In Case You Missed It: The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats

[ManSnake]

Hmm I found this email in my junk mail box, so I am posting it here.

In Case You Missed It:
The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats
From The Wall Street Journal

Review & Outlook
February 3, 2005

Every so often, an American politician takes an unpopular stand for the sake of what's right... Frequently, he takes an unprincipled stand for the sake of what's popular ...Sometimes, even, he does what's right, which also happens to be popular...

Only in the rarest of instances, however, do politicians take positions that are both unpopular and unprincipled. That is where the Democratic Party leadership finds itself today on Iraq.

On Sunday, some eight million Iraqi citizens risked their lives to participate in parliamentary elections -- as vivid and moving a demonstration of democratic ideals ... Whereupon Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry took to the airwaves to explain that it was no big deal and that it was time to start casting about for an "exit strategy." ...

So what is the Democratic Party's message on this inspiring exercise in Iraqi self-determination? First, that the election's legitimacy is questionable. Second, that its effects will be minor. Third, that America's presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good by generating terrorism and anti-Americanism where none previously existed. Fourth, that the U.S. has better things to do. Fifth, that American sacrifices in Iraq are best redeemed not by victory, but by the earliest feasible departure.

As a matter of policy, this is a manifesto for irresponsibility. Just as the postponement of elections would have been a gift to the insurgents, a timetable for withdrawal now would amount to a concession of defeat. ...

What is more astonishing, however, is the Democrats' political tone-deafness. In their indictment of Administration policy, the Senators always take care to add a few words of tribute to the American soldier. ...

Today, the Democratic Party has put itself in the awkward position of hoping to gain political advantage in the 2006 elections as a result of American wartime reverses ... This is not a place any political party should wish to be.

We understand that it is in the nature of the party of opposition to oppose. But there's no law in politics that says opposition has to be blind. ...

For Entire Article Please Visit:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006243

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Unfortunately, the Democrats seem oblivious to the fact that their call for immediate troop reductions in Iraq are transparently evident as little more than political grandstanding, and pandering to the extremists and radicals of their own party. It demonstrates a lack of situational analysis and the willingness to sacrifice the potential successes in the ME by focusing on their own ambitions to place an onus on the Republicans that is little more than a strawman. Once again they flog themselves silly and do so cluelessly because anyone with a modicum of sense can see right through their ploy. It's really sad what they've become.

 

[lozina]

Calling all Republicans! Calling all Republicans! A circle jerk is now commencing. Please report to your assigned circle jerk position.

Oh wait, The Wall Street Journal? Bah they are on our extensive list of liberal biased media... false alarm!

 

[Rainsford]

Maybe I'm being slow here, but what's wrong with having an exit strategy? From my point of view all it looks like is the Republicans saying "we're staying until we're done" without defining what "done" is or how we're going to reach that point. I don't agree with the idea that the elections were't important (and I don't think the Democrats are suggesting that in any case), but I DO think "exit strategy" is not a dirty phrase.

Look at the article's main complaints about the Democrat's supposed position:
First, that the election's legitimacy is questionable.
Well, an entire group didn't vote. Now that was their choice of course, but since they are likely to be the source of problems in Iraq, having them outside the democratic process means their issues aren't likely to be resolved to their satisfaction any time soon. That's democracy for you, I suppose, but I wonder how effective the elections will be at stopping terrorism because of this.

Second, that its effects will be minor.
I disagree, an elected government means a chance for everyone to have a voice without resorting to terrorist actions. But see the first point on why the best effects might be a little ways off.

Third, that America's presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good by generating terrorism and anti-Americanism where none previously existed.
I don't know about more harm than good, but American presence in Iraq is certainly a factor in the problems over there. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. Since we constitute the main force to fight the insurgents who might try to take over the country if we leave, I'm not sure we're doing more harm than good at the moment. But I don't think long term occupation will work, so we need to have a strategy to leave as soon as it's reasonable to do so, because I believe that without anti-American feelings being targetted on our troops, and with an Iraq strong enough to stand without our help, the insurgent threat will be much less.

Fourth, that the U.S. has better things to do.
Talk about a loaded argument. But let's think rationally for a second, as far as total utility to the US, the resources spent in Iraq could probably be used to much better effect somewhere else. That's not to say we shouldn't finish what we started in Iraq, but it's probably not the best use our of resources when we're talking about benefits to the US.

