If the Bush Administration decides to take the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and withdraw US troops from Iraq, how will that be different than the "Cut and Run," strategy republicans accused democrats of in the mid-term elections?
Is it a matter of spin, or do you see actual differences in the strategies?
2006-12-11 02:09:44 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Huge difference: See, one is endorsed by the GOP and one was a crazy idea of them dayum crazy 'liberals'. See? It's totally clear to me! (he said, tongue firmly in cheek)
Let me offer you this scenario. Let's say you're sitting at home, minding your own business and the police knock your door down. They say your dad has a bomb, they search the house, and take him away. 3 1/2 years later, they're still in your house even though your dad is in jail and no bombs were found. Your brothers and sisters are all fighting with each other, your power is out, your house is a wreck, and there's nobody in charge anymore. If you ask the police to leave, or why they're there, they take you away too. But finally the police seargeant informs you that they can't leave because that would be "cut and run" and your house is a disaster...which they caused, and you really need them there to help you, whether you like it or not.
That's what's going on in Iraq right now.
2006-12-11 03:00:10 · answer #1 · answered by none 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There IS a difference between immediate withdrawal, as opposed to a gradual decrease in troop levels. The latter is the path that the Bush administration should take, and hopefully the one that they're seeking.
2006-12-11 02:14:05 · answer #2 · answered by Nemo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we had discovered no longer something contained in the previous 4 and a nil.5 years of being in Iraq i'd believe you from the initiating. If this replaced into early 2003 and Turkey replaced into hoping to invade Iraq with us and Bush requested for them to carry off, that would were hypocritical. Now, with higher expertise it ought to nicely be a discovered position, an comprehend-how that further gamers in this mess will make it exponentially worse and in no way achievable to fulfill all people's targets, at the same time with the Turk's. even with the reality that, i'm no longer confident that such is the reasoning in the back of the request. i imagine it truly is purely that their involvement will make our position that a lot extra painful. therefore, i must agree that the stance is hypocritical.
2016-11-25 20:36:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ISG report, after reading through it is not a viable strategy for victory no matter how one reads it. We withdraw only after a successful victory has been established and the government of Iraq is stable and functioning with autonomy.
In short, withdrawing is quitting before the job is done. Something of this level of importance is worth doing in full measure. To discuss if we should or should not have gone to Iraq is meaningless at this juncture.We are there and it is imperative to our national future to finish it.
2006-12-11 02:19:12 · answer #4 · answered by Rich B 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We are in this mess up to our butts. If we leave now, then what about the ones that lost their lives for the cause. Explain this to their parents or loved ones. But if we stay , then we are going to lose more,and that whole country isn't worth my son's life to me. I think we need to make the Irags understand , we are not going to fight for them forever. So they better get theirselves ready and fast because we are leaveing soon. Also tell Iran, if you come in on Irag, then we will come back only for a fast victory with a high cost to them. We can't play kissy,kissy with these people forever, if they won't fully comitt, then we must or get the hell out. We have lost too many young men already for a people that won't help themselves.
2006-12-11 03:17:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The President is not going to pull the troops out until he has a decisive victory, or his term is up and a cut and run Democrat is elected##
2006-12-11 02:13:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why not term it "pack-up and leave", what difference should it make what it's called,so long as the Iraqi people take charge of their destiny,and permit us to leave the areas of "civil imbalance" and move to the perimeters,to help stop the flow of outsiders,the "terrorists" we went there to fight in the first place...
2006-12-11 02:20:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Cut and Run" is a right-wing insult meant to discredit any military plan including a strategic redeployment of forces. It is causing needless American deaths and should be condemned as a term.
If you place your hand on a hot stove, is it "cut and run" to remove it, or should you "stay the course" until you lose your arm to third degree burns?
2006-12-11 02:15:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Cut and run" is just a rhetorical label. Politicians use these kind of terms to evoke emotions and manipulate people. Try not to put too much stock in them.
2006-12-11 02:12:33 · answer #9 · answered by halitobro 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We will set up the administration to take over for us.
Our work, being done, allows us to go home
2006-12-11 02:14:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