What ever happened to the "We'll Stand Down as the Stand Up" strategy

[DeadCanDance]

What ever happened to the "We'll Stand Down as they Stand Up" strategy, that Bush announced two (three?) years ago? I never even hear about that plan anymore. I think that was after the "just mopping up a few dead-enders" plan.

Are we still in the "New Way Forward" plan? Was that before the insurgents were in their last throes? Or is it just part of the "surge" plan?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What ever happened to the "We'll Stand Down as they Stand Up" strategy, that Bush announced two (three?) years ago? I never even hear about that plan anymore. I think that was after the "just mopping up a few dead-enders" plan.

Are we still in the "New Way Forward" plan? Was that before the insurgents were in their last throes? Or is it just part of the "surge" plan?

Are you kidding me? Are you so brainwashed by the liberal press you can actually make this statement with a straight face?

The plan all along has been to train the Iraqis to defend themselves AND it continues, with more and more control being given to them every month. Half the british contingent is out of a job because of this and new Battalions and Brigades come on line and are added to the "conflict" regularly.

 

[maineman]

Are you kidding me? Are you so brainwashed by the liberal press you can actually make this statement with a straight face?

The plan all along has been to train the Iraqis to defend themselves AND it continues, with more and more control being given to them every month. Half the british contingent is out of a job because of this and new Battalions and Brigades come on line and are added to the "conflict" regularly.

has the plan all along included giving armaments to non Iraqi military insurgents who up until a while ago were killing Americans simply because they "promise" to use those armaments against AQ?

I don't recall that being a part of the plan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

has the plan all along included giving armaments to non Iraqi military insurgents who up until a while ago were killing Americans simply because they "promise" to use those armaments against AQ?

I don't recall that being a part of the plan.

Let me see if I have this right.... Getting the locals to work for us is bad... BUT we should cow tow to Syria and Iran for help?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Are you kidding me? Are you so brainwashed by the liberal press you can actually make this statement with a straight face?

The plan all along has been to train the Iraqis to defend themselves AND it continues, with more and more control being given to them every month. Half the british contingent is out of a job because of this and new Battalions and Brigades come on line and are added to the "conflict" regularly.

But what happened to the "Stand Down" part of the plan? I mean, that was like half the plan: We'll STAND DOWN as they Stand Up.

We've been training them for almost 5 years. Why haven't any of our troops stood down? Why are we escalating the amount of our troops?

 

[maineman]

Let me see if I have this right.... Getting the locals to work for us is bad... BUT we should cow tow to Syria and Iran for help?

giving armaments to the locals who, the week before, were killing us seems like a good idea to you?

If a cell of Viet Cong who had been ruthlessly killing GI's came out of the jungle one day and promised to go back in and kill other VC if we only gave them weapons...would you have thought that was a good idea too?

And I have never suggested kowtowing to anyone. If we want to have a regional solution, it only seems reasonable to talk to the neighbors in the region.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But what happened to the "Stand Down" part of the plan? I mean, that was like half the plan: We'll STAND DOWN as they Stand Up.

We've been training them for almost 5 years. Why haven't any of our troops stood down? Why are we escalating the amount of our troops?

WE as in the USA are in the active regions, WE HAVE trained Brigades that do fight with us and alone. However they are not numerous enough or trained well enough yet for us to just leave. And the plan is for us to start drawing down soon.

 

[DeadCanDance]

WE as in the USA are in the active regions, WE HAVE trained Brigades that do fight with us and alone. However they are not numerous enough or trained well enough yet for us to just leave. And the plan is for us to start drawing down soon.

Okay, so five years later the "Stand Down" part of the plan hasn't worked.


" And the plan is for us to start drawing down soon"

When? I've heard Bush fans say this exact thing for the past three years, at least.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What part of the concept that this type of war takes YEARS to win do you NOT understand? Current General says he needs 10 years to do what we need to do and he only has 6 months. People like you haven't a clue about much do you?

 

[DeadCanDance]

What part of the concept that this type of war takes YEARS to win do you NOT understand? Current General says he needs 10 years to do what we need to do and he only has 6 months. People like you haven't a clue about much do you?

"What part of the concept that this type of war takes YEARS to win do you NOT understand?


