Does the Bush Administration have a plan for the Iraq war? (1 Viewer)

[Hatuey]

Well...my opinion is they dont but thats just my opinion. Simply because the current administration is not willing to give a decisive awnser on wether or not we're winning or losing of if we're going to win or going to lose. It's like they're not even trying anymore. They're unable or unwilling to tell the American people whats going on and if they have control of the situation or are close to being in control of the situation.

U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time - washingtonpost.com

What do you think?

--------------------------------------

Can somebody add a poll?

Does the Bush Administration have a plan for the Iraq war?

Yes.

No.

I dont know.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Go to thread tools and add a poll..

 

[americanwoman]

YES Their plan is to pass it on to the next administration to clean up.

 

[Goobieman]

There has been a plan for quite some time published and easily accessible to the public.

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

To argue that the administration doesn't have a plan is dishonest at best.

A new version of this is to be released soon, and I suspect that it will look remarkably similar, with certain revisions.

Bush reports 'good progress' on new Iraq plan - CNN.com

 

[DeeJayH]

I did not vote because I hope it is the Military that has the plan
and that despite Bush saying we are 'Staying the course'
what that really meant was that The military would continue to do what they do best, wage war and adapt to the situation on the ground
Is it going well, NO
but that does not mean it is unwinnable
the last thing we need is another politically run war

 

[Hatuey]

There has been a plan for quite some time published and easily accessible to the public.

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

To argue that the administration doesn't have a plan is dishonest at best.

A new version of this is to be released soon, and I suspect that it will look remarkably similar, with certain revisions.

Bush reports 'good progress' on new Iraq plan - CNN.com

Thats not a plan Goobie

Did you even read it?

Our Strategy is Clear: We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing a comprehensive approach that involves the integrated efforts of the entire United States Government, the Iraqi government, and Coalition governments, and encourages the active involvement of the United Nations, other international organizations, and supportive regional states.
Our strategy involves three integrated tracks -- political, security, and economic -- each with separate objectives, but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists, and secure a new democratic state in Iraq.

Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
Help Iraqis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government
Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
Help Iraq Strengthen its Economy
Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
Increase International Support for Iraq
Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public Isolation of the Insurgents

This is our strategy? "Our plan"?:roll: Oh brother. Here we go for another 5 more years of this bs. Ok I'll play...I guess we're still on 1 after 3 years. That means that at this rate we'll be there for...1.2..OMG 27 years.

 

[MSgt]

The question demands an answer of yes. Of course there is a plan. ....and this is where it falls apart.

 

[Thales]

The question demands an answer of yes. Of course there is a plan. ....and this is where it falls apart.

Put all too well.

They have a plan. Later this month they will probably announce its next phaze - what is believed to be a "surge" of troops. I'm not sure how specific their plan is, but they definetely have one.

 

[disneydude]

Sure they have a plan its this:

"Together Forward"

"Freedom's on the march"

"marching to Victory"


oh...um.....wait.....I'm sorry.....those are just slogans created by the Adminstration's spin team. Wow....they almost fooled me into believing they had a PLAN.

Maybe Bush's new plan will be this:

"Sacrifice"

oh...wait.....another talking point.

 

[Goobieman]

Thats not a plan Goobie
Did you even read it?

I did.
What, exactly, do you think a "plan" consists of if not what is presented there?

This is our strategy? "Our plan"?:roll: Oh brother. Here we go for another 5 more years of this bs.

And the "plan" offered by Kerry in 2004?
The "plan" held by the Dems as they take power in Congress?

 

[MSgt]

Put all too well.

They have a plan. Later this month they will probably announce its next phaze - what is believed to be a "surge" of troops. I'm not sure how specific their plan is, but they definetely have one.

This "surge" isn't what people are expecting and it won't be enough to be effective. Unless we put another hundred thousand troops in Iraq, we are only deploying more troops as an illusion.

And we have to get away from this idea that we can deploy troops to a combat zone for six month stints. Our rationalizing of this is that we want our troops deployed and home to their families as quickly as possible. But this hurts the troops and the efforts in the long run. During the world war, did we deploy out troops and bring them home before the job was done? This hurt our efforts in Vietnam. We were there for ten years. Did we have ten years of experience there or did we have one year experience ten times? By deploying our troops to do a job that they have been trained very well to do and then pulling them out in favor of fresh faces who have to spend their time re-learning "the streets," we are guaranteeing that our troops are in more danger than they have to be and pro-longing this effort inside Iraq.

I have six months experience in Iraq in 2003. I went back and got 8 months experience of a different Iraq in 2004. My unit was replaced with a unit that had zero experience. What good is my experience to that fresh faced American just getting his boots dusty? Much of his time will be spent re-learning what I already learned.

