• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

No time table for Iraq

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So in Bush's speech today he basically said there will be no time table and that we should 'stay the course'. That there are more Iraqi's joining the military but that they lack the knowledge on how to fight. Also that there should be no artificial time table, Iraq have all the time in the world to grow and train, we will stay as long as needed even if that is 5, 10, or 20 years from now.

So basically Bush knows that you cannot fight an ideology, which is why he cannot give timetables. He doesn't want to look stupid when there is no bombing for six months, we start pulling out and they start bombing again. There is completely no way in knowing if the terrorists are defeated or not.

I would like to read the 35-page White House document titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130...AtqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Last edited:

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Moved? This was to be a discussion on the Presidents speech he gave just an hour ago. I thought that qualified as today's news?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
I would like to read the 35-page White House document titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."
Here ya go:

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5956#part1

I especially like this part:

OUR STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IS CLEAR

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.

The Political Track
(Isolate, Engage, Build)

Objective: To help the Iraqi people forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic government, thereby isolating enemy elements from the broader public.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate hardened enemy elements from those who can be won over to a peaceful political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in a viable, democratic Iraq.
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of peaceful participation.
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track
(Clear, Hold, Build)

Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.
Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track
(Restore, Reform, Build)

Objective: To assist the Iraqi government in establishing the foundations for a sound economy with the capacity to deliver essential services.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure so it can meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy.
Reform Iraq's economy, which has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future.
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.


This is spelled out as specifically as can be. There will not be a 'time table', Gibberish. Why would we give al-jazeera, al-quida and the rest of the world a time table. That would not be smart warfare..
 
Last edited:

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
Thanks for the link. I agree with the document overall and think it touches the same goals a majority of Americans want to see in Iraqi.

I hoped this document would take a more aggressive stance then it did. By our leaders being so passive with no deadlines they are giving the idea that there are factors out of their control that can and most likely will stop certain goals from being reached.

This is just my view though, I really believe in taking full control and full responsibilites in all aspects of your actions. There should be no room to play the blame game. We took it upon ourselves to overturn Saddam and we owe it to Iraq to take full responsibility of what the country has become since then. Which I think this administration does (maybe it's guilt?) and which is why they will not leave Iraq (which I agree with).

Leaving progressive steps up in the open like this just shows how unsure and over their head the administartion is.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
Thanks for the link. I agree with the document overall and think it touches the same goals a majority of Americans want to see in Iraqi.

I hoped this document would take a more aggressive stance then it did. By our leaders being so passive with no deadlines they are giving the idea that there are factors out of their control that can and most likely will stop certain goals from being reached.

This is just my view though, I really believe in taking full control and full responsibilites in all aspects of your actions. There should be no room to play the blame game. We took it upon ourselves to overturn Saddam and we owe it to Iraq to take full responsibility of what the country has become since then. Which I think this administration does (maybe it's guilt?) and which is why they will not leave Iraq (which I agree with).

Leaving progressive steps up in the open like this just shows how unsure and over their head the administartion is.
Here is where your logic breaks down. If I were a terrorist and I heard president Bush give a deadline. Naturally I'd wait until after that deadline to cause havoc. You can't do that. It's war. We don't know when it will be over. That's the reason there is no deadline. To throw up an arbitrary date and offer it to the media (including al-jazeera) would be foolish.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anybody thats asking for or expecting a timetable is a moron. How exactly are you to make a timetable around something as fluid as preparedness? When they are ready they are ready. But there not machines so you can gauge how long it's going to take to become ready. And those asking for a timeline are doing so for the sole purpose of using it against the president if it does not work out exactly. The presdient would be stupid to to publicly announce a timeline now
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
Here is where your logic breaks down. If I were a terrorist and I heard president Bush give a deadline. Naturally I'd wait until after that deadline to cause havoc. You can't do that. It's war. We don't know when it will be over. That's the reason there is no deadline. To throw up an arbitrary date and offer it to the media (including al-jazeera) would be foolish.
You cannot have deadlines on the eradication of terrorists since you can never complete such a task. You can however have deadlines on the establishment of a government (which is being done now, and they have previously given deadlines), establishment of armed forces, and establishment of securing cities with citizens (atleast as much as possible).

Would the Iraqi officials have sat in a room for hours on end to to conclude a constitution by a certain date if no deadline was set? No they would have reconvened the following day, and then the following day, and so on.

Or is the administartion just being hypocritical by saying deadlines cannot be placed but then do place deadlines as the deadline example above?

So your logic is that deadlines are ok as long as no media knows about it. Also you seem to understand that terrorism cannot be eradicated we have no identifying who is an terrorists and who is not (in most cases) and they can just lay low till the situation is more defensive then offensive.
 
Last edited:

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Calm2Chaos said:
Anybody thats asking for or expecting a timetable is a moron. How exactly are you to make a timetable around something as fluid as preparedness? When they are ready they are ready. But there not machines so you can gauge how long it's going to take to become ready. And those asking for a timeline are doing so for the sole purpose of using it against the president if it does not work out exactly. The presdient would be stupid to to publicly announce a timeline now
Really? I thought when someone joined the military they went into basic training for X amount of days, went to other training for X amount of days and then were sent off to battle because they were "ready". Isn't this putting a timetable on the "fluid act of preparedness"?