"And the plan is for us to start drawing down soon""


Which is it? Can you make up your mind?

Is it "soon"?

Or, is it "years"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"What part of the concept that this type of war takes YEARS to win do you NOT understand?


"And the plan is for us to start drawing down soon""


Which is it? Can you make up your mind?

Is it "soon"?

Or, is it "years"

Are you to stupid to understand? We will start drawing down probably sooner then we should, but at the latest next year. We need to stay to finish the job, but wait I forgot, you types do not mind that millions of Iraqis may die if we leave before they are ready.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Are you to stupid to understand? We will start drawing down probably sooner then we should, but at the latest next year. We need to stay to finish the job, but wait I forgot, you types do not mind that millions of Iraqis may die if we leave before they are ready.

You were warned, before you and your president invaded, that this is what would happen: civil war and chaos. You should have listened.

You and bush should also have been honest in selling your war. You never told the american people it would be a years long war in iraq. You sold it as a relatively cheap and fast war, that would cost us practically nothing. Including the reconstruction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You were warned, before you and your president invaded, that this is what would happen: civil war and chaos. You should have listened.

You and bush should also have been honest in selling your war. You never told the american people it would be a years long war in iraq. You sold it as a relatively cheap and fast war, that would cost us practically nothing. Including the reconstruction.

Absolute hogwash. Bush Stated OVER AND OVER that the war on terror would take YEARS and we should not expect quick or easy victories.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Absolute hogwash. Bush Stated OVER AND OVER that the war on terror would take YEARS and we should not expect quick or easy victories.

I give this a D plus, for an effort at misdirecting.

You know I wasn't talking about the WOT. We were talking about Iraq. You and Bush sold it as a relatively cheap, quick, and easy victory. One that would cost the american taxpayer virtually nothing.

Thanks Bush.

 

[Gunny]

You were warned, before you and your president invaded, that this is what would happen: civil war and chaos. You should have listened.

You and bush should also have been honest in selling your war. You never told the american people it would be a years long war in iraq. You sold it as a relatively cheap and fast war, that would cost us practically nothing. Including the reconstruction.

One, he's your President to, so cut the crap.

Two, Bush stated from the beginning that this was going to take years, and anybody in their right mind would know with or without Bush that it was going to take years. I said at least a generation BEFORE the President opened his mouth.

That cheap, fast war crap is a product of liberal propaganda.

 

[Gunny]

I give this a D plus, for an effort at misdirecting.

You know I wasn't talking about the WOT. We were talking about Iraq. You and Bush sold it as a relatively cheap, quick, and easy victory. One that would cost the american taxpayer virtually nothing.

Thanks Bush.

The President includes Iraq in the WOT, so there is no attempted misdirection.

Again, nobody sold Iraq as cheap, quick or easy but you lefties.

 

[maineman]

missed this one, RGS?

giving armaments to the locals who, the week before, were killing us seems like a good idea to you?

If a cell of Viet Cong who had been ruthlessly killing GI's came out of the jungle one day and promised to go back in and kill other VC if we only gave them weapons...would you have thought that was a good idea too?

And I have never suggested kowtowing to anyone. If we want to have a regional solution, it only seems reasonable to talk to the neighbors in the region.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The President includes Iraq in the WOT, so there is no attempted misdirection.

Again, nobody sold Iraq as cheap, quick or easy but you lefties.

Suffering from amnesia? Or are you a willful participant in re-writing history?


Paul Wolfowitz, 2003: "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

 

[DeadCanDance]

Suffering from amnesia? Or are you a willful participant in re-writing history?


Paul Wolfowitz, 2003: "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Wolfowitz paints a rosy picture of post-invasion iraq:

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

 

[Gunny]

Suffering from amnesia? Or are you a willful participant in re-writing history?


Paul Wolfowitz, 2003: "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Let's break this down:

The President of the US says it's going to take a long time. Logic and common sense say it's going to take a long time. The reality of the situation says it's going to take a long time.

Wolfowitz blows something optomistic out his ass and it's gospel?

No, I'm neither suffering amnesia nor trying to rewrite history. From all appearance, I just seem to be far more knowledgeable on the topic thatn you. Probably because I don't listen to opeds blowing smoke.