U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

[Lueda Alia]

I'm not surprised...


The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.


The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.


"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html

[youcomebeforeyo]

"Hate to say we told you so".

[Lueda Alia]

"Hate to say we told you so".
I know, this is horrible.

My friend's dad always said this would happen. He'd say, "What up, Iraq! Sorry we destroyed your electric system and industrial properties, and killed a bunch of people, but as a parting gift we're going to leave you a theocracy. Enjoy."

It looks like he was right, Iraq will be another fascist theocracy where the women are just as oppressed.

[Cal Smith]

Here's what doesnt makes sense. Ya'll say it's "horrible", "I told you so", etc....... but have been calling for the removal of troops as long as I can remember. The article itself says expectations have to be lowered because of the pressure to remove troops.

Now if you truly want the Iraqis to have a better chance of succeding, wouldnt it make sense to stay longer? Ya'll are just saying.......leave.......leave..... ...leave........and then once political pressure builds you say.........see I told you........the Iraqis will fail. Your making a catch-22 out of it.

I also want to point out that the nay-sayers have been wrong about many other big events including the transfer of power, and the elections. They will always continue to be nay-sayers, so I think if you truly want to succeed you see it through till you succeed.

I could be off on this analysis, but I dont see where I am?

[yeat182]

Here's what doesnt makes sense. Ya'll say it's "horrible", "I told you so", etc....... but have been calling for the removal of troops as long as I can remember. The article itself says expectations have to be lowered because of the pressure to remove troops.

Now if you truly want the Iraqis to have a better chance of succeding, wouldnt it make sense to stay longer? Ya'll are just saying.......leave.......leave..... ...leave........and then once political pressure builds you say.........see I told you........the Iraqis will fail. Your making a catch-22 out of it.

I also want to point out that the nay-sayers have been wrong about many other big events including the transfer of power, and the elections. They will always continue to be nay-sayers, so I think if you truly want to succeed you see it through till you succeed.

I could be off on this analysis, but I dont see where I am?

that makes too much sense to be posted on this website.

[Lueda Alia]

that makes too much sense to be posted on this website.actually, that amused me, because of course it's the liberals fault for not making up their minds about what they want, right? yes, I thought so. they're the ones who made things turn out this way...

it's amazing how you can't ever admit that this whole thing was/is messed up.

and by the way, I've never said that the troops should pull out. in fact, a lot of liberals have said that they would love for that to happen, but that it wouldn't be fair to Iraq so now they have to finish what they started. yes, there are some exceptions, but liberals aren't the only ones who feel that way at this point.

[radiofriendly]

actually, that amused me, because of course it's the liberals fault for not making up their minds about what they want, right? yes, I thought so. they're the ones who made things turn out this way....wrong. he never said it was liberals fault. i think he was just implying that your using the same shallow, contradictory, lame logic, because it's about trashing the bush administration, most of the time it really has very little to do with Iraq.

it's amazing how you can't ever admit that this whole thing was/is messed up.i think this article is stating that the u.s. was overly ambitious. it did go out of it's way to mention the sucesses of the elections, which should be proof enough to counter most of your concerns. i don't think anybody's denying that there weren't errors made during this invasion. i know this war doesn't really measure up to all those other perfectly fought wars where no mistakes were made and nobody died, because rebuilding a country should be so easy right, and when it doesn't go exactly according to plan, it's a failure. funny it fails to mention the hundreds of schools and hospitals being renovated around the country, as we speak. it's just one example of a good cause that fails to see the light of day, because it seems that it's the liberals who can't seem to admit that the war in iraq is nothing more than a stomping ground to tear down the bush administration. There are several problems in iraq, namely those stated, as well as muslim extremists blowing themselves up. it's our job to fix them, but you seem to be the first one to throw your hands up and say i told you so, when there are so many things at work right now

[Lueda Alia]

wrong. he never said it was liberals fault. i think he was just implying that your using the same shallow, contradictory, lame logic, because it's about trashing the bush administration, most of the time it really has very little to do with Iraq. I'm pretty sure I know what he implied. If that's not what he implied, then he wouldn't have brought it up the way he did. Especially on this topic.


