Why do so many think Bush will cut and run from Iraq?

[Sliverofhope]

I've heard many intelligent people suggest that they think Bush, to minimize political damage, will pull out from Iraq before the "job is done."

But as I see it this is quite impossible. It's clear that Bush and company don't normally care about the ramifications for national security, but if Iraq is allowed to turn into another Iran or worse, that's a substantial loss for the "war on terrorism" as Bush defines it (in contrast to "things to do that will prevent terrorism).

The only way we can truly prevent attacks on American troops is if there are 0 troops in Iraq. But this is impossible, or who will guard the oil pipelines and Halliburton cronies? Remember, Bush policy always follows enriching his friends. If there are only 50,000 troops, there will be equal or more danger to them.

I don't know the real meaning of the "handing over power to the Iraqis" rhetoric, but I don't see any way Bush can really withdraw from Iraq now that he's invaded.

[LittleApple81]

1. Doesn't it go like this: They will be in charge (some Iraqis...

we don't care which as long as they don't interfere with our business), we will still be there but we will be able to blame the Iraqis for the lack of security and violence and killing and lack of progress...

[Sliverofhope]

2. I figured it would be something

along those lines. Real democracy of course, can't be allowed. That could involve Islamic theocracy or oil nationalization. Secular capitalist democratization might not even be allowed earlier, if it interferes with specific Halliburton plans. What Bush really needs is, like... a dictator, who would keep the religious nuts in line, and obey the oil companies' line on everything. Now that's democracy.

Further:

You would also probably want a leader who would recognize Israel. There's no way you could allow cronyism, recognition of Israel, and secularism, all at once, without a permanent Bremer. I don't get it.

[terrisel]

12. Smoke and Mirrors + Reality of Losing

I think in actuality the war is lost. Cut and run may be the only alternative. The responsible way to do it would be to admit defeat and request major UN and multlateral intervention-few strings attached.

I think they have already decided to declare victory, cut and run, and then blame Iraqis for trashing their own country, and blame other countries and the UN for not helping out.

The victory facade here in the US will need to be maintained only until after election day 2004. They are counting on being able to minimize media reports on Iraq once there is major US troop withdrawal-then get Bush re-elected, and then start trouble somewhere else in the region.

[Sliverofhope]

18. This would, I assume

anger the neocons. And I think a good portion of the normal national-security establishment. That portion which he hasn't already pissed off.

Would be an interesting day if Sullivan and Kristol and Wolfowitz and Perle were anti-Bush.

The neocons and the oil companies need some kind of stability in Iraq.

The greed-motive core at the heart of the Bush administration has the potential to alienate every other GOP base.

[jokerman93]

3. Because last night on MSNBC I saw

a sound byte of Bush stammering...

"We're not going to cut and run."

[grytpype]

4. Re-selection, obviously.

We can't stabilize Iraq, and as long as we are their our troops are going to get picked off. Not too good for Duhbya.

Pull out the troops, and America will forget about Iraq, just like we forgot about Afghanistan. That's all that matters to Bush now.

[Sliverofhope]

11. I don't doubt that Bush

would do this, or that America would not forget. But Afghanistan had the Taliban, and was at best a pipeline route. Iraq HAS oil. Would Bush really just leave oil? If he did, I would suspect he would anger some dangerous people.

[Mandolinista]

5. Any Examples?

I haven't heard anyone in the media, or anyone else suggest that Shrub may try to cut and run. However, the fact that they keep saying that they will see this through to the end may be an indication that they wiil abandon the sinking ship. Can you post any examples of this?

[LittleApple81]

6. Yep. Black is White. Up is Down. Compassionate Conservatism. n/t

[Sliverofhope]

7. Here's one

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_11_09_atrios_archive.html#106874862302051020

Another I heard personally, so I can't post it.

[Webster Green]

8. You figured it out already........

The chimp Always does the opposite of what he says. "Stay the course" means: "We're getting the fuck out of here". It's all about re-selection 2004.

[JailBush]

9. I can't imagine Bush abandoning Iraq.

After all, he wouldn't want Iraq's oil wells falling back into Iraqi hands. I assume they want to create a pro-American government that they can control like a puppet, then begin withdrawing troops.

Good luck!

[Sliverofhope]

14. Right

As of now, Bush was better off with Saddam. Saddam sold his oil, and was contained, as Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell can attest. We could install Saddam II. There was a funny animation/game that had an iraq war scenario, and of the three successors to Saddam, you got to choose between three clones of Saddam. With different NAMES of course. We wouldn't want to give the signal that we were anti-freedom.

[JailBush]

10. On another tangent...

When will Bush cut and run from the U.S.?

[LittleApple81]

15. The problem here is that it is not him overstaying his appointment

to the presidency. It is the RW machinery with the money, the lies, the mud-slinging. This, combined with an ignorant population and Diebold et. al, is what might make his stay for 4 more years possible.

