Obama's Iraq speech: A home run

Even though he mentioned he'll leave behind a residual force to deal with any AQ in Iraq (not the same AQ that attacked the U.S., BTW) and he also announced that he'll be focusing more on the real AQ on the Aghanistan/Pakistan border?

Why would AQ be happy about that?

 

Agreed. I like hearing somewhat-detailed plans - or at this stage, at least well-developed ideas. This is a start.

 

Overheard in a cave in the Afghan mountains in March 2003:

"Did you hear the great news? We're safe! The idiot really is going into Iraq!"

 

This was my favorite part:

The war supporters have done a good job of at clouding the fact that a withdrawal from Iraq is actually a tactic. The idea is to spur the Iraqi government into action with our threat of leaving. Of course it's risky, but what isn't?

 

The quicker we withdraw troops from Iraq, the more likely AQ makes a comeback there, don't you think?

 

They have never been more than a minor irritant in Iraq . . . and NEVER until we invaded.

They have ALWAYS been a problem in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

So since you cannot have troops in every damn country in the world until the end of time . . . Obama's plan makes sense.

 

If you want to destabilize Iraq, it certainly does.

 

How can they make a comeback if they were never there in the first place? As Grimace noted, the AQ in Iraq was completely unaffiliated with the AQ that attacked us. They were a Sunni group that named themselves Al Queda.

Also, the Iraqis hate AQ in Iraq for being such radical thugs. They wouldn't let them back.

Even at their strength, AQ in Iraq (again, not the same AQ that attacked us) was never more than 5% of the insurgency. Even the Generals over there said so.

 

Do you honestly believe we need 150,000 troops to deal with a minor, yet admittedly dangerous, insurgent group? 150,000 troops and $10 billion/month? Really?

 

Apparently it's worked so far, if results of the surge are any indication. You know, the surge your guy opposed.

 

It will ALWAYS be unstable until we leave.

Because the Iraqi people will never give the government any legitimacy as long as we are pulling the strings.

If absence of US troops = AQ swarming all over, how come there are not a boatload of AQ training camps in Syria or Jordan or Iran or any one of a hundred other places?

 

Wrong. You don't even have a basic understanding of what's going on over there do you?

AQ in Iraq was never what this war was about. It was a civil war between Sunnis and Shias that we've been refereeing and paying with the lives of our troops. The civil war has run its course, partly because of our intervention and partly because there's no one left to kill. Genocide has slowly taken place over a seven-year period.

Their is stability in Iraq because while the surge is going on, we've also successfully paid local Sunni tribes, kept Al-Sadr from causing anymore trouble and watched as AQ in Iraq has overplayed its hand and been rejected by the local population.

You keep shouting "Al Queda" to justify everything. But, again, Al Queda in Iraq was never greater than 5% of the insurgency. The surge wasn't the cause and effect of their near defeat.