Bush Finally Has a Plan...2 1/2 Years Too Late

[oldreliable67]

expat,

Sorry, that article is for Atlantic subscribers only. I have heard about it though, and have read bits and pieces that have been published elsewhere - and I find it unconvincing. Fallows has been a strong and vociferous Bush critic since Bush was Gov. I know this sounds like an ad hominem attack, and I guess it technically is, but honestly, Fallows is just not pragmatic, IMO. He can not see the realities for his biases, he does not demonstrate any objectivity at all. He is a complete one-way street. Kind of like the mirror image of Ann Coulter. :smile:

Now, admittedly, that doesn't mean that 100% of what he writes is wrong. But it does mean that anyone thinking critically will have to evaluate his writings very, very carefully. And frankly, given his history of bias, I don't think I want to take the time to do that! And I sure as h*** ain't gonna pay for it!

 

[argexpat]

You'd rather he flip back and forth on issues, or what? That he has remained consistant in his message is exactly what I like best about him.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson.

 

[argexpat]

expat,

Sorry, that article is for Atlantic subscribers only. I have heard about it though, and have read bits and pieces that have been published elsewhere - and I find it unconvincing. Fallows has been a strong and vociferous Bush critic since Bush was Gov. I know this sounds like an ad hominem attack, and I guess it technically is, but honestly, Fallows is just not pragmatic, IMO. He can not see the realities for his biases, he does not demonstrate any objectivity at all. He is a complete one-way street. Kind of like the mirror image of Ann Coulter. :smile:

Now, admittedly, that doesn't mean that 100% of what he writes is wrong. But it does mean that anyone thinking critically will have to evaluate his writings very, very carefully. And frankly, given his history of bias, I don't think I want to take the time to do that! And I sure as h*** ain't gonna pay for it!

Yes, this is an ad hominem. All writing should be evaluated critically. Whatever your opinion of James Fallows, the article contains objective information that can be verified by other sources.

Two points remain:

1. The "Iraqification" of the war is the only way out of Iraq and be able to claim any kind of victory.
2. The U.S. Military, due to plain logistics, cannot sustain the present effort beyond two more years, and---regardless of the condition of Iraq and despite political rhetoric to the contrary---will begin to withdraw troops within that time.

So the question is: Will we be able to train enough Iraqi troops to secure the country before the military's own logistical, "on the ground" timetable expires?

There is information coming from many sources that says no. If true, that would be the biggest blunder of all.

 

[argexpat]

Let me guess. You hate President Bush. And no matter whay he does or says, it isn't good enough. Is that about it?

Hey, KC, let's try a little experiment: Let's see if you can make an argument without using the word "hate" or "liberal." Just for fun!

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well we are still losing troops over there. In my opinion, the only way things are really going to change in Iraq is the complete removal of US forces in the area. I think it's naive to say we are "running away." I do believe there is a high possibility of a civil war in Iraq, and American troop presence in the area is just delaying the inevitable.

The "plan" that the President has is one of inaction. Stay for a while, "train" Iraqi troops, "fight" terrorism. They are great ideas, but we have been "training" troops for awhile, yet we are still required to hold the checkpoints with US troops, etc. SOMETHING else has to be done besides the status quo, because right now the status quo is the methodical picking off of our troops through guerilla warfare.

But iraqi forces are taking over large portions of the security and patrol requirments. If we leave running away is exactly what we are doing. Not to far behind that is disgracing and cheapening every soldier that died theres life.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Few people want to "cut and run". I am democrat and know quite well we cannot and should not leave Iraq. Though timetables are needed for the steps towards exit. Goals are great but if your goal doesnt have a deadline it is nothing but a nice goal to have.



His administration seemed to have not received that intel.

The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

Any quotes of the president saying that this should be an easy 1-2-3 battle. Are then anything other then statement saying that this will take time and we need to stick it out?

