Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think the thought is more along the lines of not setting a date before we reach a point where we can leave. What happens if we say we're leaving in May '08? The insurgents could lay back and wait until we're gone and then unleash holy hell. If we wait until the situation is firmly under control then we can then say we're leaving in 3 months or whatever.

So what? They're going to do that whenever we leave anyway.

[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?

[saden1]

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?

Is it militarily feasible?

The blame game will always persist but I think the more troubling issue is that somehow people expect to be perfectly safe at all times and if they are not, well then the sky must be falling. We deal with issues in our lives and move on all the time and it's no different with our nation. You don't lock yourself up, become paranoid and drown in your own sorrow. That would constitute depression. You first understand the problem, then confront it and finally try to solve it. Sometimes force is needed to solve an issue but life would be miserable if you're in a constant battle. Relationships are upon compromise and we hardly ever do that. One of the biggest problem our nation faces is it's pride in itself and somehow if you have a different view point you're inferior. The "we're always right and we know what's best" disease if you will.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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

Because you have been there right? I mean you not just giving an opinion upon which you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about right? It is fine to be against the war. I understand that argument very well. But don't make an argument that it isn't going well when you are simply basing that upon not liking the war. You haven't the first clue whether 9 of 16 areas are going well or not based on any type of real evidence do you?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Does it bother you that Patraeus has very little experience in combat?

No. Some of our nation's best military leaders were ones who never saw combat (e.g., Gen. George Marshall - the guy who pretty much won WWII). I know that Iraq war opponents jump to the immediate conclusion that everything ever affiliated with Bush is pure-evil, corrupt, etc., but I have never heard anyone criticize Petraeus.

In that regard, it would be nice to see Iraq war opponents or Iraq war supporters not be so one-sided. I know the war is a polarizing issue, but that doesn't make it a black and white issue. Not everything is "bad" or "good", there is some room for "I don't knows" or "undecideds."

That leads me to my final point. I was less than thrilled when the repubs were trying to use 9/11 and terror threats to their political ends in 2004. They repeatedly tried to remind people that we were at war and that AQ was looking to kill Americans. It was simply disgusting. Equally disgusting, however, is how the Dems are doing everything in their power to paint as bleak a picture as possible of the war in Iraq. Obviously, they know that Bush's legacy, the public's happiness with repubs (via their connection with Bush), and the fate of the 2008 election lies in Iraq. Accordingly, they paint as bleak of a picture as possible of what is going on in Iraq. I know they rightly criticized Bush for using war as a political tool, but they are doing the same thing but no one (yet) has recognized that they are hypocrites. Both parties use American blood as a political tool.

[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.....

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 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.....

We don't agree on very much but with whats going on over there and the importance to get Iraq back on their feet their 3 week vaction (or what ever time they took off) was ill timed if we are hearing the whole story. There could have been oher reasons that they have taken the time off which we do not know about.

[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

[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