How many more of our soldiers will have to die before he gets it through his head that we cannot win this war with our military?
Our soldiers are doing the best they can, but this I believe is a war of wits, and not on the battle field. What do you think the next step will be?
2007-06-01 08:43:08 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think our military are doing the best they can. It's the strategists I find lacking.
2007-06-01 08:49:29 · update #1
The Bush strategy is an oxymoron, he basically believes in the cockroach strategy, which is to out live the Iraqi people.
The soldiers are doing the best they can do with the Chief Idiot in charge, and the current situation in Iraq goes to prove that even the best military when run by a Cheer-leading Clown comes up short.
2007-06-01 08:52:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your question presumes that Bush has a military strategy.
I don't think he has one.
He does have a political strategy though - which is to continue to position himself as a War President for as long as possible. And this requires that Americans continue dying overseas. That's the main reason he won't pull our troops out before the end of his term. He loves war and what it does for his image.
Seriously, the problem is that there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, and the existing players in the terror market - most importantly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Pakistan, mind you we're talking supporters of Al Qaeda not Palestine - have gotten "get our of jail free" cards the whole time, recognized as "allies" in the "war on terror".
So Saudi fighters pour across the border into Iraq to support Al Qaeda while the Saudi royal family subsidizes the Sunni insurgency which is killing Americans. And the Taliban and Al Qaeda have rebased in northern Pakistan where they freely launch attacks on Americans in Afghanistan. And the UAE continues to be the money laundering center of the world for global terrorism through its banks controlled by the same royal family that partied with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be comically stupid. And Bush continues to treat these countries with kid gloves - these are our mortal enemies in the war on terror, the very countries which supported Bin Laden before 9/11.
So not only is Bush's military "strategy" ineffective, it is tantamount to treason.
2007-06-01 08:47:51 · answer #2 · answered by Mark P 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
no...even those who have studied this situation in depth admit there are no good choices when it comes to Iraq. every option includes risk, death and the law of unintended consequences. with so many players and potential players at work anything could happen.
"war of wits"...also known as negotiation, compromise, accommodation will be necessary. the most likely scenario i have seen involves a two route method. one would be get the opposing factions in country to start talking (same concept used to get rival gangs to stop the retaliation) the second, to be done at the same time, would be to get the regional countries talking. this would ensure no single country acts out of ignorance in furthering their own agenda for Iraq. obviously, this is a brief statement of intent and does not highlight the difficulties involved in getting this type of arrangement rolling; however, some form of it will take place. it's all a matter of when.
2007-06-01 09:14:16 · answer #3 · answered by jonny y 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The surge has worked in Baghdad, that's why you're hearing about all the attacks outside of town now. The problem is all the outside fighters that have shown up with the help of the Iranians and Syrians.And don't use the blatantly liberal msnbc as your source, it shows your ignorance.
2016-05-18 22:08:40 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think its time to look at withdrawl.
I like the idea of a timeline, but the Democrats have it *** backwards. They want to set up benchmarks for the Iraqis to reach, and when they fail, we pack up and leave.
What we should do is the opposite. Say to the people of Iraq, "Look if you want us to leave, then you have to go ___ days without any violence. If you do that, then we can start withdrawing forces." If they truly don't want us there, this would give them an incentive to stop fighting.
The numbers and positions are arbitrary, but basically its like letting someone up after a fight. You just don't get up and leave. You get up slowly, making sure that they won't attack. If they do, you're back on them.
2007-06-01 08:55:57 · answer #5 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES
The "Stay The Course" plan to drive in circles until you get blown up by an IED is working very well. The insurgent don't want him to change a thing.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-06-01 08:48:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
We sure as hell can win this war with our military. The problem is this: we need to bomb the hell out of everything and then rebuild it, but we're not allowed to do that. It got us through two world wars. War is won militarily, and by no other means. That's what war is. Anything else is politics.
2007-06-01 08:47:56 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"but this I believe is a war of wits, and not on the battle field" Really? And what are your military credentials?
I'm sure the Pentagon would love to have your "expertise". Clearly you are a masterful military strategist.
2007-06-01 08:48:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
In your first paragraph you say we cannot win this war with our military. IMMEDIATELY after that you say our soldiers are doing the best they can. So which is it? You people can't even make up your mind on if our men & women in uniform are doing a good job or not! What makes you think you would know a winning strategy in Iraq when you saw it???
2007-06-01 08:46:27 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋
There is a strategy? Didn't realize that! No it is not doing anything good for us.
2007-06-01 08:47:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