We'll stand down when they stand up... oh, wait.
 

6 days, 6 weeks, not 6 months...

We'll be greeted as liberators...

We'll stay until they establish a government...

Another quiet policy change:

Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

In a reflection of the need for more U.S. troops, the Pentagon decided earlier this month to increase the length of U.S. Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. The extension came amid speculation that the U.S. commander there, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will ask that the troop increase be maintained well into 2008.

U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. They say they now must establish security while training Iraqi forces because ultimately, "they are our ticket out of Iraq," as one senior Pentagon official put it.

--------------full story-------------

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17104704.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_natio n

quagmire.

This sounds just like a situation I was sweating out in 1972, when the draft was running strong. 'Twas called Viet Nam, IIRC.

What is it that they say about those who don't learn from history?

I think a more apt term than quagmire would be TAR PIT. I am reminded of the story of the "Tar Baby"...

We found that the Iraqie "Trainees" had allegiance to other political entiies in Iraq other than to the National State of Iraq. That said, there is little hope for a political solution within Iraq. The US has a sole purpose left in staying in Iraq and that is to keep a lid on the situation so that the violence in Iraq doesn't escalate to point where other States in the region are drawn in and the conflict spreads.

While there are superficial similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, and the parrell can be drawn, the situation in reality is quiet disimilar. withdrawing from Vietnam COULD NOT effect the National Security of the UNited States. Only one word be mentioned as to the gravity of the situation for the US...OIL

We have Turkey about to invade the northern Kurdish area and add to the 30,000 Kurds they have already killed; Saudis pumping money into Iraq, Iran pumping arms into Iraq. Jihadists using U.S. presence as a recruiting tool for their cause, and about 70% of Iraqi citizens who haven't fled, wanting us out.

Not sure our hanging around and continuing to be targets and tools will make a hell of a lot of difference...

Like the purpose of US Troops in South Korea, we act as a trip wire. So that the forces of the whirlwind don't get outa hand. The military force that the US can bring to bear are still quiet formidble.

There is a danger quiet like the beginings of WW1 that even with the presence of US Troops that events can take on a life of their own and things get out of control. Rue that day should ever happen.

History would be more instructive a teacher if it wasn't so stupefyingly repetitious.

Tabs...while I'll always respect the opinion of a man of wealth and taste, I was just drawing an analogy to the end result... a no win situation.

Oil? What oil?

So it's your opinion that's worth the lives of 800-900 young Americans per year?

Well, I ask U the question. What is continuing your life style as it is worth to U? Does having a job and being able to pay your bills worth 800 to 900 American lives a year?

The economic ramifications of a disruption to the World Supply of oil are enormous. What happens if the price of oil goes to $200 a barrel or $300 and the price of Gasoline goes to $9.00 a gallon. What happens to the US and World economy. The risk that this possibility comes to fruitition is too high for the USA to take the risk of pulling out. Thats why this ain't your Daddies Vietnam.

Thank GW Bush for leading the USA and World into this mess. There simply is NO RIGHT ANSWER. Again its damed if U do and damed if U don't. Thats why the Dems are so disingenous, they call for a pull out, but if the Presidential slot is filled with a Dem then your going to hear a totally different song from them come 2009. right now everything can be blamed on GW and his crew eg the Repblicans.

Brian Schiweitzer (D) Govenor of Montana says that the US probably will eventually withdraw to a coupla central bases with about 50000 US Troops in place in Iraq to keep the peace INDEFINATELY. What makes him be able to say such a thing...Living and working as an Agronomist in Saudi for 7 years and being able to speak Arabic fluently. He also says the Saudi Royals will be a thing of history.

Tabs, oil cannot sustain a price of $200 a barrel. There are too many sources of oil that become economically viable at every price point from $80/bbl and up. A friend's grandfather had patents on shale oil extraction methods that opened up millions in potential reserves that became practical at $80-85/bbl. There are other methods and sources that become economically viable as the value goes up. There's also a point at which Americans will decide to conserve.

So the market mechanism will not allow oil to reach, and stay, at $200. Not to mention, last I heard, ME oil was only 9% of the U.S. supply.

Pulling out means the 'Sunni/Shiite/Kurd problem' will require a solution generated by those factions and their neighbors. With the US out (and not meddling behind the scenes) all the oil producers will still seek us out as customers.

