Whether you are a pro Bushite or a 'I hate and can't stand Bush' opposition member, the real problem doesn't lie with whether we immediately withdraw our military or whether we hunker down for the long haul.

NO NO NO - The real problem is, has, and continues to be that there isn't one (policy that is).

If platitudes, slogans, pig headedness on the part of the President, the name game on the part of pro Bushites, and finger pointing on the part of the liberals make up a viable policy - I for one shiver to think how our country and government are viewed by our allies let alone our enemies.

If we have any hope of a solution, it won't be because of the 'stay the course' baloney that Bush keeps throwing in our faces (What hogwash). And of course that paragon of the American Way (Chaney) just thrills me every time he advocates allowing the CIA to use torture as a tool to ferret out information inimicable to our interests (Bush goes along with Chaney's statements 100%).

War and strife has been a way of life of many citizens living in the middle east - battles that were fought over a thousand years ago have not been forgotten and those that were on the other side are still considered to be enemies. For Bush or any of his supporters to think that the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq or in ANY country in that part of the world can be easily solved by putting 'friendly' 'democratic' governments into place leads me to believe they must live in another dimension - that or their grasp of reality places them on the planet Pluto.

Even the blindman who could not see knew that a little light must be shone into the corners to illuminate the truth. Bush, his spokesperson, his administration, and a multitude of supporters go into attack mode every time someone has the temerity to suggest that it would be a good idea to sit down and address the 'policy' as voiced by the President with an eye towards coming up with some kind of plan that has a chance of bringing our young men and women home in some near future (not years and years). Bush's stated policy doesn't appear to be working in a manner that inspires hope or confidence.

Our men and women continue to shed blood in a quagmire that doesn't show any indication that it is even close to ending and whether you like or don't like Bush, personal opinion tells me he DOES owe some answers to our citizens (our dead demand it).

Let's go through a quick review of places where there has been an American withdrawal of forces in the midst of a conflict, the results prove most instructive on the nature of this debate and what is at stake.

Vietnam

Beirut

Somalia

Gee, I wonder why this seems like a bad thing?

Bulldog
I concur with you ten thousand percent - immediate withdrawl ISN'T the answer.

That DOESN'T mean that our policies dealing with Iraq don't need looking at. As far as I can tell, there isn't any kind of policy let alone a policy that has even a 'simple' benchmark that can be used to measure progress in Iraq.

Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders had even a clue as to the progress of our measures being used in Iraq?

I don't believe that makes me anti anything - some people on another forum accused me of being anti-Bush and anti-American because I pointed out the above facts as I see them.

How typical of those who go through life wearing blinders. As military men, we have all come to the conclusion that war isn't the ONLY way to resolve problems. If and when you choose war, you owe it to those who are fighting and dying for you to at least have some idea or policy to measure progress towards resolving the dispute. Bush doesn't appear to have a policy that makes sense.

Chief I must say I too agree with your sentiments whole-heartedly. I find it interesting that those who have worn the uniform and seen combat and then become CIC have a much greater understanding of what you have said. Granted the political realities tend to muddy the waters but they do come closer to a realisation of just what is DOES take to fight a war. There is a world of difference just between the two Bushes. I personally hold that one is not fit to be the CIC if you have not served under fire. Its just a personal belief based on part of my code as a person that I will never ask someone to do something I have not done myself and I hold others to this same standard as a measure of the respect I accord them.

Bulldog
Believe it or not, I think you have just articulated something which has just bugging the h**l ot of me for a long long time. This Bush isn't fit to polish the boots of the lowliest trooper (living or dead) that has been forced to serve in a theater where there is no clear policy as to what the markers are to measure when the mission is complete.

It is very difficult for me to be civil to someone that hasn't 'been there' or 'done that'. Some of my civilian friends can't understand why I get so warped out of shape every time Bush baby opens his lying trap.

Oh well - this too will pass.

OK then Chief, now that we all seem to agree that we can't stay indefinitely deployed in Iraq, what then would you propose as a viable course of action. I understand where a measurable set of aims and goals would certainly keep us out of a potential quagmire. Let's face it nobody wants to see us get trapped in another Vietnam like situation. I'm not saying that we are in that situation (although your opinion may differ) but I am saying we should certainly avoid it but how? How do we extricate our military without sacrificing Iraq or the entire Middle East? So many people are fond of name calling and criticizing when it comes to the current administration but I have yet to hear a viable plan that would lead to success in that part of the world from them.

That's pretty much my feeling too Top. I would give almost anything if this war could have set milestones so we could count on our kids being home soon. Right at the moment though, our side is not calling the shots 100%. I think the President would pull as many as possible out if there was a way to do it without losing the ground we've gained so far and make all our victories so far hollow ones. All we can do is trust the military leaders and pray for the troops.

Originally Posted by DTop

How do we extricate our military without sacrificing Iraq or the entire Middle East? So many people are fond of name calling and criticizing when it comes to the current administration but I have yet to hear a viable plan that would lead to success in that part of the world from them.

OK this really isnt a plan just a thought but how about actually enlisting the aid of some of the more "moderate" muslim countries (Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan maybe Indonesia) to act as "peacekeepers" to help facilitate a gradual withdrawl.

One of the strengths of the coalition in GW1 was that it had muslim/middle eastern support why not try and recreate this as part of a withdrawl plan, certainly it relies heavily on a hope that the fundamentalists are not going to be quite so keen to kill fellow muslims but the only other real option is to be stuck there indefinately.

I dont know I guess the idea has a lot of holes and I have no doubt that it wont appeal to the "all muslims are terrorists" factions on these boards but its just a thought.

MontyB
Your suggestion has a lot of merit - however - I am not sure that a coalition as you described it would be possible at this late date. Bush Junior (unlike his father) managed to slap MOST of the Muslim/middle eastern countries in the face when he decided to invade Iraq without the support of a coalition of the "major" Muslim/middle eastern countries.

The friendly support that Bush Senior enjoyed has all but disappeared. Where we go from here will be determined by how we leave the country of Iraq. If we leave Iraq in civil disorder, then the loss of prestige will almost certainly be immense. A stable government, with a military able to defend the country and an infrastructure which has by in large been repaired will go a long ways towards raising the United States' prestige back to pre-invasion levels. I am not certain we can expect more.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

MontyB
Your suggestion has a lot of merit - however - I am not sure that a coalition as you described it would be possible at this late date. Bush Junior (unlike his father) managed to slap MOST of the Muslim/middle eastern countries in the face when he decided to invade Iraq without the support of a coalition of the "major" Muslim/middle eastern countries.

I dont think it would be an impossibility but the real questions are whether:
a) The US administration has the desire to do it.
b) Whether it has the ability diplomatically to put together such a grouping.

My personal belief is that no change in policy nor course is possible while GWB remains in office but 3 years from now that may change.

The friendly support that Bush Senior enjoyed has all but disappeared. Where we go from here will be determined by how we leave the country of Iraq. If we leave Iraq in civil disorder, then the loss of prestige will almost certainly be immense. A stable government, with a military able to defend the country and an infrastructure which has by in large been repaired will go a long ways towards raising the United States' prestige back to pre-invasion levels. I am not certain we can expect more.

To be honest I dont think there is any state you can leave Iraq in that will shine favourably on the US far too many bridges have been burnt world wide for that to happen.
The sad part of all this is that the only good thing to come out of this in the disposal of Hussein has been lost in the quagmire that has marred the occupation.

My personal belief is that Iraqs future once the occupation is over will involve civil war and either the return of a new dictator or three states.