Article

2006-08-29 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-08-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You can'r rush a miracle, sonny.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-08-29 01:41|| 2006-08-29 01:41|| Front Page Top

#2 I can't really understand that you "Have to have an exit strategy" when you begin hostilities. I have always thought that the ONLY exit strategy is victory. If we decided to bring our troops home and let Iraq to it's own demise we would have a MUCH bigger problem to deal with in a few years. I can pretty much state that Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Kurds DO NOT want us to leave anytime soon. Only Iran, Al Queda, Syria, and the Democrats seem to preach an early departure for our troops.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-08-29 10:29|| 2006-08-29 10:29|| Front Page Top

#3 I have always thought that the ONLY exit strategy is victory.

Sarge, I think most would agree with that statement. However, its somewhat of a chicken and egg argument. The definition of exit strategy to the battle-planner is an essential component to achieve victory. To the political boneheads it is simply a cliché to bandy about in an attempt to hide their ignorance.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-08-29 11:03|| 2006-08-29 11:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Depot Guy, if having an Exit Strategy is a measurement of the success of a conflict then WWII was a dismal failure. We still have large numbers of troops stationed overseas in Asia and Europe. No an exit strategy is either victory (the other guy gives up, ie Germany/Japan) or defeat (when you give up, ie Vietnam). For some reason I get the idea that most Democrats and some RINOS believe that the world would be a better place if the U.S. was defeated in Iraq. I am a simple person and I cant understand how letting Iran, Al Queda or both take control of Iraq would be a good thing. But then I dont have the keen intellect or military finesse of Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin and now Shays.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-08-29 11:34|| 2006-08-29 11:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Sarge, I think our disagreement is in semantics not conclusions. The Army War Colleges evaluation criteria for an exit strategy encompass 3 areas; Military; Political and Threat. Their "battlefield framework" is based on both Mission and Intent. The politicians you listed narrowly define their definition so that it is tailored to their agenda.

Quote from the Council on Foreign Relations:

If you ask most politicians what an exit strategy is, they will look at you blankly, because they consider the answer obvious: a plan to bring American troops home from some mission abroad. The simplicity of this definition reveals the concept's political, as opposed to intellectual, origins: it is a response to perceived popular impatience with messy foreign entanglements. Link

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-08-29 12:56|| 2006-08-29 12:56|| Front Page Top

23:58 Zenster
23:55 Phil
23:55 Thoth
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:52 Zenster
23:49 Zenster
23:46 Thoth
23:46 Phil
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:46 anonymous2u
23:45 Phil
23:44 Thoth
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:42 RD
23:39 Thoth
23:38 Phil
23:34 ed
23:34 Thoth
23:30 Thoth
23:30 Zenster
23:29 john
23:29 ed
23:24 Zenster
23:18 ed