 

[argexpat]

But Iraqi forces are taking over large portions of the security and patrol requirements. If we leave running away is exactly what we are doing. Not to far behind that is disgracing and cheapening every soldier that died theres life.

Your appeals to emotion notwithstanding, the fact remains that cold military logistics will dictate when we leave Iraq, not Bush, and definitely not abstract ideas like 'disgrace."

The military will have to pull out of Iraq within the next two years regardless of what condition it's in or progress we've made, unless we institute a draft, which isn't going to happen. That's the reality of having an all-volunteer army.

So if our foreign policy is going to include the "Bush Doctrine"---namely poorly planned and unilateral preemptive warfare on multiple fronts followed by long occupations (aka "nation building") without the proper resources or manpower---then we'll have to bring back the draft and increase taxes to pay for the wars. That's how we fought WWII and Vietnam. Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

So debating withdrawal in the context of abstract emotions while ignoring the realities on the ground, as Bush does and you do here, is not only fallacious, but dangerous, as it threatens the very success of the mission. And that cheapens the death of our soldiers.

 

[oldreliable67]

expat,

the article contains objective information that can be verified by other sources.

I'm okay with taking your word for that. But given Fallow's historical record of a distinct lack of objectivity, I'm not going to buy the thing for his stuff.

1. The "Iraqification" of the war is the only way out of Iraq and be able to claim any kind of victory.

And I'm okay with that. Agreed. Public comments dating back to the beginning indicate that has been the plan all along.

2. The U.S. Military, due to plain logistics, cannot sustain the present effort beyond two more years, and---regardless of the condition of Iraq and despite political rhetoric to the contrary---will begin to withdraw troops within that time.

Here I disagree - in an absolute sense. Should it become the 'national will', we can certainly last much longer in Iraq. Basically, should we decide that it is sufficiently important, we can stay as long as we want. But it would have to become a demonstrated fact that we as a country were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. These would include drawing down additional troops from elsewhere (thereby possibly weakening our defense posture and committments), either cutting spending elsewhere or raising taxes to fund the effort, and other measures that would be quite unpopular in today's environment.

Make no mistake about it, should it become commensurately more important to our nation, such that the national will was committed to do so, the US military is entirely capable of staying in Iraq as long as need be. Hopefully, it will never, ever come to that.

Will we be able to train enough Iraqi troops to secure the country before the military's own logistical, "on the ground" timetable expires?

The pre-requisite to training enough Iraqi troops is having enough Iraqi troops to train. Should the prospect of democracy not appeal to the largely Muslim Iraqi population, they would not be joining the Iraqi military and police forces in the numbers that they are. But they are. They are voting with their lives. As their confidence that we are not going to abandon them (as we did previously) has increased (despite the hue and cry from certain sectors here in the US), more will join.

Clearly, we have made mistakes. We may well make more mistakes before we're out of Iraq. Wage is waged by men. Men make mistakes. The trick is to recognize them, overcome them and persevere.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Your appeals to emotion notwithstanding, the fact remains that cold military logistics will dictate when we leave Iraq, not Bush, and definitely not abstract ideas like 'disgrace."

The military will have to pull out of Iraq within the next two years regardless of what condition it's in or progress we've made, unless we institute a draft, which isn't going to happen. That's the reality of having an all-volunteer army.

So if our foriegn policy is going to include the "Bush Doctrine"---namely poorly planned premptive warfare followed by long occupations (aka "nation building") without the proper resourses or manpower---then we'll have to bring back the draft and increase taxes to pay for the wars. That's how we fought WWII and Vietnam. Anything else is a recipe for disaster.

So debating withdrawal in the context of abstract emotions while ignoring the realities on the ground, as Bush does and you do here, is not only fallacious but dangerous, as it threatens the very success of the mission. And that cheapens the death of our soldiers.

I don't think I used emotions to make a argument for early withdraw. What I did was simply state a fact as I see it. Has nothing to do with wether we stay or go. BUt it is a reality of what happens if we run away from iraq.

