The Presidential Candidates & Iraq Pull Out

[Admiral Valdemar]

Simple question. Given pretty much everyone has voiced opposition against the fiasco in Iraq and considers it a primary issue, along with the economy, does anyone seriously think a mass withdrawal is on the cards? Or is it all rhetoric to win votes, albeit, something acknowledged by most smart people as being so?

Me, I don't see us getting out of there. The costs have been so high and the reasons for going in are still valid, even if the whole mess was a clusterfuck (for the slow, I'm not talking WMD, although removing Saddam was a good move if you want further stability in such a region so vital to our well being). The plan was rational. The execution was hopeless beyond words.

We all know the "War on Terror" is a silly concept that simply acted as a cover for actions like A-stan and Iraq. I believe if the public had been told the truth, that it was all a ruse to garner a better stronghold in the ME and open up Iraq's 200 billion barrels of crude whilst instating a more democratic power-base in the nation, then they'd be up in arms over it. Much easier to appeal to black and white/good vs. evil with simplistic platitudes to rally support behind the flag. And fear is a good tool for that when dealing with sheeple.

Are we in too deep to get out of Dodge now without major upheaval? If no one delivers some progress or an exit strategy for Iraq, will the majority of voters become disillusioned?

[Coyote]

Because you couched the withdrawal as "Iraq AND Afghanistan", I say "No". There is still work to be done in A-stan; Iraq, OTOH, I think we can begin shuffling the cards off the table, though. I'm more and more in agreement with the idea that as lot of US & other troops stay there, the more reason the Iraqi gov't will continue to hem and haw while using us as a crutch and an excuse to do nothing.

Even then, other options like maintaining small ground forces there for training the Iraqi Army needs to be looked at; and for awhile we have a responsibility to act as their air force, too, since their current air force is a dozen or so transports, drones and cargo helicopters.

But I'd not be too eager for a pullout from Afghanistan quite yet.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yes. America today doesn't have the patience for long wars, occupation or rebuilding, especially when it's going so slowly (To their perception) and they're worrying about their jobs. The modern commercial America? it's short attention spans? Debts and slowing economy? more than 4 years in there?
The withdrawal will begin before Obama's out of office. (Of course with someone more focused like McCain there it might be another kettle of fish).

I can't make a personal comment on what might have been with a competent dealing with Iraq rather than the clusterfuck that's been, but it's interesting to think about. Still, no use crying over spilled oil.

[Mr Bean]

Iraq?
We need only stay there long enough to remove vital hard to replace equipment. Reconstruction is a bust, I can see leaving 20,000 troops to help guard the oil, lets be blunt, it's the only thing in the country we give a crap about. But yes within three years I'd like to see only UN forces in the country, hell lets let China guard Iraq, that should be fun.
A-Stan? Keep at current levels with a aim at providing a 20%-40% personnel increase in the area.

I don't mean we move the 140,000 Troops from Iraq to A-Stan to 40,000 and keep it solid there for the next eight years. We can manage that much

[Havok]

No. At least on Afghanistan. Iraq, Obama will, but not McCain, at least not as fast as he could. Any candidate elected should and will keep us in Afghanistan, and like Bean suggested, provide a force increase.

This poll should have some more options. Your going to get a sewed amount to "No" because nobody really thinks that a pull out in Afghanistan is feasible until we capture or kill Bin Laden, and doing so would be political suicide.

[irishmick79]

Definitely not - all of the candidates have tempered their withdrawal discussion with talk about "discussing the situation with commanders" or "responding to the situation on the ground" or some variant of that language. Since the situation on the ground is still beyond fucked up, the new president will be getting pressured to maintain commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan by those respective governments and foreign policy advocates here and abroad who fear that a US withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan will trigger massive increases in regional instability.

This is a pretty big issue, since I think the new president will be reluctant to immediately leave themselves open to accusations of ditching our friends and allies abroad or of 'cutting and running'. With the foreign policy establishment currently being staffed by Bush administration lackeys who would fear the consequences of a US withdrawal and who would have credibility within US media and government circles to level those kind of accusations, it will take a strong President indeed to resist these voices until they can bring in his/her own foreign policy people.