WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush says Iraqi leaders chosen in next week's election will probably want U.S. troops to stay, but the forces will be pulled out if the new government asks, The New York Times reported on Friday.
"I've heard the voices of the people that presumably will be in positions of responsibility after these elections, though you never know," Bush said in an interview with the newspaper. "But it seems that most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until the Iraqis are able to fight."

Asked whether the United States would pull its troops from Iraq at the request of a new government, Bush reiterated a position expressed by other administration officials: "Yes, absolutely. This is a sovereign government - they're on their feet."

There was, he said, "a certain realism among the (Iraqi) leadership, at least the ones I've talked to, that say, 'Look there's more work to do before we are ready to move out on our own."'

Iraqi forces needed not only more training and equipment, but also a command structure, which Bush called "the spine of any military capacity."

The U.S. Army said Monday that at least 120,000 troops, out of the 150,000 U.S. forces now in Iraq, would stay for the next two years to train and fight with Iraqi forces against insurgents.

It was important that "we make sure the Iraqi citizens view U.S. troops as helpers, not as occupiers," Bush said. But he acknowledged that many saw the United States as an occupying force.

"To the extent that a coalition presence is viewed as an occupying force, it enables the insurgents, the radicals, to continue to impress people that the government really is not their government, and that the government is complicit in having their country occupied," Bush said.

The newspaper said Bush stopped short of endorsing the view of a growing number of Republicans that the sheer size of the American presence in Iraq made the violence worse by presenting insurgents with a large target.

Bush also said a proposal by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to put calmer parts of Iraq entirely in the hands of Iraqi troops was "certainly one option," but he told the newspaper he had not yet discussed the proposal with his close ally.


Ok.. can nobody else see where this statement fails..

It basically says that US Troops will be pulled out if the new Government wants them to be.. but around 80% will stay just.. 'to train the iraqis'  ::)

Ideally, when the elections are over the new government would ask the US to pull out and the troops would come home.
Realistically, the new government is not going to ask for that to happen.

When the elections are over the insurgency isn't going to just stop. Unfortunately, the Iraqi forces still aren't strong enough to oversee the entire country and the troops (be it British or American...) are going to remain to help out. The Iraqi's aren't going to ask us to leave. They will continue to ask for our Help which will in turn create rotations to Iraq for troops from abroad - similar to the current rotations to Korea. The infrastructure is too unstable for the Iraqi People to handle alone and if left to their own devices - we would surely see a civil war break out.
You could argue that we should let them battle it out for themselves however, you would then have to consider all of the innocent people who would surely die as a result of this. Not to mention the outcry the US would receive over not helping out or coming to aid quickly enough. (ie. Tsunami and Indonesia)

In a perfect world when the elections are over you would see ALL the troops being sent home - but it isn't a perfect world and troops need to stay until the job is done. I am not Pro-Bush.... just Pro-Reality.

Tam

Ideally, when the elections are over the new government would ask the US to pull out and the troops would come home.
Realistically, the new government is going to ask for that to happen.

When the elections are over the insurgency isn't going to just stop. Unfortunately, the Iraqi forces still aren't strong enough to oversee the entire country and the troops (be it British or American...) are going to remain to help out. The Iraqi's aren't going to ask us to leave. They will continue to ask for our Help which will in turn create rotations to Iraq for troops from abroad - similar to the current rotations to Korea. The infrastructure is too unstable for the Iraqi People to handle alone and if left to their own devices - we would surely see a civil war break out.
You could argue that we should let them battle it out for themselves however, you would then have to consider all of the innocent people who would surely die as a result of this. Not to mention the outcry the US would receive over not helping out or coming to aid quickly enough. (ie. Tsunami and Indonesia)

In a perfect world when the elections are over you would see ALL the troops being sent home - but it isn't a perfect world and troops need to stay until the job is done. I am not Pro-Bush.... just Pro-Reality.

Tam



I must agree with you.  To remove foreign troops from Iraq now would mean the establishement, by force, of a Tiliban-like government there - something no sane person could want.  The question is, what, at this point is the best way to proceed?  My confidance in Lil' Georgie and is advisors (read "handlers") gives me little hope that they will evan explore this question.

Troops out of Iraq? 

I don't know....we haven't gotten all that oil we went to war in Iraq for.  ::)

But what about the WMD's?  ::)

I don't know....we haven't gotten all that oil we went to war in Iraq for.  ::)


But they(not us) have gotten all of those Halliburton contracts and the dividends that go with them.

I don't know....we haven't gotten all that oil we went to war in Iraq for.  ::)


For once, I agree with you.  So our troops will stay until a compliant government (whatever its stripe) has enough control to insure that we get that oil.  Five years, ten, 15?  As long as we are still "invited" by that compliant gov't we will be there.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QGM32FDGF0PJ0CRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7474213

It would appear that a long-term plan is most likely going to be in effect. The talk of timetables and plans for withdrawl are most likely to satiate Iraqi and Americans alike. (Even though there is no timetable at all) Whether we are "invited" to stay or not doesnt play a factor in it at all. We are still occupying the DMZ in Korea for crying out loud! And no matter if we 'get the oil we went into Iraq for' or not, the occupation will continue until the Gov't sees fit. Think about it - the article claims the Iraqi Army has no jet planes, no tanks, no nothing that could be useful to them to continue their fight. Are they supposed to uphold their Democracy on foot?

