‘Why we’re staying in Iraq.’
Newsweek: “The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying — and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. … [W]hat few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new ’surge’ plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. … To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant ‘do-over.’” (Via Atrios)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
71 Responses to “‘Why we’re staying in Iraq.’”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
hello geniuses, the British have been “leaving” since May 2003.
and no, the Iraqis are not failing. it takes time to recover from decades under a dictator.
just keep sitting at your keyboards - real men and women will do all the hard work in iraq for you.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 pmWhatever it takes to secure the situation.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pmthe British have been “leaving†since May 2003
I guess Blair is smarter than Bush. Who could have guessed?
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmTotal failure awaits.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmwingnut & paul; contemplate this-Cheney just recently said that British withdrawal is a sign of things improving. If this is true, just why in the hell are we sending in tens of thousands(48,000 including support personnel) more troops if things are going so well. The administration and your cheerleading logic is more twisted than a pretzel.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmWhatever it takes?
Then when are you shipping out. They need you to secure the situation.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pmThe administration and your cheerleading logic is more twisted than a pretzel.
Comment by Uncle Ho — February 22, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Actually more twisted (and sick) than a boy toucher…and how dare you insult a pretzel!! 8-))
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pmThen when are you shipping out. They need you to secure the situation.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
such a pathetic argument, especially from a vet.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm‘A do over’
Which is in no way like ’stay the course’
hello geniuses, the British have been “leaving†since May 2003
Actually, the fact is, folks, (candy wrapper wrinkles) mmMmum gulp, the British agreed to keep (shakes crumbs off newspaper) 4,000 troops there for the next (puffs on a Clintononian cigar) hack cough, five years.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:30 pmI find it odd that there are still some die hard supporters on what we are doing out there. Maybe back in 2003 if we would have put Iraqi’s to work instead of dolling out billion dollar contracts to friends-of-Cheney there would have been less resentment against the US. Maybe if the country would have had clear leadership in the beginning there would have been less secular violence now. But thanks to zero planning on Cheney’s part we have now created the perfect incubator for violence and uprisings.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:34 pmdixie; my apologies to pretzels everywhere.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:45 pmwhatever it takes to secure the situration.
such a pathetic argument, especially from a vet.
I’m a vet too wingnut, I don’t see your ass in the army.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pmIf somebody says “Whatever it takes to secure the situation.” Then they should be willing to sacrifice for their cause. Otherwise, they are blowing hot air and don’t really mean “Whatever it takes to secure the situation.”
Nothing pathetic about pointing out the obvious, other than me having to explain the obvious to you.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pmI’m a vet too wingnut, I don’t see your ass in the army.
Comment by Uncle Ho
you’re right. for several reasons:
a) you can’t see me, period
b) I’m not in the army… I chose to be one of the few, one of the proud.
get my drift ho?
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pmYikes.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 pmjust keep sitting at your keyboards - real men and women will do all the hard work in iraq for you. Comment by wingnutt — February 22, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
That’s a break from wingnuttery, because ‘real women’ have babies and stay home as far as you guys have published your ideology. And you aren’t fond of ‘dykes’ or ‘masculine’ women that would go to war, so how again are these ‘real-women’ from a wing nutt perspective? Wouldn’t they just be real-men with a v*gina? Or is that how you’d describe yourself on your don’t ask don’t tell secret website?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:04 pmNothing pathetic about pointing out the obvious, other than me having to explain the obvious to you.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
there is absolutely something pathetic about your apparent belief that someone who believes in this war should prove it by serving.
when you do so, you degrade your own prior service and the current service of others.