i think this article is stating that the u.s. was overly ambitious. it did go out of it's way to mention the sucesses of the elections, which should be proof enough to counter most of your concerns. i don't think anybody's denying that there weren't errors made during this invasion. i know this war doesn't really measure up to all those other perfectly fought wars where no mistakes were made and nobody died, because rebuilding a country should be so easy right, and when it doesn't go exactly according to plan, it's a failure. funny it fails to mention the hundreds of schools and hospitals being renovated around the country, as we speak. it's just one example of a good cause that fails to see the light of day, because it seems that it's the liberals who can't seem to admit that the war in iraq is nothing more than a stomping ground to tear down the bush administration. There are several problems in iraq, namely those stated, as well as muslim extremists blowing themselves up. it's our job to fix them, but you seem to be the first one to throw your hands up and say i told you so, when there are so many things at work right nowI seem to be the first one to say "I told you so"? No, I don't even need to say that considering that I said from the start that this war was going to be a disaster. However, it was you guys who said that this war was going to be a short and easy one.

And don't get me started on what happens in wars. Obviously I, and everyone else, knows what the consequences of a War are (but that doesn't mean that we're going to be OK with them). So we don't wneed you to englighten us.

[radiofriendly]

I seem to be the first one to say "I told you so"? No, I don't even need to say that considering that I said from the start that this war was going to be a disaster. However, it was you guys who said that this war was going to be a short and easy one.
SHORT AND EASY!?!? where did you hear that!? do you believe everything you hear about the administration, or do you honestly think you heard 'short and easy' from a politician concerning the war on terrorism? it's up to you whether or not you think this war is a disaster, but don't pull that crap

And don't get me started on what happens in wars. Obviously I, and everyone else, knows what the consequences of a War are (but that doesn't mean that we're going to be OK with them). So we don't wneed you to englighten us.
i think you know what war is, but honestly, you don't have the slightest clue(nor do I) of what happens, and it's becoming more and more evident as i have yet to find any of your posts on the politics forum to have any shred of substance other than hate and belligerence. if you knew anything remotely close(which i believe that you do) you'll understand(which i also believe you do) that a war on terror is one that will inevitabally find trouble and adjustment, which is what i stated in my posts, which you may or may not have read. we have run into problems, without doubt. it does no good to sit back and say i told you so, when the conflict is not over, and when there are so many good things happening as well. once again, refer to the overwhelming numbers that showed up to the polls to vote. these people have voted a government into power. do you know how epic that is? these things will take time, and no, we did not anticipate it, but that doesn't justify means to call this war a disaster.

[Lueda Alia]

SHORT AND EASY!?!? where did you hear that!? do you believe everything you hear about the administration, or do you honestly think you heard 'short and easy' from a politician concerning the war on terrorism? it's up to you whether or not you think this war is a disaster, but don't pull that crap
I heard it from other Republicans/Conservatives when the War started. I didn't pull it out of nowhere. And um, no, I don't believe everything I hear. In fact, I question everything I hear, unlike some other people who are loyal to their party to the point of being blind.


i think you know what war is, but honestly, you don't have the slightest clue(nor do I) of what happens, and it's becoming more and more evident as i have yet to find any of your posts on the politics forum to have any shred of substance other than hate and belligerence. if you knew anything remotely close(which i believe that you do) you'll understand(which i also believe you do) that a war on terror is one that will inevitabally find trouble and adjustment, which is what i stated in my posts, which you may or may not have read. we have run into problems, without doubt. it does no good to sit back and say i told you so, when the conflict is not over, and when there are so many good things happening as well. once again, refer to the overwhelming numbers that showed up to the polls to vote. these people have voted a government into power. do you know how epic that is? these things will take time, and no, we did not anticipate it, but that doesn't justify means to call this war a disaster.
I don't have the slightest clue of what happens in a war? And what if I told you that I lived in a country during a time of war?

And of course my posts "don't have any shred of substance" because you don't agree with them. I feel the exact same way about your posts, or any other post by a lot of conservatives around here. You think I'm stupid for believing and thinking the way I do. And you may not understand why I feel the way I do. Well the feeling is mutual.

[radiofriendly]

I heard it from other Republicans/Conservatives when the War started. I didn't pull it out of nowhere. And um, no, I don't believe everything I hear. In fact, I question everything I hear, unlike some other people who are loyal to their party to the point of being blind.it's nothing to do with loyalty. i voted for bush and have become very discouraged with some of these he's done during this administration. i have concerns just as you do. i was actually just asking where you heard 'short and easy' because i really think you pulled it out of your ass.



