Iraq: Get Out Now - Los Angeles Times

[Laworkerbee]

raq: Get out now
By William E. Odom
May 4, 2006

WITHDRAW immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today.

American public opinion is decidedly against the war; even in the "red states," more than half of Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.

he prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, President Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.

• If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. Even Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war.

• Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers — precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with a choice: Surrender, or ally with Al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups' turning against Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq.

• Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competence. The problem is loyalty. To whom can Iraqi officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. Political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

• Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

• Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world's only superpower, it's patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then, and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world's opinion of the United States has plummeted. The U.S. now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. We do.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Hussein for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the U.S. in the world, diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the transatlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes Al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

LT. GEN. WILLIAM E. ODOM (Ret.) is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. A longer version of this article appears in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, www.foreignpolicy.com.

Thoughts?

[nognig]

RMM

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/2455/0106hist55at.jpg

NN

[tehllama]

Brilliant assumptions. I love just how much pulling out of Vietnam 'vindicated' these tards.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think the guy is dead wrong on several counts.

• If we leave, there will be a civil war. The insurgents are targeting Iraqis is not a sign of an already extant civil war, it's a sign that they lack the ability to attack us. As long as somebody's blood appears on the evening news, the insurgents have achieved their mission.

• Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. He acknowledges that this is true. The last I heard, that's a bad thing.

• Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. We're still in Korea, and were in Europe for 5 decades. Not because they couldn't field a military sufficient to counter the threat, but because they chose not to. Why should Iraq be different?

• Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. His assessment is so far off as to be laughable. The US was widely discredited and disregarded as a military power for 2 decades following Vietnam. It was not until GW1 that we were officially "back". Until then we faced Iran holding our people hostage and botched rescue attempts, open threats from tinpot nations in Grenada and Panama who did not fear our retaliation, not to mention the rise of Mid East terror - a cornerstone of which is/was that the US will not stick to a tough fight. How many times has the specter of "another Vietnam" been raised in relation to Iraq. Our credibility is still damaged by Vietnam.

In addition - our repeated demonstration that we will go in, sustain losses, turn tail, and ultimately achieve nothing (as in Vietnam, and Somalia) -is a devastating pattern for our militiary. It dooms them to be used over and over again, as pawns against an ever-increasing number of nations willing to test us.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. So what? The world is a complex place - deal with it. Iraq was invaded to force it to comply with UN resolutions - if it happened to please some of our enemies, we will deal with each of them in turn.

Why is this former warrior preaching fear and failure?

[Laworkerbee]

nognig

How can this possibly be mud my friend it's dated todays date? p-)

2Sheds_Jackson those are some pretty good responses man, this guy reminds me of old Col.Hackworth a bit

[shocker1]

Why is this former warrior preaching fear and failure?
Because he had a hand in degrading our intelligence services in 80's.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.

I wonder if he has that Taliban student in his class at Yale. http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Because he had a hand in degrading our intelligence services in 80's.
I wonder if he has that Taliban student in his class at Yale. http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill

It appears that I worked for the guy for a little while. Oh well.

[shocker1]

It appears that I worked for the guy for a little while. Oh well.
Sorry...:)
Check this quote from an article he put out in 2000. His predictions are not panning out.

The American obsession with China is no less ill-advised. China’s power is grossly overestimated. The GDPs of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan combined are several times larger than China’s, and China will not catch them in the next fifty years, even if it avoids a domestic political crisis, which is highly unlikely. The most urgent problem in East Asia is change on the Korean peninsula. Reunification will probably arrive unexpectedly, and when it does, how it is managed will determine whether Korea remains in the U.S. empire or drifts into the Chinese security orbit, driven by its hostility toward Japan.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1288

[ElHombre]

I think the guy is dead wrong on several counts.

If we leave, there will be a civil war. The insurgents are targeting Iraqis is not a sign of an already extant civil war, it's a sign that they lack the ability to attack us. As long as somebody's blood appears on the evening news, the insurgents have achieved their mission.

in case you haven't noticed, the insurgents are targeting our troops. 2 died today. sectarian killings are occuring on a daily basis and it's doubtful that the 'unity' government of iraq could govern anything outside the green zone.

Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. He acknowledges that this is true. The last I heard, that's a bad thing.

giving the terrs a large country to train themselves in attacking US troops is a worse one.

Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. We're still in Korea, and were in Europe for 5 decades. Not because they couldn't field a military sufficient to counter the threat, but because they chose not to. Why should Iraq be different?

we remained in SK and europe to guard them against a larger outside threat. is iraq in danger of invasion from kuwait?

Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. His assessment is so far off as to be laughable. The US was widely discredited and disregarded as a military power for 2 decades following Vietnam. It was not until GW1 that we were officially "back". Until then we faced Iran holding our people hostage and botched rescue attempts, open threats from tinpot nations in Grenada and Panama who did not fear our retaliation, not to mention the rise of Mid East terror - a cornerstone of which is/was that the US will not stick to a tough fight. How many times has the specter of "another Vietnam" been raised in relation to Iraq. Our credibility is still damaged by Vietnam.

our credibility is damaged due to a proven lack of competence on the part of US leadership. making an obvious mistake is one thing, 'staying the course' to keep from having to admit your errors is another.

In addition - our repeated demonstration that we will go in, sustain losses, turn tail, and ultimately achieve nothing (as in Vietnam, and Somalia) -is a devastating pattern for our militiary. It dooms them to be used over and over again, as pawns against an ever-increasing number of nations willing to test us.

instead of worrying about what foreigners will think of the US, why not try to fathom the reason we keep losing fights like this? it wouldn't even be a problem if we were winning.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. So what? The world is a complex place - deal with it. Iraq was invaded to force it to comply with UN resolutions - if it happened to please some of our enemies, we will deal with each of them in turn.

stop hiding behind the UN's skirts. UN resolutions had nothing to do with support for invading iraq. your prime motivation for supporting the invasion of iraq was to prove to the rest of the world that the US was the biggest dog on the block, 9/11 or no. UN resolutions, WMD's, and ties to AQ were just the reasons that you accepted as necessary to get the public to agree. there's no WMD's and AQ ties were debunked even before the shooting started, so all you're left with is the UN.

Why is this former warrior preaching fear and failure?

fear and failure? he understands the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging and climb out. he's also likely tired of seeing americans being blown to bits in a war which doesn't serve US interests. if anything, arguements like yours are the ones preaching fear and failure. 'we can't leave, it'll prove to AQ that we made a mistake.' (as if they didn't realize it the moment the war started)

[Laworkerbee]

fear and failure? he understands the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging and climb out.

Only a Texan could come up with that :)

[CPL Trevoga]

[COLOR=black]Why is this former warrior preaching fear and failure?

Why assume this guy is a warrior? Generals are as much warriors as they are politicians. I don't know what military school this guy went to, but you can't justify a failure, you can't win a fight if you run away from it.

[DE6]

Not that I drink the kool-aid, but Odom's full argument was in the latest issue of Foreign Policy (it's a bit more insightful and complete than this abstract)and I think that, without being some gospel, he brings the best arguments so far in favor of pulling out. At least he's not being naively candid like many pro-withdrawal advocates.

[digression]I wouldn't discard his analysis too fast. His book about the collapse of the Soviet military and its impact on CIS/russian politics was nothing short of brilliant. And he's right about China to an extent. A lot of people are starting to take a closer look at China's rise and doubt it will last. If you look close enough, there's plenty of cracks. Despite a slower start, India is expected to fare much better 50 years down the road.[/end digression]

Good arguments have been written against the cut-and-run. It was about time we got a good one in favor, for the sake of critical judgment.

[ElHombre]

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. So what? The world is a complex place - deal with it. Iraq was invaded to force it to comply with UN resolutions - if it happened to please some of our enemies, we will deal with each of them in turn.

by 'so what?', i take it that you agree with his arguement. in which case, you're saying that we should do what AQ and the taliban want us to do. i believe this violates rule #1 in winning a war: don't do what the enemy wants you to do.

my earlier comment about hiding behind the UN's skirts still applies. 'the world is a complex place-deal with it'. this is something a lot of knowledgable people have been saying from the start. thus far, the bush admin has chosen to deal with complex situations with a sledgehammer. this brings to mind another Texan saying*: 'that guy couldn't find his a$$ with both hands in his back pockets'.

