Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There's been a lot of talk that we may not have plans to leave and that the DoD is looking to the "Korea model" for how we should deal with Iraq over the long haul. I don't think the Korea model is politically feasible, but who knows.

Let's just say, however, that we do not follow the Korea model and we leave Iraq. If we then get hit with a terrorist attack here or somewhere abroad by terrorists trained in a post-occupation Iraq, who is to blame? My guess is the left will blame it all on Bush for going to Iraq in the first place and the right will blame it all on the dems for pushing for a withdrawal. Thoughts?

I think if either side is smart they'll stay away from this gamesmanship of who's fault the war is. Both the left and the right played a hand in sending the troops to Iraq, so neither side has anything to gain politically or otherwise. If you look at Bush's ratings they are very low and so are the Dems since they've taken over.

However, I could see, no offense to anyone here, Hillary protesting loudly about how the Right screwed things up and this is "Bush's" war. Only because she's been the most vocal and critical about Bush during the debates, but that's just to gain political points in my view.

I'm not too familiar with the Korean model, so I can't really speak to that. But this is a new animal all together.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I should probably have stated that my support for keeping troops in Iraq is conditioned on the upcoming report from Petraeus. I knew of Petraeus when he was a colonel and I have a lot of respect for him. I know that he will be subject to massive political forces in writing his report, but I genuinely believe that his report will be a no bs-assessment of the conditions in Iraq. I cannot support any plan that doesn't take his report into consideration. To believe otherwise would be akin to a layman proscribing a treatment for an illness before consulting a doctor for a diagnosis.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I should probably have stated that my support for keeping troops in Iraq is conditioned on the upcoming report from Petraeus. I knew of Petraeus when he was a colonel and I have a lot of respect for him. I know that he will be subject to massive political forces in writing his report, but I genuinely believe that his report will be a no bs-assessment of the conditions in Iraq. I cannot support any plan that doesn't take his report into consideration. To believe otherwise would be akin to a layman proscribing a treatment for an illness before consulting a doctor for a diagnosis.

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I have a problem with it too but one argument I keep hearing from lots of people(not you) is that Bush has destroyed our standing around the world with his ham handed foreign relations and diplomacy. When the same people come back and say that the Whitehouse needs to be something about this situation they are directly contradicting themselves on this point. People can't say "Don't interfer around the world and cost us respect" and then in the next senetence say "president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house". It's actions like those peeps from the Whitehouse that supposedly has cost us such standing in the world. Again, I am not saying I agree with that stance. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it.

you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?

Let them?

This is what I am talking about. First off I agree that they should not be doing this. But, as you have stated in the past, you believe Bush and the administration have hurt us politically around the world with our foreign policy. Presummably a lot of that idea centers around the whole imperialist description that so many throw around. To then assert that we should MAKE another sovreign country's government not take a vacation is adovating, no demanding, that he do something undeniably imperialistic. I am simply pointing out that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position. It is not my intention. For the record I think Bush ought to call Malaki up and ream his ass for letting this happen but then again I don't bash Bush on a regular basis for his imeprialistic foreign policy that has hurt us so badly.

[dmek25]

i don't think I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. the decision to go to Iraq has already been made. now that the united states is footing the bill, alone, it has every right to dictate( yes, i said dictate) the actions of the Iraqi government. to take a vacation now is just plain stupid. and to be in charge, like we are, and let it happen without any backlash, is crazy. this war was disaster from its conception, and it keeps getting worse. to worry about pissing someone off now is like closing the barn door, after.....

[dmek25]

i agree totally about Bush calling up Malaki and reaming him out. i think we are clear on my position on the president. i choose not to play politics with our soldiers lives. its seems to me that the united states has no clear plan. this includes the Dem's as well as the Republicans

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you cant have your cake and eat it, too.

I've heard this my whole life, but doesn't it apply only to the very last piece of cake?

Update: All of this talk about cake has got me hungry.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Let them?

This is what I am talking about. First off I agree that they should not be doing this. But, as you have stated in the past, you believe Bush and the administration have hurt us politically around the world with our foreign policy. Presummably a lot of that idea centers around the whole imperialist description that so many throw around. To then assert that we should MAKE another sovreign country's government not take a vacation is adovating, no demanding, that he do something undeniably imperialistic. I am simply pointing out that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position. It is not my intention. For the record I think Bush ought to call Malaki up and ream his ass for letting this happen but then again I don't bash Bush on a regular basis for his imeprialistic foreign policy that has hurt us so badly.

