Exit Strategy?

[st8_o_mind]

I got the quote below from the net, they are not my words, but they seem like relevent questions that should have been answered before the war. It also seems, judging by the press conference, questions that Bush can't answer today.


"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

 

[jimnyc]

I believe the general elections will decide most of those questions. The US assisted them in setting up an interim government, the general elections will decide where it goes from there.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I got the quote below from the net, they are not my words, but they seem like relevent questions that should have been answered before the war. It also seems, judging by the press conference, questions that Bush can't answer today.


"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

All questions that have been decided and are now being adjusted as squirmishes continue. A government has always been planned on being run by "Iraqis". Whatever the Iraqis decide on in the General Election is what will be decided for IRaq. We'll hold their hands but we're not going to tell them what to do or what government to live under.

As for the Armed Forces being there, Bush has made it clear that we will be there as long as is needed for Iraq to become a self governing nation and not a day longer. If that means months, then so be it. If it means years then so be it.

Its not fair to say he doesnt have a plan when his plan has been working rather well. Consider that we have gone in, eleiminated the former regime, rounded up all but minor insurgent forces, set up the preliminary structure for a government run by the Iraqi people, set up standard institutions such as Schools and hospitals and have allowed them to be relatively unharmed in a majority of the country. All this in alittle over a year. That sounds like a pretty damn good plan to me.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I believe the general elections will decide most of those questions. The US assisted them in setting up an interim government, the general elections will decide where it goes from there.

The election, if it is seen as credible by the majority of Iraqi's will help but will not likely dictate US policy. I doubt a shia regime (back by Iran?) will be acceptable to the US and the Shea are the majority. But the questions remains, will the government be seen as credible by the Iraqi's and more important, what will happen when we leave.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein

Its not fair to say he doesnt have a plan when his plan has been working rather well. Consider that we have gone in, eleiminated the former regime, rounded up all but minor insurgent forces, set up the preliminary structure for a government run by the Iraqi people, set up standard institutions such as Schools and hospitals and have allowed them to be relatively unharmed in a majority of the country. All this in alittle over a year. That sounds like a pretty damn good plan to me.

Define "working rather well" and "relatively unharmed." When all is said and done we can total the body count(innocent casualties of war an soldiers alike) and then add to it the resentment of the United States by the Arab world and we'll have a much better idea of how good his exit strategy was/is.

I'd say he got more than he bargained for.
But that's me.
And I am of the opinion that OVERALL, the important thing is not that we invaded Baghdad(that may have been inevitable) but how we did it.

I don't know how accurate it is to say that it is going "pretty well." Hundreds of American lives have been lost, thousands of Iraqis. As of now 20 foreign nationals are suspected kidnapped. An Israeli and an Italian journalist have been subjected to televised executions. American soldiers have had there bodies mutilated and dragged threough the streets. The streets of Iraq ARE NOT safe. And as we speak a radical cleric is planning more and more attacks against our troops and interests.

I'm rambling....

But I think it will take a decade or two to truly estimate the totality of this war and it's implications...

 

[Survalli]

i believe we have an exit strategy that basically has us running away with our tails between our legs...while our new Iraqi transitional government hides in their new seats of government.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The election, if it is seen as credible by the majority of Iraqi's will help but will not likely dictate US policy. I doubt a shia regime (back by Iran?) will be acceptable to the US and the Shea are the majority. But the questions remains, will the government be seen as credible by the Iraqi's and more important, what will happen when we leave.

The assumption you make is that we will in fact leave.

Notice how how could have easily asked the same questions after our occupation of Japan and Germany. Or wondered how things would turn out once our basing among allies like South Korea or the Phillipeans ended.

The fact is we haven't really abandoned any of these, at all, have we?


As long as the American have the will to advance the new Iraqi freedoms, and remain committed as we have done in all these prior endevours, unless you are racist at heart, Iraq will prosper as have all our other allies under our protection.

And in all these prior cases in now liberally democratic nations, our withdrawal is now more of a threat from us, rather than a demand from them.


I doubt we will ever really "leave" Iraq, as long as they need and want us to remain.

 

[NightTrain]

Well said, Comrade.

 

[alan1234567890]

are we soposed to leave the troops thier for ever who else are we going to attack on terror cuba i think this is insane

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
are we soposed to leave the troops thier for ever who else are we going to attack on terror cuba i think this is insane

Hopefully we'll abuse Syria next. I don't like their attitude.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Hopefully we'll abuse Syria next. I don't like their attitude.

And maybe a little good ole fashioned CIA regime tampering in Iran. :

 

[alan1234567890]

i dont know why anybody wants to heart the whole world. you know what goes around comes around.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
i dont know why anybody wants to heart the whole world. you know what goes around comes around.

I agree, the terrorists are now getting what comes around.

 

[alan1234567890]

dont you see we attacked iraq one mans terrorrist is another mans freedom fighter. and what about oklahoma city. that was a terrorist act. if we fight every terrorist this war will go on forever. thier is no right answer here.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
dont you see we attacked iraq one mans terrorrist is another mans freedom fighter. and what about oklahoma city. that was a terrorist act. if we fight every terrorist this war will go on forever. thier is no right answer here.

No. Eventually they'll all be dead.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? How sad to be lost in your endless meaningless sea of moral relativism.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
dont you see we attacked iraq one mans terrorrist is another mans freedom fighter. and what about oklahoma city. that was a terrorist act. if we fight every terrorist this war will go on forever. thier is no right answer here.

What about Oklahoma City?

Timothy McVeigh was executed by the state, and the bastard is now dead.


In your Utopia I see now that the few who are capable of murder based on their minority agenda will dominate the majority.

Your kind of politics differs little from Saddam's Iraq, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, Germany's Third Riech, or countless other regimes based on fear and violence.

What you should comprehend is this current insurgency in Iraq is based on a very small minority of it's people.

What it sounds like to me, is that you are willing to hand the new government over to whoever is the most violent, murderous, anti-American movement in that country.

Which of course makes me ill, knowing you are probably of voting age.

 

[alan1234567890]

everybody keeps comparing hitler with hosain. we attacked saddam because of suposed weapons of mass destruction. this still hasnt been proven. the iraqi people do not want us in thier country. i beleive the longer we fight the more attacks will come. we act like were the baddest but i think on the contrary. bush just wanted to finish what his dad started. that is bushes hidden ajenda. why else whould he lie.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by alan1234567890
everybody keeps comparing hitler with hosain. we attacked saddam because of suposed weapons of mass destruction. this still hasnt been proven. i beleive the longer we fight the more attacks will come. we act like were the baddest but i think on the contrary. bush just wanted to finish what his dad started. that is bushes hidden ajenda. why else whould he lie.

Wheres your eveidence for "the iraqi people do not want us in thier country?" Every soldier that has returned home or sent letters to family members has said that they have received nothing but support from a majority of Iraqis. Similar to the French and other European Nations when they were liberated from Nazi Occupation in WW2.

Why would Bush want to "finish what his dad started" if it wasnt in the best interest for our country? A free Iraq distabilizes the terrorists in that region. It disconnects their networks and with Freedom at people's grasp, they no longer have to live in fear.

You my friend have no original thoughts. You might as well rename yourself to "Democratic One-Liner Box". Next thing you'll start spouting that "Bush is a Cowboy" and "Haliburton is Evil" or everyone's favorite oldie, "No War for Oil".

Bring something original to the table next time or continue to be an irrelevant, mindless puppet.