Whether we get their oil, wmd or anything of the like we need to understand that Iraq is going to be occupied for a long while to come.
Tam

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QGM32FDGF0PJ0CRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7474213

It would appear that a long-term plan is most likely going to be in effect. The talk of timetables and plans for withdrawl are most likely to satiate Iraqi and Americans alike. (Even though there is no timetable at all) Whether we are "invited" to stay or not doesnt play a factor in it at all. We are still occupying the DMZ in Korea for crying out loud! And no matter if we 'get the oil we went into Iraq for' or not, the occupation will continue until the Gov't sees fit. Think about it - the article claims the Iraqi Army has no jet planes, no tanks, no nothing that could be useful to them to continue their fight. Are they supposed to uphold their Democracy on foot?

Whether we get their oil, wmd or anything of the like we need to understand that Iraq is going to be occupied for a long while to come.
Tam



You got that right!  Today the latest steps were taken to establish that compliant gov't I mentioned.

On the subject of the new elections.. does anybody else think it would be a good idea to Form a Kurdish state and allow the minority Muslims (i forget which ones sunni i think) there own state?

I have been hearing talk of eventually withdrawing all of our troops from Iraq, but I have this feeling that the U.S. will maintain a permanent military presence there, like we have in Korea or Europe.

Thats exactly what will happen.. that was the gist of the article.

The troops wont be out of Iraq until 2020 at the earliest IMO. Of course the Korean war was like 50 years ago and there are still troops there...

Thats exactly what will happen.. that was the gist of the article.

The troops wont be out of Iraq until 2020 at the earliest IMO. Of course the Korean war was like 50 years ago and there are still troops there...
Actually, the Korean War never officially ended...they're still technically under a cease-fire that was signed back in 1953, ending all major hostilities. But there still have been occasional instances of skirmishes between North and South Korean (and sometimes American) troops along the DMZ.
     But I get what you're saying. We still have troops based in Europe even though the Cold War ended 15 years ago, and Russia (and the former Warsaw Pact) no longer poses any major threat.
      As far as Iraq goes, we may have troops stay there under the pretext of "training the Iraqis" but I think that the U.S. will maintain permanent military installations there for strategic reasons, to counterbalance against an increasingly powerful Iran, for example.
     

Exactamundo.. Chechneya for instance.

Still.. we have an obligation now to sort Iraq out.. i don't think we had any business being out there but now we are we may as well make this in to as positive a situation as possible.

As long as the majority of people have there best interests served then i think we will have done a good job.

Well, the elections were pretty much a success, it seems that all networks said that.  Bush and Blair praised it, and voter turnout was somewhere between 60 and 72% nationwide.

Even The New York Times had only good things to say.

Granted they weren't perfect, but much much better than everyone expected.  There certainly wasn't 400 suicide bombers like Zarqawi said there would be.

Well, the elections were pretty much a success, it seems that all networks said that.  Bush and Blair praised it, and voter turnout was somewhere between 60 and 72% nationwide.

Even The New York Times had only good things to say.

Granted they weren't perfect, but much much better than everyone expected.  There certainly wasn't 400 suicide bombers like Zarqawi said there would be.
I have been following this story all day, and what has transpired in Iraq has made me feel more optimistic about the situation there. I know that the violence there will continue for some time, but it is encouraging that so many people went out and voted despite the risk, and that the casualties were so much lower than expected.  I think that this deals a huge blow to the insurgency in Iraq, because this reveals how little popular support they really had.
    Having said that, I still believe that the U.S. will never completely withdraw its troops from Iraq. I still think that we will maintain permanent bases there, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

I have been following this story all day, and what has transpired in Iraq has made me feel more optimistic about the situation there. I know that the violence there will continue for some time, but it is encouraging that so many people went out and voted despite the risk, and that the casualties were so much lower than expected.  I think that this deals a huge blow to the insurgency in Iraq, because this reveals how little popular support they really had.
    Having said that, I still believe that the U.S. will never completely withdraw its troops from Iraq. I still think that we will maintain permanent bases there, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.


ditto.

On the surface, the initial reports look good, but there are MAJOR questions that remain, as I stated on a another thread.  I don't think its time to celebrate, but maybe to feel guarded optimism.

On the surface, the initial reports look good, but there are MAJOR questions that remain, as I stated on a another thread.  I don't think its time to celebrate, but maybe to feel guarded optimism.
I agree. We still have a long way to go before we're done in Iraq. However, for the first time I am feeling hopeful that our overall mission in Iraq will be a success.

It seems to me that the Iraq situation is like the proverbial "having the dog by the ears". We can't leave, because of the insurgency, but by staying, we fuel the insurgency. The Iraqi police and army are seen as an extension of the US by the rebels, and will be until we leave. Having participated in the first Desert Storm, I really sympathize with the troops.

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in 's presidential election despite a terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from , 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the .

....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President 's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in . The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in , to which President gave his personal commitment when he met , the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

Dateline? Sept. 4th, 1967

Déjà vu?

(thanks to metafilter).  yes, this was a real article.