I don't have the slightest clue of what happens in a war? And what if I told you that I lived in a country during a time of war?

And of course my posts "don't have any shred of substance" because you don't agree with them. I feel the exact same way about your posts, or any other post by a lot of conservatives around here. You think I'm stupid for believing and thinking the way I do. And you may not understand why I feel the way I do. Well the feeling is mutual.

im saying it's a tough call because you've never picked up a weapon. you've never been in the heat of battle. i can't possibly fatham what thats like. and even then, fighting such evil...it must be terrible. it's something neither you or i can even understand hearing it secondhand, because it defies description

and just to clarify, i don't think you have any shred of substance in your posts because...you don't have any shred of substance in your posts. i disagree with people all the time. it's never a question of your position in poltics, it's just that i think your comments are silly and ignorant. much more so than the people i just tend to disagree with. but enough of that. i've already put up one more post than i needed to, and for that i apologize. believe it or not, i understand your general position, and that's where your opinion lies, and that's bueno, so ill leave it at that

[Lueda Alia]

it's nothing to do with loyalty. i voted for bush and have become very discouraged with some of these he's done during this administration. i have concerns just as you do. i was actually just asking where you heard 'short and easy' because i really think you pulled it out of your ass.



im saying it's a tough call because you've never picked up a weapon. you've never been in the heat of battle. i can't possibly fatham what thats like. and even then, fighting such evil...it must be terrible. it's something neither you or i can even understand hearing it secondhand, because it defies description

and just to clarify, i don't think you have any shred of substance in your posts because...you don't have any shred of substance in your posts. i disagree with people all the time. it's never a question of your position in poltics, it's just that i think your comments are silly and ignorant. much more so than the people i just tend to disagree with. but enough of that. i've already put up one more post than i needed to, and for that i apologize. believe it or not, i understand your general position, and that's where your opinion lies, and that's bueno, so ill leave it at that1) No, I did not pull it out of my ass. I would go look for links on other message boards I go to where Conservatives have said exactly what I said.

2) Um, as I said, you don't know anything about me. Yes, I have been in a country during a time of war. I couldn't get out of my house because there were people with weapons everywhere. In fact, I couldn't even go out on my yard because of fear of being hit by a bullet or whatever else. So unlike you, I know what it's like to be "in the heat of a battle." You want me to go on and tell you exactly what it was like?

3) Unless you actually prove how my posts are "ignorant" and "silly" then your insult is based on nothing else except the fact that you disagree with what I say.

[Cal Smith]

It's an easy question then..........do you think the troops should stay until we have a more clear picture on the future of Iraq, or do you think we should start ASAP sending troops home?

[apex]

Here's what doesnt makes sense. Ya'll say it's "horrible", "I told you so", etc....... but have been calling for the removal of troops as long as I can remember. The article itself says expectations have to be lowered because of the pressure to remove troops.

Now if you truly want the Iraqis to have a better chance of succeding, wouldnt it make sense to stay longer? Ya'll are just saying.......leave.......leave..... ...leave........and then once political pressure builds you say.........see I told you........the Iraqis will fail. Your making a catch-22 out of it.

I also want to point out that the nay-sayers have been wrong about many other big events including the transfer of power, and the elections. They will always continue to be nay-sayers, so I think if you truly want to succeed you see it through till you succeed.

I could be off on this analysis, but I dont see where I am?

With our army there about 40 innocent iraqis are meeting violent deaths per day and us-led forces are killing about 40% of those. At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded. About 20% of all the reported deaths have been women and children. Tours are being extended, reserves raided, guard raided. And the administration not being honest at all about any phase of the war - from start to present.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0816-24.htm

[youcomebeforeyo]

By my statement, I didn't imply troups should leave. There's no troops from NZ and i'm beyond caring about US Imperealist intentions.

However the whole time, the anti war group has been saying "You cannot impose democracy on a people, they must want it themselves". And now the US government has had to accept this.

We're not saying leave, more you should have listened to the millions of people around that took to the streets to protest the invasion.

By no means should the US leave now, the anti US forces will have won and those that supported the US will feel compelled to hate the US. Iraq could become the new Palestine for breeding terrorists.

