Forget an 'exit plan' for Iraq

[BOBDN]

Hmmmm..... I wonder what happened to this George W. Bush -

"Presidential candidate George W. Bush declared in a debate in October 2000: "I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious."

Forget an 'exit plan' for Iraq

 

[SuperTool]

Until we know why we are in Iraq, we won't know when to get out of there.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Until we know why we are in Iraq, we won't know when to get out of there.

Aren't we there because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMD?

 

[HappyGamer2]

the only real reasons were in IRAQ are:
1, OIL
2., revenge for old man bush's mistakes
3, re-election for bush, this one may have back fired thou

 

[Red Dawn]

One of Dub's main Campaign Promises is that if elected the US would not be in the business of Nation Building..Whoops!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Until we know why we are in Iraq, we won't know when to get out of there.

Aren't we there because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMD?

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." GWB

Reasons cited:
1) Regime Change
2) Democratization
3) weapons of mass destruction
4) support of terrorism
5) human rights

1 has happened
2, we are hopeful, will
3 has been proven in the past, and will hopefully be proven in the future
4 has been proven in the past
5 has been proven in the past

3.5 outta 5, with 1.5 outstanding. Not bad IMHO.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Until we know why we are in Iraq, we won't know when to get out of there.

Aren't we there because of the imminent threat posed by Iraq's WMD?

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent...If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." GWB

Reasons cited:
1) Regime Change
2) Democratization
3) weapons of mass destruction
4) support of terrorism
5) human rights

1 has happened
2, we are hopeful, will
3 has been proven in the past, and will hopefully be proven in the future
4 has been proven in the past
5 has been proven in the past

3.5 outta 5, with 1.5 outstanding. Not bad IMHO.

1) Since when has it been our duty, no our obligation to be the worlds policeman? Didn't Dub Campaign that he wouldn't engage American Troops as the World's Policeman? Yes he did promise that
2) Nation Building, another Promise made by the Dub when running for Office that he's obviously reneged on
3) Without any Proof of WMD's and the threat to the US it seems the American Public were duped into supporting the Iraq Invasion
4) Are we going to invade Syria, China, NK, Libya next?
5) See #4

 

[no0b]

1 and 2, 9-11 showed us (changed Bush) we cannot ignore the problems of the world for they will impact us.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One of Dub's main Campaign Promises is that if elected the US would not be in the business of Nation Building..Whoops!

Was that promise before or after 9/11?

Kind of puts it in a different perspective doesn't it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One of Dub's main Campaign Promises is that if elected the US would not be in the business of Nation Building..Whoops!

Was that promise before or after 9/11?

Kind of puts it in a different perspective doesn't it.

Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. On the other hand, it seems that the Neo Con's used the 9/11 tragedy and alleged misleading Intel to lure the American Public into supporting the invasion of Iraq. The events of 9/11 cannot be blamed on Hussien, as despicable as he is. On the other hand, if his regime did have WMD's stockpiled and was dealing directly with Al Queda then the invasion of Iraq would have been just. So far though it seems like the Saudi's where more responsible fpor 9/11 (though indirectly) than Hussien.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One of Dub's main Campaign Promises is that if elected the US would not be in the business of Nation Building..Whoops!

Was that promise before or after 9/11?

Kind of puts it in a different perspective doesn't it.

Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. On the other hand, it seems that the Neo Con's used the 9/11 tragedy and misleading Intel to lure the American Public into supporting the invasion of Iraq. The events of 9/11 cannot be blamed on Hussien, as despicable as he is. On the other hand, if his regime did have WMD's stockpiled and was dealing directly with Al Queda then the invasion of Iraq would have been just. So far though it seems like the Saudi's where more responsible fpor 9/11 (though indirectly) than Hussien.