Fifth, that American sacrifices in Iraq are best redeemed not by victory, but by the earliest feasible departure.
Nobody said pullout before "victory", but the problem is that victory hasn't been very well established here. What exactly is victory, and how do we get it? Nobody has a plan to that effect that I've ever heard. Maybe I'm crazy, but I like having a method to accomplish my goals as well as well established goals. The fact that the Democrats seem to want this is a plus in my book, not a minus.

Sorry for the long post, but I think it's important to actually think about these issues. I find myself saying this a lot, but the problem with the Republicans and their supporters is that they need to reduce everything to some simple little black and white issue. That, more than anything else, is why I no longer identify with conservatives or Republicans in general. The world doesn't work that way, and acting like it does gives you odd situations like attacking the Democrats for wanting to have a plan. The nerve!

 

[Genx87]

Maybe I'm being slow here, but what's wrong with having an exit strategy?

Well there are several problems with a hard coded exit strategy when it comes to something like Iraq.

1. It gives the terrorists a timetable in which they know they can simply wait you out.
2. It gives democrats and the media something to complain about if it doesnt get done on the date specified.
3. The situation on the ground changes on a daily basis and thus timetables do not work.

I do believe we should set goals for troop reductions once the security of the country is finally achieved to a point the Iraqi's can fend for themselves. But to bark we have to leave now is illthought political bantor.

When we invaded Iraq the Bush admin said 3-5 years. We are coming up on our 2nd anniversary. I would expect sometime after the next set of elections in Dec we should see significant troop reductions.

 

[dahunan]

Will they ever be able to protect themselves without our help

 

[Genx87]

Will they ever be able to protect themselves without our help

Right... just like the transfer of power and elections would never happen?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Will they ever be able to protect themselves without our help

Right... just like the transfer of power and elections would never happen?

SO... Got a approximate timetable..

How many YEARS will be acceptable?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Genx87

Will they ever be able to protect themselves without our help

Right... just like the transfer of power and elections would never happen?

SO... Got a approximate timetable..

How many YEARS will be acceptable?

How about a month?

U.S. to pull 15,000 troops from Iraq
Three brigades affected by decision

By Bradley Graham

Updated: 12:47 a.m. ET Feb. 4, 2005

Buoyed by a higher turnout and less violence than expected in Sunday's Iraqi elections, Pentagon authorities have decided to start reducing the level of U.S. forces in Iraq next month by about 15,000 troops, down to about 135,000, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said yesterday.

...

But testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wolfowitz also warned of "a very difficult road ahead" in defeating Iraqi insurgents and indicated that no further drop in U.S. troops was planned this year. Another senior Pentagon official said after the hearing that the initial decrease did not reflect an improved security situation in Iraq but was simply a recognition that the forces kept specifically for the election were no longer needed and could leave as previously scheduled.

Our exit strategy will depend on many factors that we don't have the answers to yet, such as continuing insurgent actions, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, the pace of reconstruction, etc. Until we have a better handle on those answers, a specific timetable cannot be determined.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our exit strategy will depend on many factors that we don't have the answers to yet, such as continuing insurgent actions, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, the pace of reconstruction, etc. Until we have a better handle on those answers, a specific timetable cannot be determined.

Since when did an Exit strategy have to have a time table?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our exit strategy will depend on many factors that we don't have the answers to yet, such as continuing insurgent actions, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, the pace of reconstruction, etc. Until we have a better handle on those answers, a specific timetable cannot be determined.

Since when did an Exit strategy have to have a time table?

::shrug::

Maybe you should ask dahunan? He posed the question requesting an approximate one.

 

[dahunan]

I think Red Dawn was being sarcastic....


Anyhow.. I think we will never leave.. and this will go on for many more years

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I think Red Dawn was being sarcastic....

Hard to tell with Red sometimes.

Anyhow.. I think we will never leave.. and this will go on for many more years

We'll surely argue the semantics of "leaving" in the months and years to come. I don't think "leaving" is the proper way to look at it though. Many countries with which the US has a relationship with have some sort of US military in country.

I'm concerned about control and autonomy. When the Iraqis have full control of their country and are autonomous in their rule, I'll consider that "leaving." We still haven't "left" Germany and Japan yet. You'd have a hard time arguing that's really an issue though or that Germany and Japan are puppets because of that.

 

[lozina]

One thing I don't quite understand so well about this author's opinion is the idea that giving a timetable amounts to a "concession". We're going to withdraw troops eventually, so if we should suddenly withdraw them one day couldn't that be interpreted as an even more obvious 'concession" rather than saying "ok, we're planning to withdraw by end of 2006 unless the Iraqi government requests us to stay longer" then actually following up on your plan later. How exactly is following up on such a plan considered a "concession" ?

