| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:41 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
I asked the question about WWII on another thread and instantly some to associate it with Iraq so, here, in an effort to keep that thread on track dealing with WWII they can espouse their views on what an Iraqi exit plan should have been.
So many say there should have been one so, what should it have been at the outset? 
Edited to read 'some' rather than 'left leaning types'
[Edited on 4/20/2008 10:48 PM]
|
|
  |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:42 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,091
|
By "left leaning," you of course mean "anyone who's not a neo-con," yes?
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:46 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Actually, going to take that out of there as DR did as well. Thanks for mentioning that.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:47 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Kenn159
Posts: 4,402
|
In WW2 we didn’t preemptively evade a souvenir country over oil.
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:50 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Sorry Kenn, the WWII exit plan thread is below. This one is Iraq and it's about what a version of an exit plan at the beginning of the campaign would have been rather than reasons or perceived reasons for the action.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:53 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,692
|
There should never have been an entrance plan. The whole operation was an act of aggression and violated international law no matter what the US bullied the UN into.
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:00 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,091
|
My view has been expressed many times:
The decision to enter Iraq was premature. We sacrificed the "war on terror" for that half-assed idea made up by a bunch of ivory-tower think-tank types. Once Afghanistan was under control, once we'd taken out most of the top leadership of Al Qaeda, once we'd shown the world we have the will to stick to the plan of punishing a country that dared to attack us, THEN we could have gone into Iraq.
And when we went into Iraq, none of this technophilia stuff. All the gadgets and geegaws in the world can't substitute for boots on the ground, properly armed, properly protected. If the military brass asks for 450k troops to occupy the country, don't cut down that number to less than a third, dang it...
We're stuck in there now. Just don't expect me to forgive the Bushies for f***ing it up and costing us a few thousand unnecessary deaths, a few tens of thousand unnecessary maimings, and all those civilian casualties...
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:48 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
SNG he decision to enter Iraq was premature. We sacrificed the "war on terror" for that half-assed idea made up by a bunch of ivory-tower think-tank types. Once Afghanistan was under control, once we'd taken out most of the top leadership of Al Qaeda, once we'd shown the world we have the will to stick to the plan of punishing a country that dared to attack us, THEN we could have gone into Iraq.
Believe it or not SNG, I agree that Iraq could have waited as well and, possibly should have. However, I understand there were reasons such as seasonal temperatures/weather as well as international momentum with the resolutions as well as national sentiment and support to be galvanized (or at least attempted to be such)  You remember the phased buildup politically and quiet on the military front as units were broken up and sent piecemeal to Kuwait to lessen the impact in the press? The stepped up propaganda and pressure on Iraq and such to go along with the UN? The change from WMDs to 'Regime Change' signaled the reality that was gong to happen. All this was almost unstoppable as you would never be able to put those ingredients together again once it had been stood down for a few months or a year.
Hence, in the face of all this, as well as the inability to go into Pakistan or expect Musharif to destroy his rule, country and possibly his life in a campaign that he already didn't feel comfortable with coupled with the ineffectiveness of the AQ leadership once they exiled themsleves was of little concern operationally and could wait so, in keeping with the relentless and lengthy 'War on Terror' the next phase began. If not then, it would have been a year later.
As for the 'top leadership' of AQ I'd rather go into it on the other thread and ask you how to get them without the repercussions I spoke of there as I am of the opinion that once the mistake was made to not block off the Pakistani side with actual US troops rther than bribed warlords, there wasn't much to be done in Afghanistan. Here, I hope you can explain what the 'exit strategy' should have been.
|
| |
|
| Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:56 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 6,692
|
The US had to go into two wars military actions at once. It was part of the strategy:
If the United States were to forego its ability to defeat aggression in more than one theater at a time, our standing as a global power, as the security partner of choice and the leader of the international community would be called in to question. REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES, A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 5:39 AM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Always_Striving
Posts: 9,359
|
Paragraphs 1 & 2
read the entire document The current administration never has or had plans to leave Iraq.
No plans to exit
We're going to stay if Neocons have their way < listen to this turd
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 6:35 AM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
newlife2006
Posts: 1,009
|
There's hardly any analogy between WWII and so-called "War on terror" ...unfortunately. For the simple reason that terror is nothing but a specific type of crime, i.e. it's not something which can be "permanently defeated". I guess the confusion was caused by the fact that terrorism is historically new type of crime and terrorist attacks are sometimes committed on the territory of the country which is foreign to the members of terroristic group, so, despite the fact that the governments are officially not in war, these attacks can easily be confused for foreign invasion.