*Laworkerbee seems to enjoy these. :lol:

[2Sheds_Jackson]

stop hiding behind the UN's skirts. UN resolutions had nothing to do with support for invading iraq. your prime motivation for supporting the invasion of iraq was to prove to the rest of the world that the US was the biggest dog on the block, 9/11 or no. UN resolutions, WMD's, and ties to AQ were just the reasons that you accepted as necessary to get the public to agree. there's no WMD's and AQ ties were debunked even before the shooting started, so all you're left with is the UN.


I'm sorry but your tinfoil tendencies revealed here have badly undermined any of your arguments about the war. You're coming from a place so far from reality that you probably couldn't see it if you stood on a box. p-) I mean honest to God - if you can't even bring yourself to deal in realities over the basis for the war, why would anybody listen to your pronouncements about it's prosecution? It's much easier to live in a comfortable, pretend world where the ultimate bad guy is us, because the alternative is scary. I choose to face reality and deal with it.

The reasons behind the war are simple and straightforward - and they are the same ones that we face with Iran. Saddam agreed to certain conditions under which we agreed to a cease-fire. He then violated those conditions. Iran has agreed to a certain set of conditions under which they are allowed to develop nuclear power under the NNPT.

Now - what do you propose we do with Iran? Since we can never know with 100% accuracy if they are developing a bomb - do we just hope for the best - just sit on our hands and wait & see? The problem is, just like Iraq - if we wait to long, we can't do anything at all. But if we go in and there proves to be nothing - well the kooks will come out of the woodwork with the sun glinting off their crinkly metallic headgear. Which is worse?

[HOLLiS]

There is a thread in the Military history section, posted my Ea$y 8, http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm

I would suggest reading that, and then re-ready this article, there are strong simularities as for as ,,,,,,,,,

[ElHombre]

I'm sorry but your tinfoil tendencies revealed here have badly undermined any of your arguments about the war. You're coming from a place so far from reality that you probably couldn't see it if you stood on a box. p-) I mean honest to God - if you can't even bring yourself to deal in realities over the basis for the war, why would anybody listen to your pronouncements about it's prosecution? It's much easier to live in a comfortable, pretend world where the ultimate bad guy is us, because the alternative is scary. I choose to face reality and deal with it.

you have been doing a very bad job of dealing with relaity thus far.

The reasons behind the war are simple and straightforward - and they are the same ones that we face with Iran. Saddam agreed to certain conditions under which we agreed to a cease-fire. He then violated those conditions. Iran has agreed to a certain set of conditions under which they are allowed to develop nuclear power under the NNPT.

trying to change the subject to iran? why would that be? is it because things in iraq have gone so well that we can now deal with iran?

the reasons given for invading iraq are the equivalent of throwing s**t at a wall and seeing what sticks. alas for warmongers, the wall was made of reality and BS doesn't cling to it. you're still trying to cling behind the UN's skirts. the fact is that the US asked the UN for the authority to invade iraq. the US was refused.

Now - what do you propose we do with Iran? Since we can never know with 100% accuracy if they are developing a bomb - do we just hope for the best - just sit on our hands and wait & see? The problem is, just like Iraq - if we wait to long, we can't do anything at all. But if we go in and there proves to be nothing - well the kooks will come out of the woodwork with the sun glinting off their crinkly metallic headgear. Which is worse?

sorry, 'double or nothing' doesn't work as a foreign policy. if invading iraq hasn't gone well, what makes you think invading iran will go any better? especially with the same bunch of goons in charge? sorry, we deserve better than that.

as far as iran: the same group of people who were dead wrong (and willfully so) about iraq are the same ones calling for dealing with the iranian situation immeadiately (preferrably with bombs). the credibility of these people is zero, zilch, nada. i'm not going to take them seriously, and neither should anyone else.

[XxDualityxX]

In my opinion we will be in the mideast even if we pull out of iraq and if we are to have further conflict wich we will the fighting will be much nastier if we dont follow through in iraq.

[ElHombre]

In my opinion we will be in the mideast even if we pull out of iraq and if we are to have further conflict wich we will the fighting will be much nastier if we dont follow through in iraq.

in which case, it makes no sense to be fighting such battles in the middle of a hostile population.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

you have been doing a very bad job of dealing with relaity thus far.
Well that certainly set me straight.



trying to change the subject to iran? why would that be? is it because things in iraq have gone so well that we can now deal with iran?

