Unilateral Withdrawal Or More Troops

Published on November 7, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics

If we “unilaterally” invaded a country, why can we not unilaterally cut and run? Why does even, Dean say that we cannot do the latter? — and by so doing joins the ilk of liberal hawks, such as Hillary and Kerry? Is it inspired begrudgingly by the adage that “you made your bed...”? But do we have to sleep in it other sleepless nights as well?

For one thing, “unilateral” was in the decision; the execution was not, for Bush was smart enough to drag along a “coalition”; despite its being window dressing. Nevertheless, some members of this coalition have in fact unilaterally cut and run — apparently without repercussions other than from critics in this country. There are even critics who object to a timetable of attrition for fear the insurgents will simply exploit it to their advantage.

To what end, then, did Bush commit the nation? Was it to insure that there be unconditional democracy, though already this has been compromised? And if we wait until Iraqi forces are up to par, what guarantee is there that they will indeed put down the insurgency once and for all in face of our own forces unable to do so? If indeed there be a true Bush commitment to this war, should he not send in another 100,000 coalition troops to wipe out resistance? Echoes of Vietnam notwithstanding, what has he got to lose as a lame duck president but the soul of his party?

The alternative, it would appear, is for Bush just as boldly unilaterally submit to a timetable come hell or high water, with or without UN blessings, and put an end to this debacle.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 5)

stevendedalus

on Nov 10, 2005

developed a generic shell plan that Bush would most likely never had seen, for a situation nearly seven years before.

You're omitting Gen. Zinni’s Desert Fox strategy.

COL Gene

on Nov 10, 2005

IslandDod. The Plan was to have the troops needed at the time Saddam fell. That NEVER happened. We were unable to establish and maintain control over Iraq. We now have the results-- 2,000 dead, 35,000 injures and almost ALL because Bush did not provide the manpower up front as both Generals Schinsecki and Franks told him were required!

Bush is a complete failure in Iraq and in almost every thing he has done as President. that fiollows the remander of his life..

A little joke for you.

Three Texas surgeons were playing golf together and discussing surgeries they had performed.

One of them said, "I'm the best surgeon in Texas. A concert pianist lost 7 fingers in an accident, I reattached them, and 8 months later he performed a private concert for the Queen of England."

One of the others said, "That's nothing. A young man lost both arms and legs in an accident, I reattached them, and 2 years later he won a gold medal in field events in the Olympics."

The third surgeon said, "You guys are amateurs. Several years ago a cowboy who was high on cocaine and alcohol rode a horse head-on into a train traveling 80 miles an hour. All I had left to work with was the horse's ass and a cowboy hat. Now he's president of the United States.

Island Dog

on Nov 10, 2005

The Plan was to have the troops needed at the time Saddam fell. That NEVER happened. We were unable to establish and maintain control over Iraq. We now have the results-- 2,000 dead, 35,000 injures and almost ALL because Bush did not provide the manpower up front as both Generals Schinsecki and Franks told him were required!

Col, you have no provided any proof that the casualty rate would be any higher or lower if the troop levels were higher. Get over it col. Your constant pasting of left wing rhetoric is quite old.

Bush is a complete failure in Iraq and in almost every thing he has done as President. that fiollows the remander of his life..

Col, only in your eyes. You constantly ignore everything that shows you wrong. Why is that col?

Remember one thing col.

President Bush - twice elected President

Col - internet poster who loses local elections, and can't get his book on the best seller list.

Who's the loser col?

COL Gene

on Nov 10, 2005

You better look ar what almost every senior officer has said about the Iraq war. The take down of saddam was great and everything after that was a disaster. Almost ALL the deaths and injuries took place AFTER Saddam fell and because we never were able to get control of the Country. I am glad you can get over all the deaths and injuries which are the direct result of George W. Bush!

Lee1776

on Nov 10, 2005

No I have provided the info about TWO Generals best positioned to know what was required Gen. Shinsecki and Gen Franks.

You better look ar what almost every senior officer has said about the Iraq war.

WHERE IS THIS INFO ABOUT FRANKS THAT YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT?

If your talking about the original OPPLAN, that was not made by Franks or any of the Bush senior military staff.

Again for the FOURTH TIME where is your link or evidence that any other of Bush's senior officers (especially Franks) has said that, other then Shinseki. Just because you say they have, does not make it true. Provide at least one link!!!!

You would think if what you say is true, at least one major news organization would have an interview or something splashed all other the front page stating this.

Lee1776

on Nov 10, 2005

Gen Franks is the second general that said we needed more troops. His op Plan 1003 called for first 500,000 and then he did mofify that to 300,000. Bush sent 1/2 the 300,000 and less then 1/3 the 500,000.

The only thing in Woodward's book is about the original model OPPLAN created in 1996, not General Frank's OPPLAN. His OPPLAN requested 165,000 troops. Show me where Franks had asked for more. You can make up stories all day long Gene, but until you have a statement from Franks or one of his staff, these accusations are your own and some left wing web site's pipe dream. You and a left wing website seem to be the only source of this info at this time.