As far as two years goes do you have some kind of link or proof to back this up with? I have yet to hear that our military will be defunct in two years without a draft.

Exactly how many wars have been run on a timeline?

Exactly what kind of plan are you looking for. What exactly is it that you think is needed? What information do you think you should be privvy to.

The objective is the plan the specifics are not yours to know. What kind of specifics are you looking for?

 

[Gibberish]

Exactly how many wars have been run on a timeline?

Exactly what kind of plan are you looking for. What exactly is it that you think is needed? What information do you think you should be privvy to.

In my view you are mixing two seperate entities. I am asking why there are not deadlines on goals in establishing an Iraqi run democracy, and an Iraqi military to defend the newly created country. There cannot be timetables set on the war against the ideology of terrorism since such a thing cannot be knowingly defeated. Iraq will and should be established as a democracy and self-suffiecnt if or if not any success comes forth against terrorism.

The goal of Iraq becoming self-suffiecnt should not rely on the victory on terrorism. It is vice versa.

 

[Gibberish]

Any quotes of the president saying that this should be an easy 1-2-3 battle. Are then anything other then statement saying that this will take time and we need to stick it out?

Can you rephrase this? I do not understand what you are asking/stating.

 

[Iriemon]

Exactly how many wars have been run on a timeline?

About the same number of wars that the US started against a nation that did not attack or threaten us based on hugely erroneous misrepresentations.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

In my view you are mixing two seperate entities. I am asking why there are not deadlines on goals in establishing an Iraqi run democracy, and an Iraqi military to defend the newly created country. There cannot be timetables set on the war against the ideology of terrorism since such a thing cannot be knowingly defeated. Iraq will and should be established as a democracy and self-suffiecnt.

The goal of Iraq becoming self-suffiecnt should not rely on the victory on terrorism. It is vice versa.

Because I don't think it's possible to say that the military will be ready with a doubt on this day to take up all duties. Your building something that shifts and changes everyday. And your doing so in a middle of a war. I don't want to be there anymore then we have to, but I don't want some false timeline dictating rediness<sp>

If Iraq becomingself sufficient shouldn't rely on the victory over terrorism. You better damm sure there ready for defending there country against them once we leave.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

About the same number of wars that the US started against a nation that did not attack or threaten us based on hugely erroneous misrepresentations.

That would be what.......0

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Can you rephrase this? I do not understand what you are asking/stating.

You have 3 quotes of admin saying what there saying. Do you have anyof the president expressing an opinion that this is going to take no time or not be difficult

 

[oldreliable67]

increase taxes to pay for the wars. That's how we fought WWII and Vietnam

Not Vietnam. You don't recall, or if too young to remember, haven't read the 'guns and butter' debates from LBJ? LBJ decided that we were such a rich country that we could sustain the effort in Vietnam and simultaneously institute the massive 'Great Society' programs which called for massive increases in public welfare spending. It set the conditions for much of the economic dislocation of the late 70s and early 80s.

The military will have to pull out of Iraq within the next two years regardless of what condition it's in or progress we've made

That is quite a strong assertion, one that makes a lot of assumptions implicitly. First, your major assumption is appling the all-inclusive term 'military' to your pull-out-in-two-years-regardless assertion. Doing so ignores the likelihood of significant troop reductions (a 'partial' pullout, if you will) in early through mid 2006, especially if the Dec 15 elections go reasonably well.

Second, you assume that there is no possible change in the situation in Iraq in the coming two years that will beneficially impact on our ability to remain ('regardless of condition' and 'or progress we've made' comment). That seems to put quite an upper bound on the possibilities of the progress that we might make there. You're assuming that absolutely nothing could happen in any scenario that would be beneficial enough to the situation to ease the burden of our remaining longer than two years. Pretty pessimistic assumptions, but nothing if not consistent with the generally pessimistic tone of most of you remarks. (BTW, thats not a criticisim, just an observation. And I recognize that you would most likely reject 'pessimistic' in favor of 'realistic'.)

