May I have the envelope please...

[vc1111]

...you know, the one with the viable exit strategy for Iraq.

[frizzellr]

You mean like the viable exit strategy for Germany, ***an and Korea? Oh, that's right, we are still there.

[CalHunter]

This should be fun. What exactly do you think is a minimum level for a viable exit strategy? Many people complain about this very thing but very few even hint at their idea of what is viable or a good strategy.

[Coastie]

Viable by what standard and approved by whom? Those appointed to make it work or the instant experts chummed up by the press?
Active duty military and their civilian Defense Department contemporaries or the cadre of retired Generals and Colonels not quite good enough to have achieved the rank required for them to have continued in active service? Has anybody considered that perhaps an exit strategy should be held as closely to the vest as an invasion plan? Leaked information of that type could be used against you as surely as a map of your headquarters. We have the right and perhaps a duty to question many things, but we don't necessarily have an absolute right to an answer.

[PABuck_HNTR]

Maybe we could go to John Kerry and ask him what his PLAN was??
Or one of the so-called experts on tv that say everything is wrong ,but offer no real solutions. The "experts" ( more like monday morning quarterbacks) were not even known to most people before the networks and cable news shows dug them up. Please tell us VC in your infinite wisdom. What is your PLAN? Or are you like all the rest of the whiners out there who just can't let go and move on? Still clinging to the liberal talking points even after getting whooped in the elections and can't understand why.

[vc1111]

Shortly after 9/11, when President Bush declared "war" on "terrorism" wherever and whenever it exists, for me at least, warning flags went up. Parameters, please, parameters. How about an exit strategy? When will this "war" be over? What if (as it pretty much turned out) we found ourselves hanging in the wind with insufficient global support?

Has anybody considered that perhaps an exit strategy should be held as closely to the vest as an invasion plan?

Such a question, while interesting and fodder for another thread, only dodges the question. It also flies in the face of lessons learned from Viet Nam. No nation including America can endure warfare for an infinite term. Even many of the diehard supporters of the Viet Nam conflict lost faith over time. The effort required to draw parallels is minimal.

fight4:

Please tell us VC in your infinite wisdom. What is your PLAN? Or are you like all the rest of the whiners out there who just can't let go and move on? Still clinging to the liberal talking points even after getting whooped in the elections and can't understand why.

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I supported the war since its inception and I still do. I also voted for GW. ....There. Feel better? ....Now, if you are able, drop your petty preconceived notions as to whom supports what by some sort of simplistically devised default and try thinking for yourself.

The question is perfectly logical and the popular given answer is muddy at best. It goes something like this: "We'll stay in Iraq until the election of a viable new government and until the Iraqi troops are "sufficiently" trained to take over the duties of quelling (what seems to be an inexhaustable supply) of insurgents."

Please tell us VC in your infinite wisdom. What is your PLAN? Or are you like all the rest of the whiners out there who just can't let go and move on?

Could you think any smaller? Do you have that same empty-headed, indignant, knee-jerk reaction to all logical questions that might cause you to actually have to think about all possible consequences. Here's a hot news flash for you: The war is not widely supported. In fact, you might actually say that it is a point of contention and division on a national basis. Fancy that, eh? We won this election. Big deal. Do you seriously think that means that whatever Bush wants, Bush gets, from now on? Sorry. It doesn't work that way. It never did...throughout time.

We are now dealing with a foreign culture that is given to graft and corruption and quite comfortable in its midst. Nevermind that that foreign culture is surrounded by oil-rich nations of dubious trustworthiness. (Gee, let me think now. Where has the price of gasonline gone since this Iraqi mess started? What is your breaking point? $5 a gallon? $10? $20 a gallon? Think it can't happen?)

Fight4, are you able to remember what happened when the coalition began to assemble the nation into police precincts and delegate authority to precinct officials, charged with the responsibility of hiring hundreds of Iraqi police officers? I'll bet you don't. It happened within the last 12 to 15 months and stands as a mute reminder of what to expect from the new government.

Here's more for you to chew on, fight4: What did we find out about the first interim leader of Iraq (I forget his name at the moment), the one that Bush et al trusted so much that he was invited to Washington?

Every American should concern themselves with Calhunter's question. Gee that even includes you, fight4. Because we will have to arrive at a consensus at one point or another. We cannot, and I promise you will not, support Iraq for an infinite amount of time, and although you may personally blindly support the effort at this moment in time, you may find that like those staunchest supporters of Viet Nam, there is a limit to how many dead Americans and how high a deficit you are willing to withstand.

Coastie again:

We have the right and perhaps a duty to question many things, but we don't necessarily have an absolute right to an answer.

An army that is without the support of its homeland population is an army defeated. Viet Nam 101. The North Viet Namese and their leaders were keenly aware that the support of the American people was flagging. It emboldened them. Our present enemies were of the mind that America would do next to nothing (as was done under Clinton) in the wake of 9/11. They were wrong, weren't they? That does not, however, mean that we will be willing to listen to body counts forever.

So I ask you flag-waving, close-minded, uptight, right-wing wacko weenies again... when is it over? When should it end? How should it end? How do you personally picture it ending? What if the insurgents never stop coming into Iraq, like the North Viet Namese really never stopped? What if the country does not stabilize? What if an even more corrupt and anti-American government comes to power by way of elections? Then what? We stay and fight them too?

Now Arafat is dead. Who will replace him? How will that affect our efforts in Iraq and Israel and the support or disdain of the other 22 muslim nations in the world?

No fight4, its not left vs right. Its simply human nature. We need to know there is light at the end of the tunnel. So what is our exit strategy from Iraq?

[PABuck_HNTR]

Alot of talk with big ol words and rambling doesn't answer the question asked of you either VC. I see your back in your holier than thou mode which in turn makes you look like like a liberal, because thats the way they act. I'm not going to ramble on and on like you do, but you asked a baited question to begin with and you knew there would be no answer to it. You don't know what we should do so why should anyone else? Lets leave it up to the REAL Military men and women not the ones pretending on tv that they have any more clue than you or I have on the exit plans. You fell into the media spin instigated by the democrats for political points. By the way it didn't work!


Maybe there is no exit stategy like people claim... So what does that mean? Wars aren't scipted and everything is subject to change based on what the other side does. Kinda like football games you need to make adjustments sometimes to win. Doesn't always mean your plan was bad, it just means things can and will go wrong. We were told that Iraq would be fierce in their fighting to protect Bagdad, there weren't they ran and hid. Did you expect us to be in Bagdad in the short amount of time we were? Did you expect the Iraqi's to use chemical weapons on our men and women? Things are not always scripted.

[PABuck_HNTR]

So I ask you flag-waving, close-minded, uptight, right-wing wacko weenies again ... when is it over? When should it end? How should it end? How do you personally picture it ending? What if the insurgents never stop coming into Iraq, like the North Viet Namese really never stopped? What if the country does not stabilize? What if an even more corrupt and anti-American government comes to power by way of elections? Then what? We stay and fight them too?

YES, I'm not willing to throw in the towel less than 2 years into it. We still are a presence in ***an, Germany and Korea. How long did it take for them to stabilize? I bet more than 2 years.

[CalHunter]

ORIGINAL: CalHunter

This should be fun. What exactly do you think is a minimum level for a viable exit strategy? Many people complain about this very thing but very few even hint at their idea of what is viable or a good strategy.

Every American should concern themselves with Calhunter's question.
vc1111

There's a bit of question dodging or are you running out of steam today??? I would like to hear your thoughts on the parameters YOU think we should be establishing and what exit strategy YOU think the U.S. should be using for this war. I'll list my ideas below so I don't come across as merely contributing chatter and not stepping up to the plate. I'm not trying to malign you here as I think you probably have some good ideas about a strategy, etc. and would like to hear them.

I agree that there should be some kind of exit strategy so that we know when we're done, are able to determine if the price becomes too expensive and do not intend to make Iraq another Puerto Rico without a Senator, etc. I know that President Bush and his team have established the requirements of a stable Iraq with a lawfully elected Iraqi government running Iraq.

It is a simple concept yet there are many details one could dispute or disagree on. How stable? What if some dufus warlord or terrorist cleric boycotts the election? What if the Iraqis decide they don't want to be a democracy and revert to socialism, communism or just another thug dictator or warlord?

JMHO here but I believe that we should help pacify the country to the point where Iraq can hold a legitimate and free election, establish their government and begin running their country. I would presume at that point we could begin to withdraw our troops and possibly even evacuate all of them.

I think this process will take another year at most till we see the new Iraqi government operating and we can begin our troop withdrawal. I don't believe that Iraq will be terrorist free at that point but think it will be at a manageable level to where the Iraqis can hold their own and do not need the assistance of U.S. troops.

I would think that we are going to provide some kind of assistance to the Iraqis for quite some time after our troops have left. This would probably be in the form of military items, construction items and money.

It is difficult to set a specific date in stone or a specific level of reduced terror activity as to the point at which we would declare our job is done and withdraw our troops. I would think there would be a general consensus that we are in some type of acceptable zone of lessened terrorist activity and then withdraw our troops.

[PABuck_HNTR]

and although you may personally blindly support the effort at this moment in time,

I don't think that I'm alone in the support for the Iraq Liberation, 60,000,000 other Americans seem to throw in their support too. Maybe your the one blinded? Keep throwing out insults, it suits you!