Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Gibberish said:I would like to read the 35-page White House document titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."
KCConservative said:
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.
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.
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
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.
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
KCConservative said:Here ya go:
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..
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.
What kind of "milestone" is that?
"security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists."
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!
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?