Our soldiers are not trained in military techniques or preparedness before entering the militray the same as most people that join the military.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gibberish said:
Really? I thought when someone joined the military they went into basic training for X amount of days, went to other training for X amount of days and then were sent off to battle because they were "ready". Isn't this putting a timetable on the "fluid act of preparedness"?

Our soldiers are not trained in military techniques or preparedness before entering the militray the same as most people that join the military.
Thats a horrible comparison. Going into the millitary you know exactly what your going in for and how long you can possibly stay. They kow how long they will train for. However they are not doing this in a country racked by terrorist and terorrist bombings. You can't compare a US marine with his superior weapons and training, his superior command structure and intelligence, his attitude and his experience to those that are doing this to put food on the table and are basic novices with no real back up.

There is no definitive way of saying when these people are going to be able to take over in this amount of time. You might be able to get round about guess at best. But the only use for a timetable would be to use it to beat the President up with if it is not met immediately.
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Anybody thats asking for or expecting a timetable is a moron. How exactly are you to make a timetable around something as fluid as preparedness? When they are ready they are ready. But there not machines so you can gauge how long it's going to take to become ready. And those asking for a timeline are doing so for the sole purpose of using it against the president if it does not work out exactly. The presdient would be stupid to to publicly announce a timeline now
I think you're right, it would be a bad political move for the president if he put forth a timetable, but I disagree that anyone asking for a timetable is a moron. People calling for a timetable now are just making sure that there is some sort of concrete plan with specific goals that we need to meet. They're trying to ensure that there is some forward thinking going on in the white house. It is definitely clear in retrospect that the president did not have a plan to deal with the occupation and exit of Iraq before he started the war, which he should have had, even if he did not announce it.

So far the president has given us sweeping statements such as this one:

"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."

That is a huge goal that may, realistically, never be met. Terrorism isn't a 'passing thing' in the middle east. It's going to be there for a while, and no matter how many times we try to finish them off, they're going to keep coming back (unless you were willing to resort to some sort of ethnic cleansing, which I wouldn't put past some of the people posting on this particular board).

The bottom line is, while you may be willing to still have troops in Iraq 20 years from now, I bet you anything that most Americans will not want to pass this conflicton to be fought by people who haven't even been born yet. I sincerely hope this isn't the case, but without specific goals, it could be.

So before you get all high and mighty and say that when someone calls for a timetable they are a 'moron', try to look past the fact that you disagree with them, and maybe try to grasp why they think a timetable would be useful. This is politics. If one side was always right, and another side was always wrong, then one party should be winning in a landslide every election cycle. There are flaws in the plans of many Democrats in Congress, but there are many flaws in the President's plan as well.

Personally, I don't think we have a good solution to the situation at hand, but I think we'd better find one. And quick.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
Here ya go:
Great. We have the strategy for this month.

Here was the strategy before:

"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." — President George W. Bush; message to the Iraqi people, April 10, 2003.

But whatever. This time I'm sure they really mean it.

OUR STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IS CLEAR

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.


Translation: We will continue to occupy Iraq as long as there elements that oppose our installed government.

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.

Translation: We wish the French, German and Russians would send their troops to get shot at. But they can keep their stinking hands off the oil. Those contracts are saved for worthy companies, like Halliburton.

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.

Translation: You think the $250 billion spent so far is a lot?

The Political Track
(Isolate, Engage, Build)

Objective: To help the Iraqi people forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic government, thereby isolating enemy elements from the broader public.

To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate hardened enemy elements from those who can be won over to a peaceful political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in a viable, democratic Iraq.
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of peaceful participation.

Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.


Translation: We will control the media and bribe them to report our version of the news. We will continue to support the Shia and Kurdish militias in there effort to suppress the Sunnis, and hope that someday when they use the arms we are giving them to extract revenge we don't end up fighting the same people we armed. But given past US experiences with this sort of thing, there is a good chance that is exactly what we will have to do. Just like we had to invade Iraq for (supposedly) having WMDs we encouraged them to purchase during the Reagan/Bush era.

Those who have a problem with foreign forces occupying their country and determining their government will continue to face military force. And we will deal with them in our secret torture prisons, unless those darn traitors senators led my McCain mess things up.

The Security Track
(Clear, Hold, Build)

Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven. Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.


Translation: Same stuff we've been saying for 2 1/2 years now. But the insurgency is in its death throes. So whenever they decide it is wonderful having US troops occupying their country, we will withdraw. Heh heh.

The Economic Track
(Restore, Reform, Build)

Objective: To assist the Iraqi government in establishing the foundations for a sound economy with the capacity to deliver essential services.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure so it can meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy.
Reform Iraq's economy, which has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future.
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.


Translation: We conservatives think foreign aid is a huge waste of money. Except when we have made gross errors and it is necessary to try to cover them up. Then spending 10x that amount is a great plan and every American should support it.