The current admin. was going to deal with Iraq irregardless of 9/11. Whether the method for dealing with them was a preconceived one is pure speculation (pending a confession). Nothing the admin. said ever led me to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and their actions following 9/11 certainly support that. We did not attack Iraq in response to 9/11 like we did Afghanistan although there were those in the admin. who certainly wanted to (Wolfowitz according to B.Woodward in Bush At War) According to the same source the President was very adamant about not rolling them into one issue. As far as the Saudis go, yes there were some Saudis involved in 9/11 but were the Saudis responsible for it? I haven't seen anything that anyone is calling concrete proof they were but who really knows. The 9/11 report hasn't been declassified and some people say that it does implicate the Saudi goverment. Again, who really knows?

 

[tcsenter]

Hmmmm..... I wonder what happened to this George W. Bush

If you read the article, you'd have known the author is actually ridiculing the entire premise of an exit strategy.

The reason you don't formulate an exit strategy is that the variables are so innumerable and impossible to predict with reliability that any formulated exit strategy is virtually guaranteed to be wrong, greatly increasing the risk that the mission will appear as though it was a failure by the flawed benchmark set forth in the exit strategy.

It also, if publicized, gives your enemy a pretty good idea of what it will require to cause your premature withdrawal, instead of having to deal with the psychological uncertainty of how long the war will last and who will fold first - him or you. Instead, you set objectives, and the accomplishment of those objectives becomes your benchmark or guage.

And to clarify, Bush is not quoted to have 'made a solemn promise to always have an exit strategy.' Bush stated the exit strategy should be "obvious", meaning there should be no need to formulate an exit strategy because accomplishing clear mission objectives will logically and invariably lead to an exit. The exit strategy in Iraq is pretty obvious; when we've accomplished our mission, we'll leave.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
One of Dub's main Campaign Promises is that if elected the US would not be in the business of Nation Building..Whoops!

He was right about not building THIS nation.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmmm..... I wonder what happened to this George W. Bush

If you read the article, you'd have known the author is actually ridiculing the entire premise of an exit strategy.

The reason you don't formulate an exit strategy is that the variables are so innumerable and impossible to predict with reliability that any formulated exit strategy is virtually guaranteed to be wrong, greatly increasing the risk that the mission will appear as though it was a failure by the flawed benchmark set forth in the exit strategy.

It also, if publicized, gives your enemy a pretty good idea of what it will require to cause your premature withdrawal, instead of having to deal with the psychological uncertainty of how long the war will last and who will fold first - him or you. Instead, you set objectives, and the accomplishment of those objectives becomes your benchmark or guage.

And to clarify, Bush is not quoted to have 'made a solemn promise to always have an exit strategy.' Bush stated the exit strategy should be "obvious", meaning there should be no need to formulate an exit strategy because accomplishing clear mission objectives will logically and invariably lead to an exit. The exit strategy in Iraq is pretty obvious; when we've accomplished our mission, we'll leave.

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmmm..... I wonder what happened to this George W. Bush

If you read the article, you'd have known the author is actually ridiculing the entire premise of an exit strategy.

The reason you don't formulate an exit strategy is that the variables are so innumerable and impossible to predict with reliability that any formulated exit strategy is virtually guaranteed to be wrong, greatly increasing the risk that the mission will appear as though it was a failure by the flawed benchmark set forth in the exit strategy.

It also, if publicized, gives your enemy a pretty good idea of what it will require to cause your premature withdrawal, instead of having to deal with the psychological uncertainty of how long the war will last and who will fold first - him or you. Instead, you set objectives, and the accomplishment of those objectives becomes your benchmark or guage.

And to clarify, Bush is not quoted to have 'made a solemn promise to always have an exit strategy.' Bush stated the exit strategy should be "obvious", meaning there should be no need to formulate an exit strategy because accomplishing clear mission objectives will logically and invariably lead to an exit. The exit strategy in Iraq is pretty obvious; when we've accomplished our mission, we'll leave.

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

alchemize gave a very good list of reasons to be there. And the objectives of being there.

 

[no0b]

holy DP batman

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: no0b

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmmm..... I wonder what happened to this George W. Bush

If you read the article, you'd have known the author is actually ridiculing the entire premise of an exit strategy.

