Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dirtboy - those on the nay side won't ever accept that we have a plan because it's all in how people perceive things. If the attack of the day is "no exit plan" then they all sit here and bleat on and on about it and then hide behind "it's your mess" BS. If they don't think Bush's plan to allow the Iraqi's to govern themselves is good enough then they should provide an alternative but they don't. Complaining about what you perceive as "no plan" is pretty baseless if you won't accept anything anyone provides. The "exit" strategy is getting the Iraqi's incharge of their own country so we don't have to do it for them which is what it has been since the start.
Sorry, Cad, that's not an exit strategy. At best it's a concept, at worst a platitude.
Some of the details will and have changed - but that still doesn't mean there isn't a plan. If things didn't change - people here and elsewhere would be ranting about how Bush isn't flexible enough or some such other tripe. We ARE working toward the goal of self-governance by the Iraqis and it's too bad some people here don't understand or accept that the plan is moving forward and will be dynamic. How long did it take us to leave other places? Are we out of Kosovo? So I think all of this rhetoric about "no plan" is just political smoke that some have inhaled. Iraq will have a self-sustaining government and we will then be able to "exit" from the daily operations of the Iraqi government and daily life.
At what cost? Why are we doing it virtually alone?
I think alot of this "smoke" blown by the naysayers is because the UN isn't involved or the fact that 2-3 countries are conspicuously absent.
Two or three countries? ROFL. Speaking of political smoke.
The so-called "coaltion of the willing" represent less than 20% of the world's population (including the U.S.), and even then the people of the "willing" countries largely opposed the war. Excluding the U.S. and Britain, the "willing" represent about 20% of the world GDP. Only Britain and Australia offered more than a couple hundred troops. Many of the "willing" countries offered no support whatsoever beyond allowing their names to be listed. At least a couple of "willing" countries denied supporting the invasion at all.
Many of the "willing" are there because we either paid them directly, or threatened to withhold aid. Eight countries are there because they want into NATO; Bush said the U.S. would veto the memberships of any country that did not join the "willing". Outside of politics, that's usually called extortion.
More noteworthy is all of the major countries who are NOT on the list: Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, Austria, Greece, South Africa along with most of the rest of Africa, Brazil along with most of Central and South America, and Saudi Arabia along with most of the Middle Eastern countries who did support the 1991 action. Turkey is listed as "willing" (after we offered billions of dollars), but their support was inconsistent to say the least. The "willing" does NOT include 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members.
So much for "two or three". No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.
The plan will succeed inspite of the sayers of nay and Iraq and the ME will be better for it. It'll take time and alot of resolve but to "get out" now would be asinine. But I am open to ideas of those who think we aren't doing things right and the "plan" isn't "good enough" but to say there isn't/wasn't a plan is just plain stupid and it shows people's inattentiveness and partisanship. You are right dirtboy - to continue to address that accusation is really a waste of time since those who repeat it - will never be satisfied no matter what anyone says.
CkG
Spin it however you wish, there is no evidence the Bush administration had even a rudimentary exit strategy before we invaded Iraq. People from both ends of the political spectrum have made this observation, as have current and former military leaders. Bush bought into the absurd delusion we would be universally embraced as liberators, ignoring those who warned of resistance and failing to plan for basics like securing sensitive facilities and repairing damaged infrastructure.
Our military deserves great credit for their gallant efforts to respond to these problems on-the-fly. One can only speculate how many lives we could have saved and how much more effective we might have been if only we had an adequate plan in place before crossing the border.