Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

The defense secretary, whose visit wasn't disclosed until his arrival for security reasons, praised U.S. soldiers and told them that they'll earn their place in history for fighting ``a war where victory depends not only on military successes but on reconstruction and civil affairs.''

Rumsfeld's ninth visit to Iraq since the 2003 invasion came as the U.S. military hopes to cut troop numbers there next year, as long as Iraqi security forces continue to improve.

Quote:

The defense secretary, whose visit wasn't disclosed until his arrival for security reasons, praised U.S. soldiers and told them that they'll earn their place in history for fighting ``a war where victory depends not only on military successes but on reconstruction and civil affairs.''

Well he couldn't say it was a catastrophic success to rid the nation of WMDs, or the threat of Saddam starting WW3, or to democratise the Middle East, or to stop terrorism, or because the Bush Administration believes in the 'mission of the United Nations', to protect Iraqis from agression or torture or abuse or civil war or starvation, or to even bring down the cost of oil - BECAUSE IT FRIGGIN' DIDN'T!!

Remember when Republicans demanded that Clinton set an "exit strategy" for American troops to leave the Balkans? Well, the U.S. occupation of Iraq looks open-ended.

Bush's pledge to avoid nation building came during a debate with Democrat Al Gore at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Oct. 11, 2000. It was their second debate of the election campaign.

At that debate Bush recalled that the U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President George H.W. Bush -- had "changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong."

He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were soon withdrawn from Somalia.

"The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price," Bush continued. "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."

Bush declared that it was up to those who live in the liberated lands to rebuild them.

He added the Bush administration, if he was elected, would "absolutely not" indulge in nation planning. And so we launch another round of nation building in Iraq, even as the Bush administration struggles to rebuild a nation in Afghanistan.

Maybe he has forgotten, but Bush also pledged during the same debate to be "humble" in his foreign policy and not appear to be throwing our superpower weight around.

As the U.S. attack on Iraq shows, it's difficult being humble. When the United States could not get its way before the U.N. Security Council, Bush barged ahead on his own, careful to at least pay lip service to British Prime Minister Tony Blair so that the White House could always been seen to be acting in the name of a "coalition," such as it was.

No matter how the president's foreign policy is viewed by Americans or others around the world, the word "humble" couldn't possibly fit.

Back in 2000, when he was seeking office, it was a different Bush. During the Wake Forest debate, Bush declared: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Those sound like words to live by.

In any case, admitting that there the U.S. has no exit strategy for Iraq is going to distress a few parents, and others who love people who they didn't think would be staying in Iraq/going to Iraq.

That always has an effect on voting patterns.

In any case, admitting that there the U.S. has no exit strategy for Iraq is going to distress a few parents, and others who love people who they didn't think would be staying in Iraq/going to Iraq.

That always has an effect on voting patterns.

"The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price," Bush continued. "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."

Bush declared that it was up to those who live in the liberated lands to rebuild them.

He added the Bush administration, if he was elected, would "absolutely not" indulge in nation planning. And so we launch another round of nation building in Iraq, even as the Bush administration struggles to rebuild a nation in Afghanistan.

Maybe he has forgotten, but Bush also pledged during the same debate to be "humble" in his foreign policy and not appear to be throwing our superpower weight around.

As the U.S. attack on Iraq shows, it's difficult being humble. When the United States could not get its way before the U.N. Security Council, Bush barged ahead on his own, careful to at least pay lip service to British Prime Minister Tony Blair so that the White House could always been seen to be acting in the name of a "coalition," such as it was.

No matter how the president's foreign policy is viewed by Americans or others around the world, the word "humble" couldn't possibly fit.

Back in 2000, when he was seeking office, it was a different Bush. During the Wake Forest debate, Bush declared: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, they'll respect us."

Those sound like words to live by.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/2117601/detail.html

Any country that starts a war under false pretenses is probably destined to not play much of a role in future history. Afterall, we just don't have the military might or the troops to take over the world.