An exit strategy

"My inclination was to support the [United States] government and the war until proven wrong, and that only came later, as I realized we could not explain the mission, had no exit strategy, and did not seem to be fighting to win."

#2"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

#3“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Those above quotes are of differnat wars, first is from George Bush' "Auto biography" by Karen Huges about his time at Yale and the vietnam war. The next two refer to Clinton and the Kosovo war. #2 appeared 4/9/99 in the Houstan Chronicle, #3 in a quotes from Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99.

versus

6/24/05: White house press release
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

SO are all Iraqi's the enemy? And should you only ask for a exit strategy when it isn't your war.?

[edit on 6/28/2005 by Jehosephat]

I suppose we need to look at the nature of this war. Fighting terrorists is not "conventional warfare." If all Iraqi's were indeed the enemy an exit strategy would be a bit easier to produce. Personally, I think they don't want to quote an exit strategy because they have no plans to exit any time soon. It would be politically unpopular for anyone to state that in public though, so they tap-dance around the issue or state that you are "giving up" just by offering such a strategy.

I agree with an insuragany it is a bit of a touchy issue. Maybe the Bush administration is still under the belief that the Iraqi people welcome them with open arms (From Troops that have returned, that is actaully true for the non-insurgents)

One key that every Terrorist orginiation relies on is using acts of terror to spread its propaganda. And force the "invaders" to become more oppresive thus raising popular support for the Terrorists by having the people choose the lesser of two evils.

To me the situation could get worse, but there is a time when you need to swollow your pride and say you are in over your head. I think it might be a good idea to set a date in the near future, then if there is a spike in insurgancy you can allways push it back saying you are doing it to protect the Iraqis from said terrorists.

Who is slow slow that they don't see the exit strategy? WE get the Iraqis trained to where they can defend themselves, and then we call it a day!

Why doesn't someone scream for an exit stratefy in Germany? We're still there! Korea? How about Bosnia? Texas? Uh, forget that one. Definitely the time we went to war simply to steal land. It's ok, they are taking Texas back and the Texan president is helping them!

I googled for the source of one of those phrases and I eventually found this NY Times article from October 2000:

NYTimes October 20, 2000
If elected president, George W. Bush plans to tell NATO that the United States should no longer participate in peacekeeping in the Balkans, signaling a major new division of labor in the Western alliance, according to Mr. Bush's senior national security aide.

Under this arrangement, peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo would become a European responsibility, as could peacekeeping in other conflicts. The United States, in contrast, would focus on deterring and fighting wars in the Persian Gulf, Asia and other distant trouble spots.

Mr. Bush's plan would represent the most important revision of NATO tasks since the cold war. His aides say the change is long overdue and would let the American military concentrate its training and financing on traditional combat missions.

"The governor is talking about a new division of labor," Condoleezza Rice, the security adviser, said in an interview. "The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi Arabia and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Straits. And extended peacekeeping detracts from our readiness for these kinds of global missions."

I wonder what war he was thinking of fighting in the Persian Gulf back in 2000?

On the topic of this thread, here's a more complete quote about the timetable:

George_W__Bush_Kosovo
Once they are returned to their homes, the Kosovars must be protected by an international peacekeeping force with NATO at its core. Any US forces involved must be under US or NATO command. The President should also lay out a timetable for how long American troops will be involved and when they will be removed. If a residual force is needed, it is important that over time US troops are withdrawn and our European allies assume most of the responsibility.
Source: GeorgeWBush.com/News/ “Kosovo Accord” Jun 4, 1999

I'm actually going to defend Bush a little on that quote.
Kosovo was a different situation because even if the US pulled out, the European forces could pick up the slack, wheras in Iraq if the US pulls out everone else will pull out too.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why doesn't someone scream for an exit stratefy in Germany? We're still there! Korea? How about Bosnia?

For a long time now I have been saying we need to bring our troops home from Western Europe and South Korea. It's beyond stupid for our forces to remain in those two areas. There is no need. And a far greater need closer to home.

During a debate with Gore in October 2000, Gore pledged to put $100 billion into the military over ten years while Bush pledged $45 billion. Bush said if it were a spending contest he'd come in second.

Ther'e another mention of an exit trategy there too.

japan.usembassy.gov

GORE: --snip-- Now, readiness. The trends before I got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. And I'm happy to tell you that we have. Now, in my budget for the next ten years I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes $45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it's needed.

MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes.

BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined.

I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has become somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by AceOfBase
During a debate with Gore in October 2000, Gore pledged to put $100 billion into the military over ten years

Can you dredge up that quote?

I don't remember him saying that. Then again, I don't necessarily recall that line of argument.

Cheers.

It's right in the quoted text.
Give me a second and I'll highlight it.

Thanks AOB. It's always good to see the text. I don't ever remember him saying that.

In essence, that would mean Gore was trying to do more for the military than what Bush was planning.

If I had not seen what I've seen since Bush was (s)elected, I wouldn't believe it.