The United Kingdom has announced large troop cut backs by the end of 2007, Britain's Defense Minister Des Browne said. Their are only 7,200 British troops in the region currently. This could place mounting pressure on the Bush administration to bring U.S. forces home. Britain has been the United States' longest standing ally in this war in Iraq, once they pull-out the U.S. will be left alone. Unless we see dramatic changes in the war I see the U.S. leaving with out victory before the 2008 Presidential election.
It is funny how politics play into a war. Personally I think that it is only natural for politicians to make decisions for the country based on the politicians own best interests. It is natural for human beings to want for themselves and therefore would base their decisions on that. Although that maybe horrible for the nation at large it is only natural, I feel that politicians find a balance of what is good for them and what is good for the nation. Politicians will always be motivated by reelection. What do you think the impact of the impending Presidential election has on Iraq policy?
It is funny how politics play into a war. Personally I think that it is only natural for politicians to make decisions for the country based on the politicians own best interests. It is natural for human beings to want for themselves and therefore would base their decisions on that. Although that maybe horrible for the nation at large it is only natural, I feel that politicians find a balance of what is good for them and what is good for the nation. Politicians will always be motivated by reelection. What do you think the impact of the impending Presidential election has on Iraq policy?
8 comments:
It is funny how politics play into a war. What do you think the impact of the impending Presidential election has on Iraq policy?
Before asking your readers a question, you should give your opinion too. I know you think "it is funny how politics play into war", but to what extent is this funny and how exactly do you view that the current political status plays into the war, or shall i say wars, that are being injustly fought right now on behalf of the US government?
Also, this is more of a comment on the stylistic end of your posting. Before you publish a political blog, be sure to EDIT/PROOFREAD what you have written. You and all of your readers may be "informed students", but the confusing of there for their is unacceptable. The usage of commas and the breaks of sentences were also off in this post.
Because I am not completely a mean-spirited person, I'm going to answer one of the questions that you have posed in your entry (or attempt to). With the upcoming presidential election, there will obviously be a change of pace. The war in Iraq, although it might not stop in its entirety, will be limited in its extent. That's not to say that soldiers are going to be pulled out and sent back home -- not at all. What I'm trying to say is that the war will see a progressive deterioration throughout the next couple of years. Because Bush is already in hot water since the democrats have seized the House and the Senate, he will probably do things in the best interest of the House and the Senate. Since they are the ones who have the most say (the only thing the president can do is basically rule the military), Bush will do his best to make them sympathize with him. We all know that most of the democrats are against the War in Iraq, also. With the next presidential election, the Democrats WILL probably take presidency and the war will be over (but not all at once). You can't just bring all troops home at once, especially after making this huge mistake by starting this war.
I know it got a little choppy at the end, but I'm sure I got my point across.
I really like how you edited it and added your comment! Kudos -- we've got the start of something big. I really like what you're doing with this.
By the way, where did my comment go? It took a while to write, albeit a very short while.
Who is the Random passerby?
Victory in Iraq has already become impossible. The minute we decided to engage in a fast-paced, low troop invasion, the war was doomed to failure.
We never had enough troops on the ground to stabilize the country, we did not start re-building quick enough, and the minute we started arming the Shiite militias to "root-out the Sunni insurgents" [in reality they were raping and pillaging sunni neighborhoods] we doomed the region into sectarian violence.
And to the "anonymous passerby": the war in Iraq has already deteriorated.
We have to leave the country, but not the region. The best thing we can do right now is to pull all the troops out of Baghdad. Pull them out, then line about 200,000 troops up on the Eastern border and tell the Iraqi Gov't, if you need us, we're here.
We need to let the two sides fight eachother, one side will become victorious, a national leader will rise, and stabilize the country.
In the mean time, we need to maintain our 200,000 troops on the Eastern border to allow them to rest and re-group themselves, and re-group all of our materials, and point them EAST [towards Iran]!!!
Ian, the American public would never support an initiative like the one you have set forth. I feel that we cannot leave Iraq to fight a civil war, one side will one and it will be the insurgents (the terrorists). The fact of the matter is that the U.S. cannot allow this to end in either of the following ways; a civil war because it will possibly lead to another ruler like Saddam or someone else who may harbor terrorism. Second we cannot allow for a divided state because that will only put off a threat like we did in Korea. We need to fix the problems which we have started.
"Reuben A. Ingber said...
Who is the Random passerby? "
You don't know me. We've never met.
I happened to stumble across your page as I was looking through one of my friends' facebook groups (which friend? I don't recall!).
Is there any particular reason that you were wondering who I was?
This is such a trite topic, so I'm surprised that you'd choose to discuss it. Because we're going nowhere, most people tend to ignore it. Thus, I applaud you for a job well done! I'm kind of disgusted by this war- our problem with it, I think, started in June 2003 when we pulled out 300 intelligence officials, because we thought the war was over. Correction: they, not we, since I do not endorse the current office. The next problem? The american peoples' reluctance to elect a more suitable candidate for the democratic party for 2004, which, of course, caused a huge disaster both inside the democratic party and outside (nationwide, come presidential election time). Politics play into war because war is politics (sorry to be redundant, but it's factual). Would we be at war without political intervention? No. As for the next presidential election and Iraq, I think we got our answer in early November, when the United States voted overwhelmingly democratic.
I went to see Joe Klein (Time Magazine columnist) speak last night and he made some very good points: firstly, we're at hell either way-- whether we leave the war or we come back. Something's going to come bite us in the ass regardless of what we do. Secondly, we did the wrong thing by becoming overwhelmingly patriotic as soon as this nation was attacked by Al Qaeda. We started an "attack on Islam" instead of an actual "attack on terrorism". Islam is not terrorism. Much like Protestantism, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam is a perfectly legit religion.
I recommend "Politics Lost" by Joe Klein to anyone who's interested in the topic. I bought the book last night, so he could sign it for me (he did!) and I couldn't have made a better choice.
And to quote part of Joe Klein's speech, "what the Republican majority leader, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush should be doing after this term is be in Iraq cleaning victims' bedpans".
Post a Comment