The reason you don't formulate an exit strategy is that the variables are so innumerable and impossible to predict with reliability that any formulated exit strategy is virtually guaranteed to be wrong, greatly increasing the risk that the mission will appear as though it was a failure by the flawed benchmark set forth in the exit strategy.

It also, if publicized, gives your enemy a pretty good idea of what it will require to cause your premature withdrawal, instead of having to deal with the psychological uncertainty of how long the war will last and who will fold first - him or you. Instead, you set objectives, and the accomplishment of those objectives becomes your benchmark or guage.

And to clarify, Bush is not quoted to have 'made a solemn promise to always have an exit strategy.' Bush stated the exit strategy should be "obvious", meaning there should be no need to formulate an exit strategy because accomplishing clear mission objectives will logically and invariably lead to an exit. The exit strategy in Iraq is pretty obvious; when we've accomplished our mission, we'll leave.

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

alchemize gave a very good list of reasons to be there. And the objectives of being there.

Alchemize has "reasons cited." If we keep staying there for every reason cited, we'll never get out, because someone will keep citing new reasons.
We need to have a fixed reason to go into a war (before we actually go in) and a fixed list of objectives to accomplish. Bush 1 might not have set enough objectives, but I give him credit for getting out once the objectives he set were accomplished.

 

[tcsenter]

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

That you reject all the stated reasons for starting this war and do not personally agree with them, in a demonstrated pattern of blind defiance that precludes you from acknowledging there are mission objectives, doesn't mean there aren't any mission objectives or that they haven't been clearly stated over and over.

And it doesn't mean I will be suckered into repeating the already repeated, only to have you respond 'that's no reason to invade Iraq' or something obstructionist like that so you can continue to deny there are stated mission objectives.

Try another sucker, I ain't buying today.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If you read the article, you'd have known the author is actually ridiculing the entire premise of an exit strategy.

Äctually if you read carefully, the author ridicules the premise of an exit strategy and the current administration's lack of an achievable overarching set of goals. Granted, I'm not sure this author is entirely consistent in his argument.

Rather than an exit strategy, many analysts say, it is critical in a campaign like the war on terrorism to conduct far-flung military, diplomatic, political and economic operations in concert under a grand strategy.

It is essential, said Killebrew, "to have at the very highest levels an understanding of the war's objectives and the degree to which you are willing to go to meet those objectives.

"But that understanding should never be publicized and should never be a plan. It's a set of overarching goals."

In the war on terrorism, for instance, such a strategy might include combat operations against guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also goals for supporting moderate Islamic movements in Indonesia and Egypt, redoubling efforts toward an Israeli-Palestinian détente and boosting development and education across the Middle East.

"I don't see the strategy," said Killebrew, speaking of the war on terrorism. "What I see is an awful lot of focus on military affairs."

You could certainly argue Bush is carrying out the grand PNAC plan . . . which clearly started with unilateral actions well before the Bush War of 2003. But the general theme of this administration remains . . . military engagement of enemies we think we can beat (Saddam, Taliban) while blaming all of our foibles on an amorphous enemy called terrorism.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

That you reject all the stated reasons for starting this war and do not personally agree with them, in a demonstrated pattern of blind defiance that precludes you from acknowledging there are mission objectives, doesn't mean there aren't any mission objectives or that they haven't been clearly stated over and over.

And it doesn't mean I will be suckered into repeating the already repeated, only to have you respond 'that's no reason to invade Iraq' or something obstructionist like that so you can continue to deny there are stated mission objectives.

Try another sucker, I ain't buying today.

Those mission objectives were not what sold the American Public into supporting the invasion of Iraq (well besides the alleged threat of the now missing WMD's)

 

[UltraQuiet]

You could certainly argue Bush is carrying out the grand PNAC plan . . . which clearly started with unilateral actions well before the Bush War of 2003. But the general theme of this administration remains . . . military engagement of enemies we think we can beat (Saddam, Taliban) while blaming all of our foibles on an amorphous enemy called terrorism.

