More Troops? Exit Strategy?

[st8_o_mind]

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) released a statement that includes:

"Now, after a year of continued strife in Iraq, comes word that the commander of forces in the region is seeking options to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground if necessary. Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development."

In this statement Byrd calls for an exit strategy from Iraq writing: "

When speaking of Iraq, the President maintains that his resolve is firm, and indeed the stakes for him are enormous. But the stakes are also enormous for the men and women who are serving in Iraq, and who are waiting and praying for the day that they will be able to return home to their families, their ranks painfully diminished but their mission fulfilled with honor and dignity. The President sent these men and women into Iraq, and it is his responsibility to develop a strategy to extricate them from that troubled country before their losses become intolerable."

Question: Is Bush following the footsteps of Kennedy and Johnson in 1) slowly escalating the military campaign without a strategy (mission creep) and 2) allowing domestic politics (June 30th deadline) to dictate the terms of the military campaign.



Full text of Byrd statement can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0407-15.htm

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind


Question: Is Bush following the footsteps of Kennedy and Johnson in 1) slowly escalating the military campaign without a strategy (mission creep) and 2) allowing domestic politics (June 30th deadline) to dictate the terms of the military campaign.

1: Once we commited to invade, what difference would it have made if we deployed 100,000 or 400,000 troops? I don't ask this in the military strategy sense, rather the PR/politico sense. For the amount of shit we've been getting from the leftists and apologists it doesn't make sense that Bush would have put a limit to the # of boots on the ground. As an aside, if you saw Rummy this afternoon, he mentioned that we are actually in the middle of a troop rotation. So it's unclear how many troops are actually there right now. Any thing is possible but I find this highly unlikely.


2: At this point no one is going to admit whether or not the transition date would change. To do so now would give the enemy the idea that they may actually get some where.

The whole Vietnam comparison is getting kinda old. These are 2 totally different wars with 2 totally different goals.

 

[OCA]

Tell KKK Bob that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. The guy is a freaking Grand Dragon dinosaur!

 

[gaffer]

There is no exit strategy. We exit when its over. Exit strategies are for those that plan to lose.

As for byrd. He's a foolish old kkk man that should have retired years ago.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
2) allowing domestic politics (June 30th deadline) to dictate the terms of the military campaign.

Brig. Gen. Kimmitt stated, either today or yesterday, that the June 30th deadline had nothing to do with military operations. He further said that no one ever said or implied that June 30th was some sort of pull-out date. Military troops will remain for some time, and as long as they are needed he said.

So, to answer that question, no.

1) slowly escalating the military campaign without a strategy

It would be pretty poor strategy not to escalate when escalation was required wouldn't it? That being said, though Rumsfield has unequivocally stated that any troops needed will be sent, I don't recall hearing anyone ask for more. Do you? So, that's another no.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by gaffer
There is no exit strategy. We exit when its over. Exit strategies are for those that plan to lose.

As for byrd. He's a foolish old kkk man that should have retired years ago.

You may want to read up a bit on the "Powell Doctrine." I pulled the following from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html


After the end of Persian Gulf War in 1991, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outlined his vision for efficient and decisive military action. His plan is now referred to as the Powell Doctrine, although there is not an actual formal document named as such. Powell, currently the U.S. secretary of state, has recently invoked the Doctrine in articulating the justifications for the Bush administration's preparations for war in Iraq. Essentially, the Doctrine expresses that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

Powell based this strategy for warfare in part on the views held by his former boss in the Reagan administration, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and also on his own experience as a major in Vietnam. That protracted campaign, in Powell's view, was representative of a war in which public support was flimsy, the military objectives were not clear, overwhelming force was not used consistently, and an exit strategy was ill defined.

 

[jeffperkinstech]

Under my Government ONE plan, there would be no exit stratagy. If you are the enemy that moved US to make war with you, I would have you. You would be ours to do with as we will. This would mean being a new territory for US and who knows, if we find you valuable enough and we rotate enough of our citizens inside your old country with enough of yours into ours, after a time it could even be a new state. TO THE SPOILS OF WAR, GENTILEMEN!

 

[gaffer]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
You may want to read up a bit on the "Powell Doctrine." I pulled the following from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/powelldoctrine_short.html

The gaffer doctrine simply stated is, if you are a threat to the USA we will invade and take over. We will leave when the job is finished. To do otherwise is to go in with the intent of losing.

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by gaffer
There is no exit strategy. We exit when its over. Exit strategies are for those that plan to lose.

As for byrd. He's a foolish old kkk man that should have retired years ago.

I agree.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jeffperkinstech
Under my Government ONE plan, there would be no exit stratagy.

Are you running for office? That's about the fifth post today where you mentioned your government ONE plan.