 

[Gibberish]

You have 3 quotes of admin saying what there saying. Do you have anyof the president expressing an opinion that this is going to take no time or not be difficult

That's irrelevant to the reasoning of posting the quotes. I stated right before the quotes, "His administration seemed to have not received that intel." Basically saying that if the President himself new it would take a long time or was going to be difficult he failed to share this intel with his Secetary of Defense and Vice-President. Which I would think that would be a big piece of intell to share, especially with the Secetary of Defense.

 

[argexpat]

Picture of the stage:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/images/20051130-2_p113005pm-0115jpg-515h.html

Why so many "Plan for Victory"? So just incase anyone forgot what they were there for. I it says it right on the banners so he must really have a plan right? I have never seen a President use so much propogranda and eye candy before.

I agree. The lady doth protest too much.

 

[argexpat]

Not Vietnam. You don't recall, or if too young to remember, haven't read the 'guns and butter' debates from LBJ? LBJ decided that we were such a rich country that we could sustain the effort in Vietnam and simultaneously institute the massive 'Great Society' programs which called for massive increases in public welfare spending. It set the conditions for much of the economic dislocation of the late 70s and early 80s.

OK, even better. Vietnam proves you can't fight wars and expect to win them without raising taxes and implementing a draft.

That is quite a strong assertion, one that makes a lot of assumptions implicitly. First, your major assumption is appling the all-inclusive term 'military' to your pull-out-in-two-years-regardless assertion. Doing so ignores the likelihood of significant troop reductions (a 'partial' pullout, if you will) in early through mid 2006, especially if the Dec 15 elections go reasonably well.

Yes, oldreliable67, I'm guilty of overgeneralizations, as is everyone on this website is. I don't have the time to articulate my arguments to the nth detail (and no one would read it anyway). My Clift's Notes version is that the military (i.e. the ground forces currently fighting in Iraq), for logistical reasons, will have to draw down and "redeploy" troop levels within the next two years, regardless of how many Iraqi forces are ready to "stand up."

For a far more detailed articulation of this scenario, please see this: http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/redeployment.pdf

Let's not forget that, contrary to Bush's strident utopian rhetoric, the war itself is based entirely on assumptions: namely that the U.S. military can spread democracy in the Middle East at the point of a gun. That's the Mt. Everest of assumptions.

Second, you assume that there is no possible change in the situation in Iraq in the coming two years that will beneficially impact on our ability to remain ('regardless of condition' and 'or progress we've made' comment). That seems to put quite an upper bound on the possibilities of the progress that we might make there. You're assuming that absolutely nothing could happen in any scenario that would be beneficial enough to the situation to ease the burden of our remaining longer than two years. Pretty pessimistic assumptions, but nothing if not consistent with the generally pessimistic tone of most of you remarks. (BTW, thats not a criticisim, just an observation. And I recognize that you would most likely reject 'pessimistic' in favor of 'realistic'.)

First, there are many in the military establishment and even in Iraq that believe it's our very presence there that is fueling the insurgency and actually preventing progress. Second, you've got this backwards: it's the goal of a "peaceful, prosperous, democratic" Iraq that is based on a Rube Goldbergian web of "optimistic" assumptions, which all must occur in a planets-aligning perfect storm of highly uncertain scenarios bordering on the miraculous.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof, and this is an extraordinary claim for which I have seen very little proof. Iraq's own history provides evidence to the contrary. Iraq is an artificial construct of British imperialism, carved out for the benefit of western powers, not Iraqis. They had poplularly elected leaders, but that didn't prevent the rise of Saddam. It could very well be that Iraq is ungovernable without an iron hand, like Yogoslavia. So, despite Bush's deluded certainty, the utopian fever dreams of the neo-cons, and the rosy predictions of Republicans, there's no guarantee that Iraq will not someday devolve into another threat to U.S. national security.