If we have learned nothing else in the last couple of years it is that terrorists and terrorists orgs. and states are anything but amorphous

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The only thing that's not obvious is what our mission there is. What are these "clear mission objectives?" We don't even know why we started this war in the first place, so how can we know what the objectives are?

That you reject all the stated reasons for starting this war and do not personally agree with them, in a demonstrated pattern of blind defiance that precludes you from acknowledging there are mission objectives, doesn't mean there aren't any mission objectives or that they haven't been clearly stated over and over.
And it doesn't mean I will be suckered into repeating the already repeated, only to have you respond 'that's no reason to invade Iraq' or something obstructionist like that so you can continue to deny there are stated mission objectives.
Try another sucker, I ain't buying today.

It's nice to see our country getting mission objectives and reasons for war on political talk shows and anonymous sources. This administration has been deliberately vague on both reasons for going to war and mission objectives, maybe because every time they get specific, they get caugth in a lie.

1) Regime Change
accomplished, so why are we still in Iraq?

2) Democratization
If that's the reason, why aren't we in Ryadh?

3) weapons of mass destruction
Where are they?

4) support of terrorism
See 2

5) human rights
see 2

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I do not understand how otherwise reasonable people . . . granted I may be giving some of you too much credit . . . can revise history. As recently as February, the administration's public announcements clearly implied that full disclosure and subsequent disarmament would mean . . . 1) NO regime change and 2) NO democratization of Iraq.

Text of press conference with Bush and Aznar
I challenge you to find reasons #1 or #2 in the words of our fearless leader.

(excerpt)

Early next week, working with our friends and allies, we will introduce an additional Security Council resolution that will set out in clear and simple terms that Iraq is not complying with Resolution 1441. For the record, this would not be a second resolution on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, it would only be the latest in a long series of resolutions, going back 12 years.

We will discuss this resolution with members of the Security Council, and we will hear again from Chief Inspector Blix. During these final deliberations, there is but one question for the Council to address, is Saddam Hussein complying with Resolution 1441. That resolution did not ask for hints of progress or minor concessions. It demanded full and immediate disarmament. That, and that alone, is the issue before the Council. We will not allow the Iraqi dictator, with a history of aggression and close ties to terrorist groups, to continue to possesses or produce weapons of mass destruction.

Our coalition draws its strength from the courage and moral clarity of leaders like President Aznar. In times of testing, we discover who is willing to stand up for the security of free peoples and the rights of mankind.

Per norm, Bush is inconsistent. Powell did go . . . for the record . . . seeking a second resolution to codify a military mandate against Saddam. According to our President, the rationale for invasion comes down to a solitary point bolded above . . . otherwise known as item #3 of unachieved goals in Iraq. Bush tosses in the reference to a history of aggression, terrorism, and WMD . . . sounds like Pakistan more than Iraq. If you doubt it ask an Indian.

I love the proselytizing at the end. Bush and his minions are standing up for the security of free peoples . . . who would that be in the Middle East . . . Israel and Turkey? And the rights of mankind?! What a crock of poo . . . we look the other way in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan warlords, Egyptian/Saudi/Kuwait autocrats, the whole damn continent of Africa. What a joke . . . if it wasn't so deplorably hypocritical and morally bankrupt I would laugh.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If we have learned nothing else in the last couple of years it is that terrorists and terrorists orgs. and states are anything but amorphous

Explain?

 

[tcsenter]

Actually if you read carefully, the author ridicules the premise of an exit strategy and the current administration's lack of an achievable overarching set of goals. Granted, I'm not sure this author is entirely consistent in his argument

And in support of the author's suggestion (I wouldn't say ridicule) that the current administration lacks an achievable overarching set of goals, he quotes an analyst who says he "doesn't see the strategy", not that there isn't one, right after the same analyst says its imperative that the strategy "never be publicized and never be a plan."