AQI To Obama: "Pull troops from Iraq"

[windmillninja]

al-Qaeda in Iraq wants Obama to make good on his promise: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_al_qaida)

Two Iraqi insurgent groups called on President-elect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and abandon the war on terror, an Internet monitoring service reported Friday.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, self-styled head of the al-Qaida front group the Islamic State of Iraq, said in a speech posted on an extremist Web site that it would be better "for you and us" to "withdraw your forces," according to the SITE Intelligence Group that monitors militant Web sites.


Al-Baghdadi blamed the global financial crisis on the wars "launched in Muslim countries" and said he was issuing the call on behalf of "my brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Chechnya," SITE said.


The U.S. military says al-Baghdadi is an actor who provides a voice for al-Qaida in Iraq propaganda.
In a separate statement, the Mujahedeen Army, a Sunni insurgent group, urged Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq or face "days that will be more difficult than the nightmare experienced by his predecessor."

I've said it before (though I'm not sure if it was here or not). I'll say it again: this is a war Obama can win, and quickly, by simply making no sudden or drastic shifts in strategy. Insurgencies are all but defeated, but I still believe a sudden pullout would be disastrous given the still-unproven status of the Iraqi security forces. Believe me, I want our troops home as much as the next American, and currently believe (contrary to my original opinion) that we should have never been there, but we can't risk unravelling the positive progress we've already made. There is always the possibility that we would be forced to return to the region if and when things get worse than we've ever seen before.

EDIT: I'll also be one of the first conservatives to credit the man if he moves out only when we know Iraq is stable enough to hold its own rather than simply declare that he finished what Bush started.

[saysmydoctor]

You can't beat terrorism. You can't have a war against a tactic. Hence why we can't win.

[windmillninja]

You can't beat terrorism. You can't have a war against a tactic. Hence why we can't win.

I'm not saying victory is only achieved when al-Qaeda, et al, are obliterated. That's the unhappy nature of our current state as humans. There will always be those who want to utterly destroy what they oppose through violent means. Victory in this sense is a fully stable and self-sustaining Iraqi security force.

[saysmydoctor]

Firstly, Al Qaeda was not there until we went there. Secondly, the US is creating the unstable atmosphere.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I'm not saying victory is only achieved when al-Qaeda, et al, are obliterated. That's the unhappy nature of our current state as humans. There will always be those who want to utterly destroy what they oppose through violent means. Victory in this sense is a fully stable and self-sustaining Iraqi security force.
So you want to have us keep funding Iraq with billions of dollars, keep 120,000+ troops there, along with thousands more military contractors, when Iraq has a budget surplus, and over 200,000 soldiers with little violence happening since this spring?

[dai the flu]

how about an honest appraisal here. what would happen if the U.S. backed out now?
no commentary on why we're there, what we started...we know what you think about that.
but what would happen if we abandoned the job now?

[windmillninja]

Firstly, Al Qaeda was not there until we went there. Secondly, the US is creating the unstable atmosphere.

Your first statement is 100% true, but the fact is that they're there, regardless of who started it, and the current security force has proven incapable of doing anything about them on their own as of yet.

If you truly believe that we are the key problem currently, I don't suppose there is anything one can say to sway that opinion any more than one can sway the belief that our presence there is the only thing keeping things as relatively sane as they are.

[Jason Tate]

how about an honest appraisal here. what would happen if the U.S. backed out now?
no commentary on why we're there, what we started...we know what you think about that.
but what would happen if we abandoned the job now?

I think nothing dramatic would happen.

I think they have a usable infrastructure, the money, and government to operating without our presence.

[windmillninja]

So you want to have us keep funding Iraq with billions of dollars, keep 120,000+ troops there, along with thousands more military contractors, when Iraq has a budget surplus,

There is no reason to believe that these numbers would stay the same as Iraqi forces grew more and more stable. As they strengthen, we draw back. It sucks, yes. I'm fully aware of that and hate the money we're putting into it. If anything, the Obama administration will need to come down on Iraqi forces that much more to allow for a smooth exit transition.

and over 200,000 soldiers with little violence happening since this spring?

This, again, is in the context of a post-surge American military presence.

[saysmydoctor]

200,000 is not post surge. The original strike force into Iraq and forces in the region were 250k

[windmillninja]

200,000 is not post surge. The original strike force into Iraq and forces in the region were 250k

I was more referring to the decrease in violence than troop numbers.

[saysmydoctor]

The American troop presence should be zero. We should never have gone, it's not smart to stay, and in this economy, it's dangerous too. Pay them for all the problems we've caused and leave.

[wesgemm08]

There really is no way to "win" this war. We are not going to stop people's hatred of the United States with our military.

[windmillninja]

There really is no way to "win" this war. We are not going to stop people's hatred of the United States with our military.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=26113222#post26113 222

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think nothing dramatic would happen.

I think they have a usable infrastructure, the money, and government to operating without our presence.
Exactly, the worst that might happen is a slight uptick in violence.

[saysmydoctor]

I think he should have a non partisan investigation into whether the war is winnable, what it would take to win it and were they to pull out now what would the consequences be and what could we do to maintain law and order whilst taking our troops home. Then having received this information make an informed judgement.

I do not know if the war is winnable at this point and nor do I know what will happen if we pull out but we are at a crossroads in Iraq and provided the war is winnable within a year/two years we should press on. If not then we should pull out.

Also Britain is pulling out whether you like it or not so you will need more troops to compensate that.
I thought they already did pull out and Basra was returned to the Iraqis

[Praetor]

I think he should have a non partisan investigation into whether the war is winnable, what it would take to win it and were they to pull out now what would the consequences be and what could we do to maintain law and order whilst taking our troops home. Then having received this information make an informed judgement.

I do not know if the war is winnable at this point and nor do I know what will happen if we pull out but we are at a crossroads in Iraq and provided the war is winnable within a year/two years we should press on. If not then we should pull out.

Also Britain is pulling out whether you like it or not so you will need more troops to compensate that.
You lost me right there. The Iraq war is too politicized for a nonpartisan investigation.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/20/iraq.iraq
My b.

[Praetor]

Not everyone in the world who knows about military matters is a partisan idiot. America is a big country.
That's fair, I suppose, but even if the investigation is conducted in a nonpartisan manner, I doubt everybody will be willing to accept the results. So in an ideal world, I'd agree with you 100%, but I don't see it being useful.

[GuitarR0cker1]

That's fair, I suppose, but even if the investigation is conducted in a nonpartisan manner, I doubt everybody will be willing to accept the results. So in an ideal world, I'd agree with you 100%, but I don't see it being useful.
Exactly Bush did something similar and nothing happened because neither side really fully accepted the results.

[saysmydoctor]

Investigate if this war is winnable? It's not. You can't beat a tactic. You can't destroy an insurgency.

[saysmydoctor]

I do not buy this idea at all. We did it in Northern Ireland, we did it in the Boer War, we did it in India. In fact you guys should ask us for advice because if there's one thing Britain is good at it's teaching indigenous peoples how shit goes down.
The Troubles ended with a ceasefire agreement. There was no 'victory.'

With India, it was only after the Sepoy Mutiny that India came under the full administration of the Crown.

[saysmydoctor]

Well a ceasefire is exactly what we wanted so we did win.
I've never understood why the British were interested in northern Ireland anyway.

[open mind]

i think iraq will fall apart if we leave anytime in the next century.