Has the Pentagon plan always been to keep Iraq as a PERMANENT overseas BASE???

Question

Why else would there be no exit stratagy???

The plan was always to never leave.

I have been pro Joint force base for years.

A deep water port and multi service base with 20,000 foot runways for landing heavy C5's also 20 steam catapults to launch 20 jets in one minute.

I'm in favor of building the worlds largest base in Southern Iraq

Is the YA community now publishing obscure Novellas

Answer 1

It would certainly appear so.

Answer 2

True or not, it isn't a bad idea to keep a strong presence in the most unstable region in the world.

(And it's silly to think that it is unstable due to our presence. The Middle East has been a violent and oppressive place for over 1000 years.)

Answer 3

I beg to differ.... There was no exit strategy because we are not close enough to accomplishing the mission to have an exit.

leaving too soon will only open our borders to more terrorists...

Sounds like you've been pelosi'd...was it good for her too?

Answer 4

I have an exit startgey we drop shock and awe Iran and come home

Answer 5

And that's a bad idea?

If so - where's the "exit strategy" for our 'war on drugs'? Or our 'war on poverty'?

Answer 6

No, that is Cheney's plan so that his Haliburton stock just keeps going up and up.

Answer 7

maybe, if oyu don't want them to do it, vote for the democrats ;)

Answer 8

and the problem with that is?

Answer 9

I think there is an exit strategy. Though politicly we dug ourselves in a hole to deep to get out of.

Well.....here's something I found on www.Borisstudios.com

The United States’ so called “Liberation” of Iraq displayed to the entire globe that mother America is a snake, but in contradiction, tactical prey. Bearing in mind the progress of the suicidal war, many obvious disadvantages had been overlooked because the politicians are strangling America’s military minds. The largest errors in how the US handled the Iraq campaign were, of course, the political influences, and the poor strategic planning. If the Iraqis had any chance of victory and the boldness to capitalize on American mistakes, both of those errors could have caused a major upset in the war. One must remember that it is not a commander’s brilliance that wins wars, but their ability to take advantage of the enemies oversights; they do not make their own victory; their adversary does that for them.


The US government failed to realize the cost/benefit factor of long-distanced wars. If the insurgents implemented better strategy and forced the need for backup, reinforcements would have taken a considerable amount of time to disperse to their tactically advantageous positions, maybe compromising the entire campaign, rushing to the positions would definitely expose the supply lines and that would allow the Iraqis a strategic edge if they realized how to capitalize on such blunders. Even more, the supply routes were sloppy, it was reported that in many different parts of the campaign supplies ran short, and that happened because America used the old “We have more guys than you” trick and stormed Iraq with a massive number superiority, while not considering smaller separate groups that would use less supplies and could do the same damage if they effectively used flanks and ambushes, especially since the Iraqis would have expected a massive army and would have assumed defensive positions anyway, making themselves more than vulnerable. Worst of all, the United States tried to inbreed the impossible by not only introducing a massive army of powerful weaponry and technology that uses a behemoth amount of supplies, but to push that force quickly as if it were a small, swift machine. A clear example of what that stimulates: the 507th maintenance company’s exhaustion and poor judgment that lead them directly into an Iraqi stronghold March 23, 2003, where Jessica Lynch was captured along with six others, who were lucky compared to the eleven killed. The commander of the 507th who made the mistake was not blamed, but will probably be damaged for life considering that her mistake cost lives. In affect, it should be noted that it wasn’t her, she was an NCO, mistake at all, but that of the overall strategy. A great military commander can bend things so those extremely over risky maneuvers, such as rushing your supply lines, will simply cease to exist. It is the fault of the commander(s) who had total influence over the campaign, and who ignored the fact that people have limits. One should be wise enough to keep a man well nourished and well rested, even during war.


More on supply lines (One of the most important parts of any war), the CSS (Combat Service Support) has at least ten-thousand, five ton trucks in its inventory which it used to ship supplies across the vast deserts of Iraq. The problem with that statement should be clear, the word “vast” that indicates an almost impossible logistical reach and even more planning, constantly shifting thousands to work on the smaller pictures, while even more have to look over the whole picture. With each new person the risk of a mistake goes up a certain percentage, and the more people you have the more likely a mistake will go unnoticed. That mistake, in turn, could cost a few lives by the time it is recognized. How to fix that problem? Temporary Air Fields in strategic locations close to a certain concentration of troops, or maybe a shifting supply line pattern that does NOT supply from behind the lines; but mixes within the lines as a webbing pattern, only that the pattern is confusing, logical to only the Americans, and even better yet, that strategy is supplied by temporary airfields at secret locations preplanned to the efforts of the invading forces (In the event of invading a nation, defense would have little need of such strategy). Using aircraft as the main means of supplying your troops can reveal many problems, but then again it can yield many benefits. What should be considered is: does it save time, does it cut down on human resources, and is it an advantage that can be turned against us? If the last question is yes, which in this case the Iraqis had no air superiority so it would be no, a contingency plan should be put into place and both should be used to further confuse the enemy.