This is spelled out as specifically as can be. There will not be a 'time table', Gibberish. Why would we give al-jazeera, al-quida and the rest of the world a time table. That would not be smart warfare..
Translation: Iraq was invaded on completely erroneous representations about the threat it posed and how the Iraqs would react happily after we bombed the crap out of them and let thousands of terrorists into their country. But rather than admit we made a mistake, we are going to make them have a pro-US government whether they want it or not.

We will not give a date to withdraw, because then we would actually have to pull the troops out of Iraq, and if we did that, the US supported government would collapse. That would be very embarrassing to the Administration because it would prove how freaking screwed up this whole operation was from the get-go. So instead we will make unattainable objectives so we can have an excuse for keeping troops their as long as we want them there. Which is, as long as necessary to prop up the pro-US government. And if more US soldiers die, tough, they like being there. And, on the chance we actually appear to be attaining an objective, we will change the objective so we can justify keeping troops there. At least until this administration leaves office, so someone else can inherit this mess and be blamed for withdrawing.

Because we are the Republicans, the Bush adminstration, and we can never admit we are wrong. It ain't manly.
 
Last edited:

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon,

The only thing that I find missing from your interpretations above: you don't give the US public enough credit. That is, Bush has responded to criticisms that his rhetorical 'strategy' remarks on Iraq have been insufficient, and he has published a declassified extract of such. Now, more than ever before, the public has benchmarks, in writing, with which to assess progress in Iraq.

Given the influence that the MSM and increasingly, bloggers, have on public opinion in the US, how long do you think the public will stand for deviations from the stated goals and objectives? Not very long, IMO.

As time goes by, the value of the strategy doc will, I think, become more and more apparent. Not the least of which will be that any administration attempts to deviate, obfuscate or modify, will be met with howls of protest.

The public will demand adherence, through their votes if nothing else, and every politician on both sides of the aisle knows this.

Your interpretation has some clever stuff in it (as always), but it focuses too much on history and woefully ignores the impact on public and voter opinion of future mis-steps. And, IMO, its the future impact that is now most important.

As always, thats just my opinion - your mileage may vary.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iriemon, that was a very :funny

:nahnah:

:laughat:
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Iriemon,

The only thing that I find missing from your interpretations above: you don't give the US public enough credit. That is, Bush has responded to criticisms that his rhetorical 'strategy' remarks on Iraq have been insufficient, and he has published a declassified extract of such. Now, more than ever before, the public has benchmarks, in writing, with which to assess progress in Iraq.

Given the influence that the MSM and increasingly, bloggers, have on public opinion in the US, how long do you think the public will stand for deviations from the stated goals and objectives? Not very long, IMO.

As time goes by, the value of the strategy doc will, I think, become more and more apparent. Not the least of which will be that any administration attempts to deviate, obfuscate or modify, will be met with howls of protest.

The public will demand adherence, through their votes if nothing else, and every politician on both sides of the aisle knows this.

Your interpretation has some clever stuff in it (as always), but it focuses too much on history and woefully ignores the impact on public and voter opinion of future mis-steps. And, IMO, its the future impact that is now most important.

As always, thats just my opinion - your mileage may vary.
I will state again, I don't think we should just leave tomorrow. We need to at least give a period of time for whatever entities are going to do whatever they are going to do to prepare for it.

The point of my somewhat tounge-in-cheek comments are that these are not really measurable milestones. How do you determine when our supported government has "security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists." That is never going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. Do you think the "terrorists" are going to stop as long as our forces are there? What kind of "milestone" is that? What I read is that we are going to stay there as long as this adminstration is in power. I personally suspect mostly for the tounge-in-cheek reasons I stated.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What kind of "milestone" is that?
The nature of the problem I think dictates that 'milestones' are more qualitative than quantitative. And, yes, some threshold levels may be 'beauty in the eye of the beholder', which will certainly become more fodder for the blog wars!

"security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists."
How about keeping Iraq from being any kind of haven for terrorists? In other words, in our lifetimes (certainly mine, since I'm already an old f***), Iraq may never become completely and totally secure, totally 100% free from terrorists. But that isn't necessary for our dis-engagement. If we can qualitatively assess that Iraq can cope with whatever the level of terrorism exists at the time, then out we go. By that definition, Iraq will no longer be a 'safe haven' for terrorists.

Defining milestones in Iraq might be kinda like defining pornography: I can't exactly define it, but I know it when I see it!
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
The nature of the problem I think dictates that 'milestones' are more qualitative than quantitative. And, yes, some threshold levels may be 'beauty in the eye of the beholder', which will certainly become more fodder for the blog wars!
LOL, you got a point there, we wouldn't want to remove something the contributes to this colossal waste of time!

How about keeping Iraq from being any kind of haven for terrorists? In other words, in our lifetimes (certainly mine, since I'm already an old f***), Iraq may never become completely and totally secure, totally 100% free from terrorists. But that isn't necessary for our dis-engagement. If we can qualitatively assess that Iraq can cope with whatever the level of terrorism exists at the time, then out we go. By that definition, Iraq will no longer be a 'safe haven' for terrorists.
That would be great.

Defining milestones in Iraq might be kinda like defining pornography: I can't exactly define it, but I know it when I see it!
That's the point.
 
Top Bottom