Our occupations of the past (many of which we are still occupying) have come after we have convinced our enemy that he was defeated. We spared no savagery to spill his blood to ensure that peace would resume after the last American shot is fired. Everywhere we have been since the end of WWII, we have strived to maintain temporary occupations before our enemy was defeated. Korea was divided, Vietnam was a loss, and today we are committing the bare minimum and clinging to shortcuts in Iraq to satisfy a global media and their impatient subscribers.

We have to end our obsession with trying to win wars with the bare minimum and commit towards victory. As it stands, we are destined to give our enemies a false hope that if he fights long enough he will win as we stumble our way to the finish line.

 

[Gibberish]

Does Bush have a plan? Yes. Is it a real plan or just optimistic objectives? I think the latter.

As I have said before we should have went into Iraq with a strong fist (Martial law) and stayed strong until the new Iraq government had 100% control. As GySgt said, we should not be rotating soldiers every 6 months. It would have been seen as very aggressive to have such a strong military hold on Iraq but there would have been little room for insurgency and we would of had full control over all aspects or the country until the new democratic government and Iraqi military was trained.

There would have been none of this half training and waiting around to see if training is completed and anarchy in districts. I also belief we could have completed our goals by now.

Of course the potential disaster in this plan would be possible rebellion from the Iraqi's themselves if they didn't want our help.

I am by no means a military professional, these are just my opinions so take them as such.

 

[MSgt]

Does Bush have a plan? Yes. Is it a real plan or just optimistic objectives? I think the latter.

As I have said before we should have went into Iraq with a strong fist (Martial law) and stayed strong until the new Iraq government had 100% control. It would have been seen as very aggressive to have such a strong military hold on Iraq but there would have been little room for insurgency and we would of had full control over all aspects or the country until the new democratic government and Iraqi military was trained.

There would have been none of this half training and waiting around to see if training is completed and anarchy in districts. I also belief we could have completed our goals by now.

Of course the potential disaster in this plan would be possible rebellion from the Iraqi's themselves if they didn't want our help.

I am by no means a military professional, these are just my opinions so take them as such.

You're not off the mark. Every occupation, no matter how welcome it may be to the local populace, must begin with an immediate declaration of martial law. Martial Law serves humane, logical purposes. It reassures the population that despite the shocking upheaval they have witnessed the world remains orderly, with clear rules. The Global Left would cry about our efforts, but the worst crime is to allow disorder and chaos for fear of not being loved. Martial Law isn't permanent. It is temporary. And it doesn't mean that the innocent will suffer. It means that criminals or terrorists enjoy far less freedom to make the innocent suffer.

This is occupation 101 and our military was denied this tool for the sake of political appearances. After all, we wouldn't want the French to be able to decree us as oppressors rather than liberators. It's sad that we continue to look for our critics, who are determined to give us bad grades for breathing, to love us.

 

[DeeJayH]

This "surge" isn't what people are expecting and it won't be enough to be effective. Unless we put another hundred thousand troops in Iraq, we are only deploying more troops as an illusion.

And we have to get away from this idea that we can deploy troops to a combat zone for six month stints. Our rationalizing of this is that we want our troops deployed and home to their families as quickly as possible. But this hurts the troops and the efforts in the long run. During the world war, did we deploy out troops and bring them home before the job was done? This hurt our efforts in Vietnam. We were there for ten years. Did we have ten years of experience there or did we have one year experience ten times? By deploying our troops to do a job that they have been trained very well to do and then pulling them out in favor of fresh faces who have to spend their time re-learning "the streets," we are guaranteeing that our troops are in more danger than they have to be and pro-longing this effort inside Iraq.

I have six months experience in Iraq in 2003. I went back and got 8 months experience of a different Iraq in 2004. My unit was replaced with a unit that had zero experience. What good is my experience to that fresh faced American just getting his boots dusty? Much of his time will be spent re-learning what I already learned.

Our occupations of the past (many of which we are still occupying) have come after we have convinced our enemy that he was defeated. We spared no savagery to spill his blood to ensure that peace would resume after the last American shot is fired. Everywhere we have been since the end of WWII, we have strived to maintain temporary occupations before our enemy was defeated. Korea was divided, Vietnam was a loss, and today we are committing the bare minimum and clinging to shortcuts in Iraq to satisfy a global media and their impatient subscribers.

We have to end our obsession with trying to win wars with the bare minimum and commit towards victory. As it stands, we are destined to give our enemies a false hope that if he fights long enough he will win as we stumble our way to the finish line.

would you say we are currently using a gem hammer
when a sledge hammer is called for

I do believe we have been to restrained in this war for Page Ranking purposes
and that is no way to win a war, in this civilians mind

 

[Hatuey]

I did.
What, exactly, do you think a "plan" consists of if not what is presented there?

An Action plan. Not wishful thinking.

And the "plan" offered by Kerry in 2004?

When in fear call out Kerry or Clinton. What about Kerry's plan sugarplum?

The "plan" held by the Democrats as they take power in Congress?

