Comments on: Iraqi Leaders Closely Watching U.S. Elections

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:47:09 +0000

The recurrent problem is that Islamic States fed with hundreds of billions of dollars a year become problems. Iraq used to be a problem and can become one again.

We used to believe that poverty caused international trouble. Now we know it is prosperity in the wrong hands.

Sadaam and the Ayatollahs are alike in this way. Even the Saudis are a problem, but in different ways.

By: kathie

kathie — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:44:08 +0000

The sad thing is that Maliki made Bush look like a fool when Obama came back to the US and said that Maliki agreed with him that 16 months withdraw time was just fine. Bush had always said we would return on success. Maybe Maliki was just hedging his bets, but for sure, one President had given everything he had and we as a Country had and Maliki just hit him upside the head.

I understand Maliki wants to retain power, but putting all his eggs in the Obama basket and kicking Bush in the shins seems very unwise to me. Obama has had 95 positions on everything. The war was “imoral” from the beginning in his opinion, so do you think Obama cares what happens in Iraq? I wouldn’t bet my life on it.

By: Ex-fetus

Ex-fetus — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:16:04 +0000

If the Demonrats pull us out of Iraq, they will quickly learn that Iraq is NOT A WAR, but a campaign within a war. Iraq is also the main reason why there have been no attacks on the USA proper since ‘01.
Remember Osama originally declared that the war would be held in America, back in ‘93. Nobody paid him any attention until 9-11-01, which was a little late.
After Iraq was liberated Osama declared that the central front was Iraq, because he understands just how dangerous to Jihad a free and democratic Iraq is. He gets it, even if the clueless left doesn’t. So AQ has directed the bulk of their resources to Iraq. Where they got pounded into hamburger.
That is why there have been no major attacks on American soil since 9-11.
AQ still has a lot of life in them. They are both numerous and committed, so it take more then one campaign to win this war.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:48:04 +0000

Obama won’t have to walk away from Iraq: he’ll be all prudent, while the Democratic national leadership will jerk all funding and even the most minimal support from the country as fast as possible. The wing of the Democratic party supporting Barack Obama isn’t acting like it has any interest in doing what’s good for the country. That’s why PUMAs exist.

By: Marc Malone

Marc Malone — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:41:46 +0000

My worry is not that Obama will walk away from Iraq. No, I think he’ll get duped by them, and then will refuse to admit he made a mistake and stick to his guns. Of whom does that remind you?

He’ll get involved, make the wrong decision, because he doesn’t think of right and wrong. They’ll propose some heavy-handed tactic, and he’ll support it, because that’s how he acts, too. Then Iraq will fall back into civil war, and our rep will be even more greatly damaged with the world. Good luck then getting allied help, or getting some third-worlder to take a gamble with us.

By: ST333

ST333 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:41:29 +0000

We need to stay engaged with Iraq. It would be a HUGE mistake if a ‘President Obama’ were to think of Iraq as “Bush’s War” and walk away from it without securing and nurturing a young democracy in a part of the world that desperately needs democracies to end these monarchies, theocracies and fascist regimes. Partisan Politics and war make terrible bedfellows. We need to be as close to 100% positive Iraq will be able to stand on her own before we completely pull out. The ultimate goal is an Iraq that can function as a productive member of the International Community like Japan, Germany and South Korea.

By: Ex-fetus

Ex-fetus — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:50:31 +0000

From here it looks like Maliki has his eye on being Saddam the second. For that to happen, Iraq needs to become another 1 man, 1 vote, 1 time state such as happens to most proto democracies. Russia being a case in point.
For Maliki to get from here to there he needs to have an army and not have it be American. His problem is one of timing.
He needs to ensure that the army is loyal to him, but well enough equipped and trained to keep him in power. The fly in the soup is that as the US brings the Iraqi army up to speed, they become less ‘his’ army and more Iraq’s army.
Anybody else remember how much trouble it was to settle on Maliki in the first place? He needs to hold the elections and retire while he is still respected and slightly ahead.
If he does, in 100 years, he will known as the father of Iraq, IF the next A-hole doesn’t stage a coup. If the US Army can stay in Iraq another 10 years, the Iraq Army will be robust enough to stand with Iraq, not some politician with a glib tongue and great hair.