perhaps I should split hairs and assert that because you haven’t served in this war, you should have no opinion. of course I would do no such thing as it degrades your service and the value of your opinion both as a vet and an american citizen.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 pmwingnut = cowardly chickenhawk. no balls to put his body where his mouth is. what a pussy.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pmWhen you believe in something enough that you want people to die for it, you should be willing to die for it yourself, not sit at a keyboard and call other traitors for not supporting what you support that can get others killed, just as I did in Desert Storm. I believed in the cause and joined up. I would never support something that can get people killed unless I am willing to die myself. That is the way real men behave.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pmthere is absolutely something pathetic about your apparent belief that someone who believes in this war should prove it by serving. Comment by wingnutt — February 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
So you believe it’s pathetic to expect someone’s deeds match their words? Yeah, you’re definitely a CON.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pmwhen you do so, you degrade your own prior service and the current service of others. Comment by wingnutt — February 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
What degrades the service of others, is not supplying them with equipment to avoid injury, and not supplying them decent medical care once they are injured.
What degrades the service is to send men and women into harms way on cooked intelligence, with no clear mission objectives.
What degrades the service is to put soldiers in the middle of a civil war to do peacekeeping duties, when they weren’t trained for peacekeeping.
What degrades the service is for people like you to not serve, when the military has to recruit the mentally ill and criminally inclined.
Then again, maybe that would make you perfect for service - with these new degraded standards.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm“[W]hat few people seem to have noticed”
maybe they didnt “notice” it because no one dared to report on it.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:14 pmI would never support something that can get people killed unless I am willing to die myself. That is the way real men behave.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
fair enough.
but let’s say hypothetically someone can’t serve in the military for physical, legal, etc. reasons - but still wants to support the war.
are they barred from doing so?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pmwingnut = cowardly chickenhawk. no balls to put his body where his mouth is. what a pussy.
Comment by Uncle Ho
haha. very articulate soldier.
we marines have come to expect this sort of reaction from the other branches.
envy I guess.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pmWhen you believe in something enough that you want people to die for it, you should be willing to die for it yourself, not sit a keyboard and call others traitors for not supporting what you support that can get others killed…. comment by Spudge_Boy
Spudge, you are absolutely g*d damn right.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:18 pmRepublicans: “Give us forever… we will eventually get it right…”
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pmpussy
Comment by Uncle Ho
p.s. i’ve been to iraq. i guess that puts me in a far better place to hold an opinion on the war than you, don’t ya think?
or does the “then you should go over there” mentality only apply to those in support of the war?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pmwingnut, if you are a gyrene, then I’m the king of Romania.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 pmwingnut; you are not in a far better place to hold an opinion on the war. Iraq = Vietnam minus the trees. And I know all about Vietnam.(ps- due to the draft, I joined the Navy, was a corpsman and did a tour of duty with the Marines).
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 pmRepublicans: “No no wait! I didnt fail! 2 out of 3!” … “No no wait! 3 out of 4!” … “No no wait! 4 out of 5!” …
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:29 pmwingnut, if you are a gyrene, then I’m the king of Romania.
Comment by Uncle Ho
trust me, i don’t need your belief to make it so.
don’t you have a country to run?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm(ps- due to the draft, I joined the Navy, was a corpsman and did a tour of duty with the Marines).
Comment by Uncle Ho
oh, see I thought you were the king romania. get your story straight.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pmThe problem is that with recruitment levels so low, the military has opened it up so that most of those excuses for not joining are null and void.
Now, if somebody is a double amputee then that is one thing, but NeoCon chicken hawks like paul have never once said that.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 pmThe problem is that with recruitment levels so low, the military has opened it up so that most of those excuses for not joining are null and void.
Now, if somebody is a double amputee then that is one thing, but NeoCon chicken hawks like paul have never once said that.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
enlistment requirements have always been flexible. the US loosens them when we need more recruits, tightens them when seats are full.
this has happened in the past… and it will happen more in the future.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pmRepublicans: “Give us forever… whats the hurry?”
3151 DEAD.
23530 WOUNDED.
WWII: Less than 4 years
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pmBush War: Almost 4 years now
‘Why we’re staying in Iraq.’
