2007-09-20 07:56:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think you're right on the money there. The fact that we are building so many military bases indicates that we intend for at least some of our troops to remain behind indefinitely. And the administration clearly has long term plans for American involvement in the Middle East. Iraq is only one part of that bigger picture: a springboard or foot-in-the-door, so to speak.
That said, I think he did believe that there would be a point at which the bulk of our troops would leave and the occupation would be over. He has repeatedly shown that he is ignorant of history; heck, he's repeatedly shown that he lacks common sense. He actually expected that Iraq would become a staunch ally, and that we wouldn't have to keep the country under our thumb in order to secure its cooperation with our longer term goals. He intended us to use it as a base for extending American power and nation-building throughout the region.
2007-09-20 08:05:23 · answer #1 · answered by jeffersonian73 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the objective exchange into exceptionally sparkling. perhaps you probably did no longer like it or did no longer are conscious of it. i've got presented a hyperlink to the present national recommendations-set on Iraq to your edification. the fast term aims are somewhat nebulous, however the medium term aims are exceptionally basic for coverage makers to operationalize. As for an "go out recommendations-set," that's something you think of of whilst coming right into a crowded room. militia campaigns ought to undertaking themselves with a number of branches and sequelae; any go out recommendations-set is contingent upon which a variety of is in play on the time of the go out which, as you already know in view which you have now examine the national recommendations-set, has no longer yet arrived. An "go out recommendations-set" that looked dazzling in 2003 might look rather stupid on the instant; fortunately, the administration and the protection branch have been too smart to tie themselves all the way down to an "go out recommendations-set" all those years in the past -- they stay adaptive and able to alter.
2016-11-05 23:25:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they expect to be in iraq a long time. they are building us military bases. even the dems have no exit strategy.
2007-09-20 08:01:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I try to be generous and err on the side of humility with others, but in his case the only applicable rule of thumb is: Never ascribe to evil, actions that can be explained by mere human stupidity. But, I could be wrong.
2007-09-20 10:41:42 · answer #4 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, yes, that would be an astute observation of the situation.
Now move along, move along, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
2007-09-20 08:09:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You Got it! We have troops stationed all over the world, and have for a very long time.
2007-09-20 08:35:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's as good of an excuse as any for false pretenses and poor planning.
2007-09-20 08:02:55 · answer #7 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
spot on.
600 million dollar embassy with a bad roof!!
2007-09-20 08:03:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nor do Democrats despite all the rhetoric.
2007-09-20 08:00:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm sure he had an exit strategy it just wasn't a very good one............
2007-09-20 07:59:35 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