

Clause 13 authorises a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq. It is this clause that provides the cloak of legitimacy to the occupying powers. It does not exempt them of course from observance of their obligations under international law (that Resolution 1483 specifically endorsed). It is almost certainly the case that the bombing of civilian areas; arbitrary detention of civilians; restrictions on freedom of movement; and the removal of Mr Hussein from the territory of Iraq to confinement in Qatar, to cite just some examples, are breaches of the Hague Regulations 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Clause 15 decides that the mandate of the multinational force under clause 13 shall expire upon the completion of the political process that is elsewhere set out in the Resolution. The relevant political process is the setting up of a Governing Council in the terms specified in the Resolution.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6105.htm

[crzjp20 0]

real posiabliltie, but that is why we will kill him before we leave, or we wil lcatch him....

but yeah that could happen, and i dont know what we would do if that happened. Casue lets face it iraq is not ready to protect itself.

--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.

[Guest]

Jah, what Quade said.

I think the majority opinion over there is "Thanks - now go away." Can't say I blame them.

I just hope Saddam is dealt with first. The fact that he's still above room temperature is a major reason for the terrorism on his behalf. His thugs want power back, and as long as Saddam is still twitching, they've got all the justification the need. With Saddam out of the picture, they'll be cut loose and will have to fend for themselves.

Edit for spelling

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

>While there is scheduled to be a hand over of power to the
> provisional government, the new Iraqi government will not control its
> armed forces, nor will it be able to make any laws or make major
> decisions without US approval.

?? That's exactly what we have now. We have pledged to hand over sovereignty on June 30th. A sovereign government is one that is completely independent and that has the power of self-rule. Not giving them that is effectively cancelling the June 30th handover of power. I think that cancelling that would be a big mistake; nothing would send a stronger message that we are a permanent occupation.

Personally I think it was a big mistake to arbitrarily set a date by which "sovereignty" was to be returned to the Iraqi people without regard to the actual political and military situation on the ground. We started the thing, now we have to see it through to a successful conclusion.

In case you're wondering where I came up with this snippet, check out the 5/13 edition of the WSJ. No matter whether you agree with their editorial positions, their reporting is the best in the world.

[Gawain 0]

I believe that the transition will have guidelines which will enable the coalition to stay, at least through elections, which won't happen until 2005 at the earliest.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TypicalFish 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4978361/

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[billvon 3,172]

"If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave,” Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”

(from the above article)

Makes sense; that's part of what sovereginty means. I think we have to tread carefully here. We don't want to set up a government that is so US-centric that it can never stand on its own; we'd be in Iraq for 20 years, or until the opposition forces can turn it into our next Vietnam. We also don't want to set up Saddam Hussein II and leave; we've made that mistake before.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4978361/

Well, I can say I was mistaken then.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4978361/

Well, I can say I was mistaken then.

Not really, quite frankly. I guess we will have to see what happens. I mean, what ELSE is he going to say? "Naw, if they ask us to leave we are staying anyways."

That's one of the great things about this administration (and most of the others, as well), they recognize that it is just words and sound bites; it's not like you actually have to DO what you say.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[Gawain 0]

Quote

it's not like you actually have to DO what you say.

See, from my viewpoint, we have done much of what we said we would do.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

it's not like you actually have to DO what you say.

See, from my viewpoint, we have done much of what we said we would do.

Might want to check your viewpoint and make sure it's not the same as the administrations, looking back over their shoulder. Yeah, we've done a lot of what we said we'd do AFTER we already did it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

"If the provisional government asks us to leave we will leave,” Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”

(from the above article)

A little further down in same article.

Quote

But he later agreed with another panelist, Lt. Gen. Walter L. Sharp, that the interim constitution and U.N. resolution gave U.S.-led forces responsibility for Iraqi security for the immediate future.

After the hearing, Grossman was asked if that meant U.S. forces would not leave if asked by the interim government. “That is correct,” he said.

U.S. officials have said that the terms of the American military role will ultimately be determined by a status of forces agreement to be signed with the new Iraqi government.

Though some officials have said such an agreement could be signed with the interim government, Grossman said it would be negotiated with the government formed after elections expected in January.

[kallend 2,217]

Quote

Quote

it's not like you actually have to DO what you say.