It's not a changed subject - it's the same subject. This will happen over and over into the future. The world is not a series of isolated events. The world is a process. If it was wrong to go into Iraq as a matter of policy, then the same holds true for Iran. But I suspect that you fear to declare your strategy for Iran because it would reveal that your position on Iraq is rooted in emotion rather than reality.


the reasons given for invading iraq are the equivalent of throwing s**t at a wall and seeing what sticks. alas for warmongers, the wall was made of reality and BS doesn't cling to it. you're still trying to cling behind the UN's skirts. the fact is that the US asked the UN for the authority to invade iraq. the US was refused.


I'm sorry, but do you even have a passing familiarity with how things work? Or are you content to make it up as you go and hope the rest of us don't notice? The authority for the US to invade Iraq does not stem from the UN, therefore, the UN cannot "grant us authority" for squat. Iraq made agreements with the UN and then did not honor them. Furthermore, the UN then refused to enforce those agreements.

If it makes you feel better, let's remove the UN from the equation. Iraq made agreements with the US, as a part to the first gulf war - to allow open and meaningful inspections - and they then refused. Thus, the US gets to terminate it's side to of the deal as Iraq terminated it's side.


sorry, 'double or nothing' doesn't work as a foreign policy. if invading iraq hasn't gone well, what makes you think invading iran will go any better? especially with the same bunch of goons in charge? sorry, we deserve better than that.

We do deserve better. How do you propose we get it?

Why should it go well anyway? Who the f*ck says that war always goes well? If it doesn't go well do we just go home? Does it mean that it was wrong in the first place? Is it wrong because it's hard?

I was reading yesterday about a single event that happened after Hitler had killed himself and WWII in Europe was about over. The RAF attacked and sank 2 large ships in the Baltic containing about 8000 Allied prisoners from concentration camps. That's more than double the American dead in Iraq in one single unknown incident after the war. Does that mean WWII was a bad idea? War sucks - that's why we avoid it - but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is necessary.


as far as iran: the same group of people who were dead wrong (and willfully so) about iraq are the same ones calling for dealing with the iranian situation immeadiately (preferrably with bombs). the credibility of these people is zero, zilch, nada. i'm not going to take them seriously, and neither should anyone else.

Well, you do have a choice to make, and seems that you have made one. You can choose to either believe the leadership of the US and the EU, along with the UN - who all believe that Iran is secretly developing a bomb and will have one soon - or you can believe Iran who says they're not.

It is a time-sensitive issue, and waiting=failure, because once they have it, it's too late.

I'm not sure why you are content to give more credibility to the leadership of Iran, but that's your choice. That's perfectly fine, I just want to know where you're coming from. Do you, like the President of Iran, anticipate the arrival of the Hidden Imam,who will herald Islam's rule of the world?

Have you never had to choose between to bad alternatives?

[ElHombre]

Well that certainly set me straight.

would to god that it would.

It's not a changed subject - it's the same subject. This will happen over and over into the future. The world is not a series of isolated events. The world is a process. If it was wrong to go into Iraq as a matter of policy, then the same holds true for Iran. But I suspect that you fear to declare your strategy for Iran because it would reveal that your position on Iraq is rooted in emotion rather than reality.

it was wrong to go into iraq because it didn't have a chance of working in the short-run and in the long run it will come back to bite us on the a$$.

I'm sorry, but do you even have a passing familiarity with how things work? Or are you content to make it up as you go and hope the rest of us don't notice? The authority for the US to invade Iraq does not stem from the UN, therefore, the UN cannot "grant us authority" for squat. Iraq made agreements with the UN and then did not honor them. Furthermore, the UN then refused to enforce those agreements.

hiding behind the UN's skirts again.

If it makes you feel better, let's remove the UN from the equation. Iraq made agreements with the US, as a part to the first gulf war - to allow open and meaningful inspections - and they then refused. Thus, the US gets to terminate it's side to of the deal as Iraq terminated it's side.

it seems you forget that inspectors were in iraq just before bush told them to get out. it seems they were in the way of getting the war started.