[Cal Smith]

By my statement, I didn't imply troups should leave. There's no troops from NZ and i'm beyond caring about US Imperealist intentions.

I'd disagree with your imperealistic characterization here. The US is historically one of the most "unimperialistic" countries in history when it comes to land. You'd have an argument economically, but I can think of two examples as far as land.

However the whole time, the anti war group has been saying "You cannot impose democracy on a people, they must want it themselves". And now the US government has had to accept this.

We're not saying leave, more you should have listened to the millions of people around that took to the streets to protest the invasion.

By no means should the US leave now, the anti US forces will have won and those that supported the US will feel compelled to hate the US. Iraq could become the new Palestine for breeding terrorists.

I'd say a large percentage of the anti war are saying leave.

[apex]

I'd disagree with your imperealistic characterization here. The US is historically one of the most "unimperialistic" countries in history when it comes to land. You'd have an argument economically, but I can think of two examples as far as land.

I'd say a large percentage of the anti war are saying leave.

Largely it is economics. This time it's not. Yes we are saying get out.

This isn't working, there are other ways and they are still available. Every day we stay it becomes less and less likely that this can end better then it started.

The administration hasn't been honest from the start to the present about the war and is taking a route right now that covers up what is going on in a public relations campaign/war instead of working towards what's going on. Instead of exploring other options (because they DO exist as admitted by insurgents and Iraqi politicians) we are just focused with "stay in Iraq." That's not the best way for a free Iraq. That's not the best way for an peaceful Iraq. But we've just gotta stay in Iraq.

[Cal Smith]

Largely it is economics. This time it's not. Yes we are saying get out.

This isn't working, there are other ways and they are still available. Every day we stay it becomes less and less likely that this can end better then it started.

The administration hasn't been honest from the start to the present about the war and is taking a route right now that covers up what is going on in a public relations campaign/war instead of working towards what's going on. Instead of exploring other options (because they DO exist as admitted by insurgents and Iraqi politicians) we are just focused with "stay in Iraq." That's not the best way for a free Iraq. That's not the best way for an peaceful Iraq. But we've just gotta stay in Iraq.

What other options do you see as being better?

Also what we are doing in Iraq is not imperalism.

[apex]

What other options do you see as being better?

Also what we are doing in Iraq is not imperalism.

First of all I think that the people who were proven right by the invasion deserve a hearing along side the military and intelligence "experts" who have dominated the commentary since March 2003. Otherwise we will be stuck with an exit years from now (if ever) when "stability" is acheived.

We should declare that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq or control of Iraqi oil. We should have the U.N. or a "U.N.-blessed" organization monitor the process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and take the lead in organizing a peaceful reconstruction effort. The President should appoint something of a peace-council, envoy, whatever to encourage and cooperate in peace talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation, including insurgents, to explore a political settlement. Over 80 members of the Iraqi National Assembly have signed a petition calling for the departure of U.S. forces; a former Iraqi minister is talking with 11 insurgent groups about a switch to a more political approach. Militant shiites got about a million signatures demanding withdrawal. 69% of Iraqi Shiites and more than 75% of Sunnis favored a near-term U.S. withdrawal. And this is just a small group of ideas that have already been said in many places (these ideas are largely from Tom Hayden).

How believable is the idea that we're there to save the Iraqi's from the insurgents when the two sides are talking together in an attempt to get us out?

It's not.

[Cal Smith]

First of all I think that the people who were proven right by the invasion deserve a hearing along side the military and intelligence "experts" who have dominated the commentary since March 2003. Otherwise we will be stuck with an exit years from now (if ever) when "stability" is acheived.

First, I wouldnt say anyone has been proven right.

We should declare that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq or control of Iraqi oil. We should have the U.N. or a "U.N.-blessed" organization monitor the process of military disengagement and de-escalation, and take the lead in organizing a peaceful reconstruction effort.

the UN left Iraq once already

The President should appoint something of a peace-council, envoy, whatever to encourage and cooperate in peace talks with Iraqi groups opposed to the occupation, including insurgents, to explore a political settlement. Over 80 members of the Iraqi National Assembly have signed a petition calling for the departure of U.S. forces;

80 of 275 seats is not an overwhelming number. (i'd like to see your source)

a former Iraqi minister is talking with 11 insurgent groups about a switch to a more political approach. Militant shiites got about a million signatures demanding withdrawal. 69% of Iraqi Shiites and more than 75% of Sunnis favored a near-term U.S. withdrawal. And this is just a small group of ideas that have already been said in many places (these ideas are largely from Tom Hayden).