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Exit Strategy" is a political buzzword that has no practical application. Define the mission at hand and set the terms for success, and the "exit strategy" will take care of itself...it is impossible and irresponsible to place a timetable on completing a mission, as any number of things can happen as early as tomorrow that change the playing field.

The Democrats are making a lot of noise now in an attempt to remain engaged in the discussion. As usual in partisan politics, they offer no solutions or suggestions...just accusations and whining.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our exit strategy will depend on many factors that we don't have the answers to yet, such as continuing insurgent actions, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, the pace of reconstruction, etc. Until we have a better handle on those answers, a specific timetable cannot be determined.

Since when did an Exit strategy have to have a time table?

::shrug::

Maybe you should ask dahunan? He posed the question requesting an approximate one.

Seriously though, what is the exit strategy? That there isn't one? I see. You Repubs are bright.

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
"Exit Strategy" is a political buzzword that has no practical application. Define the mission at hand and set the terms for success, and the "exit strategy" will take care of itself...it is impossible and irresponsible to place a timetable on completing a mission, as any number of things can happen as early as tomorrow that change the playing field.

The Democrats are making a lot of noise now in an attempt to remain engaged in the discussion. As usual in partisan politics, they offer no solutions or suggestions...just accusations and whining.

Oh really? So there is no such thing as having an exit strategy? Huh.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Oh really? So there is no such thing as having an exit strategy? Huh.

Exit strategy is a political buzzword...the very nature of war is such that you do not enter into a conflict with a set timeline and date by which operations cease.

Warfare is a constantly changing and fluid environment...commander's define a strategy that defines mission success, which could include such things as eliminating the enemy's will or ability to sustain combat operations.

You cannot place a timetable on warfare, nor can you measure success by body count...we made those mistakes in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia...and those are wars where America followed an "exit strategy" without accomplishing the mission.

Define the mission objectives...define success...and the exit takes care of itself.

Seriously though, what is the exit strategy? That there isn't one? I see. You Repubs are bright

I am not a Republican, and your argument in favor of having an exit strategy is not particularly compelling.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Oh really? So there is no such thing as having an exit strategy? Huh.

Exit strategy is a political buzzword...the very nature of war is such that you do not enter into a conflict with a set timeline and date by which operations cease.

Warfare is a constantly changing and fluid environment...commander's define a strategy that defines mission success, which could include such things as eliminating the enemy's will or ability to sustain combat operations.

You cannot place a timetable on warfare, nor can you measure success by body count...we made those mistakes in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia...and those are wars where America followed an "exit strategy" without accomplishing the mission.

Define the mission objectives...define success...and the exit takes care of itself.

Except when the exit doesn't take care of itself (Vietnam, Iraq)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our exit strategy will depend on many factors that we don't have the answers to yet, such as continuing insurgent actions, the readiness of the Iraqi security forces, the pace of reconstruction, etc. Until we have a better handle on those answers, a specific timetable cannot be determined.

Since when did an Exit strategy have to have a time table?

::shrug::

Maybe you should ask dahunan? He posed the question requesting an approximate one.

Seriously though, what is the exit strategy? That there isn't one? I see. You Repubs are bright.

The "exit strategy" is to leave when the Iraqis feel they are ready to handle the situation by themselves. When their government officials all get together and determine they want the US to leave, then it will be time. If you want to know what that timetable is, then maybe you should ask the new Iraqi government once all the votes are counted and they are in place.

I doubt you really care though because your main aim in this thread seems to be poking Republicans with a sharp, pointy schtick. I suppose if I was a Republican I'd take offense to your comment. Since I'm not, I'm merely laughing at how ridiculously wide you missed the mark.

:music:Nice shot, Dan. I said nice shot.:music:

 

[SuperTool]

Wow, just wow. Having an exit strategy is now frowned upon in neocon circles.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Except when the exit doesn't take care of itself (Vietnam, Iraq)

This is because the very nature of a military operation requires clearly defined goals and objectives. However, the term "exit strategy" suggests a timeline or conditions that allow you to depart from a theater from operations.

We won WW2 without defining an exit strategy...we never really pulled out of Germany or Japan for that matter...similar to the Balkans...we achieved the mission, but our military footprint is still there...any time you commit soldiers to war, you risk a long term commitment of troops on the ground even if the shooting stops...so "exit strategy" is a buzzword that sounds good, but has no historical or practical context in any discussion involving warfare.

