Wednesday morning, President Bush gave a speech updating the nation on U.S. policy on, and presence in, Iraq. Bush again rejected a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying conditions on the ground rather than "artificial timetables set by politicians would dictate when American forces could return home.
Washington Post foreign correspondent Jonathan Finer will be live from Baghdad on Wednesday, Nov. 30, at Noon ET to discuss Iraqi reaction to talk of withdrawal and Bush's speech. Finer wrote about Iraqi reaction to the U.S. military presence in Iraq in Wednesday's Post: U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates as Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks
_______________________
Williamstown, Mass.: Some commentators have suggested that Iraq is at risk of falling into civil war if U.S. troops withdraw too hastily. How much weight do you think we should give to this fear?
Jonathan Finer: It's not just commentators. You here this view from many Iraqis as well. Some think the civil war is already underway, as evidenced by the political assassinations and other apparently sectarian killings. It seems everyone here, or almost everyone, seems to want the U.S. out. The question is how immediately. many think unless its a phased, gradual withdrawal, the chances of more chaos increase.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Thanks for fielding my extremely simple questions.
Are the Iraqi people aligned more strongly with the Iranians or the Americans?
Is Iran or the USA the chief beneficiary of Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq?
Jonathan Finer: An interesting question, or pair of questions. First, its impossible to generalize about who the Iraqi people are more aligned with, given the tremendous diversity of the various factions here. But I don't think many Iraqis feel particularly aligned with the U.S. at this point. Many are deeply suspicious of Iran, but the cultural ties that Shiites have with Iran run deep, particularly among the government, many of whose top officials spent time there during exile. As for who benefits most, I'll leave aside the politically loaded question of whether or how the U.S. has benefited. But many people here think Iran has been well-served by the invasion, given its main historical enemy in the region was removed and a government, with whom it retains strong influence, has been elected.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.: I don't care who those in Iraq call heroes or not, but we do seem to be moving toward a consensus. What would it take to get those in Iraq to stay quiet until the troops can be removed? That seems to be an easy way out for everyone.
Of course, if it is a success -- everyone will want credit. Even Ramsey Clark. I can live with that.
Jonathan Finer: You are better placed to evaluate any emerging consensus in the U.S. than I am. As for people here staying quiet, that sounds easier said than done. If, as many people here assume, one of the insurgencies main goals is to kill Americans, that would not be well-served by waiting until the U.S. withdraws.
_______________________
Tyler, Tex.: If the U.S. leaves, who takes over?
Subquestion A: Is there any sense of a truly "national" Iraqi military force as opposed to a hodge-podge of units with varying factional loyalties?
Subquestion B: What mechanisms does Iraq have to investigate claims of military misconduct (such as recent Sunni allegations against Shia units)?
Jonathan Finer: The short answer is that the Iraqi Security Forces, police and army, would take over control over security of the country, which has already happened in a few relatively tranquil regions. As for a sense of national identity among the Iraqi soldiers, there seems to be little evidence of this. Many units seem more loyal to sect, region or even militias of which they are also members. Fostering such an identity is a major goal of the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Regarding military misconduct, the recent exposure of torture at a Baghdad prison is being investigated by the country's Interior Ministry and Justice Departments. Results were expected today, but they did not come.
_______________________
Ellicott City, Md.: I am reading the strategy report, it is more of a progress report than what is being down.
For instance, page 4 of the document:
"Victory in Iraq is Defined in stages
- Short Term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces"
That is not a strategy that is just what they are doing. Am I wrong here, I just don't get it.
washingtonpost.com: Text: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq , ( White House, Nov. 30 )
Jonathan Finer: Thanks for the comment. This line of critique has been echoed by several Democratic politicians I've seen on TV today.
_______________________
Sacramento, Calif.: If our stated reason for being in Iraq is to bring democracy and 80 percent of Iraqis want us OUT of their country... how can we dare not respect that and leave?
Jonathan Finer: For one thing, the Iraqi government has not yet asked the U.S. to leave. If the government itself starts calling for withdrawal, that would certainly complicate things. Another question might be why the Iraqi government view on this is not in line with the apparent sentiment of the Iraqi people. The government here says they do not believe Iraqi Security Forces are ready to take over control.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: When the US starts to drawdown, what about the equipment that is needed by the Iraqis: trucks, helicopters, weapons, etc. What is the plan, what will they be given, who will be trained to use the equipment and how much will it cost. Will all of our equipment be left in Iraq, weakening our military position in the rest of the world.
Jonathan Finer: I doubt much U.S. equipment will be left in Iraq after soldiers leave, but the question of how the Iraqi Army will equip itself and provide its own logistical support is a significant and still unanswered one.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: The mainstream press, including The Post, has admitted it let the public down by its uncritical reporting on the pre-war justifications the Administration handed out. As the President, beginning with his Annapolis speech this morning, kicks off the Administration's effort to claim tremendous progress in standing up Iraqi security forces as a cover for withdrawing "with honor" rather than "bugging out," will the mainstream press, including The Post, allow his hype to go unchallenged again, or would The Post feel it was being too partisan if it attacked the President's veracity?