How believable is the idea that we're there to save the Iraqi's from the insurgents when the two sides are talking together in an attempt to get us out?

It's not.

lol :thumbsup: lol While you pull stats from Hayden I'll get mine from here http://www.conservativethink.com/ (seem ideal to you?)

[Kid Kilowatt]

The majority of Iraqis seem to believe they can run a country without us, and considering we want them to be free, we should allow them to do so by leaving immediately.

[Cal Smith]

The majority of Iraqis seem to believe they can run a country without us, and considering we want them to be free, we should allow them to do so by leaving immediately.

In all honesty do you think the political process in general would be where it's at had the US left months after the war?

Also do you really think the violence would be any less had the US left months after the war?

[Kid Kilowatt]

In all honesty do you think the political process in general would be where it's at had the US left months after the war?

Also do you really think the violence would be any less had the US left months after the war?
I believe they want the US to leave now, and they want to take over the process themselves, and since we've been saying we want them to have freedom, so by staying without their consent we are denying them that which we fought for.

[Cal Smith]

I believe they want the US to leave now, and they want to take over the process themselves, and since we've been saying we want them to have freedom, so by staying without their consent we are denying them that which we fought for.

You answered neither of my questions and I'd like you too cause I have a really good point.

[Kid Kilowatt]

In all honesty do you think the political process in general would be where it's at had the US left months after the war?
I've no idea. You give the Iraqi people very little credit.

Also do you really think the violence would be any less had the US left months after the war?
It'd be about the same, but it'd be their struggle, and that is important, regardless of whether or not you believe that.

[Cal Smith]

I've no idea. You give the Iraqi people very little credit.

You have an opinion about everything else except this? It's not that I give the Iraqi people very little credit but when you live under a very oppresive regime for 30 years, most have no idea of anything outside their box. Also the fact that religion, and different tribes play such an important role in the region a mediator (like the coalition force) seems to me almost necessary. There's almost no doubt in my mind had the US left months after the war the Iraqi people would not have had elections earlier this year.

My point behind this is the US has greatly pushed the political process along in Iraq. They became the authority after the end of Saddam, rather than having various strongmen rule different regions. They stayed the authority until an assembly could be formed, and since they have protected in the face of an election and soon to be drafted constitution.

Now you say leave, but I'd say had we left initially Iraq would be not be close to where it was now politically.

[Kid Kilowatt]

You have an opinion about everything else except this? It's not that I give the Iraqi people very little credit but when you live under a very oppresive regime for 30 years, most have no idea of anything outside their box. Also the fact that religion, and different tribes play such an important role in the region a mediator (like the coalition force) seems to me almost necessary. There's almost no doubt in my mind had the US left months after the war the Iraqi people would not have had elections earlier this year.

My point behind this is the US has greatly pushed the political process along in Iraq. They became the authority after the end of Saddam, rather than having various strongmen rule different regions. They stayed the authority until an assembly could be formed, and since they have protected in the face of an election and soon to be drafted constitution.

Now you say leave, but I'd say had we left initially Iraq would be not be close to where it was now politically.
Had the US left, I have no doubt there would have been conflicit, but it would have been their conflict, and the outcome would have been decided by them. Liberty must be fought for by the people involved, not outside forces. Our democracy would mean little had France been the country initiate change, rather than the revolutionaries.

[YoungNastyMan]

They new it was going to be like since the start, there was a documentry on Afghanistan and its exactly the same as it was before the war.

[Cal Smith]

First of all, it's ridiculous how in the United States the main division between conservatives and liberals is whether or not you support war.

And Cal, in reference to your catch-22 statement earlier...the war was destined to be a catch-22 from the beginning. It is way too far-fetched to believe that we were going to turn Iraq into anything close to what our goals for it were.

Thirdly, in opposition to your "Leave the troops there longer and it will make it better" argument: The longer the troops are there, more and more Iraqi citizens just want them to leave and want the destruction of the war to end. Their resentment of the U.S. presence grows, and we gain more and more enemies. The troops are going to continuously face opposition. We're not going to do anything close to Westernizing Iraq or any other country of Middle Eastern tradition. We arguably did them a favor by removing Sadaam, but we should have left shortly after removing him and setting up the elections because we are not going to make anymore progress.

