It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Start U.S. Iraq withdrawal in 4-6 months

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:43 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats, who won majorities in the U.S. Congress in last week's elections, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

"The first order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.

Washington Post

Both staying and leaving will inevitably lead to chaos anyway. Without US intervention the possibility of civil war breaking out is greater, but on the other side, staying would neither solve or improve anything.

In my opinion, the result of this war is a complete failure, a country left in chaos, and an increased terrorist threat.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by Mdv2]

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:57 PM
Yes it’s almost official “U.S lost Gulf War 2”. Because in 4 to 6 months time Iraq will probably be a little bit worse than it already is. So much for staying to help Iraqi forces tame the place; because if it’s so tame why is it going to be even worse?

Kind of raises the question “Why did we stay there so long?” And what was the point of repeating most Britain’s mistakes of the 1920’s?

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” has so far only succeeded in making Iraq a more dangerous place, a place where you no longer know what might get you killed. Iran got a new school friend and likewise Israel has a higher exposure area to the unpredictable, irrational and unknown threat of terrorism; plus that of other countries influences and objectives. In Buddhism they call this “Karma”.

And when we’re gone…

How long will our democracy of religious fundamentalists, and sectarian differences last?

But let’s not blame ourselves. The Bush Administration said it wanted to stay the course. Well let’s let them?
I want a special arrangement so that after Bush finishes his term he has to stay in Iraq to sort the place out. Give it a hundred years and they’ll be no one left; mission accomplished!!!
In the meantime we could put Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld (even) all in that “safe” Green Zone to live in.
Even in world war two some captains deliberately choose to go down with their ship; so why can’t we expect the same of Commander and Chiefs? (Not forgetting they’re ever so truthful teams).

But It’s Still Not Too Late…

Saddam has yet to be executed, and Ba’th party ideology has the same immortality of all ideologies. Therefore even after we have killed the one guy to rule the place for 34 years, the one who succeeded where over 22 governments had fallen before him in military coups since 1933; there is a chance that we will be able to find someone like him.

Let’s hope whoever it is isn’t handpicked by Iran (otherwise we will have to invade the place once again).

ATS How long do you think it will be before we invade Iraq again?

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:00 PM
Its time to end this botched war and get our people out of harm's way.

Its the only thing to do. Let them fight it out amogst themselves.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe

Its time to end this botched war and get our people out of harm's way.

Its the only thing to do. Let them fight it out amogst themselves.

I think so too.
Enough of our people have died and we're bleeding out too much money and human lives.

It's the only sensible thing to do.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:18 PM
Yeah but when will we re-invade Iraq?
Don't pretend it won't happen because at the current rate the Iraqi territory is coal drum heading for our tanks and troops re-visiting it some time soon.

It's got enough room to breed extremism, damage our oil interests and threaten Israel to last us century (hence whenever we next invade them).

Also America don't forget you are effectively a two party state. The Democrats only need some new threat to justify (with possible popularity) us re-visiting Iraq. Don't pretend it won't happen because that's pretending (especially ten years down the line).
The sad truth is that the biggest difference between them and the Republicans was that the Democrats were out of office when all the action happened; therefore they had to take the opposing line. Just look at all the co-operation been talked about for proof of that; the truth is they’re paymasters (and linked media supporters) don’t know another way for Iraq (they’ll allow) (at least right now).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 10:35 PM
It will be interesting to see just what form this withdrawal will take.

Will it include the troops in the deep desert bases? What will happen to the largest embassy compound in the world?

And what of the Iraqi collaborators? There must be people there soiling themselves at the thought of a US withdrawal.

Interesting times indeed.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by rich23
It will be interesting to see just what form this withdrawal will take.

If the plan turns to the ‘structure’ as contained in the Levin-Reed proposal back in June 2006…it won’t look like much (if even noticeable).

Just from the short article as posted and from what else I could read the political say-nothing buzz words like “phased redeployment” and “not open-ended” occur most often….Levin-Reed, which amounts to nothing more than pre-campaigning and now lip service to buy time until the Baker-Hamilton (ISG) paper is released so the party can at least act as if it really has a plan, direction or something to which to adhere.

That said, Bush just sucked a key member out of the ISG (Gates)…there won’t be any surprises in the Oval Office…

The Dems have a tough road ahead.


top topics


log in