There is recent wind that Rummy was ‘micro-managing’ the war from the start. And some of the generals are not exactly too happy with him right now. Support for the administration seems to be creeping upwards, but the idea of a long war strikes a nerve with many people in Washington, and around the world for that matter. Even with 300K troops in Iraq, could we pull out if needed after Bagdad is taken?
What I’d like to know is, does the US have a back-door if one is needed, and how or why could they use it.
I’m sure that Dubya is down on his knees right now praying for guidance from the man upstairs. Because heaven forbid he should use his own intellect to attempt to figure out what to do.:rolleyes:
In answer to the OP, there are surely hundreds if not thousands of contingency plans and branches based on the length of the conflict. There have defintely been exit strategies planned at every level, because that is only prudent.
However, I think we can keep plodding this one out for the time being, get as many Iraqui civilians as possible to a position of safety where they can talk to journalists about what life was like under Saddam. It is my view that this time pressure is mostly media-and politics-generated, and the military leaders are resigned to a much more gradual process.
The administration actually is in fairly solid shape. Though they have made claims about what they are doing and what might happen, they have been careful to leave most of them ambiguous. Essentially, their “correctness” in doing what they are doing is unfalsifiable. That is, if things go well, it shows they were right. If things go badly, it just proves how evil and horrible our enemies were and thus why it was worth the cost to fight them. If we inspire more terrorism (and every single major Western intervetion into the Middle East seems to have spawned a large terrorist group), this just shows why we needed to fight all these bad guys in the first place. If the war spreads to Syria or Iran, this just goes to show you that we really needed to take out these regimes as well.
How can they go wrong? There’s an answer for everything, and no matter what happens, it looks as if they chose correctly. Pretty savvy.
Apos, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking. The neo-cons (the cynical ones, at least – which seems to be most of 'em) realize that terrorism plays right into their hands. Every attack will shift more of the electorate in their direction. It’s the “logic” of the Israeli/Palestine conflict writ large. Bush as the global Sharon. Why should they care if their policies actually make us safer? They just need to look tough in the eyes of Joe Sixpack, who has zero interest in the subtleties of Middle East politics.
Being a Joe Sixpack who agrees that Saddam needs to be taken out could you please explain why taking out Saddam is a bad thing? What subleties am I missing?
Do you THINK that leaving Saddam in power without any restrictions[#1] will make the Middle East safer?
What should the US and the world do about Saddam?
I keep hearing people state that the US policy is wrong but I never hear a better idea advanced.
So, what is you idea? Tell me a better way to deal with the murdering scum that Saddam is. Let the world know how this could be handled better.
Think about it. This situation has been around for 10 + years. Yet it came to war. Not because Bush was in office for those 10 years but because Saddam hasn’t complied in those 10 + years.
Sadly I think the only response you will have is to let the UN inspections go on even though they are just a joke.
Slee
#1. The UN, once again, proved to be useless with the Iraq situation. I am not a fan of war, hell my nephew is over there right now and I am worried sick about him. But sometimes war is the only option left.
—Why should they care if their policies actually make us safer?—
They DO care, I’m certain. It’s just the question between a long term and short term “safer.” But yes, the problem is, whether things get better or worse, they have a ready made excuse.
Except of course that no such thing happened. The only thing that proved to be useless was US intelligence, which led the inspectors on wild goose chases. The inspectors already proved they could do their work ten years ago.
**
Maybe that’s because you make clear you don’t consider such a thing possible? Ever thought about making true on the promise of support for an Iraqi insurrection, rather than cheering at the TV show when hundreds of thousands get butchered.
False. Saddam complied immediately after the war. He stopped to comply once the inspection process was corrupted by western intelligence for their own goals. During the time before that, the Iraqi nuclear program was dismantled and the vast majority of chemical weapons and delivery systems destroyed.
Sadly, the only thing you show is that the only way to support this war is to lie about the inspection process.
I don’t think the world would like what the USA would turn into if we were under constant terrorist attack, like Israel. Once a sizable portion of the population knew someone who had been killed in an attack, we’d probably start going crazy with the nukes. Anyone remember how so many people who were normally very level-headed seriously talking about glassing over Arab cities in retaliation right after 9/11? I think if that was something that happened every week someone would ride that wave of resentment and end up changing the world forever.
I feel that there will be more terrorists attacks against the USA because of this war, even in the best case scenario - if we kick out Hussein, Iraq is rebuilt into a model democracy and most of their population is thankful to the USA, we’ll still have seriously pissed off more Muslim extremists. I do believe that our administration knew that this course of action was going to lead to even more terrorism against the USA, and though that might not be their goal I don’t think they are afraid of it - we know now that attacks on our homeland are not going to make the American people into isolationists, and that the approval rating for our President went up afterwards.
I think also that part of the reason behind our attack on Iraq was to show the world that attacking the USA because of our interfering with the Middle East only encourages us to interfere more. I agree that our pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia and withdrawing support from Israel would set a bad precedent, and probably lead to more terrorism, but I’m not sure this attack on Iraq was the best way to do things. Maybe some people believe this choice will in fact reduce the amount of terrorism against the USA, but I know there are a significant number of people in the USA who want a bloodbath in the Middle East because they want to fulfill Christian prophecies and bring about the end of the world.