That doesn't sound like a PLAN to me, it sounds like a goal, and a pretty pathetically vague one, at that.
2007-03-13 08:48:30 · 9 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The terms "win" and "lose" are meaningless when it comes to our presence in Iraq.
We're the only side that's setting an agenda, and the only ones defining out goals. We're the only ones drawing the finish line, so we're the only ones who can say if we met our objectives.
We can declare that we've won at any point, because we're the only ones defining what we're trying to accomplish.
2007-03-13 08:52:52 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Bush administration has no plan whatsoever. And winning is not an achievable goal either. Since we are invovled in a "war" of ideologies, there is no possible way to win. It is time for the Iraqis to step forward and take responsibility. All we are doing there is trying to keep a lid on a civil war among the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. We can no longer fight their war for them. The Bush administration should have realized that once Saddam was out of power, this would happen, since no obvious leader could step in and keep things under control. I say we get out and the sooner the better! Enough of our sons and daughters have been sacrificed.....
2007-03-13 15:56:37 · answer #2 · answered by JoJo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He can't win in Iraq militarily!
Troops alone won't win war in Iraq
5:00AM Saturday March 10, 2007
Iraq war Soldiers' mother to be deported
Headquarters okayed some Iraq abuse - British judge
The US military commander in Iraq is looking for reinforcements while admitting that the war cannot be won without reconciliation with the country's militant groups.
The US Administration announced in January that it was going to send an extra 21,500 troops to Baghdad and Anbar province west of the capital. Since then the Pentagon has said it would send a further 7000 support troops of whom 2200 would be military police to handle an increased number of Iraqi detainees.
General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, said military force alone was "not sufficient" to end violence in Iraq and political talks must include anti-US militant groups."
NZ Herald
2007-03-13 16:13:02 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes that is it. You can not really plan a war the other side does what they want not what you tell them you planned for. Tell me you don't really believe you can plan more than just basic strategy and objectives? It is war things change very rapidly and our enemies are not an army that fights by the rule of engagement.
2007-03-13 15:58:20 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The aim is to beat any opponents to a new free and democratic Iraq, sounds like a win to me.
2007-03-13 15:54:24 · answer #5 · answered by Gaz 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually the Iraq thing is a mission accomplished. We got Saddam. Maybe you saw him fall and break his neck?
2007-03-13 15:52:58 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, it seems the plan is to keep "surging" in more troops (however exhausted, mentally damaged or under trained and under equipped they may be) until the next presidential election. then it'll be up to the next president to extricate the US from and take the blame for the neoCON failure in Iraq.
2007-03-13 15:54:58 · answer #7 · answered by nebtet 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yea, at what cost ? What do we win ? It could have been done and over with a long time ago,
2007-03-13 15:55:43 · answer #8 · answered by ThomasL 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
our plan in WWII was to win..got a problem with that?
2007-03-13 15:51:19 · answer #9 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