It's Official

[hkyfan]

This appears on the MSNBC site today and confirms that Dubya's exit strategy for Iraq is evidently to let the next President handle it.

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 8:53 a.m. ET Feb. 20, 2004WASHINGTON - American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.

The U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has also urged Italy and other countries to keep their troops in the country at least until December 2005, an Italian newspaper reported on Friday.

“It is necessary that coalition troops, including Italians, remain in Iraq at least until December 2005,” Bremer told the Corriere della Sera newspaper in an interview.

“To leave now would be a grave matter -- a sign of giving in to terrorism,” he said. “The coalition must remain united in order to stabilize Iraq.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/

[lazydaze]

Originally posted by hkyfan@Feb 20 2004, 11:20 AM
This appears on the MSNBC site today and confirms that Dubya's exit strategy for Iraq is evidently to let the next President handle it.

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 8:53 a.m. ET Feb. 20, 2004WASHINGTON - American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.

The U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has also urged Italy and other countries to keep their troops in the country at least until December 2005, an Italian newspaper reported on Friday.

“It is necessary that coalition troops, including Italians, remain in Iraq at least until December 2005,” Bremer told the Corriere della Sera newspaper in an interview.

“To leave now would be a grave matter -- a sign of giving in to terrorism,” he said. “The coalition must remain united in order to stabilize Iraq.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/

Hcky

wake up.

American objectives can not be accomplished in a few years.
We should always be thinking forward, not in 'term' vision.

[hkyfan]

Originally posted by lazydaze+Feb 20 2004, 11:22 AM-->

QUOTE(lazydaze @ Feb 20 2004, 11:22 AM)

[ScottStevens]

"Just frustrated because we were assured going into Iraq that the reason was clear (WMD) and that an exit policy existed."

Hky,

Even though I support President Bush (will probably vote for him again) and the War in Iraq, I very much agree with this statement. Especially your point on the exit policy.

[Bleacher Creature]

We'll be lucky to get out by 2015.

[lazydaze]

Sorry hky.


I really cannot shed much light on the exit policy.
I am not sure it ever should be considered an exit policy.

To me, any many, this was always more than just existing stockpiles of WMD (but we have been through that discussion, repeatedly)

Therefore, I believe it always should have been considered a post-saddam plan. We have an obligation to our national security, to stay the course and nudge towards a successful democratic institution. I am not sure if there is a "recipe" for that.

I think that the largest surprises have been the pace of initial military success and the scale of the looting after Saddam fleeing Baghdad.

I believe that the disbanding of the army had been the biggest mistake. I do not not believe that was part of the initial "plan", but Garner decided it was necessary because of the way they melted into society, instead of surrendering. I don't think they planned for the initial violence, led by disbanded Iraqi army.

I think that they knew full well that Al Queda would show -up, actually, I believe they somewhat planned for it. They ran in Afghanistan and hid in the mountains. I do not think we want to send troops into those mountain regions, Bin Laden and his gang have been fighting and winning guerilla wars there for some 20 years. I do think Iraq proves to be a better geographic battlefield.

I do not think we plan on leaving Iraq for quite a while. I do believe we will have NATO and even the UN subsidize many troop deployments in the coming months.

[jhanke]

Originally posted by The Kev@Feb 20 2004, 11:39 AM
We'll be lucky to get out by 2015.

Yep, this does not suprise me at all as i have one former student there (marine) and another heading there in the summer (army). The second told me he was heading for six months in Kuwait then six in bagdad. Didn't sound like we were getting out by June to me at all. Only difference between this and 'Nam is that the military are being allowed to fight this themselves. For now

[Moe_Szyslak]

from (fmr. Sec'y of the Navy and Vietnam vet) James Webb's superb opinion piece (critical of both Kerry and Bush) in USA Today this week:

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

[lazydaze]

Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Feb 20 2004, 11:49 AM
from (fmr. Sec'y of the Navy and Vietnam vet) James Webb's superb opinion piece (critical of both Kerry and Bush) in USA Today this week:

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

Moe, why do you believe that no WMD's will be found.

[hkyfan]

Originally posted by Moe_Szyslak@Feb 20 2004, 11:49 AM
from (fmr. Sec'y of the Navy and Vietnam vet) James Webb's superb opinion piece (critical of both Kerry and Bush) in USA Today this week:

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

This is really the issue Moe.

I didn't oppose the initial decision to invade Iraq given the WMD argument and perceived threat against the U.S. But failing the WMD argument I can't see how invading Iraq has done anything but put the country in even more danger. Our resources are stretched and we have energized a whole new legion of terrorists with our latest foray into the Middle East.

Saddam was evil and I do not mourn his removal. But I question the price that we will pay for that luxury.

[Bleacher Creature]

I believe that WMD's will be found after awhile. We're going to plant a few.

[Moe_Szyslak]

Originally posted by lazydaze@Feb 20 2004, 11:51 AM

Moe, why do you believe that no WMD's will be found.

Because David Kay gave up.

[BringBackZezel]

Originally posted by The Kev@Feb 20 2004, 11:54 AM
I believe that WMD's will be found after awhile. We're going to plant a few.

and they'll forget to take off the "made in the USA" tags.

[madyaks]

To me, any many, this was always more than just existing stockpiles of WMD (but we have been through that discussion, repeatedly)

Therefore, I believe it always should have been considered a post-saddam plan. We have an obligation to our national security, to stay the course and nudge towards a successful democratic institution. I am not sure if there is a "recipe" for that.

1 - Would have been nice if he had told the rest of the nation it was about MORE than WMD.

2 - NUDGE? more like BOMB them into "a successful democratic institution" that send all of their counties work to "friendly" companies like Halliburton.

[madyaks]

Originally posted by BringBackZezel+Feb 20 2004, 11:55 AM-->

QUOTE(BringBackZezel @ Feb 20 2004, 11:55 AM)