That puts light on the military foolishness that followed our forces as a pack of hungry wolves waiting for the precise moment to feed. The pack of wolves is hungry because we refuse to actually accept the fact that war is an Art of Deceit that needs a flare of creativity every now and then. The military plan was obvious and if the Iraqis didn’t catch on to our double-flank movement, they have no right being a nation; actually they don’t, considering Saddam was their leader and we found him unfit, thus instituting a new government. The only slight surprise developed from the 173rd airborne brigade’s drop in Northern Iraq on March 27th where they secured an airfield near Bashur. The rest was obvious, a straight double flank shot toward Baghdad, capturing the major influential cities along the way.


Another mistake, capturing a city, any city, is a risky maneuver and should be avoided when not absolutely necessary. Since a city is such an enclosed capsule with so many places to hide it levels out the playing field. Leveling out the playing field is not smart, especially when you have a HUGE strategic advantage otherwise. A mere waiting process, leaving troops to make sure no enemy masses a huge force behind your back eventually draws out the bad guys. Attacking a city only wastes supply, puts your troops at unnecessary risk, costs your nation billions (Because that could slow your advance exponentially), and could leave your position exposed to being surrounded by enemy forces, possibly eliminated, which could lead to a broken flank in your offensive. Besides, your enemy will sooner or later become frustrated that you have disabled their city without actually invading it and stage an attack, which with prudence could be setup as an ambush, a draw maneuver, or could just be given back to your adversary if it puts them at a disadvantage. They will assume they have won the day when in reality they cut their own throats. With that you have done two things 1. You gave them a victory so they become slightly more arrogant, which could lead them to be slightly too aggressive (Overconfident) and 2. You put them at a disadvantage while they see victory. All that wasted breath about honor is ridiculous, if you can gain an advantage by surrendering a position; by all means what are you waiting for?


The entire outline of the US approach almost seems like a political joke, as if the United States intended on wasting a massive amount of resource, money, manpower, and competence for the sake of liberating a nation that really doesn’t matter to it. So what’s the actual reason for invading that nation? Well, there are many beneficial factors that we must consider: It is in the heart of the Islamic community and its transformation to a democracy will help us institute westernization, or by their means (Bringing the evil ways of technology and western beliefs to their country) corrupt their society. It is a major resource center for oil, and thus can be very beneficial to our industries. The placement of Iraq can give us a strategic Air-Strike advantage lest we decide to invade any middle-eastern nations. Our influence, and thus their government, will be despised by the bordering Islamic nations and will, more than likely, take pressures off of Israel.


You have to wonder, why did we pummel Iraq with so much ordinance, when in reality we didn’t have to do that? Tactically speaking, Iraq didn’t have a chance in a million, unless they happened to have an extremely creative military leader, but Saddam made the mistake of killing those national assets. Now, the idea of hitting your enemy so hard that he’ll never get up, that’s a great plan, preemptive strikes can really do the trick, but considering the needed ordinance compared to what was displayed, and our bombing looks excessive. Why did we waste all of those bombs? Because that is how the United States declares its supremacy among the world powers. The image of that massive bombing run will settle into the dark corner of the minds of those who may one day wish to be an enemy of the United States or their interests, and they’d think twice before causing any harm or stirring any trouble. So yes, it was a show more than a blow, because the blow was merely taking out their anti-aircraft guns, which couldn’t hit anything anyway. Now everyone will remember those days on CNN or CNNI when we pummeled the balls off of Saddam’s central nervous system and kept bombing because we needed to get rid of our old supplies and make way for the newer more destructive ones. In actuality, you wouldn’t have to guess that at all if you look at the new Strategy of the US, it states that rather clearly.


Shape, Respond, and Prepare Now, those are the words used in the new military strategy of the United States, and those are the influences that not only pummeled Iraq, but are working in Afghanistan to capture the ever sly Osama Bin Laden. It’s rather an easy going idea, shape the International environment toward the advantage of the USA, Respond to a full spectrum of crises, and Prepare Now for an uncertain and risky future by implementing strategic ideals, technology, and training exercises. It’s an obvious assumption the United States has made, since we are the most powerful we should run the world to our best interests and influence anything required to meet that end, and anyone who doesn’t agree with our interests will be bombed to hell. A very simple philosophy and that shows the arrogance of this wonderful country I call home, because it may be simple and it may work to our advantage but it puts the world on a pinhead, balanced perfectly right now, but the slightest shift in weight, even a breeze, and it will all tumble to the ground.


