...or isn't there one?
I couldn't believe that senate minority leader Harry Reid said before the state of the union address that it's not relevant to ask this because it hasn't happened yet....WHAT????
How can you not have a plan if the troop surge doesn't work? Isn't this just like the Bush Admin to start a battle with no plan of afterthought?
2007-01-26 02:16:16 · 21 answers · asked by Rosebee 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Great question. The dems are keeping quiet on that because they want the surge to work if Bush is stupid enough to go through with it. And let's not doubt Bush's stupidity. No one supports his decision. Congress, the generals in the field and the public are opposed. Four previous surges have failed. The situation is Iraq is worse than ever. So why would this surge succeed?
2007-01-26 02:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
His surge is a military plan, from the generals, that is an exit plan.I would think that they will come out regardless of how succcessful it is. The plan, as I have read and certainly not in the politicized mainstream media, is to inflict damage on the terrorist infrastructure as much as possible before exiting to give the elected Iraqi government a chance to survive. Whether they do or not is up to them and Bush should have never hung around after Saddam was captured and tried to nation build. Screw nation building that should be a UN activity, except that the UN is worthless, toothless and corrupt. I know you are not asking a question but really just making a statement but I think the troops are coming out of there regardless of what happens from the surge of troops. The problem for my Party, which is Dem incidentally, is that we are taking such a position of opposing the troops and the rehashing the Vietnam War (which all of us baby boomers thought was the highwater mark of our lives) that we will end getting blamed what happens in Iraq after we leave. We are forcing Bush to leave there is no question in the eyes of the world and the voting public here (even though we went to war with a Dem majority in the Congress a fact we like to forget as we did in Vietnam). The media are such lowlifes that while now they are running stories about the poor soldiers the will then be running stories about the genocide, etc, in Iraq because we left. And interviews with terrorist leaders loving their victory not over the troops but over the American political scene. That will happen just in time for the next Presidential election. And we Dems can retreat back into winning local elections and campaiging for better garbage collections and parks in local government. I am a lifelong Dem and in the last 30 years there has been no dumber bunch of egomaniacs in the world as the National Democratic Party and our national candidates. So you did not ask a question but there is my answer.
2007-01-26 02:29:45 · answer #2 · answered by Tom W 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
HE has not told me yet but when he does I will post it on YA. Do you believe that the only war this country has ever had failed plans in is this one. D Day did not go off as planned and they did not have a backup plan ready to go. Our fighting forces are taught to adapt and overcome and they will get it done. Bush does have a plan for the failure of Iraq to stand up and do it's part(troop withdrawal) which is the most important part of his new plan. Troop surge is conditional based on what the Iraq government does so it puts the pressure on them to get results.
2007-01-26 02:30:35 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ever listen the time period, do not attempt to capture a falling knife? Senator McCain has NO threat of fixing into President, 0. His stance is only securing in people's minds, he's a hawk and we've had sufficient of the hawks. President Bush will verify he would not get elected, he's doing that for most republicans and if he maintains jointly with his Iraq coverage, we are going to see a repeat of the stunning election. in case you have not stated, the republican party is already beginning to splinter.
2016-10-16 03:27:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems far better than any plan from the Left. Notice Palosi, after supporting a troop surge as late at last December, now against it is finally traveling to Iraq to learn what is going on.
Don't fret over your soy latte, war planning always involves contingencies that are far beyond just what you learn in the Media.
2007-01-26 03:10:09 · answer #5 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I believe his plan is to bring in more troops to help stabilize the region to aid with the hand over of total control to the Iraq army and police. Then set dates of pullouts off various areas til they are completely out. Therefore it's up to the Iraqis to make sure their security is up to par and set in place when we pull out. So if we start pulling troops and the iraqi securities can't handle it, it's the Iraqi governments shortcoming not the US. Pretty neat huh?
2007-01-26 02:24:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No plans afore, during, now, never, ever, etc. etc. He thought he could go in, whip em, they would love us, we would get thier oil, do away with Saddam and all would be well. Those were his plans that he and the shooter ( Chaneny ) no doubt shared with each other. Boy I bet his Daddy is a disapointed guy.
2007-01-26 02:24:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
when the 20,000 get over there, the Iraqi police and soldiers would have been fully trained.
By the second quarter, the U.S. and its allies will have handed back all 18 providences back to Iraq.
This is suppose to be part of the final cleaning before the U.S. goes home starting around 2008.
2007-01-26 07:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My plane if the TROOP RE-ENFORCEMENT doesn't work would be to give the Iraqis 1 more year and then pull out.
2007-01-26 02:24:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The troop surge won't fail. You just watch.
2007-01-26 02:46:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