Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

ehBeth wrote:

... we can expect to see U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for another 50 or 60 years then ...

Most likely. The US will have a strategic presence in The Gulf/Middle East region for generations to come. Nothin' surprisin' about that. No secret there at all.

0 Replies

The question is "why?"

0 Replies

Quote:

While our military strategy is adapting to circumstances, our commitment remains firm and unchanging. We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come. We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned.

link

Many people in service do not realize that they will be retired, and their children will be retired before this comes to pass.

Always interesting to see posters struggling to explain why American bases are being built in the region.

0 Replies

Since we had no plan or strategy for the occupation it follows that we would not have an exit policy. Embarrassed

Planning ahead does not seem to be the Pentagons strong suite. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Since we had no plan or strategy for the occupation it follows that we would not have an exit policy. Planning ahead does not seem to be the Pentagons strong suite.

i believe that the pentagon has the experience and the drive to do things right, but that they are continuously hampered by the politicians, bureaucrats and the lobbyists pulling strings for their own benefit.

if what you mean is that the pentagon may have a firm plan on how to withdraw, but that they're prohibited from setting any one plan in place as the policy for exit, i'd agree with that.

0 Replies

No just being facetious. There can be no firm exit policy. And by that I mean time or date. It depends on developments. We cannot leave until the new government can defend it's yet to be written constitution and nation. Nor do I believe will we be asked to. As for the occupation we invaded with a plan of attack but none of occupation. And that cost us dearly in manpower, dead and wounded and Treasury

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

No just being facetious. There can be no firm exit policy. And by that I mean time or date. It depends on developments. We cannot leave until the new government can defend it's yet to be written constitution and nation. Nor do I believe will we be asked to. As for the occupation we invaded with a plan of attack but none of occupation. And that cost us dearly in manpower, dead and wounded and Treasury

that's the problem with going off half cocked. i don't blame the military for that, i blame the goat roper from crawford, and by extension, the members of congress that let him do it.

0 Replies

Another couple of questions come to mind. These people might be ideologues but they aren't stupid. They didn't sort of forget to have an Exit Plan, they aren't that stupid.

There was no Exit Plan. There is no Exit Plan. This is the Bushii version of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution.

0 Replies

No one is blaming the military. The blame rests with our leaders. The pentagon is run by the little Caesar Rumsfeld. The failure is his and the commissar in the White House

0 Replies

Yes, Goodfielder, they are that stupid. Au's point is well taken--the standard ploy of the right wing zealot is to accuse any critics of the administration's military policies of failing to "support our troops"--playing the unpatriotic card did not work, so now criticism is met by an accusation of not carring about the common foot soldier. God the conservatives make me ill.

0 Replies

I take those points. But for the life of me - and I'm not being stubborn for the sake of it, nor being deliberately disingenuous as a debating tactic - I just don't think that Rummy or anyone else could be so dumb as not to have an Exit Strategy. I might vehemently disagree with Rummy and his style of doing things (as if he's worried) but I know the man is definitely no fool. Hubris perhaps, ignorance and stupidity, no.

It's an outside chance that hubris played a part in their not bothering to formulate an Exit Plan. But I doubt it. I doubt if an Exit Plan was seriously considered because there is (drum roll for the Sartre-like reference) No Exit. They never intended to leave, so no need for an Exit Plan.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

(drum roll for the Sartre-like reference) No Exit. They never intended to leave, so no need for an Exit Plan.

preeeeeeecisely

0 Replies

yooooo...mmmeeeaaannnn.....(???)

it was a... set upppp ???

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Mystery Man, you mean like Viet Nam and Korea? Oh yeah, that sure strums the strings of my patriotism.

BTW, Brandon, we did not choose to enter WWII, Pearl Harbour did that for us. But Iraq was a calculated war of choice. There an exit plan was very appropriate.

What an imperceptive post. I guess the idea is that if I say anything about WW2 whatever, then you feel you can respond with anything about WW2 whatever, regardless of its irrelevance to the point being made. Whether we entered by choice or not may be relevant to many things, but certainly not to the point I made, which was that if a war accomplishes purposes we feel are important, then exit strategy is far less important than doing the job properly. Even a large, long, complex war with many setbacks like WW2 is time well spent if it is necessary. Whether this war was necessary or not is not relevant to this particular point either. To enter every war with how to get out foremost in mind is foolish, and counterproductive.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Since we had no plan or strategy for the occupation it follows that we would not have an exit policy. Planning ahead does not seem to be the Pentagons strong suite.

I think the planning ahead was not to have the West crippled by WMD use in its cities. That is kind of important.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I doubt if an Exit Plan was seriously considered because there is (drum roll for the Sartre-like reference) No Exit. They never intended to leave, so no need for an Exit Plan.

What was the exit plan for WW2, and if we didn't have one, why not? Hmmmm.....hard one.....could it be because accomplishing the mission was considered the paramount concern?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

yooooo...mmmeeeaaannnn.....(???)

it was a... set upppp ???

Even now, years after invasion, your analysis changes every five minutes. Not a usual characteristic of people who understand what they are looking at.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
yooooo...mmmeeeaaannnn.....(???)

it was a... set upppp ???

Even now, years after invasion, your analysis changes every five minutes. Not a usual characteristic of people who understand what they are looking at.

my "analysis", as you say, has never changed. i thought bush was trying to pull a fast one to start with, thought that through out his ever changinging litany of reasons to invade, and think that now, during his ever changing rationalizations for having done so.

i told you this in another post. no matter how many pounds of bull$hit i find to be the great dubya too be, it's happening and it needs to have a proper finish. the difference here is, i want that for the sake of america's honorable future. you only seem to care about propping up the the honor of the puppet from crawford.

but that's okay. keep questioning my integrity and intelligence. i'll be glad to give you the same back.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
I doubt if an Exit Plan was seriously considered because there is (drum roll for the Sartre-like reference) No Exit. They never intended to leave, so no need for an Exit Plan.

What was the exit plan for WW2, and if we didn't have one, why not? Hmmmm.....hard one.....could it be because accomplishing the mission was considered the paramount concern?

There are so many differences as to render the comparison worthless Brandon.

0 Replies

Goodfielder's point is well taken, there are no meaningful corollaries . . . this after all is a case of aggression by the United States, and not a war of self-defense.

That being said, the exit strategy of Dubya-Dubya Two was to defeat the opponent, impose terms, and come home. This we accomplished in under five years, and on a global scale.

0 Replies

Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know