Do you think it is President Bush's intention to stay in Iraq until the end of his term...?

Question

so history won't be able to say we lost in Iraq under his leadership and secondly to dump the whole mess into the lap of the democrats?

Answer 1

Yes that's been the plan since he realized we weren't going to be greeted as liberators. Cynical but true

Iraq is currently ranked as the third most corrupt country in the world. It is estimated, for example, that $18 billion in Iraqi government funds has been stolen since 2004. More than one third of all US “reconstruction” funds is simply stolen and ends up in the pockets of various powerbrokers.

The overwhelming majority of the population is firmly opposed to any US presence in the country. According to a recent ABC/BBC poll, 98 percent of Sunnis and 84 percent of Shiites want all US forces out of the country. Attacks on US troops have dropped markedly but still continue at over 60 per day and are supported, according to the poll, by 93 percent of Sunnis and 50 percent of Shiites.

Far from “stabilising” Iraq, the US military now faces a highly volatile situation with troops stationed in exposed forward bases keeping ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods and districts apart. While the multitude of sectarian militia are hostile to each other, they remain bitterly opposed to the US occupation. There is nothing new or innovative in the US tactics, which mark a return to the classic colonial policy of “divide-and-rule”. Any number of factors could rapidly lead to the collapse of this precarious house of cards.

Any conception that Iraq will become a pliable US client state in a matter of a few years is a pipedream. The imperialist ambition of dominating Iraq’s oil resources and using it as a garrison state in the Middle East can only be pursued by the permanent occupation of the country, the repression of Iraqi opposition and a constant flow of dead and wounded soldiers back to the US.

Answer 2

The right answer is not simple. Bush will stay in Iraq, but give the impression, by next Labor Day, that he is in the process of getting out by gradually removing about half of the presesnt strength. The other half will remain in Iraq indefinitely to keep a lid on the boiling pot, but the 2008 voters won't know that until the election is over with a possible Republican President.

A permanent US military presence was the neocon intent long befor 9/11. If the above strategy fools the voters, the neocons and Bush will get what they wanted. He can gradually reduce strengtth because (a) the Sunni tribes, which turned against Al-Qaeda long before the surge, will soon finish the job; (b) the Shi'ites have won the battle for the Baghdad region, leaving relatively few Sunnis living in economically unsustainable walled ghettos built and protected by our troops; and (c) the Shi'ite militia has decided to stop their attacks to encourage a US withdrawl.

To avoid a defeat, the House Democrats must vote a war funding bill that requires Bush to (a) ask the UN to supervise a plebiscite for a fully independent Kurdistan, leaving only the Baghdad area in contention between Sunnis and Shi'ites; (b) offer safe transportation and financial aid to Sunnis in Baghdad who wish to move to a Sunni province; (c) when the Sunnis have sufficiently abandoned Baghdad, ask the UN to hold local plebiscites to determine boundaries between three totally independent nations: Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shiastan.

Bush will veto that bill because it would deprive him of any reason to keep troops in a non-existent Iraq. The Democrats should keep sending the bill until he signs it. If he complains that the lack of funds is hurting the troops, the House should then impeach him for dereliction of duty.

Congress has sole authority to finance a war. The Constitution does not give the President authority to conduct a war without the consent of Congress. It's time for Congress to take back its powers.

Answer 3

We are going to be in Iraq for a very long time. He isn't just waiting for the end of his term. If we pull out of Iraq anytime in the next generation (20 years) the terrorist networks will use the country as a training ground and staging area for attacks on the west. It will also destabilize the Arab region with the all important oil reserves.

Answer 4

Your question implies that a Democrat is going to win the election. This is not at all certain. Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? 11% at last look. This is the lowest approval rating for any congress in American history.

So will we stay in Iraq till the end of President Bush's term? Yes, but not for the reasons you cited. We will be there because it's necessary to our war on Islamic Jihadists.

Answer 5

As much as I hate to say this. We are in Iraq for ever, regardless of who gets elected.. We have bought that mess and we are now stuck with it. We will have bases there and guard that oil and the new emabassy for generations. Just like Saudi Arabia.
We began construction of the Largest most oppulant emabassy ever built in the World. They have approved $600 billion in Tax payers money to construct it. Can you imagine how many Soldiers it will take to guard that place and the oil?

Answer 6

Yes, of course.

And All of the Democrats running for president, except Kucinich, have now stated that they will stay in Iraq, too.

Has any of the Democrat Voters wised up that they were lied to by the Democrats, during the last Election?
No..... they never wise up. They are fun to watch.

Answer 7

Yes---he has said as such---that the next president will be dealing with it---in fact unless this nations's foreign policy is changed, we will be dealing with Iraq for many,many years to come.

Answer 8

Obviously

Answer 9

I think he fully intends to stay in Iraq until the job is done. (The Iraqis can run their own country) Anything less seems inhumane.

Answer 10

Well, not for the reasons you state, but he has already stated the incoming President and leadership will have this to deal with in the future.