Everyone else of the so-called ‘coalition’ is leaving (that term was a joke to start with), yet we’re sending in more troops, and this is supposed to be GOOD news??
Why we’re staying in Iraq? Let’s see…profit, ego, diversion while our republic turns into a dictatorship…oops my bad, the media is still too busy with the Anna Nicole and Twitney Spears diversions to talk about real events going on in the world!
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm‘Why we’re staying in Iraq.’
Ummm…We haven’t loaded up the last barrel of oil out of that country yet? sarcasm/off
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmRepublicans: “No no wait! I didnt fail! 2 out of 3!†… “No no wait! 3 out of 4!†… “No no wait! 4 out of 5!†…
Well as we’ve already learned, that’s been the MO for this fascist ‘president’ since youth!
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmSpudge; As much as I hate to agree with wingnut, he is right about enlistment requirements. I have seen it during Vietnam, but never has the bar been lower. They will accept older(age 45) recruits, those with high blood pressure, asthma, real-low IQ types(wingnut), criminals, you name it. If you even show up at a recuiter’s office these days, you are in.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmWWII: Less than 4 years
Bush War: Almost 4 years now
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
quick factual correction:
WWII: 6 years (1939-1945).
the US was involved for less than 4 years.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 pmthe US was involved for less than 4 years.
Comment by wingnutt
And what country are you talking about? I thought this was about Americas folly in Iraq?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pmGerald Gibson Jr. to the Republicans: Follow a fool … suffer a fools fate.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 pmWhatever it takes to secure the situation.
Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
That would take close to 1 million troops at this stage, Paul. Time to shut up and sign up.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pmAnd how can the U.S. possibly stay in Iraq for ten or five or even two more years? Exactly how will they manage to do that with the troop numbers? Will they just keep mandating stop loss the troops, who will be older? What about money? Mission Impossible.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pmWe’ll know soon enough…
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pmIf you even show up at a recuiter’s office these days, you are in.
Comment by Uncle Ho
Absolutely, Uncle Ho. I know a guy who went into the Army with an enlarged heart and an eye condition that was blinding him. He did a tour in Iraq, and it almost killed him. He’s 100% disabled now.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pmZooey; 5 will get you 10 that the VA will deny disability.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 pmHow long are we planning on staying in Iraq? Don’t the fourteen permanent bases we are building there give you a hint? How about the “embassy” that is larger than Vatican City? Does that tell you?
How about our desire to control the largest oil reserves in the world (Saudi Arabia), the second largest (Iraq), and the third largest (Iran)? How about the fact that everyone in the Bush administration is from the oil industry?
PNAC spelled it out in black and white—as did the Pentagon in their “Lilly pad strategy”.
We have been in Japan and Germany for sixty-two years and Korea for fifty-seven. Does that tell you anything?
Or, do you believe we just wanted to remove Saddam because he was so bad to his people? (Remember, the CIA put him in power in the first place and the Reagan-Bush administration strongly supported him).
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmUncle Ho,
It’s “pending.” Pre-existing condition, and all….
It’s disgusting.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmZooey; it figures. BTW, some years back, I got a questionnaire from the Michigan dept of health. It was about Agent Orange, wanting to know where I was stationed and when. I filled it out and sent it back in and never heard anything further. I tried to pull up the topic on the net a couple of years ago, but was totally lost/stymied. Any ideas as to where I can get some answers concerning that Agent Orange survey?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 pmAny ideas as to where I can get some answers concerning that Agent Orange survey?
Comment by Uncle Ho —
Uncle Ho,
First off, thank you for your service to our country.
Second, I owe you a couple. Allow me. Check back here in about an hour, I will see what I can do.
You’re welcome.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pmAny ideas as to where I can get some answers concerning that Agent Orange survey?
Comment by Uncle Ho —
Uncle Ho,
First off, thank you for your service to our country.
Second, I owe you a couple. Allow me. Check back here in about an hour, I will see what I can do.