Calling fighting terrorism "war" ( which is one-time event by definition) was the most misleading thing to do and it created illusion that it can be "won" and got rid of it for good. While crime (of any scale ) can only be "kept under PERMANENT control" ,alas. Expecting police to "withdraw" from constantly fighting violent crime would be rather naiive, don't you agree?
The same applies to international crime ( a.k.a. terrorism) . "Exit strategy"? I don't think so. On the other hand , I don't see any reason why USA should be the only country to carry the burden of being "international cop". It's about time UN ( along with the rest of peace-desiring world population) stop criticizm and chip in creating REAL international armed forces to keep terrorism under control , admitting that it's going to be PERMANENT measure, no matter how much all of us wanted it to just disappear or be defeated once and forever .Terrorisim is here to stay , just like terminal deseases . But it hardly means that it has to be "left alone" and all efforts to control it should be abandoned.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 12:07 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Mischief484
Posts: 679
|
The "Loyal" Opposition.
Spend some time. That photo essay must be savored slowly to be enjoyed and fully appreciated.
Ironically, these are probably the only people in the country who were against the war before they were for it. But like the old adage says, even a stuck clock is right twice a day.
We are killing terrorists at the rate of dozens per day. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, not one American drop of blood has been spilled in a radical Islamic terrorist attack within our borders. Exit strategy? pffff... We don't need no stinkin' exit strategies.
We need to find ways of getting more terrorists into Iraq.
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 5:06 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 7,477
|
...Obviously Novalite, many people are "stuck" on why not there, rather than how to exit.
...In my opinion, we should totally disarm the country, close the borders, imprison Sadr, or better yet, he should have an accident and create a government that is for the people, employ the people to rebuild, while increasing the only thing they have as a commodity, as an export to fund it all.
...After a defined evaluation, discharge some and enlist other people to become police, not military, as the US is there for now.
...Meantime, anyone with a weapon is shot on the spot, define if we want to close the bases in Turkey and maintain Balad as a permanent entity, as well as at least one Naval base in southern Iraq.
...Anything less and come home, close the borders, clean up our own country of anyone that is not legally here, withdraw from a multitude of worthless international organizations and take care of our own, while increasing better relations with our neighbors, but not open borders. Immediately enforce alternative energy projects nationwide, as we are going to need same in the very near future.
...Of course, Iran will consume Iraq, Sadr will be the supreme Iraq power, Israel will be forced to nuke the area and while the world will bitch for 6 months or so, it will all be over with, except the higher oil prices.
...Regardless, we should create a grain and food cartel between the US, France, Canada and Australia (which combined, comprise 75% of the wheat exports), that is directly related to oil prices as an export; one bushel of wheat for one barrel of oil. China grows a lot of wheat, but by majority, not of human food quality and has to be blended with wheat from other countries.
.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 5:28 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
thegoodideaman
Posts: 1,915
|
the same "exit strategy" we used in Cuba...
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 6:04 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
Goodidea the same "exit strategy" we used in Cuba...
Wit! Pure wit!
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 6:21 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Always_Striving
Posts: 9,359
|
...In my opinion, we should totally disarm the country, close the borders This must be about Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yeah that makes sense.
Invade their country and kick in the doors of civilians sleeping sound in their bed and shoot them in the name of liberation.
Run over familes with tanks while they are trapped in their cars too. Ummmm that's United States liberation too, right?
The best thing for the United States is to do is leave and apologise, impeach and prosecute the treasonous Bush Administration perpatrators?
SensualGemini,
Regarding your thoughts of closing the borders of Iraq, the United States and any other country for that matter will initiate a Cold War.
Why do you want that?
|
| |
|
| Apr 21, 2008 @ 10:58 PM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 7,477
|
AS: This must be about Operation Iraqi Freedom?
...Personally, I thought that part sucked!
...I could care less if they have freedom or not at this very moment, because for thousands of years, they have been slaves, are slaves and will always be slaves to an ideology. If they wanted freedom, they would already have it, but to the contrary, they would rather fight over religious ideologies.
...We invaded, destroyed their military and they are a conquered nation; period. Not one more American life needs to be lost from them, or anyone there with a weapon. Right now, nobody knows who the friend or enemy is, but if disarmed, it would certainly be apparent who is the enemy.
...We disarmed Germany and Japan, helped rebuild and look at them today, as Germany controls the economics of Europe and Japan with technology.
