by Damozel | One of my colleagues has been saying for some time that none of the candidates will actually bring the troops home because, as a practical matter, the US can't afford to bring the troops home. Thanks to Bush and Halliburton, we've spilled even more US money than US blood, and there's no way we can just walk away from all of that investment. Is this true? I refuse to believe it. But maybe that is just me being 'in denial.' The current negotiations over the terms on which we will be allowed by the Iraqis to stay in Iraq are making me wonder.
The UN mandate authorizing our continuing presence in Iraq is due to expire at the end of the year. As BN-Politics recently noted, quite a few high-ranking members of the Iraqi government really wants us gone. While the Bush Administration, as always, maintains that its doings in Iraq are really none of our business, angry Iraqis have spilled the beans about Bush's plans for a continuing presence. According to Iraqi politicians, our government wants to maintain 58 bases in their country indefinitely. (WaPo) (And that's significantly less than they initially bargained for. Initially, they wanted 200.) (WaPo)
Oddly enough, the Iraqis aren't down with that.