We'll agree to disagree there then, because I look at the progress politically that has been made and feel it would not have been possible without our presence, and believe that same concept would hold true if we stay.

Had the US left, I have no doubt there would have been conflicit, but it would have been their conflict, and the outcome would have been decided by them. Liberty must be fought for by the people involved, not outside forces. Our democracy would mean little had France been the country initiate change, rather than the revolutionaries.

I don't see how you came to this assumption? Look at many countries since WW2 and they were rebuilt democraticaly with outside forces assistance.

[Kid Kilowatt]

I don't see how you came to this assumption? Look at many countries since WW2 and they were rebuilt democraticaly with outside forces assistance.
Look to the many countries, which rejected our nation building attempts. In any case, my main point was liberty is best when fought for by the people, not by other nations, as when it is fought by other nations, you lose legitimacy.

[radiofriendly]

Look to the many countries, which rejected our nation building attempts. In any case, my main point was liberty is best when fought for by the people, not by other nations, as when it is fought by other nations, you lose legitimacy.
once again (not to beat a dead horse) but how do you explain the overwhelming voters that showed up to vote for their new democracy. did these people not to desire our attempts to build a nation? and whose to say that any one country is capable of overthrowing their government. sure, you could say that it may not have been what the Iraq people wanted, but once again, there's an awful lot of legitmacy in a mass participation in forming a new government. i wish i heard that on the news. i do understand what you're saying, and in certain scenarios i could maybe even agree with you, but not here. but all things aside it seems no matter what we're just backtreading. it's what we do now right. i think you may have already answered that though. im going to go back and read your posts again...

[Cal Smith]

Look to the many countries, which rejected our nation building attempts. In any case, my main point was liberty is best when fought for by the people, not by other nations, as when it is fought by other nations, you lose legitimacy.

You have an argument there, but saying it "must" be fought only by the people does not gel with history.

[Kid Kilowatt]

once again (not to beat a dead horse) but how do you explain the overwhelming voters that showed up to vote for their new democracy. did these people not to desire our attempts to build a nation? and whose to say that any one country is capable of overthrowing their government. sure, you could say that it may not have been what the Iraq people wanted, but once again, there's an awful lot of legitmacy in a mass participation in forming a new government. i wish i heard that on the news. i do understand what you're saying, and in certain scenarios i could maybe even agree with you, but not here. but all things aside it seems no matter what we're just backtreading. it's what we do now right. i think you may have already answered that though. im going to go back and read your posts again...
How do you explain that polls show the majority of Iraqis want us to leave? Now, I never said they did not want to be involved in government. I said they are opposed to our occupation and imposing our thoughts upon them. As for the elections, I'd rather not get into the legitimacy of the outcomes, as it'd create a larger debate that I've no interest in.

[A picasso blue]

Here's what doesnt makes sense. Ya'll say it's "horrible", "I told you so", etc....... but have been calling for the removal of troops as long as I can remember. The article itself says expectations have to be lowered because of the pressure to remove troops.

Now if you truly want the Iraqis to have a better chance of succeding, wouldnt it make sense to stay longer? Ya'll are just saying.......leave.......leave..... ...leave........and then once political pressure builds you say.........see I told you........the Iraqis will fail. Your making a catch-22 out of it.

I also want to point out that the nay-sayers have been wrong about many other big events including the transfer of power, and the elections. They will always continue to be nay-sayers, so I think if you truly want to succeed you see it through till you succeed.

I could be off on this analysis, but I dont see where I am?though i do think that one should at least recognize some slight overestimates in many categories. these things include cost, length of US occupation, and the strength of insurgency forces.


so you think that the lowering of expectations can be entirely blamed on pressure to remove troops?

[Cal Smith]

though i do think that one should at least recognize some slight overestimates in many categories. these things include cost, length of US occupation, and the strength of insurgency forces.


so you think that the lowering of expectations can be entirely blamed on pressure to remove troops?

I think the other big one besides pressure to remove troops is the strength of insurgency. I wouldn't put cost and length of occupation in there as much because I dont think the government really underestimated those completely. You could say the underestimated the cost when they initially went to congress, but I'm sure they as well as most recognized more money would be needed in the future.