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

[Pliablemoose]

The Democrats would do better to suggest an exit strategy from Korea.

What was our exit strategy in Korea again?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The Democrats would do better to suggest an exit strategy from Korea.

What was our exit strategy in Korea again?

Technicaly the korean war is not over, we are just having a long ceasefire.

 

[nageov3t]

seriously, what's the big deal about the Iraqi people voting?

plenty of failed states held elections.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, I didn't. They are part of the MANY mistakes committed by the administration. They are separate from having setup a timeline from the outset of the invasion.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 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.

No, I didn't. They are part of the MANY mistakes committed by the administration. They are separate from having setup a timeline from the outset of the invasion.

Well then you forgot to consider troops for mistakes.

Whether you want to realize it or not, mistakes are a part of any such large military operation. Bad decisions are made. It happened in every war man has ever been in. Poor planning from all levels. Bad vision from the same. Battlefield faux pas. You name it. Mistakes are to be expected. Learn to deal with them.

 

[imported_Condor]

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 we give them about the same amount of time we gave Europe and Japan?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The worst mistake was going in to begin with.

Technically, you cannot say when you are going to leave, so you are careful about what you step in.

It has been mentioned that you cannot judge when to pull out based on body count. Well in Counter Strike, that's true, but at some point people look at the pile of dead and dismembered and ask if the situation was properly assesed to begin with, if the goals as initially stated were relevent to US interests, and if their value on one side of the scale outweighs the liabilities. It is which way the scales tip that determines the end of conflict.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The worst mistake was going in to begin with.

Technically, you cannot say when you are going to leave, so you are careful about what you step in.

It has been mentioned that you cannot judge when to pull out based on body count. Well in Counter Strike, that's true, but at some point people look at the pile of dead and dismembered and ask if the situation was properly assesed to begin with, if the goals as initially stated were relevent to US interests, and if their value on one side of the scale outweighs the liabilities. It is which way the scales tip that determines the end of conflict.

The worst mistake was not taking bin Laden out in the 90s.

But you know, that's the past and the decisions made cannot be changed. Neither can the decisions about Iraq be changed. So instead of whining about the past, people need to look to the present and the future and try to ensure that the decision we did make results in the best possible outcome.

The elections in Iraq have shown a ray of hopeful light. How about we work on reinforcing that ray and making it shine even brighter instead of trying to cast shadows on it or smother it?

 

[arsbanned]

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.

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.

I'm not arguing for an exit strategy, I'm trying to flesh out YOUR argument AGAINST having an exit stratgy.

I never claimed you were a Republican. ?

Originally posted by: 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:

That wasn't my intent. I'll leave the sharp sticks to you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

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.

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.

I'm not arguing for an exit strategy, I'm trying to flesh out YOUR argument AGAINST having an exit stratgy.

I never claimed you were a Republican. ?

Originally posted by: 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:

That wasn't my intent. I'll leave the sharp sticks to you.

The word was "schtick," not "stick." It was a purposeful pun.

There is and has been an exit strategy. It's to help set up an Iraqi government and train their troops to provide security for their country. After that we can begin to withdraw. Last Sunday saw that strategy taking form so there is progress being made.

Neither has anyone been arguing against an exit strategy. All those Republicans that you seem to detest want our troops back home every bit as bad as you do. The difference is that the Republicans don't seem as eager to sacrifice the future of an entire nation in the name of expediency.

Let me ask you this, Dan. If we withdrew all of our troops tomorrow, do you really think the insurgents in Iraq would take their ball and go home, happy and satisfied now that the US was now gone?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned

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.

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.

I'm not arguing for an exit strategy, I'm trying to flesh out YOUR argument AGAINST having an exit stratgy.

I never claimed you were a Republican. ?

Originally posted by: 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:

That wasn't my intent. I'll leave the sharp sticks to you.

The word was "schtick," not "stick." It was a purposeful pun.

There is and has been an exit strategy. It's to help set up an Iraqi government and train their troops to provide security for their country. After that we can begin to withdraw. Last Sunday saw that strategy taking form so there is progress being made.

Neither has anyone been arguing against an exit strategy. All those Republicans that you seem to detest want our troops back home every bit as bad as you do. The difference is that the Republicans don't seem as eager to sacrifice the future of an entire nation in the name of expediency.

Let me ask you this, Dan. If we withdrew all of our troops tomorrow, do you really think the insurgents in Iraq would take their ball and go home, happy and satisfied now that the US was now gone?

<crickets>

 

[Zebo]

I read the first line and knew it was BS propoganda. It's worng to attack others first, hitler tried it and look how he's remembered.. That was called a school-yard bully in my day...now it's called a republican. The moral imperitive is with the Iraqis not us.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I read the first line and knew it was BS propoganda. It's worng to attack others first, hitler tried it and look how he's remembered.. That was called a school-yard bully in my day...now it's called a republican. The moral imperitive is with the Iraqis not us.

I must have missed the part where Poland was under international sanctions and oppressed by a tyrant, and Hitler marched in to enforce those sanctions because they failed to comply with them Then Hitler removed the oppressive regime and began implementing democracy.

Could you kindly point me to that information because I surely missed it?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Zebo
I read the first line and knew it was BS propoganda. It's worng to attack others first, hitler tried it and look how he's remembered.. That was called a school-yard bully in my day...now it's called a republican. The moral imperitive is with the Iraqis not us.

I must have missed the part where Poland was under international sanctions and oppressed by a tyrant, and Hitler marched in to enforce those sanctions because they failed to comply with them Then Hitler removed the oppressive regime and began implementing democracy.

Could you kindly point me to that information because I surely missed it?

Hitler would say he was.. he lost so his story was never told. We will loose and in the muslim world out story will never be told.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Zebo
I read the first line and knew it was BS propoganda. It's worng to attack others first, hitler tried it and look how he's remembered.. That was called a school-yard bully in my day...now it's called a republican. The moral imperitive is with the Iraqis not us.

I must have missed the part where Poland was under international sanctions and oppressed by a tyrant, and Hitler marched in to enforce those sanctions because they failed to comply with them Then Hitler removed the oppressive regime and began implementing democracy.

Could you kindly point me to that information because I surely missed it?

Hitler would say he was.. he lost so his story was never told. We will loose and in the muslim world out story will never be told.

 

[Crimson]

Where's our exit strategy for Japan and Germany? Its only been 60 years now.