Jonathan Finer: You are right that we and other news organizations have said we should have done better in reporting on the run-up to war. As for whether we have improved, I'll leave that to readers to judge.
_______________________
Herndon, Va.: The Bush Administration describes the enemy in Iraq as "a combination of Iraqis who reject democratic reforms, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda inspired terrorists." So only one-third of the enemy is made up of international terrorists. Yet it also claims that Iraq is the "central front in the global war on terror." I don't buy that second statement. Iraq is a country struggling to fill a power vacuum left by Saddam's departure. The war against al Qaeda will not be won or lost there.
Jonathan Finer: Thanks for your comment. I don't think the administration believes that one-third of the insurgents here are foreign. Probably the number is much smaller, more like a tenth or less. But some U.S. commanders and officials argue that they retain influence beyond their numbers because of their propensity for carrying out some of the more deadly attacks.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: How often do reporters get out of central Baghdad to chase stories? I know that it is extraordinarily dangerous in a warzone, but it is very hard to understand the effects and outcomes of the war with so little reporting coming from non-embedded reporters outside of the capital.
Jonathan Finer: This is a fair point and one we wrestle with. To the extent that we deem it safe we certainly prefer to report independently outside of Baghdad. During the October referendum on the constitution here we had unembedded reporters in Najaf and Kurdistan, areas that seemed sufficiently stable to allow us to operate this way. But I think it may be a long time before you see Western journalists working on their own in places like Anbar Province, in the West, where the insurgency is strongest.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: Sir:
Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) wrote yesterday, from Iraq, where he was visiting the troops, the following: "the war that we saw is not the same war that we are reading in the media everyday. In fact, our soldiers are very frustrated that the media is only reporting the bad news instead of highlighting the progress being made."
I agree with the Congressman. I have contact every day with troops in Iraq, and virtually all of them are frustrated that you people in the media are only reporting one side of the story. Do you have any comments?
Jonathan Finer: We hear this a lot from readers and soldiers. My view is that if we see evidence that things are improving, we report that. I wrote a story recently from Tall Afar about progress made by the Iraqi Army. But if we are constantly bombarded by incidents of violence, political in-fighting and other "bad news" stories, we have an obligation to report those too. I'll offer an analogy a reporter/friend here uses: if you go to the hospital for a check-up and are told you have a disease, you don't go back and tell your family all the illnesses you don't have. For now, the problems in Iraq seem to be the story.
_______________________
Toronto, Canada: Following up on your answer on equipping the Iraqi forces: Wasn't Iyad Allawi's Minister of Defense implicated in the embezzlemnt of more than half of his ministry's budget? He was a Bremer appointee, wasn't he?
Have there been any American investigations into the role Bremer or other Americans may have played in that crime?
Jonathan Finer: A good question and one worth looking into.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Not sure if The Post covered Sen. Lieberman's comments over the weekend that there has been tremendous progress in Iraq, judged by trip last week. Can you point me to the story? Oh wait, that's good news coming out of Iraq, so I am quite sure it wasn't in The Post. Please prove me wrong. Many thanks.
washingtonpost.com: Lieberman 'Encouraged' by Iraq Visit , ( AP, Nov. 28 )
Jonathan Finer: I think there's a link provided in response to this question.
_______________________
Anonymous: I'm confused. On the one hand the White House claims the insurgents have little popular support, and the al Qaeda types only make for a tiny part of the insurgency. On the other hand, Bush raises the prospect that if the U.S. leaves, al Qaeda will take over the country.
I'm sure the military wargamed the withdrawal scenario. Is a Zarqawi takeover considered a likely outcome?
Jonathan Finer: I think the prospect of insurgents actually being able to "take over" Iraq is probably remote. But the chances of a surge in violence if the U.S. withdraws is one plenty of people here take seriously. Others think the insurgency would lose much of its legitimacy and therefore its support if the U.S. left. Its a question policy-makers are grappling with, I'm sure.
_______________________
Lima, Ohio: Mr. Finer: I heard a report yesterday that the U.S. has already turned over a number of military bases to the Iraqis. Is it possible that we will turn over all the bases there, including the huge bases we've constructed over the last few years, or is it likely that our government plans to keep control of a few bases, keep some of our soldiers there, indefinitely. In other words, will our pullout -- if and when it comes -- ever be an absolute pullout, with every last pair of U.S. boots out of Iraq?
Jonathan Finer: There is certainly much speculation that the U.S. will never fully leave Iraq, especially given the large expenditures made to build bases and other infrastructure. The answer is probably a long way off.
_______________________
Jonathan Finer: There are many more good questions I wish I had time to get to, but I need to get back to work. Thanks for participating.
_______________________
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
