Should we still be in Iraq?

If I can make just one final point as well, just leading out of something the Prime Minister has just said. He made the point that it was important for the future of the world, for the future of everyone, not just to Iraq. I want to emphasize that. Sometimes people say to me what has this got to do with Britain's security? It has got this to do with Britain's security. If Iraq becomes a stable democratic country and we defeat the terrorism here, which is the same type of terrorism that we face the world over, if we defeat it here we deal it a blow worldwide. If Iraq is a stable and democratic country, that is good for the Middle East and what is good for the Middle East is actually good for the world, including Britain, and that is why it is important for us too. Tony Blair 12-21-2004

THE PRESIDENT: No, it's a very legitimate question, Carl, and I get asked that by family members I meet with -- and people say, how long do you think it will take. And my answer is -- you know, we would like to achieve our objective as quickly as possible. It is our commander -- again -- I can -- the best people that reflect the answer to that question are people like Abizaid and Casey, who are right there on the ground. And they are optimistic and positive about the gains we're making.

Again, I repeat, we're under no illusions that this Iraqi force is not ready to fight. They're -- in toto, there are units that are, and that they believe they'll have a command structure stood up pretty quickly; that the training is intense; that the recruitment is good; the equipping of troops is taking place. So they're optimistic that as soon as possible it can be achieved. But it's -- I'm also wise enough not to give you a specific moment in time because, sure enough, if we don't achieve it, I'll spend the next press conference I have with you answering why we didn't achieve this specific moment. President Bush 12-20-2004

Now I can justify our getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to find WMD's. But what are we still doing there. Just what makes us feel like we have to adhere to Colin Powell's line. If you break it , you bought it. Isn't our military supposed to break things and destroy things? Are they really supposed to put things back together aside from their tanks, rifles, helicopters and the like?

If the January Iraqi electrions proceed as scheduled, it is unlikely they will produce a winner who is perceived as legitimate. This is a divided country and has always been a divided country for over 3000 years. The future of Iraq is division. Without a powerful military and/or national police to hold the pieces together it will break apart. Now that military can be ours and we will have troops there for the next 20-40 years. But most likely what will happen it the elections will proceed we will pull the majority of our forces out after the next elections take place a year from then.

Then the country we dissolve in a three way civil war between the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, and the Kurds. The Kurds will seek help from their "brothers" in Turkey, destabilizing one of the few stable Arab countries. Iran will wrest as much control over the Southern Oil fields as possible. And the Sunnis, if they aren't entirely driven out of Iraq into Syria, will be left with the other piece of the pie.

What causes us to believe the Iraqi people want Democracy? As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the British Empire Iraq wouldn't even exist as Iraq, it probably already would have fractured into two or three countries. What will happen here is exactly what happened to Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent the USSR in the absence of the fascist totalitarian communism.

Now the only question that remains is when this will happen, and when it does happen will it result in a full fledged WWIII.