COL Gene

on Nov 10, 2005

Page 96 "Phase Four - Stabilizing an occupied Iraq. During that phase the remander of the force would arrive, taking it to about 300,000" Both Franks and Shinsecki told Bush what was needed. Shinsecki was forced to retire because he told Bush what he did not want to hear. Farnks went ahead and gave into Bush and now we have the mess in Iraq. As soon as the terrorists began to organize, we lost control. They operated in the areas we bypassed on our rush to remove Saddam. We did not control the borders. We allowed our enemies to help themselves to the Amo Dumps which they useed to kill our troops amd we could not protect the oil, water and electrical systems. Most of the dead and injured are due to the loss of control. Franks and every other General should have told Bush that they could not take on the mission without the needed forces. Bush and Rummy have NO business making military decissions as they are not qualified. The way the Iraq war was conducted after Saddam fell was a disaster.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2005

Mmmm, yes. A nation of 25+ MILLION people defeated and occupied for two years with a force less than 1% of the population, and with losses less than many single battles in previous wars, AFTER having defeated another nation only months before.

Oddly enough, I think any other time in history that would have been considered a massive victory. Leave it to the Col and the rest of the Bush haters to turn such a feat into a "disaster".

COL Gene

on Nov 11, 2005

Bakerstreet

When I give you the info you say you want you change the subject. If you think there is security in Iraq or that we control that country, you are kidding yourself. When we depart, the factions that fighting the US will turn that counry into a Civil War

drmiler

on Nov 11, 2005

Now that the shoe is on the other foot....how does it feel to be on the recieving end for once? Heh col?
And btw....it wasn't bakerstreet asking for anything oh clueless one. It was Lee1776 doing the asking.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2005

I didn't ask you for what you posted, col. I couldn't give two little farts about what ex-general political tools with an axe to grind have to say.

Col, again I'd repeat that Iraq is a nation of 25+ million people. If you think for a second they couldn't swallow 150,000 whole in a matter of days you're nuts. If Iraq were in the condition you claim it is in we'd be losing hundreds every day.

There are often 2000 murders in a single year in California. Are they having a civil war? Does it take huge conspiracies? Is Bush to blame? Are people who think the government is in control there "fooling themselves?" It saddens me that you can live with such hateful tunnel vision. You really need to get some perspective.

COL Gene

on Nov 11, 2005

What is going on in Iraq is an armed inserection. That country has been held togethetr by force since it was created by England. If after we leave Iraq is either unstable or stable but unfriendly ( like Iran or Seria) to the US and the West, we have failed. Either of those two outcomes is VERY likely. The problem is not with the 25 million people but with the several hundred thousand radicals. Had Bush listened to the Generals that knew what it would take to control the radicals, we would not have lost 2,000 troops and had 15,000 combat injuries. Iraq would be on the way to a point where the Iraq government could take over. All you Bushies can bellow all you want, The Bush policy is a disaster in Iraq, in Foreign policy, in energy, in the fiscal approach and in just about EVERYTHING. Please document the major issues that the Bush approach has solved or made better.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2005

"What is going on in Iraq is an armed inserection. "

Hardly. It works for you to look at it in a bubble like that, but in reality were that true the entire world would be the playing field for your armed insurrection. This isn't the IRA and England, this is going on in every nation these terrorist organizations can burrow into. Iraq is just another square on the chess board.

"The problem is not with the 25 million people but with the several hundred thousand radicals. Had Bush listened to the Generals that knew what it would take to control the radicals, we would not have lost 2,000 troops and had 15,000 combat injuries."

No, the problem is the only other course of action would have been the violent oppression of the Iraqi people to weed those radicals out of the population. I KNOW you would have loved that, because you'd be here yapping about how Bush's stormtroopers are abusing the Iraqi people. You're so utterly transparent, Col.

And, again, if you think 2000 troops is a lot of losses in the defeat and 2 year occupation of a nation of 25 million people, well, I really don't understand how you got to be a Col. The sad part is you DO know better, but you make these facetious statements as a matter of anti-Bush propaganda. A good sense of perspective is the last thing you want people to have.

As I have said a million times, your obsessiveness doesn't make you look like a Bush expert, on the contrary, it makes you look deranged. When you gloss over facts, mischaracterize everything as a failure or a defeat, scream incessantly that the sky is falling, all it does is make your other, possibly valid complaints look less believable.

COL Gene

on Nov 11, 2005

You are one that refuses to accept the fact we made an error. The polls all say the same thing. Your BOY has the support of 35-37% of Americans. You are part of that minority.

bakerstreet

on Nov 11, 2005

lol, funny thing is that polls of public perception of the Republican party during the last couple of years of Clinton's office were dismal. I saw one from Dec 1998 a day or two ago that rated Republicans at 28%...

So, you'll pardon me if I am dubious, considering that a party with a 28% approval rating somehow managed to dominate the election a couple of years later. I guess polls have to talk for you when your own ideas are shown to be propaganda. Doesn't mean the are meaningful, not in the least.

Want to poll people around here about how good of a job you are doing? What you don't understand that the majority of the people who are back slapping you and badmouthing Bush would probably vote for him again given someone like Kerry. You're granting the polled public a bit too much depth.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!