[Beetwasher]

13. Cost Benefit Analysis

Bushco. is first and foremost a business. They have a bottom line. The War on Terror is nothing more than a sham to enrich themselves w/ the money from the US Treasury. The longer they stay in Iraq, the worse the situation for them becomes politically. If they are ousted from the WH, there's a chance they stop getting the corporate welfare.

Doing a cost benefit analysis of the situation one could come to the conclusion that it is no longer profitable politically and financially to stay in Iraq. They've already transferred Billions to the coffers of their cronies from the treasury and the Iraqi oil reserves might not be worth the continued political investment at this time. Not to mention it seems the size of the reserves were exaggerated and the state of the Iraqi oil industry was worse than they thought. It would need quite an investment to get it up and running and an investment of troops to protect it.

That being said, the certainly could withdraw a large portion of the troops and maintain a few heavily fortified military bases strategically located around oil refineries and oil fields. I suspect they will do this.

[Sliverofhope]

17. Compelling analysis

Of course, then what's the point of causing further trouble in the region? Would Syria be any easier in 2005? Are we just going to create a vast region of statelessness in the middle east?

Of course, to think about it, we might. A vast anarchic netherzone with fortified oil outposts.

[Beetwasher]

19. Bingo

One could say they've already achieved their clandestine goals once the fortified bases are built. Remember, those bases are being built by Halliburton at vastly inflated prices. That's where the money is right now.

Once the bases are built, they have staging grounds for further operations. They can always come back for the oil at a later date. The oil is not going anywhere.

They can hold a sham election, throw together a constitution, declare mission accomplished, then pull out most of the troops leaving contingents in the bases. They can spin it as a victory and in a sense for them it would be because they would have sucked the treasury dry and built the fortified bases to establish a permanent presence. Through massive propoganda they could hope to make it seem like "liberation" to a lazy US public.

An Iraq in shambles and the region in turmoil and increased terrorism only aids their covert agenda. It's an excuse to launch further operations from fortified bases AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION. They could always say we need to re-invade Iraq and THEN get the oil; or Syria, or Iran etc.

[jokerman93]

20. Beetwatcher! Great Analysis

And I say "great" because I agree with you entirely!!!!

:toast:

[NoKingGeorge]

22. Very good analysis.

To go a step further, I believe France possibly with Russia would staep in to preserve the oil flow for France. I do not think other countries in the region would allow Al Queda to rule(thinking the Saudis' and Egypt). cHenney and wOlfowitz do not have any compassion so civil war does not sway them. We should leave now with 400+ dead or leave later with more dead. cHenney and wOlfowitz will face the consequences.
BTW: * aWol is not consulted. He is a front.

[Nlighten1]

16. It is an election year ruse.

They aren't pulling out anytime soon.

[submerged99]

21. I tend to agree with that

I have a feeling that they don't intend to pull out completely and that "Iraqification" rhetoric is aimed at placating Bush's supporters. I think that after the Chinook shootdown, Rummy, Cheney and wolfie carefully gauged the reaction of the public.

There wasn't a lot of outrage from their supporters so I think that the Bush gang figures the military can sustain multiple deaths with little political costs to them. Just to be on the safe side, they decided to drop some bombs and "kick a little ass" so that the wingnuts can swagger around for a few days.

[Kolesar]

24. they are going to "act like" they are withdrawing

So by election 2004, it is going to look like we will be withdrawing imminently. This war is big problem for the GOP.

[agingdem]

23. Because...

it's getting close to the general election.

[Unknown Known]

25. The problem is security - there is none

Until there's security - businesses cannot come in and set up shop and what's already there is in constant danger/threat.

This could easily be solved by bringing in UN/NATO, but BushCo will not give up power (oil). They are digging themselves into a deeper hole day by day because of their greed.

It's Catch-22 for BushCo

[Scott Lee]

26. First Protocol: Save face.

That is what BushCo is all about in his lunatic policies. He (they) MUST find an honorable way to save their egos once their morally bankrupt policies implode.

In Iraq, it's going to play out something like this. Realistically Bush and his advisors can see the writing on the wall; that this is a losing game trying to put down a rising insurgency in an occupied nation. Behind the scenes you can bet they are scurrying with ways to get things back in the hands of Iraqis (which is a good thing by the way). Publically, they will announce that the Iraq war and invasion was a success and we are pulling out because Iraq is stable enough to handle it's own affairs again.

Prediction: in a year or two, Iraq will be embroiled in a civil war, which will determine whether it becomes a 1)Shari'a ruled Islamic State, or 2) some quasi "democracy" led by either another dictator or a military group.

[caledesi]

27. Look at Afghanistan and that should answer your question.

Remember that country? Remember Osama bin Laden?