SMALL BUSINESS AND POLITICS WORKING TOGETHER
7 years ago
President Obama has set a deadline of 18 months for US operations in Iraq. But he plans to leave 50,000 US troops there "to provide stability." Democrats are not happy with the decision. According to Reuters,
It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:
Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."
"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.
Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.
And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.
It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.
Congressional Democrats who fought the Bush administration for two years to bring home U.S. forces home expressed disappointment, with Senate leader Harry Reid saying 50,000 troops was "higher than I had anticipated" and Representative Lynn Woolsey calling it "unacceptable."
It is quite possible, as has been claimed by Woolsey, that the Iraqis may consider these 50,000 troops an occupation force. It is possible too that the presence of these US troops will prove to be a catalyst for further recruitment by Al Qaeda. Personally, I am opposed to this decision. US troops should leave. None should remain. Iraq has a government now, after all. And a military and a police force. Yet Obama has, he says, reasons for leaving US troops in place: "Obama said 35,000 to 50,000 troops would stay to train and equip the Iraqi forces, protect civilian reconstruction projects and conduct limited counterterrorism operations." It is hardly surprising that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates favors the move. He is a Republican after all:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would favor a modest U.S. military presence in Iraq even after the end of 2011 to assist Iraqi security forces if requested by Baghdad.
Obama seems to be a bit wishy-washy about what American goals are, and that's an uncomfortable thought, given that we have just ended an eight year reign by King George without any clear direction in our foreign policy. In Obama's words, the U.S. troop drawdown sent a "clear signal that Iraq's future is now its own responsibility."
"We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars," he said.
Right. So we're leaving 50,000 troops there...why, exactly? If there is no definite timetable to bring them home, we can legitimately question what Obama means by "indefinitely." The opposite of definite is, after all, indefinite. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in President Obama.
And while Democrats are unhappy with the plan, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, happy: "Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," said John McCain, who had earlier criticized his 16-month withdrawal plan.
It is interesting that Obama, who criticized Bush by letting Iraq distract him from the goal of toppling Al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, now seems himself distracted by Iraq. Yes, it was Bush who made the mistake of attacking a sovereign nation without any justification whatsoever, but it's time to correct that mistake and get out. Staying there is not the answer. Yes, our government is likely worried about the staying power of the Iraqi government and possible destabilization of the region, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees. Our being there is a destabilizing influence. It's time to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire and go home.
Post a Comment
Share your thoughts