Why do Cons believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq?.?

Answer 1

I wish I had a profound answer for you but the truth remains...they're confused.

Answer 2

I don't think you're being fair.
The conservatives do not have an exit date for Iraq and refuse to set one. However this doesn't mean they have no exit strategy. The exit strategy is simply when the Iraqi people can provide for their own security and the security of a democratic government, then the US military will leave. There are already some generals speaking about the possibility of reducing troop strength.

If we were to pull out too early then Iraq will fall victim to sectarian violence. Do liberals want a civil war in Iraq?

Answer 3

An exit strategy? Have you ever read Clausewitz, or any of the other major treatises on war? Did Caesar go to Gaul with an exit strategy...or did he stay and win? What about Phyruss...or maybe you think the Greeks had one at Troy.....or Cao Cao did at the Battle of the Yellow Turban Rebellion?

"exit strategy" is a token phrase used by pundits to criticize a war without ever actually taking a basic course on military history and/or tactics. You do not enter a battle planning on retreating, simply because no military plan, however brilliant, survives first contact.

As far as Vietnam goes, the best way to describe Vietnam is that "from the jaws of victory we snatched defeat". The USA won every single battle with the NVA, and the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the insurgency. Yet, a forced draft eroded the will of the American people, and compelled a withdrawal that led to the massacre of many good, freedom loving people, at the hands of commies.

If you want to talk about something like this, please learn for yourself rather than getting rhetorical tripe off of web pagers and ignorant conversation.

Answer 4

This one doesn't. But let's go back further...what was the United States' "exit strategy" on December 8, 1941?

Nixon's (a Mod-Com) exit strategy for Viet Nam was what was known as Vietnamization coupled with a truce / treaty with North Viet Nam. That war ended honorably and successfully...the U.S. did not simply "pull out"...as some history revisionists would lead one to believe.

Agreed...some time later North Viet Nam broke the treaty and invaded South Viet Nam...and yes our cowardly Congress refused to assist our allies (South Viet Nam) but that was a whole new war.

If you disagree with the preceding, you'd have to allege that the U.S. and it's allies simply "pulled out" of World War I and that the Treaty of Versailles never existed. After all, Germany began violating that treaty in 1933 and it eventually led up to World War II (or was it still World War I?)

The exit strategy in the Iraqi Theater of the Global War on Terrorism is to train the Iraqi troops to secure their own borders and protect their own people. Part of the exit strategy is to have a Democratic government in place, as well.

The troops are being trained and are more successful every day. The democratic government is in place. Because there are terrorists present does not mean that there's not a democracy in place.

The U.S., Great Britain, France, Israel, Afghanistan, and Lebanon are all democracies...but they all have a terrorist problem as well.

Answer 5

I really have to question where you got this idea that this is what we believe.

You only have an exit strategy when you want to leave. LBJ never had an exit strategy. And Nixon was elected because one of his promises was to get us out of Vietnam. When your goal is to disengage and quit the war, I suppose that your plans for troop drawdowns and equipment transfers back home would be called an 'exit strategy'.

As far as I know, we have no current plans to leave Iraq, so there is no logical reason that we would need or want to have a plan for withdrawal. Our plan is to support the Iraqi people and government until they can take care of the terrorist insurgents, and the foreign terrorists themselves. Then we will plan troop withdrawal.

Answer 6

It's not the exit strategy that we should be concerned with...it's the winning strategy. Without a winning strategy, and a clear definition of victory, choosing to go to war is folly. In Vietnam this was all too clear...there was only a vague mission, no way to determine victory and certainly no winning strategy. In Iraq, however, the mission was clear, the strategy was debatably adequate and the definition of victory absolute. That the politicians have allowed the situation there to deteriorate is a separate issue for which they need to be held accountable.

Answer 7

you would be knowledgeable till now you additionally could make that fact. In Viet Nam, CONGRESS tried to run the conflict, by utilising changing the regulations as they went. We had a democratic congress on the time and that they'd initiate and end the bombing on the drop of a hat. In Iraq, the militia are working the tutor, for now, till and till Congress sticks its sticky arms into the pie and screws it up. In Viet Nam, we would take fireplace from the VC, could call and get permission to return fireplace. In Iraq, if fired at, you come fireplace. No questions asked. the situation I surely have with Iraq, is that we could strengthen to dam the infiltration of the Iranians and Syrians into Iraq the place they are inflicting the hassle. we could practice the army and turn it over too them. we've an go out techniques-set, yet its all in keeping with what is going on over there, and not what congress needs accomplished.

Answer 8

the only exit strategy we need is is victory

"exit strategy" is just a pc term for retreat. If you win, you don't need an exit strategy
Take a look at Japan after WWII, we stayed there with the country under our military's rule and built the country back up and help them become a major economic powerhouse and an strong ally for freedom

Answer 9

They started the Iraq war, so of course it's all right. The cons are pro whatever war they start. The fun is in conquering, remaking the world. I get a chill whenever I hear Bush say "these are historic times" or "the new middle east".

Answer 10

" Come on Wall Street now don't be slow.
Why man this is war a go go.
Plenty of good money to be made.
Supplying the army with the tools of the trade."

Answer 11

Vietnam, didn't take down the twin towers, our attempt to take out the White House, and attack the pentagon. How quickly we forget when we don't live in fear of a bomb landing in our living room. But how would you like to live in consistent fear of terrorist. If you've been watching the news their still trying to attack us.