You’re welcome.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 pmAny ideas as to where I can get some answers concerning that Agent Orange survey?
Comment by Uncle Ho
Wayne might be a better resource for that question, Uncle Ho. My first thought is that if they didn’t like the trend the survey was taking, they’d round file it. I’ll poke around on the net, and see what I can find.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pmUncle Ho,
rachel is a much better researcher than me, but I’ll still try.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 pmR & RK; thanks but it’s past my bedtime, post here on this thread, I’ll check it in the morn.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 pmGoogle Search Words: agent orange survey
—————————————————————-
http://www.nalusda.gov/ speccoll/ findaids/ agentorange/ catalog/ 05599.html
“Summary, Georgia Agent Orange Survey of Vietnam Veterans”Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange. Report/Article Title, Summary, Georgia Agent Orange Survey of Vietnam Veterans …
—————————————————————–
http://www.avva.org/lois_harvey_AOSurvey.htm
Board of Directors Meeting AprilThis survey is to try to find out what may be the effects of Agent Orange on the families of Vietnam Veterans. Hopefully this can be the early stage of …
——————————————————————
http://www.ffrd.org/Agent_Orange/AOinvitation.htm
Washington, DC Briefing to be held on July 8th, 2003 on the extent …Roger Rumpf of Project Lao Agent Orange Survey will provide a summary of what is known about the use of Agent Orange in Laos and his efforts in cooperation …
——————————————————————-
http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Vietnam.html
Vietnam: Conflict or War?Agent Orange Survey & Government Biases Examined! BUTTON.GIF. Agent Orange: The Effects Veterans & Agent Orange: Health Effects …
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm——————————————————————–
Google Search Words: agent orange survey
—————————————————————-
http://www.nalusda.gov/ speccoll/ findaids/ agentorange/ catalog/ 05599.html
“Summary, Georgia Agent Orange Survey of Vietnam Veterans”Alvin L. Young Collection on Agent Orange. Report/Article Title, Summary, Georgia Agent Orange Survey of Vietnam Veterans …
—————————————————————–
http://www.avva.org/lois_harvey_AOSurvey.htm
Board of Directors Meeting AprilThis survey is to try to find out what may be the effects of Agent Orange on the families of Vietnam Veterans. Hopefully this can be the early stage of …
——————————————————————
http://www.ffrd.org/Agent_Orange/AOinvitation.htm
Washington, DC Briefing to be held on July 8th, 2003 on the extent …Roger Rumpf of Project Lao Agent Orange Survey will provide a summary of what is known about the use of Agent Orange in Laos and his efforts in cooperation …
——————————————————————-
http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Vietnam.html
Vietnam: Conflict or War?Agent Orange Survey & Government Biases Examined! BUTTON.GIF. Agent Orange: The Effects Veterans & Agent Orange: Health Effects …
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm——————————————————————–
Good Night Uncle Ho wherever you are.
Glad to help.
:)
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pmUncle Ho,
It looks like rachel found a lot of stuff for you. I emailed the Chief Administrative Officer of the Public Health Administration at the Michigan Department of Public Health, asking for any information she might have, or asking for direction to the proper department.
We’ll see what comes of it.
Goodnight!
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmNot sure about the surveys, I do know most of the states were conducting the surveys, probably to get an idea of possible health impact to the states.
Vietnam vets, because of the CAVC have a presumption of having been exposed to Agent Orange. Last year, “blue water”nam vets were also included in this presumption of having been exposed after an appeals fight, which was good news.
http://www.nvlsp.org/ Information/ ArticleLibrary/ AgentOrange/ AO-hassvnicholson.htm
The biggest problem for vets filing claims since Bushco took over is that the VA seems to be automatically denying claims, like a f*cking corrupt insurance company, you have to fight it to get past the first denial =(
If you get denied for an agent orange related claim, fight it all the way. The law is on your side.
