Backup strategy missing for Iraq

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17458428/

"During a White House meeting last week, a group of governors asked President Bush and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about their backup plan for Iraq. What would the administration do if its new strategy didn't work?

The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory.""


Hasn't the left been lamenting this for the past 4 years? It just boggles my mind that its taken so long for officials to wisen up.
 
let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me....

let there be peace on earth, a peace that was meant to be...

with God as our father, brothers all are we...

let me walk with my brother, in perfect harmony.

----------------------------------------------------------

this is such bs, there should ALWAYS be a secondary plan! we are in the mess we are in because there never was a Plan B.
 
Care4all said:
let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me....

let there be peace on earth, a peace that was meant to be...

with God as our father, brothers all are we...

let me walk with my brother, in perfect harmony.

----------------------------------------------------------

this is such bs, there should ALWAYS be a secondary plan! we are in the mess we are in because there never was a Plan B.
Click to expand...

Precisely. No plan B, no exit strategy, and the situation is deteriorating as we speak.
 
I wonder if the reason they claim they don't have a plan B isn't because, the only possible plan B at this point, would be withdrawal. And they aren't going to use the W word on W's watch. He's dragging this out until the next guy is left having to withdraw.

Then he'll say that there would have been no withdrawal on his watch, and he would have won Iraq if only he had had a "little more time." (probably, "another 6 months would do")
 
The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B. "I'm a Marine," Pace told them, "and Marines don't talk about failure. They talk about victory.""

This was very carefully worded. Of course the marines don't talk about anything but victory. But, I assume they have contingency plans to redeploy or withdraw.
 
Darla said:
I wonder if the reason they claim they don't have a plan B isn't because, the only possible plan B at this point, would be withdrawal. And they aren't going to use the W word on W's watch. He's dragging this out until the next guy is left having to withdraw.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be true. That is the ultimate alternative.

Cypress said:
But, I assume they have contingency plans to redeploy or withdraw.
Click to expand...

I think Murtha's plan is really the only thing left to do short of leaving the entire region all together.
 
Damocles said:
The invasion plan seemed to work perfectly. It was the stay and nation-build plan that was doomed from the beginning...
Click to expand...

Damo, the invasion plan was a disaster.

Now, if the goal of an invasion is to capture the enemy capital - baghdad, in this case - the invasion was successful.

Classic military doctrine however, does not consider capturing the enemy capital, and major cities to be the primary objective of a successful war. Eisenhower didn't give a crap about capturing Berlin - he said his goal was to destroy the german army, and eliminate germany's ability to fight.

Tommy Franks, didn't listen to Dwight Eisenhower. He didn't secure the country, nor eliminate the iraqis ability to fight. Most the the Iraqi republican guard and feydayeen militia, simply took off their uniforms, and proceeded to guerilla tactics.
 
Cypress said:
Damo, the invasion plan was a disaster.

Now, if the goal of an invasion is to capture the enemy capital - baghdad, in this case - the invasion was successful.

Classic military doctrine however, does not consider capturing the enemy capital, and major cities to be the primary objective of a successful war. Eisenhower didn't give a crap about capturing Berlin - he said his goal was to destroy the german army, and eliminate germany's ability to fight.

Tommy Franks, didn't listen to Dwight Eisenhower. He didn't secure the country, nor eliminate the iraqis ability to fight. Most the the Iraqi republican guard and feydayeen militia, simply took off their uniforms, and proceeded to guerilla tactics.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said the "stay and nation-build" plan was a disaster. We invaded quickly.

Personally, I would have had the objective of finding Saddam and the WMD, the WMD was moot, we found Saddam and his entire family. Then simply fell back into surrounding areas and watched with the warning of "behave or else"!

We'd have had relatively few losses.

This is, of course, had I been able to secure a Declaration. Without it we never would have entered.
 
No, I'm saying the actual invasion plan was flawed. Not just the phase 4, nation building stuff.

Tommy Franks invasion plan rested on rushing up the euphrates valley to capture the capital, baghdad. Capturing an enemy's capital, is one of the least important factors in an invasion plan. Ulyses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, never made it their mission to capture Richmond Virgina, or Berlin, for the very reason that it is not sound military strategy.

Sound military strategy, in modern warfare is to destroy the enemy's army and ability to wage war. That requires a huge invasion force, to hold territory, secure it, and kill the enemy whereever he is.
 
Cypress said:
No, I'm saying the actual invasion plan was flawed. Not just the phase 4, nation building stuff.

Tommy Franks invasion plan rested on rushing up the euphrates valley to capture the capital, baghdad. Capturing an enemy's capital, is one of the least important factors in an invasion plan. Ulyses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, never made it their mission to capture Richmond Virgina, or Berlin, for the very reason that it is not sound military strategy.

Sound military strategy, in modern warfare is to destroy the enemy's army and ability to wage war. That requires a huge invasion force, to hold territory, secure it, and kill the enemy whereever he is.
Click to expand...
Once again, it should never have been our plan to "hold territory", the very concept in that area is flawed, it goes against almost every grain of their societal beliefs and would be doomed even with a "good" plan of invasion if the afterward included the whole "nation-building" portion.
 
Damocles said:
The invasion plan seemed to work perfectly. It was the stay and nation-build plan that was doomed from the beginning...
Click to expand...

That's the thing, if their only goal was to remove Saddam and they left immediately after this had taken place, you could argue success. They knew from teh get go that they intended to stay indefinitely after the invasion and establish a gov't.
 
In other words, it was the objective that was flawed from the get-go. I am a firm believer in the Powell doctrine. Overwhelming force with a quick resolution and then withdrawal.
 
Damocles said:
In other words, it was the objective that was flawed from the get-go. I am a firm believer in the Powell doctrine. Overwhelming force with a quick resolution and then withdrawal.
Click to expand...



However, that would likely be a war crime. Under international law, once you overthrow a sovereign state's government, you are responsible for providing security and services to the people. There was never any possibility of a quick withdrawl. Even Colin Powell told Bush: "You break it, you own it".

I was willing to give bush and the iraqis a chance to get it together, after the fall of baghdad. But, they fucked it up. Four years is long enough.
 
Cypress said:
However, that would likely be a war crime. Under international law, once you overthrow a sovereign state's government, you are responsible for providing security and services to the people. There was never any possibility of a quick withdrawl. Even Colin Powell told Bush: "You break it, you own it".

I was willing to give bush and the iraqis a chance to get it together, after the fall of baghdad. But, they fucked it up. Four years is long enough.
Click to expand...
Nah, he had a government. The goal wouldn't be to end it. You didn't read it. The goal was Saddam and WMD, nothing about overthrowing the government. There was a whole bureaucracy behind him that would have continued. I never would have disbanded the army, etc. It simply wouldn't have been part of any objective I would apply to such a situation.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, he had a government. The goal wouldn't be to end it. You didn't read it. The goal was Saddam and WMD, nothing about overthrowing the government. There was a whole bureaucracy behind him that would have continued. I never would have disbanded the army, etc. It simply wouldn't have been part of any objective I would apply to such a situation.
Click to expand...

No. Our goals entailed getting rid of the baathist party - the whole bureaucracy behind him of which you speak of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top