>The latest demonstration of the administration's imperial outlook was when Congress wanted to interview White House aides in the U.S. attorney firing affair. The only way the White House would agree was if the aides did not testify under oath and and no transcripts were made of their testimony. Unbelievable.
>
>Re when we can leave Iraq, we will be there a heck of a long time if we wait until it is "secure and safe." Leave them to their civil war, I say. Yes, we are guilty of unleashing forces that led to the civil war, but we are doing little if any good. All we are doing it trying to keep Iraqis from killing each other. (Quite unsuccessfully). What is our military mission? I don't think there is one. IMO the best thing we can do at this point is try to help them partition Iraq into three parts, then get the hell out of Dodge. Just because we created the mess doesn't mean we have to continue spending American lives and $2 billion a week in a lost cause.
>
While U.S. credibility is at (well, feels like, from here) an all-time low, leaving Iraq before it is stable and peaceful would, I believe, be an even bigger mistake than going into Iraq in the first place!

We've been fed phoney facts since shortly after the initial battle was over. Things like 'most Iraqis had only 4-6 hours of electricity daily' and 'their oil infrastructure is in such disrepair that it is unuseable' and 'their water/sewage systems were decrepit and failing all over the place' and more, all aimed at minimizing the cost of "leaving".

The first rule of agression is to maintain civil order in the place aggressed. The U.S. clearly had no plan for that and forced early retirement on the person who tried to suggest numbers (boots on the ground) that would help to achieve that.

Why are 14 bases being built if the U.S. intends to leave Iraq to the Iraqis?
My guess is that there is no intention to 'leave' Iraq. Sure, a majority of the troops will leave but those 14 bases aren't likely to be manned by the Iraqi military.
How will the hard-fought-for OIL be protected if the U.S. is not there? Oil that is probably worth $500 per barrel (but priced at market rates, the American people having subsidized the difference) for the first several years after full production is resumed.

It would also be a mistake if the U.S. stays in Iraq (after order is restored), on those bases being built, after having declared that there was no intention of staying. I suspect that they rely on time and events to let them ('have to') change their minds on that one. But all it will do is reinforce that the word of the U.S. is about as useful as a three dollar bill.

SNIP