j wrote:opera ghost wrote:IF we were going to have gone in there- we needed to go in with a clear objective, a clear, detailed plan with international support, and an equally clear and detailed exit plan once that objective was reached.
hmmm...
3 points I don't agree on as highlighted above
1) clear objective. --- what is not clear about forcibly removing a ruthless killing machine from power and liberating Iraq?
2)International support --- I'm so sick of hearing this one. We tried..remember?? and tried and tried., but the likes of France and Germany would not hear of it since their pockets had been lined with Iraqi contracts. Exactly what were we supposed to do??
3)clear and detailed exit plan - you are living in Oz if you think that before a War is even waged, we can have an exit plan. Our exit plan is and will continue to be flexible, which is all it can be when you don't have a complete surrender and laying down of arms. We may be out in 6 months, it may be 6 years.
1) It's the "Liberating" part that I object to. Once again- I have no issues removing a dictator from power. US has a nice long history of doing so without the turmoil that we've created in Iraq.
2) Continue trying until we have clear and unrefutable proof. In the face of clear, coincise, and true proof
those nations objections would have felt the sting of international disapproval. France and Germany were not the only countries with objections.
3) Are you familiar with the Powell Doctrine? Essentially, the Doctrine says that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target. The force (when used) needs to be overwhelming to the force used by the enemy. There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public... and there must be a
clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.
If the objectives are clear- so should the exit strategy be. I'm not asking for a date and time at the beginning of conflict- what I feel is approprite would be a detailed plan of what we do once our clear objective is reached. Liberty is not a clear objective- although it is a pretty dodge. Liberty is a concept that changes with the person speaking it and will never be an absolute. A clear objective might be: Setting up a soveriegn and capable government. Sure we're working on that now. (I state again- we have done some good- my objections are in the methods)
The only problem with that objective is that the people of Iraq still aren't ready for full soveriegnty. We should have anticipated that before we went in. Duh- we're ousting the top political dogs who've been in power for decades along with thier armies and we want people off the street to be able to fill in the void? Come ON. That's living in Oz.
Therefore, presenting this war to the american people as In and Out and on thier way was a lie by omission- and that's how it was presented in the beginning. that's how we GOT the overwhelming support for the war. We'd go in, kick Saddam out, prop up the new peron to step into his place, and we'd be out PDQ. Very few of the average Joes supporting the war expected it to last as long as it has, or to continue causing so many casualitites as we fight to establish Iraq's independance.
We needed a better exit strategy than... well when life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are settled....we'll call our troops home.