A Democrat majority in congress is all well and good, but they must get the U.S. out of Iraq. The plan to turn over “responsibility” for Iraq’s security to Iraqi forces by the end of 2007 is RUBBISH especially when one reads the fine print which says that U.S. and British troops will play a “support role” after that.
Here is the undisputable bottom line: AS LONG AS FOREIGN TROOPS OCCUPY IRAQ THE WAR WILL RAGE ON. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is what triggered this war, and that is what fuels this war. The Shi’ite – Sunni civil war is secondary to U.S. aggression in Iraq.
THE UNITED STATES CAN HAVE NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ. That realization is part of Zbigniew Brzezenski’s 4 point peace plan for Iraq. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST PUBLICALLY RENOUNCE ANY PLANS OR DESIGNS ON MAINTAINING A PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN IRAQ. HE MUST PLEDGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY THAT THE U.S. WILL FULLY LEAVE IRAQ, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, MUST APOLOGIZE FOR HIS DISASTEROUS DECISION TO INVADE AND OCCUPY A COUNTRY THAT NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED THIS COUNTRY.
The United States can and must walk away from Iraq. There is no valid reason why we can’t. We must leave Iraq … to Iraqis.
Handover to Iraqi Army ‘set for the end of next year’
The Times (UK) November 10, 2006
By Ned Parker, Michael Evans and Richard Beeston
American and Iraqi officials have set a date for giving Iraq’s forces responsibility for security across the country.
Under a plan to be presented to the UN Security Council next month, the Iraqi Government would assume authority from coalition troops by the end of next year.
Only hours after Donald Rumsfeld was replaced as US Defence Secretary, American, British and Iraqi officials spoke openly about accelerating the handover process.
Baghdad made clear that it would use the Democrat victory in congressional midterm elections to push President Bush for concessions. Confidants of Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, said that they hoped defeat would make Mr Bush more open to ideas that he had previously rejected.
However, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, sought to play down the impact of both the Republicans’ mid-term election losses and the dismissal of Mr Rumsfeld. She said that it was unlikely that there would be a “major upheaval” of US policy in Iraq.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute think-tank she said: “We will leave when they are confident that they can take the role of security in the country on their own shoulders.
“I ask those who are calling for more precipitate action to consider the consequences of such action: we would be leaving the Iraqi Government without the means to prevent a further escalation in the violence, without the tools to enforce the rule of law and without the authority to prevent their country from turning into a base for terrorism.”
All sides said that Mr Rumsfeld’s departure provided an opportunity to set a clearer timetable for withdrawing all foreign forces.
A new tone was set by President Bush. He said that he was open to ideas that would help the US to achieve its goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq’s democratic Government succeeded.
The plan being drawn up in Baghdad, with Washington’s approval, seeks a one-year extension of the UN mandate for foreign forces in Iraq.
But it also states that by December 2007, security in the country’s 18 provinces, apart from the most violent, be handed over to the Iraqi Army and police. US and British troops would play a support role.
~~~~~snip~~~~~