You mean remove the troops from Iraq? Sure as **** more helpful then having our soldiers babysit the Iraqis while they blow eachother up.

 

[Iriemon]

You're not off the mark. Every occupation, no matter how welcome it may be to the local populace, must begin with an immediate declaration of martial law. Martial Law serves humane, logical purposes. It reassures the population that despite the shocking upheaval they have witnessed the world remains orderly, with clear rules. The Global Left would cry about our efforts, but the worst crime is to allow disorder and chaos for fear of not being loved. Martial Law isn't permanent. It is temporary. And it doesn't mean that the innocent will suffer. It means that criminals or terrorists enjoy far less freedom to make the innocent suffer.

This is occupation 101 and our military was denied this tool for the sake of political appearances. After all, we wouldn't want the French to be able to decree us as oppressors rather than liberators. It's sad that we continue to look for our critics, who are determined to give us bad grades for breathing, to love us.

And ya reckon everything would have turned out differently in Iraq if only military would have done this, eh?

And you figure it is because of politics as to why our leaders didn't employ these simple strategies that would have made our invasion and occupation of Iraq so hunky dory. So somehow, these leaders figured out a way to make up reasons to invade Iraq, bomb the crap out it, destroy their army and half of Bahgdad, yet when it came to "occupation 101" and instituting martial law they just ******d out because of politics. Amazing.

 

[Goobieman]

An Action plan. Not wishful thinking.

And how is what's presented not an action plan?

When in fear call out Kerry or Clinton. What about Kerry's plan sugarplum?

So, you don't know what Kerry's plan was.. and you voted for him?
I guess you shouldn't feel bad - Kerry didn't know what his plan was and he votred for him, too.

You mean remove the troops from Iraq? Sure as **** more helpful then having our soldiers babysit the Iraqis while they blow eachother up.

I see. So "leave" is a plan, whereas what was presented is not.:roll:
Tell me: Whats the Dem plan for dealing with the consequences of leaving?

 

[MSgt]

And ya reckon everything would have turned out differently in Iraq if only military would have done this, eh?

And you figure it is because of politics as to why our leaders didn't employ these simple strategies that would have made our invasion and occupation of Iraq so hunky dory.

And this is why your ignorance is so well known. Nobody said anything about martial law being "honkey dory" or that it would produce perfection. It is simply a step taken in most every successful war in history that was denied in 2003.

So somehow, these leaders figured out a way to make up reasons to invade Iraq, bomb the crap out it, destroy their army and half of Bahgdad, yet when it came to "occupation 101" and instituting martial law they just ******d out because of politics. Amazing.

Worthless. Study more. Whining about what got us into Iraq has nothing to do with what we are to do in Iraq today.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

There have been several shifts in the President's top Security leadership this morning, as he prepares to announce improved strategies. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Cremaster77]

We have to end our obsession with trying to win wars with the bare minimum and commit towards victory. As it stands, we are destined to give our enemies a false hope that if he fights long enough he will win as we stumble our way to the finish line.

You're exactly right on this point. Which is why a draft may be necessary. As soon as the subject is brought up, you're accused of "fear-mongering" to weaken support for the war. But the truth is, if you think the war is winnable from a military standpoint, you need a lot more boots on the ground. Those boots have to come from somewhere, and given other military commitments around the world, it's questionable whether the manpower exists in an all volunteer army to provide enough troops to get the job done. If you really believe that this war will determine the future of our country and that we'll be attacked from all sides in the US if Iraq fails, then isn't it everyone's duty to ante up for the fight, and not just those who volunteer? Why are most supporters of the war so strongly against the possibility of a draft?

 

[dragonslayer]

Does it really matter how many more Iraqis and US troops that he want to kill?

The American People voted, and want our troops out of Iraq.

 

[Goobieman]

Does it really matter how many more Iraqis and US troops that he want to kill?
The American People voted, and want our troops out of Iraq.

What's the Dem plan for pulling out of Iraq?
What's the Dem plan plan for dealing with the consequences of pulling out of Iraq?

 

[DeeJayH]

The American People voted, and want our troops out of Iraq.

not sure where you voted
but that was not an option on my ballot

 

[Iriemon]

And this is why your ignorance is so well known. Nobody said anything about martial law being "honkey dory" or that it would produce perfection. It is simply a step taken in most every successful war in history that was denied in 2003.

Worthless. Study more. Whining about what got us into Iraq has nothing to do with what we are to do in Iraq today.

Pretty good indication of the merits of the position when personal insult is the response ...

The US could have imposed martial law from day one and it would have made no difference. Just defending neocon myth.

 

[nort_12345]

obviously the bush administation doesn't have a plan. we have gotten nothing done in iraq and now bush says that he is coming up w/ a new plan or something. thanks moron, we've gottne nothing done and only been in the war for over 3 years and now you have a new plan?