We do deserve better. How do you propose we get it?

as a start, the current crop of leaders who got us into this mess will have to go. not only have they not learned a thing, they can't even admit their own culpability in getting us into this mess in the first place.

Why should it go well anyway? Who the f*ck says that war always goes well? If it doesn't go well do we just go home? Does it mean that it was wrong in the first place? Is it wrong because it's hard?

and who says our leaders should ignore advice from people who knew what we were about to get into? and why shouldn't they be able to go off on photo-ops on aircraft carriers to proclaim victory while fighting is still going on?

I was reading yesterday about a single event that happened after Hitler had killed himself and WWII in Europe was about over. The RAF attacked and sank 2 large ships in the Baltic containing about 8000 Allied prisoners from concentration camps. That's more than double the American dead in Iraq in one single unknown incident after the war. Does that mean WWII was a bad idea? War sucks - that's why we avoid it - but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is necessary.

and i was just reading about the aftermath of the spanish-american war. the one where we were stuck for decades in the phillippenes fighting an insurgency against people who just wanted us out. and lets not even bring up cuba...

Well, you do have a choice to make, and seems that you have made one. You can choose to either believe the leadership of the US and the EU, along with the UN - who all believe that Iran is secretly developing a bomb and will have one soon - or you can believe Iran who says they're not.

It is a time-sensitive issue, and waiting=failure, because once they have it, it's too late.

and how long will it take them to get a nuke? last year, the bush admin said iran was ten years or more away. all of a sudden, everyone's talking about one year.

I'm not sure why you are content to give more credibility to the leadership of Iran, but that's your choice. That's perfectly fine, I just want to know where you're coming from. Do you, like the President of Iran, anticipate the arrival of the Hidden Imam,who will herald Islam's rule of the world?

credibility of the iranian president? f*** him. i don't give a rat's a$$hole about his opinions. he has no power, anyway. watch their ayahtollah.

in any case, this isn't about iran's credibility, it's about the admin's. oddly, they have the same amount: zero. iran isn't anywhere near having a nuke, so we all have a chance to calm down and cheerfully ignore the rantings of those who were dead wrong about iraq and now want us to go double or nothing with iran. sorry, i'm not going to rise to either one of their rantings. any desire for attacking iran runs into the reality of our situation in iraq. if iran is such an immeadiate threat, then we need to be pulling out of iraq starting yesterday.

Have you never had to choose between to bad alternatives?

which is why it's important to have more than two. luckily, the world is a complex place and black-and-white solutions only exist in fantasy (a good example of this was the cuban missle crisis).

try this, 2_sheds: iran wants a bomb primarily to prevent a US attack. due to the iraq decision, such US attacks are impractible, to say the least (or until someone comes up with a rational answer to : 'then what?'). so let's do a diplomatic judo move and use it. we promise not to engage in 'regime change' in iran if they continue to abide by the NPT. we gain an important piece of diplomatic leverage and iran's regime has to find another bogeyman to blame for their country's problems.

[Ea$y-8]

Osama wants the US to withdraw. He said so himself. I believe we should remain in Iraq until the job is finish and the New Iraqi Army can hold its own. And slowly but surely they are getting the hang of it.

[Beykoz]

Osama wants US to withdraw from ME and all Islamic countries, not just Iraq !
No leader will make a decision based on Osama's requests, as he will never be in a position to demand.

However, regardless of what US does, she will be the target of terrorist attacks for the next xx amount of years. She will deal with anti-US sentiments around the globe and every man and his dog will have an opinion of her. This is the inevitable result of being a tall poppy and meddling with world politics since WW2.

So, all of the points that are raised in the article are moot, except the third one. There is a very good chance that, all the US efforts to stabilize the country and form a democratic government will be ineffective. It's like washing your bike before going for a ride through the mud tracks.

[Pille1234]

Osama wants the US to withdraw. He said so himself. I believe we should remain in Iraq until the job is finish and the New Iraqi Army can hold its own. And slowly but surely they are getting the hang of it.
Actually he wanted your troops out of Saudi Arabia too and you had no problems to comply.

[Laworkerbee]

Actually he wanted your troops out of Saudi Arabia too and you had no problems to comply.

Don't even suggest that the US is bending the will the will of OBL, besides now the Saud's are in bed with the Chinese the ultimate infidels.