BTW, did you notice that the Iraqis recently decided to sell their oil production to China? That's gratitude for ya. Did you see the photos of the anti-American demonstrations in Iraq? One march completely filled a 7 kilometer road.

And BTW, it wasn't "my father's Vietnam." My honorable discharge is dated June, 1970.

Re: We'll stand down when they stand up... oh, wait.
 

You have to watch some of that PBS series to really understand why.

11-part PBS series “America at a Crossroads.”
http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/

I heard the number was 14%. However Japan, China and other Oil poor nations get a far larger supply of their oil from the ME. If the supply is threatened or is disrupted, these other nations will bid up the price of oil to keep their wheels turning. With oil its not just a matter of turning the tap on or off, it takes time to ramp up production. That number is not something that I took outa my a$$, Guilliani for one has mentioned that price level. Even if oil were to remain that high for a year or so the damage would be done.

I say pull back to guard just the important oil production facilities and the North, and let the Sunnis and Shias kill each other.

Oil might go up to the 85 buck mark but its going there eventually. Might be a good thing for us.

I don't care about the war as a policy. Other thank keeping it as a "managed" fight while we work out a end statagy.

Give me a President that want to do something about a horrifying trade imbalance and I'll vote for her or him.

In a worst-case Middle East scenario, oil could go to $200 temporarily, like for a year.

$200/bbl oil implies $7-8/gal gasoline.

What would happen?

We'd have a global recession, no doubt.

Oil producers outside the Middle East would become politically more powerful. Russia might try to re-absorb a former Soviet bloc country or two. EU or NATO enlargement would be on hold. Iran would proceed with its nuclear program unhindered.

China would be especially hard-hit, given no domestic supply and high energy consumption per dollar of GDP. But the government has enough police power, and cash reserves, to maintain political stability.

Detroit automakers would go under, or break their union contracts, as SUV sales collapsed. Toyota would do great. We might see Fiat or Peugeot re-enter the US market.

Alternative energy would boom. Wind and solar farms would sprout everywhere. A new nuclear plant might be even built. Alternative-fueled cars and the infrastructure for them would get a big boost. Porsche would introduce an LNG-powered Cayenne.

Along with the recession, we'd have surging inflation driven by energy costs. Also by food costs, as even more corn is diverted to ethanol.

More Africans would starve.

The US would scrape up all the combat power it could to protect the oilfields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. We'd surround them with no-fly zones, no-drive zones, no-walk zones and no-camel zones. Anything that comes within 10 miles of a well or pipeline gets blasted. The rich countries who depend on MidEast oil would join us, or help pay for it.

Eventually, oil demand would fall (a global recession does that), alternative supplies would ramp, and conventional supplies would be stabilized. Oil prices would fall again.

Methinks Tom Clancy should write a novel about it.

Any other consequences to mention? I know I've only scratched the surface.

We're both looking at old statistics. 56% of U.S. oil consumption is now imported, with 17% from the M.E.

As oil has made upward spikes in the past 4-5 years, old technologies have been dusted off, reexamined, and might take less time to come online than you think.

I agree with JYL that a $200/bbl price might be in effect for as much as a year, but demand will drop with every dollar above $100/bbl. The consequences of a sustained oil price over $100/bbl are pretty much what JYL's scenario states. Remember the U.S. is in debt to China for almost the entire cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation. China now has the 'oil deals' in place with the new Iraq government (coincidence?) and will exert a heavy influence on U.S. policies in the M.E. as their growth rate depends on a steady supply...

The pump is primed for the second coming, all believers rejoice.

Video:
The Believers Heaven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1paYhEDFQIw

I would actually like to see higher oil prices, so long as the increase is gradual and permanent. Gradual so that consumers and producers of energy have time to adjust. Permanent to provide a sufficiently predictable environment for investments in alternative energy.

Alternative energy will be a growth industry over the next many decades. The US has a chance to take leadership in this industry. I am not sure we have gotten off to a strong start. Research a list of solar power technology companies and most of them are European and Asian. Ditto wind power. We've all seen how badly the US auto industry has missed the boat. Fortunately, there is a lot of investment going into alternative energy right now, including from large US corporations and the US venture capital and US technology industries, so we are still in the game.