• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gates considering next steps in Iraq

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I assume that most of you good people are able to read between the lines and, coupled with what I have been able to decipher from Defense Secretary Robert Gates latest testimony, is that in all probability, the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq, is not going to work as planned.

Thus, readying the American people for this shocking bit of news is the only sane conclusion I can derive from all this.

Am I correct? I wouldn't bet against me if I were you.








Gates considering next steps in Iraq - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Tuesday the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq is "not the last chance" to succeed and conceded he's considering what steps to take if the buildup doesn't work.

"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee...
 
I don't quite see it that way. You should always have a plan B and C when you're leading a war, it means nothing about how confident you are in plan A.

Also I think Bush's plan here is unfairly mislabeled "troop surge." We're not just throwing more people at the problem. The more important difference in strategy is that extra personnel will remain on the scene to keep the area secure, instead of moving on to the next only to have insurgents move back in behind them.
 
I don't quite see it that way. You should always have a plan B and C when you're leading a war, it means nothing about how confident you are in plan A.

Also I think Bush's plan here is unfairly mislabeled "troop surge." We're not just throwing more people at the problem. The more important difference in strategy is that extra personnel will remain on the scene to keep the area secure, instead of moving on to the next only to have insurgents move back in behind them.




Yes, but you don't hold news conferences to telegraph to the enemy that you have a plan B and plan C, just in case. Not very prudent I'd say.
 
I assume that most of you good people are able to read between the lines and, coupled with what I have been able to decipher from Defense Secretary Robert Gates latest testimony, is that in all probability, the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq, is not going to work as planned.

Thus, readying the American people for this shocking bit of news is the only sane conclusion I can derive from all this.

Am I correct? I wouldn't bet against me if I were you.

Gates considering next steps in Iraq - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Tuesday the increase in U.S. forces in Iraq is "not the last chance" to succeed and conceded he's considering what steps to take if the buildup doesn't work.

"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee...

Weren't you one of the people ripping Rumsfeld up one side and down the other because he said that he refused to consider other plans and only wanted to focus on the plan at hand?
 
Back
Top Bottom