Now Gulf War vets and the “syndrome” claims have not fared as well though, yet. But there is new evidence that the Syndrome may have possibly been caused by sarin gass exposure.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:44 pm“So you believe it’s pathetic to expect someone’s deeds match their words? Yeah, you’re definitely a CON.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — February 22, 2007 @ 8:11 pm”
Lister 7th grader, I know it’s hard for you little people to understand that people of all levels of contributions can have an opinion. Are you insinuating that just because a person has gone beyond the age of serving in the military they don’t have the right to voice their opinions? If we only listened to the young cowards in this country who are against fighting terrorism it wouldn’t be long before your sister would be wearing a burka!
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 pmDon’t we have 14 bases built there?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 pmLessee, you get do overs in croquet, mulligans in golf, what the hell is a do over in an invasion/occupation>?
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pmMicheal….
Now where were we.
Oh,yeah. You renigged on keeping your word about the link. in other words, LIED.
Next was your MOS
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:42 pmmost who claimed to be a veteran have given theirs, me included
So what is yours?
Lister 7th grader, I know it’s hard for you little people to understand that people of all levels of contributions can have an opinion. Comment by michael — February 22, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Says the person that can’t spell listen, calling others 7th graders.
Are you insinuating that just because a person has gone beyond the age of serving in the military they don’t have the right to voice their opinions? Comment by michael — February 22, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
Are you insinuating that you can make up for cowardice of service during Vietnam by being a Chickenhawk now? That’s what we call the NeoCon/Bush/Cheney defense of Cowardice act. I can see you fit the profile.
If we only listened to the young cowards in this country who are against fighting terrorism it wouldn’t be long before your sister would be wearing a burka! Comment by michael — February 22, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
If we only listened to the old cowards that run this country, and support them like you, we’d be fighting a war in terror, while you try to put women back in Burkas. Wait, that’s what you’re doing - Toranimal!!!
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 amBush is supposed to be leaving the presidency in less than 2 years, so how can he make plans to keep troops there for 10 to 20 years? Has Sen. Hillary Clinton made a deal to keep Iraq occupied for her 4 to 8 years as president? And Obama has agreed to do the same for his 4 to 8 years following Hillary?
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 amRK & Zooey; thanx
February 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 amWhy you DOLT David Petraeus,
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 pmHOW DARE you BETRAY us!
Our Brave Troops, you STUPID F*CK
Are not MEANT TO BE STUCK
Forever in Iraq, YOU BOIL FULL OF PUS!!!!!
Michael,
There is a difference between defeating the terrorists and increasing the number of the terrorists. What we have done in Iraq is greatly increase the number of terrorists. It’s not just what I say, it’s what the 16 intelligence agencies of the US and every study in the world says.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:42 amMichael,
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are in Pakistan and Bush hasn’t gone after them. Bush did not surround them at Tora Bora. We left him a direct exit to Pakistan. Bush said “you know, I really don’t think that much about him”. Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons and delivery systems (unlike Iraq and Iran). Pakistani intelligence funded the 19 who committed 9/11. Pakistan is headed by an unelected dictator who Bush likes. Need I go on?
February 24th, 2007 at 3:49 amMichael,
Salem bin Laden funded Bush’s Arbusto Oil. BCCI (used by terrorists and drug dealers) funded Bush’s Harken Energy Corp. The bin Laden’s invested heavily in Carlyle (GHW Bush’s).
The “liberal” media is afraid to mention these, but they did give us eight solid years of WhiteWaterGate (in which the Clintons lost a few thousand dollars in a condo deal over two decades before his presidency)!!!
The Reagan-Bush administration sold massive amounts of weapons (illegally) to the terrorist state of Iran. The plan was for over $1 billion worth of weapons, but they had to cut it short when two plane crashes exposed the scandal. The “liberal” media did not want to print the story at first.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:03 amOllie North’s diaries said the Contras were bringing tons of cocaine into the US.