...Close the borders of Iraq, to keep the influence and traffic of arms from Iran and Syria out, so the country can have a chance.
Invade their country and kick in the doors of civilians sleeping sound in their bed and shoot them in the name of liberation.
...No liberation at that moment, but conquered. They are too stupid to be liberated at this very moment, as they don't have a concept of what freedom even is. You have to gently educate them, gently bring them into the 21st century of prosperity.
Run over familes with tanks while they are trapped in their cars too. Ummmm that's United States liberation too, right?
...Now, you are simply being sensational, if not sadistic. You keep mentioning liberated, whereas I am not.
The best thing for the United States is to do is leave and apologise, impeach and prosecute the treasonous Bush Administration perpatrators?
...Everyone has their opinion, but if we leave, you are going to see the first nuclear weapons used in over 60 years in defense by Israel. This will kill many thousand times more than my opinion and leave a wasteland for a longer time than when Genghis Khan rode through there on horseback.
...This is after the fact and I don't care who, what, why, when or where the reasons were, but as Colin Powell said, "If we break it, we will own it." Well, we own it now and the only resolve is to disarm the country and cease the senseless killing that is taking place by Muslims against Muslims and all against our troops, or pull out and come home... let Iran take the show over and then let Israel resolve it for everyone.
...Israel will never be a conquered nation again, whereas Iran has openly sworn to wipe them off the face of the earth on more than one occasion.
...Meantime, Iran will cut off energy supplies to the US, so by the time Israel nukes their butts, we will not notice the loss of energy supplies, but the rest of the world will, with the results creating a global financial catastrophe the 21st century will historically be remembered for.
...In my opinion, disarming the country and becoming their guardian for the future, makes a lot more sense
.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22, 2008 @ 3:13 AM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
Say_Yes
Posts: 2,256
|
While I agree, with the sentiment stated by many that going into Iraq, without a clear, defined exit strategy was a huge mistake (or going in at all for that matter), the fact is that we are there. So, as the OP asked, what should our exit strategy be now. We can't change the past, we can't time travel and undo the mistakes, so, where does that leave us and what should we do now. Personally, I really don't know.
I recently read a report on the issue, prepared by the Institute for National Strategic Studies on this very issue. The report is long, but I will include a short excerpt from it, along with a link to the entire report, for those who are so inclined as to read the 60 page document.
Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle. As of fall 2007, this conflict has cost the United States over 3,800 dead and over 28,000 wounded. Allied casualties accounted for another 300 dead. Iraqi civilian deaths--mostly at the hands of other Iraqis--may number as high as 82,000. Over 7,500 Iraqi soldiers and police officers have also been killed. Fifteen percent of the Iraqi population has become refugees or displaced persons. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States now spends over $10 billion per month on the war, and that the total, direct U.S. costs from March 2003 to July 2007 have exceeded $450 billion, all of which has been covered by deficit spending. No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on Service personnel and materiel.
The war's political impact also has been great. Globally, U.S. standing among friends and allies has fallen. Our status as a moral leader has been damaged by the war, the subsequent occupation of a Muslim nation, and various issues concerning the treatment of detainees. At the same time, operations in Iraq have had a negative impact on all other efforts in the war on terror, which must bow to the priority of Iraq when it comes to manpower, materiel, and the attention of decisionmakers. Our Armed Forces-- especially the Army and Marine Corps--have been severely strained by the war in Iraq. Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.
As this case study is being written, despite impressive progress in security during the surge, the outcome of the war is in doubt. Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after the rapid withdrawal of that army.... No one has calculated the psychopolitical impact of a perceived defeat on the U.S. reputation for power or the future of the overall war on terror. For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a "must win," but for many others, despite the obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a "can't win." (Note the bold is added by me)
Source - INSS
|
| |
|
| Apr 22, 2008 @ 8:29 AM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 6,288
|
I agree, with the sentiment stated by many that going into Iraq, without a clear, defined exit strategy was a huge mistake
The best exit strategy is to leave Iraq fifty years AFTER the American military quits Japan, Germany, and Korea.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22, 2008 @ 8:37 AM |
What should the exit strategy for Iraq have been? |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 9,091
|
Now that we're in Iraq, we're morally obligated to try to leave some semblance of order when (if...) we leave. I'm afraid we're stuck in Iraq for at least a decade, if not several. It's not going to be pretty, when the civil war breaks out again. (Not "if." When...)
|
| |
|
|
|
|