I would also point out that many memebrs of the Iraqi parliment are not even in country to vote (too dangerous) so that 144 votes is actually a much more sizeble percentage of those present than it would first appear. It also indiates a fair degree of passion behind it. On many days the pariliment has too few memebrs attending to even vote anything because they do not have a quorum.

“House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said this week, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B.” His remarks were echoed by Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS).

But a new National Journal “Congressional Insiders Poll,” which surveyed 124 members of Congress, finds that the September deadline may not mean much to war supporters.

Fully 67 percent of congressional Republicans say that even if conditions in Iraq have not improved significantly by September, Congress will still not pass legislation withdrawing U.S. forces out of Iraq. They give reasons such as, “Democrats will try, but fail,” and “No complete withdrawal can occur without Al Qaeda setting up a safe haven.”’

Notice how every time Republicans talk about when they will know if progress is being made by Petraeus they add a month? Now its October- yesterday it was September. Last week it was end of the summer. When the surge was announced it was “in 3-4 months”. They just keep moving the deadlines to avoid confronting the reality that they won’t really do anything if there’s no progress.

We are more worried about the oil falling into Iran’s or al queda’s hands than we are about sectarian genocide. Cheney is in S.A. tonight reassuring King Abdullah that despite that pesky body known as the US Congress and the irrelevant opinions of 60% of the American people, we aren’t going anywhere for at least 18 months.

Bush ain’t leaving Iraq until he gets booted from the White House

Fine. Say that we should stay for 10 or 20 years.
Will you be contribuitng money to the effort? Or manpower?

Talk is cheap.

If that isn’t the alternative, then someone should explain what other alternative exists.

This is one of many examples I see of leftwingers failing to achieve a balanced argument. The punditocracy, of course, doesn’t help with this, but part of why we’ve already been there longer than we were in WWII is because nobody has had to face political consequences of saying we should stay ten or twenty or a hundred years if that’s what it takes.

As I see it, the alternative is a decade or longer military presence in the face of increasing local opposition to us being there at all.

In the meantime, we are propping up a governement with goals clearly different from ours. They don’t seem to be worried about the ensuing chaos. By now, it looks like a lose-lose situation, Iran being the only winner.

What we need now is an exit strategy of when, not if. I just hope the administration is working on exit strategies A and B, maybe C.

As for the sovereign vs. puppet government issue, I’m not saying it’s black and white either way. The U.S. tried to influence the outcome of the elections but largely failed (their boy Chalabi is nowhere to be found). Ultimately, the Iraqi government is riddled with contradictions right now.

It’s full of Sadrists who aren’t loyal to the U.S. cause. It has virtually no support from the Sunni population. It’s sovereignty is limited by working within an acceptable framework from Washington.

So in effect, the government is staffed by anti-Americans but lacks the actual power to carry out any type of agenda.

I don’t blame them for what we did. Nor do I think they are blameless in all respects.

I do think the Iraqi’s (at least their elected officials) should have stepped up sooner and louder, demanding the right to control their own destiny. And now they have done just that — and that alone suggests we should get the hell out.

You deny they have a sovereign gov’t, and yet, in your own post, you acknowledge that government’s vote for us to leave and seem to suggest that vote puts you and I pretty much on the same page.

So certainly, quibble with some of my language if you like; I’m fine with that. But at the end of the day, we apparently agree on the bottomline. Am I wrong?

Its true this was not the Iraqis fault, but it is their country. We can’t fight their civil war for them. I vote for letting the Iraqi parliament decide if we are still welcome in their country. Since we are there to give them democracy -lets see some in action. And then we should provide as much aid as possible to the refugees who had to leave their homes because they helped us or were caught in the middle.

Rightly or wrongly, we liberated the country from Saddam.

We may have liberated the Iraqis from Hussein, but we didn’t liberate them. We replaced his tyranny with our version of it.

Rightly or wrongly, we took them to the doorstep of Democracy and handed them the keys.

Bush only granted elections after Ayatollah Sistani and his followers took to the street and demanded them. Then in Washington began to revise history and claimed that it was their idea to hold elections all along.

Then what happened during those elections? We spent millions of dollars supporting our preferred candidates there, and did what we could to subvert the other candidates.

And now, their government is not stepping up to the plate.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The Iraqis don’t have a functioning or sovereign government. The “government” can’t claim it controls its own capital. The “government” can’t override the Army’s plan to build concrete walls in and around the city. The people don’t trust the “government” security forces.

You can blame the Iraqis all you want for the U.S. having destroyed their country, if that makes you sleep better at night. But you know in your heart of hearts that this is our fault, through and through.

“The B-H report was not fair to our allies in the Middle East.”

Holly — If you have time to elaborate, or point me to other things along those lines you’ve written previoiusly, I’d appreciate it. Always willing to learn.

I think the question of “should we stay” hinges on both, the moral question of our obligation (which Pete sums up by saying that we’re no longer obligated when the Iraqi’s don’t hold up their end, and I agree with that part) but also the question of what is in our best interest now.

Surely they had to see that coming right?

Regardless, here’s a story from The Hill on it.

Bush aides berate GOP members

But let’s be honest here. The drawdown will not begin untill January 2009 regardless of what the American public thinks.

Withdrawal will automatically create more chaos, I fear.

It could, or it could reduce the violence. We just don’t know but none of that matters anyway.

A year from now the situation will not be changed with the possible exception of the Iraqi parliament having voted to kick us out.

And of course, another 1000 or so dead kids at the current rate.

an exit strategy that contains the chaos in Iraq

As I see it, that is a contradition in terms. Withdrawal will automatically create more chaos, I fear.

It’s incredibly difficult, I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I feel for the ‘surge’ for a year, 75,000 troops for as long as it takes plan.

The B-H report was not fair to our allies in the Middle East.