The failure of this Administration is not that they did not define an exit strategy...there is no such thing...the mistake was to commit our nation to war that has questionable benefits or objectives, and with our Army lacking the resources necessary to achieve victory under the current situation.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Define the mission objectives...define success...and the exit takes care of itself.

Problem is when the mission objectives change or more is added. Anyway I don't like the term exit strategy either. Seems like the only wars where we successfully exited were the ones we lost.

Spanish American war- Won- Cuba, Philipines still have troops there.
WW1- Won- okay we did exit this one
WW2- Won- Germany, Japan still there but the mission objectives changed over the years
Korean War- Stalemate- still there, i think mission objective did change to protect S. Korea
Vietnam War- Lost- not there
Lebanon- lost- not there
Gulf War 1- won- still in Kuwait, might still be in SA, mission objective changed.
Somalia- lost- not there
Kosovo- won- still there
Gulf War 2- to be determined.

edited

 

[Starbuck1975]

Wow, just wow. Having an exit strategy is now frowned upon in neocon circles.

Your insight is incredible.

Problem is when the mission objectives change or more is added

That is exactly the point...think about any project you are engaged in at work...the boss sets a series of expectations and goals...you start to work on the project, think you have it nearly done, and then the boss adds a series of requirements...thus leading to project creep and eventual project failure.

Warfare works the same way...give the soldiers a DEFINED mission and then leave them the hell alone.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except when the exit doesn't take care of itself (Vietnam, Iraq)

This is because the very nature of a military operation requires clearly defined goals and objectives. However, the term "exit strategy" suggests a timeline or conditions that allow you to depart from a theater from operations.

Nothing wrong with a timeline:

End of major operations...Mission Accomplished - Lessen troop strength and focus on training new Iraqi army

Transfer of sovereignty - Further reduction of troop strength

Initial elections - being final pullout


Hmm...never heard any mention of troop reductions at any stage and we're only just now hearing talk of some troop removals.

We won WW2 without defining an exit strategy...we never really pulled out of Germany or Japan for that matter...similar to the Balkans...we achieved the mission, but our military footprint is still there...any time you commit soldiers to war, you risk a long term commitment of troops on the ground even if the shooting stops...so "exit strategy" is a buzzword that sounds good, but has no historical or practical context in any discussion involving warfare.

"we never really pulled out" doesn't mean an exit strategy didn't exist. Having plans to have a permanent presence are separate from a pullout. You think we're going to bring home every single soldier? HA! I wish!

The failure of this Administration is not that they did not define an exit strategy...there is no such thing...the mistake was to commit our nation to war that has questionable benefits or objectives, and with our Army lacking the resources necessary to achieve victory under the current situation.

There were MANY mistakes made by this admin.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Except when the exit doesn't take care of itself (Vietnam, Iraq)

This is because the very nature of a military operation requires clearly defined goals and objectives. However, the term "exit strategy" suggests a timeline or conditions that allow you to depart from a theater from operations.

Nothing wrong with a timeline:

End of major operations...Mission Accomplished - Lessen troop strength and focus on training new Iraqi army

Transfer of sovereignty - Further reduction of troop strength

Initial elections - being final pullout


Hmm...never heard any mention of troop reductions at any stage and we're only just now hearing talk of some troop removals.

You neglected to mention the security and insurgency issues.

We won WW2 without defining an exit strategy...we never really pulled out of Germany or Japan for that matter...similar to the Balkans...we achieved the mission, but our military footprint is still there...any time you commit soldiers to war, you risk a long term commitment of troops on the ground even if the shooting stops...so "exit strategy" is a buzzword that sounds good, but has no historical or practical context in any discussion involving warfare.

"we never really pulled out" doesn't mean an exit strategy didn't exist. Having plans to have a permanent presence are separate from a pullout. You think we're going to bring home every single soldier? HA! I wish!

You seem to beleive there was an exit strategy in Germany or Japan. Can you provide information that will show us what that strategy was @ 2 years into the occupation?

The failure of this Administration is not that they did not define an exit strategy...there is no such thing...the mistake was to commit our nation to war that has questionable benefits or objectives, and with our Army lacking the resources necessary to achieve victory under the current situation.

There were MANY mistakes made by this admin.[/quote]
There are many mistakes made by every administration, wartime or not. Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon all made plenty of mistakes; some being real whoppers. The country moved on anyway.