The truth is no one can predict exactly what will be the ultimate upshot of the Iraq war. It's a galactic leap of faith. And faith is not a plan. Ignoring this reality is the true threat to victory.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

That's irrelevant to the reasoning of posting the quotes. I stated right before the quotes, "His administration seemed to have not received that intel." Basically saying that if the President himself new it would take a long time or was going to be difficult he failed to share this intel with his Secetary of Defense and Vice-President. Which I would think that would be a big piece of intell to share, especially with the Secetary of Defense.

Can't answer for them, I can for me. And I remember hearing from the begining this was going to be a long process by the President.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Congratulations to President Draft-Dodging Chickenhawk for finally coming up with a "strategy for victory" in Iraq. (Note to President Dumbass: A good stratagy for victory is to have a strategy for victory before the war.)

Too bad this "strategy" is the same ol' rehashed "stay the course" blather he's been spewing for the last two years.

Stay what course? The course where you send in just enough troops to lose? Where you ignore pre-war military planning? Where you create a terrorist training ground where there was non before? Where you stretch our military to the breaking point because you thought we'd be "greeted as liberators" and declared "mission accomplished" two months into the war and so didn't plan for a drawn out occupation and bloody insurgency? Where you like to strut around in a flight suit proclaiming yourself commander-in-chief uttering dangerous inanities like "Bring it on!" yet you don't admit a single mistake let alone take resposibility for your egregious blunders? Stay that course?

God help our troops.

Has anyone actually read this thing?!
It's nothing but a big outline of promises and platitudes. It does have a pretty cover though. The main consultants on this document was a PR firm to use catch phrases that appeal to the Am,erican public.

This document is three years and 1000 lies too late - and the vast majority of the American people aren't buying this charade.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf

 

[KCConservative]

This document is three years and 1000 lies too late - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf

Wow, that means you have 1,000 pieces of evidence to provide.

 

[oldreliable67]

The truth is no one can predict exactly what will be the ultimate upshot of the Iraq war.

On that we can agree.

namely that the U.S. military can spread democracy in the Middle East at the point of a gun.

On this we have to disagree. It is not our intention to 'spread democracy at the point of a gun'. (BTW, thats a bit of a mangled metaphor, isn't it? Its derived from a saying attributed to Mao, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." - IIRC. Or the Americanized version from the Vietnam era, "Spreading democracy from the point of a bayonet".) But I digress...disagree with your statement in the sense that it suggests that we are somehow attempting to 'impose' democracy thru force of arms. Which seems a basic contradiction, which we both, I think, would agree is simply stupid. As the Pres has said, time and time again, our purpose is to facilitate, not impose. What ever happens down the road, after we're gone, will happen. We're giving the opportunity, what they make of it is up to them.

But, before we go, we've got to make sure that we have indeed given them that opportunity, that it hasn't been snatched away by former regime elements, radical Islamic elements or other groups trying to smash and grab for themselves. As nebulous as it is, it does seem to me that we are making some progress: we have established contact with at least some of the major 'domestic' insurgent groups, and they seem to be more willing to talk and participate in the political process than previously. I don't have the link at hand, but there is an article in Time on this subject; the article suggests a bit of progress in this regard.

Thats why a timetable based on events rather than the calendar makes a lot more sense.

 

[Gibberish]

Wow, that means you have 1,000 pieces of evidence to provide.

Here are a few to get started.

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators..." – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

"Saddam has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." - Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." – President Bush, 9/26/02

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." – President Bush, 1/28/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

"We know where the [WMD] are." - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, 9/25/02

 

[cnredd]

Here are a few to get started.

"blah,blah,blah....I hate Bush...yada,yada,yada..."

Now are all of those quote lies or are they simply wrong statements based on info given to them?...