I am one who has criticized not just this administration, but the interventionist foreign policies of presidents long past regardless of their party affiliation.

The complaint people have about Iraqi government officials taking a month-long vacation isn't rooted in some sort of twisted desire for the United States to dictate how much time off another country may give its officials.

The outcry you're hearing is the outrage people have over the so-called Iraqi "leaders" kicking back for some R & R while our troops are risking life and limb doing the real dirty work. If they feel the situation in their country is such that they can chill for a month on vacation, then our soldiers and marines should be able to do the same thing.

The hypocrisy you speak of lies with the Bush administration who is telling us on the one hand that it's perfectly fine for Iraqi government officials to leave their duties for 30 days to rest up, but on the other hand the situation is in such a delicate state that we don't dare pull our troops out or else the whole country will collapse.

That's the real inconsistency you should be concerned with.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

Then we can take your skepticism for what it is, when it comes. Petraus was unanimously confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. He is a widely respected military figure, not some party hack. You make him sound like Karl Rove's lawn guy. It will be interesting to see Reid and the others try to delicately shit on him in the run up to September, all the while telling us how they support the troops. I'll have a problem believing that.

[dmek25]

please explain to me how thinking this administration made a gigantic mistake with Iraq, means you don't support the troops? quit watching fox news, for i full heartedly support our brave young men and women that fight. i just believe they should not be there in the first place

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I am one who has criticized not just this administration, but the interventionist foreign policies of presidents long past regardless of their party affiliation.

The complaint people have about Iraqi government officials taking a month-long vacation isn't rooted in some sort of twisted desire for the United States to dictate how much time off another country may give its officials.

The outcry you're hearing is the outrage people have over the so-called Iraqi "leaders" kicking back for some R & R while our troops are risking life and limb doing the real dirty work. If they feel the situation in their country is such that they can chill for a month on vacation, then our soldiers and marines should be able to do the same thing.

The hypocrisy you speak of lies with the Bush administration who is telling us on the one hand that it's perfectly fine for Iraqi government officials to leave their duties for 30 days to rest up, but on the other hand the situation is in such a delicate state that we don't dare pull our troops out or else the whole country will collapse.

That's the real inconsistency you should be concerned with.

Geez would you read what I said. I agree with you. I am simply pointing out there saying we should do something to make them not take such a vactions is exactly the kinds of things that people berate Bush for everywhere else. That to me is hypocrisy.

Again, I agree with you.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

please explain to me how thinking this administration made a gigantic mistake with Iraq, means you don't support the troops? quit watching fox news, for i full heartedly support our brave young men and women that fight. i just believe they should not be there in the first place

#1- Fox news has never said that if you disagree with the War in Iraq that you are against the troops.
#2- Fox news is one of the best non biased news sources.
Should we blame NBC news for everything that democrats say or think?

Just for the record, I am assuming you were using that as sarcasm, but I had to comment.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Suppose Petraeus is saying only what the Administration wants or allows him to say? I don't know about you, but I'll have a problem believing whatever their hand-picked guy has to say.

Well I guess we should disregard his preliminary report which found that progess in Iraq was unsatisfactory in 9 of 16 areas of concern. The guy is universally hailed (i.e., by repubs, dems, and independents) as one of the best soldiers our military has produced in years. He's been giving no-bs assessments of Iraq since day 1. If you don't believe me, read up on him and you will be impressed.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Well I guess we should disregard his preliminary report which found that progess in Iraq was unsatisfactory in 9 of 16 areas of concern. The guy is universally hailed (i.e., by repubs, dems, and independents) as one of the best soldiers our military has produced in years. He's been giving no-bs assessments of Iraq since day 1. If you don't believe me, read up on him and you will be impressed.

Exactly. I find it hard to believe that in only 9 areas was progress unsatisfactory.

Does it bother you that Patraeus has very little experience in combat? That after the initial invasion it was he that was responsible for re-training the Iraqi forces for security detail?