Here's the proposal I sent to Wes Clark's website and posted here August 29, 2005.
1) We would not have invaded Iraq in the way they have done.
2) We would not have occupied Iraq in the way they have done.
3) When we take back the reins of power in 2009, we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and
4) In the meantime, we support the efforts of our troops.
We could perhaps add a clause 3a) When we take back the reins of power in 2009 or 18 months and one day after the Iraqis name a Minister of Defense and Interior, whichever comes first, then we will move promptly to withdraw any remaining occupation troops; and...
(new language italicized)
I know it's a bit sarcastic, but that seems to be the only appropriate response to the announcement of the government without these positions filled. What, are they waiting for Rumsfeld to be canned and the new Secretary of the GWOT to select the ministers? Don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
OK, the clock is ticking: Iraq has filled its security posts.
I'll stick with my revised timeline: 18 months should be long enough to get out. And we should renounce much sooner than that any intention of establishing a long-term base in Iraq. The troops will thank us for that small favor.
Zarqawi's death reinforces that idea. How appropriate that our forces got him with a "decapitation strike" (like the one that might've just missed Saddam on Day 1 of the invasion). The only thing more appropriate will be when we hit Osama with the flamethrowers in his cave.
Post a Comment