He can do that now, but not a few years ago (before the surge).
Coupla things about the "surge".
First... It wasn't a real surge.
It was a pseudo surge made of over overlapping extended tours of duty with troops who were already stretched to the breaking point.
Secondly, the so-called "success" of the surge isn't either.
They've turned Baghdad into a prison city. They've made their intentions clear by creating a city within a city that is the overly hubristic US Embassy, the largest one on earth. It's not like BushCo fergot to plan an exit strategy. The strategy was always to never exit. A once secular state in the middle of a bunch of violent extremists has now become just as bad if not worse than it's neighbours. Truth be told, it'll never get back to being a non-secular state ever again. That failure can be laid squarely at BushCo's feet.
Do you know where the Taliban spawned? Did you know that a lot of the people who started that wing-nutty group were originally displaced victims of the Russian aggression into Afghanistan?
War Orphans brought up in Wahibist sponsored madrasses in the FATA region of Pakistan.
Do you know how many displaced people BushCo have left on the playing field with his ill-advised resource war? Estimated to be 2 million inside the country and 2 million outside. These are families many with kids who are gonna grow up to have a lifelong hate on fer the US and, seriously, who can blame them?
Spud reckons by this point that BushCo are not as dumb as they once seemed. They just act like they are complete idjits. They deliberately allowed Iraq to fail in order to give themselves a ready made excuse to never leave.
Could the Dems have pulled out if they had won in '04?
Is a moot point by now. Debatable but hardly relevant to the current argument.
Real questions now are "can and should the US begin a timely amd orderly withdrawal of troops after Obama gets elected?" and "wot to do about Afghanstan?" which is failing as well.
The answer to them questions is yes.
"reverse the "rich get richer..."
Agreed! I have a whole rap on that subject.
Glad we agree on that. This whole wealth inequity thing aint American it's neo-fuedalism and it sucks.
"NOT bomb Iran"
Obama's going to let Israel do it and that's the same thing.
Here's the thing, in order to totally eradicate Iran's nuclear facilities you need really, really big bombs.
According to some folk wot Spud is talk to about this it appears that the only thing that is capable of ensuring a total wipeout would be a "daisycutter". A bunker buster like the BLU-82 that was used extensively in Vietnam and in the '91 Gulf campaign. The newer types, the two-and-a-half-ton GBU-28 is a form of low yield nuclear weapon. Since the US began using Depleted Uranium munitions the theory has been that because these latest bunker busters go so deep in the ground the trace radiation present an "acceptable risk".
If Israel actually does the bombing themselves they will most prolly use a "low-yield" B61-11 tactical nuclear bomb which they will "borrow" from the US.
Once that happens it's game on in terms of anything could happen next.
Many in the world would consider this a violation of the "first use" rule that has allowed the globe to avoid nuclear war to date.
This thought frightens Spud.
There aint a helluva lot on this ole earth that does but that one definitely makes the short list.
And yes, yer correct the world will not appreciate the distinction between the US dropping the bomb or Israel doing so. Both countries would be responsible and the consequences could threaten the very existence of every blessed soul on the planet.
G08ama.
Be Well.