See, from my viewpoint, we have done much of what we said we would do.

This administration is a record setter at saying one thing and doing another.

Job creation
Deficit
Veterans' care
No child left behind
...

You must be easy to spin up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,172]

>See, from my viewpoint, we have done much of what we said we would do.

And what we said we wouldn't:

GWB, Oct. 11, 2000: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."

-----------------------------------------------------

U.S. Pledges to Avoid Torture
Friday, June 27, 2003
Washington Post

The Bush administration pledged yesterday for the first time that the United States will not torture terrorism suspects or treat them cruelly in an attempt to extract information, a move that comes as the deaths of two Afghan prisoners in U.S. custody are being investigated as homicides.

"All interrogations, wherever they may occur," must be conducted without the use of cruel and inhuman tactics, the Pentagon's senior lawyer wrote after members of Congress and human rights groups pressed the White House to renounce abusive tactics reported by U.S. government officials.

-----------------------------------------------

[Gawain 0]

Dang, I got triple-tagged here.

Again it's perspective, tax-cuts, medicare/pharm benefit, no child left behind were initiatives of this administration.

As for job creation, an economic decline is not reversed instantly and job growth has been continuous for over six months.

Per the "nationbuilding" quote, simply, that campaign idea was a mistake.

I think the torture pledge is not inconsistent with out policies and actions. I think it also proves that the mistreatment was not widespread. We'll see what happens at the first hearing in Baghdad.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

whoa....you're going to claim that medicaire and no child left behind were successful?

[kallend 2,217]

Quote

Dang, I got triple-tagged here.

Again it's perspective, tax-cuts, medicare/pharm benefit, no child left behind were initiatives of this administration.

As for job creation, an economic decline is not reversed instantly and job growth has been continuous for over six months.

Per the "nationbuilding" quote, simply, that campaign idea was a mistake.

I think the torture pledge is not inconsistent with out policies and actions. I think it also proves that the mistreatment was not widespread. We'll see what happens at the first hearing in Baghdad.

Don't you ever get fed up with making excuses for this administration?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Don't you ever get fed up with making excuses for this administration?

I don't think I'm making excuses. These are things that are happening, or have happened. I think it's amusing to see how some people can't accept that.

GWB said there would be a tax-cut: There was.
GWB said there would be prescription drug coverage: There is.
GWB said that standards would be implemented for education: They have.
GWB said the war on terror (and any other way you want to phrase it) would be long, tough and we must stay the course: It has not been "long" and it has been tough and we are staying the course.
GWB said that our troops have performed in a manner that brings honor to the uniform and our country: They have (with possible exception to about a dozen facing charges otherwise).
GWB said there was be job growth (yes he did say 2M+): There has been job growth, he was wrong in the estimation. Still, over half-million in the first four months this year.
GWB said the deficit would be short lived: Jury's still out, and he may be wrong. I am willing to do my part for us to endure it.

Don't you ever get fed up with slinging sh*t on our President?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

Don't you ever get fed up with making excuses for this administration?

I don't think I'm making excuses. These are things that are happening, or have happened. I think it's amusing to see how some people can't accept that.

GWB said there would be a tax-cut: There was.
GWB said there would be prescription drug coverage: There is.
GWB said that standards would be implemented for education: They have.
GWB said the war on terror (and any other way you want to phrase it) would be long, tough and we must stay the course: It has not been "long" and it has been tough and we are staying the course.
GWB said that our troops have performed in a manner that brings honor to the uniform and our country: They have (with possible exception to about a dozen facing charges otherwise).
GWB said there was be job growth (yes he did say 2M+): There has been job growth, he was wrong in the estimation. Still, over half-million in the first four months this year.
GWB said the deficit would be short lived: Jury's still out, and he may be wrong. I am willing to do my part for us to endure it.

Don't you ever get fed up with slinging sh*t on our President?

True all of the above. Does that mean he is universally correct?

GWB also said he was POSITIVE that Iraq had WMD's and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, enough so to send Americans there to risk their lives and die.

Not true, by his own admission and his administration's. Does that mean he is universally wrongheaded?

What KILLS me about just about every thread I read on these subjects is that they always go back to the same common denominator:

"Bush is our Saviour".

or

Bush is the Anti-Christ".

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET