Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

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.

Psst, it's no secret that the US would eventually go home. Also, when we start heading home it won't take a genius to deduce we're leaving. We're not going sneak out of Iraq. Finally, we have done it in the past (Nixon and Vietnam).
Yea and how many people got slaughtered after we left. I'm not saying that its is this big seceret that we will leave but you never show your hand for the other to sit back and wait for it to happen.

Yea and how many people got slaughtered after we left. I'm not saying that its is this big seceret that we will leave but you never show your hand for the other to sit back and wait for it to happen.


Show our hand? We don't have many hands left to play. It's a well known fact that the troops are weary and many are now on their second tour and some being extended.

The only hand we have left is to leave. We know it, the Iraquis know it and all the other terrorists know it. I don't think by the U.S. not setting a time table will mitiage the potential violence that will ensue.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have a problem with it too but one argument I keep hearing from lots of people(not you) is that Bush has destroyed our standing around the world with his ham handed foreign relations and diplomacy. When the same people come back and say that the Whitehouse needs to be something about this situation they are directly contradicting themselves on this point. People can't say "Don't interfer around the world and cost us respect" and then in the next senetence say "president bush should be outraged over this, and not a peep from the white house". It's actions like those peeps from the Whitehouse that supposedly has cost us such standing in the world. Again, I am not saying I agree with that stance. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of it.
you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?

you cant have your cake and eat it, too. either you go into Iraq, with a strong plan, both entry and exit, or you don't go in at all. once you are there, you try to accomplish your goals, as quickly as possible. and then turn over their country to them. to say we should let them take a vacation, in the middle of a civil war, is insane. how would Americans have felt if on sept 12, 2001, congress took a 3 week vacation. and i like how beems said it, if we are footing the bill, we have the right to question every move thats made. bush has already destroyed the united states good stranding around the world, so why worry about stepping on some more toes?
Let them?

This is what I am talking about. First off I agree that they should not be doing this. But, as you have stated in the past, you believe Bush and the administration have hurt us politically around the world with our foreign policy. Presummably a lot of that idea centers around the whole imperialist description that so many throw around. To then assert that we should MAKE another sovreign country's government not take a vacation is adovating, no demanding, that he do something undeniably imperialistic. I am simply pointing out that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your position. It is not my intention. For the record I think Bush ought to call Malaki up and ream his ass for letting this happen but then again I don't bash Bush on a regular basis for his imeprialistic foreign policy that has hurt us so badly.