So essentially, we invaded Iraq, conquered their government, put them in a very dangerous situation which they probably don’t agree with and will never be safe from, and declared we saved them from an evil dictator. But who really cares that we basically tossed a bloody steak on them so the other Islamic nations attack and gives us an excuse to therefore ‘protect’ our new friends and institute new government in their lands? No one, well, no one American that is, because it is in our best interests, and tactically that is true. Philosophically it is not.


Now the question rises, a slight tugging of the mind, what would have worked for the Iraqis in this war? Did they even have a chance, and if so what could they have done to make it harder on the Allied invasion of their nation?


The problem here lies not in their strategy, because you can have the most brilliant mind to ever touch the face of this planet and lose a war miserably if your men are not willing to cooperate with what you demand, if they don’t trust you or believe in your orders. The Iraqis disadvantage came from their resentment of Saddam Hussein, not including the Sunni population; the error of Saddam’s power resulted from his following being one of the smaller populations that inhabited his nation. He cooed to that populous and ignored or destroyed the others, where if he showed respect to all of the populations and religious branches he would have been much more influential, and we probably wouldn’t have had the war to begin with. The most devastating blow came from Saddam’s forces surrendering time and time again, and his final capture resulted from his body guard turned traitor.


But the question still nags, still wondering, if I had control of those men and was in the same situation as Saddam, what would I have done? It was pretty obvious either Saddam followed demands and got rid of his WMD, or he buried them in his vast desert country. Both would be a retarded thing to do, in that situation he had almost all of the nations on earth against him, they were going to invade regardless of what he said because no one trusts his word, and they would have air superiority because the Air Force might as well be a bunch of kids shooting spit wads. I would have buried my weapons, yes, but to be used as mines and would connect them to digital detonators, especially at two major bridge crossings, since the American invasion would have obviously come from the south. Their path would be to follow the river as an Axis and stomp north to the capital city of Baghdad. That was the obvious, and the American’s followed it, what might have been overlooked was how FAST they would carry out this plot.


Cities are basically a worthless asset because the American’s claim and the political pressure; they would not raze the cities to the ground so let them enter at their own risk. I would never have put my troops in the cities, but to have them surrounding the cities in the desert. The problem rises from not knowing the terrain and whether or not they had hiding places that could conceal them from satellites, and if so a big advantage would be capitalized upon. The US army obviously thrives on technology, no, they depend on technology and so it is wise to trick their eyes. It would be tactically advantageous to setup a fake convoy not far from the southern city of Al-Nasiriya, and have a chemical warhead hooked to a detonator in the belly of one of the old useless vehicles, a powerful warhead. Once the special ops or the marines showed up BOOM, using patience, of course, so they decide that it is not a trap, just a junkyard. On two flanks of the city there would be sandbags designed to hold off the Americans, since Nasiriya is the crossing over the Euphrates. I’d have forces, very few but enough, to harass the forces into the only cover provided, the Junkyard. Once backed into position under heavy fire the detonator would cause an explosion and essentially eliminate a large portion of the force. The bridge would then be wired to explode shortly thereafter, cutting off the advance, and inviting counter-attack from the 82nd airborne division. If there is any tactical weakness of our nation, it’s our vengeance.


The only hope for victory, though, would be if an alliance had been manifested. A large purchase of air-fighters perhaps, to reclaim Air superiority, or at least put a fight up for it, because without air support your chances of winning are slim, and will only come about because your enemy REALLY messed up big time. However, in Saddam’s position, I would have admitted defeat a long time ago, while still putting up a fight and trying diplomatic ties to help aid in the coming battles. I would back stab a neighboring nation, most likely IRAN, by planting some sensitive material and hoping America would furiously pin their diplomatic rage against them, and I’d contact them shortly after and settle an agreement of a unified campaign against the United States in the benefit of both nations, while selling out a good source of oil to China for covert aid against their arch rivals. Following maybe two days of those political rage disputes, already preplanned, Iran would mass a huge aerial assault against the American Air Force, while being sure to drop bombs on the near supply lines and taking out SAMs (Surface to Air Missile units). This counter-attack would allow me to bring out a hidden brigade, whom I would have throughout the entire nation, and invade Kuwait. The United States would have an obligation to aid Kuwait and would have to pull out troops or force reserves into action. It would add more countries to the list of the allies, however, that is meaningless since there were over one-hundred nations in aid of the attack anyway, so no major loss there.


Such strategies are mere speculation capitalizing on weaknesses and foolish mistakes of the invader. There is probably no chance that it would work out that way, but you never know how the world works sometimes. Every once in awhile a sick bastard gets lucky and causes world wars or “liberates” nations under its perceived status. My loyalty is with America, but that does not mean I will ignore her stupid mistakes and call her a genius, because in that war she was a fool and if the opponent had a chance to do any real damage it would have poisoned her flesh.