Reply #104: The plan is clear, it's not what you want it to be, it is what it is.

[ProSense]

First, as you can see this is not a immediate withdrawal as you want to see. In fact a large number of troops will be forced to remain "for the purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States" and leaving the 'number of forces that are required to stand up the Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel'. How does that change ANYTHING? We are already operating under the "minimal number" of forces required for those objectives. To achieve those objectives laid out it will require a much LARGER force.

There is a big difference between combat troops fighting on the ground, killing Iraqis and destroying their country, and trainers preparing the Iraqis to take over. The same with the troops conducting counterterrorism operation, these are special forces, and no, it's not a larger, but a significantly smaller force.

The second issue is predicated upon the fact that we can actually work with the Government of Iraq. It has been proven through both words and actions that we cannot. The Iraqi Government has sided with Iran and is doing all that it can to undermine our efforts within the country, without entering into out right opposition to us. The Government, if anything, is a sham and the belief that we can work with them is counter productive to any of our actual goals, the first of which is "strengthening the national security of the United States". It is rather difficult to strengthen our national security when those we are depending on are close allies with Iran, one of our nations enemies.

The U.S. has no right to manage the affairs of the Iraqi government. Whatever government emerges is the government that will be engaged. That is similar to America's dealings with any sovereign nation. We don't occupy Pakistan. Should the U.S. invade and occupy that country because it harbors terrorists?

I have no idea what it means exactly, but if I had to make a guess he is suggesting that we move more troops into the region and place them in Kuwait. In effect we will basically be flying over Iraq and dropping bombs on them to keep their country impoverished, and to ensure that no one rises up to challenge the ruling government (who he obviously believes should obviously be to the United States). Read: Prop up a puppet government like Saddam and assist that government in killing anyone who opposes it.

No, keeping the country impoverished is the goal of the current policy. There is still a war going on in Afghanistan. This is all counterterrorism that is our interest in the region. Remember Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqis.