Exit Strategy or Victory Strategy?

The Weekly Standard ^ | November 14, 2003 | William Kristol and Robert Kagan

[rmlew]

These problems could and should have been addressed before we invaded.
We should have built up two to five extra divisions and prepared for reconstruction.

[gridlock]

Must be Monday. Here come the Quarterbacks...

[JohnGalt]

It looks like the D's are slowly transforming into the reconstruction ("finish the job") party and Republicans and according to this article, Bush, are more at home with their isolationist/exit strategy roots.

Do you think Kristol and his ilk will change sides like they did in 1992?

[Alberta's Child]

But we must also face the reality that we are a nation at war, and normal troop deployment schedules can no longer hold in every instance.

If this war in Iraq is so critical to the survival of this nation that we must change "normal troop deployment schedules" for our military personnel, then I would suggest that this war is also critical enough to the survival of this nation that Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kagan can put on their f#cking uniforms and go over there themselves.

In light of the fact that almost nothing in this war has gone the way the folks at The Weekly Standard predicted (or wished), I'm surprised someone liek William Kristol can even show his face in public anymore.

[rmlew]

No. The Dems basically want to pull out.
Bush has not given a clear strategy and followed through. He has not been able to control the bureacracy. He is not a leader.

[rmlew]

Actually, Kristol and co were calling for a bigger military wince the magazine was founded.

[Burkeman1]

After Shelia Jackson (where is the flag the astronauts planted on Mars?) Lee started supporting the Iraq war I think many conservatives will be looking extra hard at our foreign policy.

[nathanbedford]

An extroadinary piece emanating from the citadel of neo conservatism - the philosopy and its popularizers who led us into Irak.

If this is an attempt to pin the tail on the Bush admistration, it should be resisted as any policy or criticism broached by those who are blindfolded. The problem in Irak is not the lack of troops, but of intelligence or of original conception - the conception of the Weekly Standard.

The Weekly Standard wants us to stand and die for their conception, but what does victrory there mean? America will sustain casualties, but only if it sees the point.

[Burkeman1]

Ah, some of us "paleocons" predicted this months ago. The worm has turned and "neocons" will abandon and blame Bush for Iraq- a war they lead him too.

[Cicero]

Why do you need more "divisions" to fight irregulars? You don't use those kinds of forces against guerillas or irregulars.

We need to train Iraqis to go out and shoot these guys. As security improves, the forces will be drawn down. Keeping lots of regular troops in the country just gives the bad guys more targets. Nothing they'd rather do than blow up a barracks.

[FredTownWard]

When Liberals "misunderestimate" Bush & Co., it is just business as usual; when Conservatives do it, it is just plain sad. I don't believe for one minute that Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Rice, or even the often despised Powell are looking for a way out. They are simply trying to motivate the Iraqis MORE by giving them back their country a little sooner. (Frankly, I always thought the original plan for a long, long transition smacked of well-intentioned paternalism.) We don't have a popular revolt at the moment, and we'd like to avoid one if we can. A lot of us have been whining about the Iraqis not getting off their butts fast enough. Well, since they were asking us for a quicker turnover, why not give it to them? The sooner we have Iraqis handling the routine patrols and the guard duty, the sooner we can switch over entirely to the hunter-killer role, which will require less US troops. The problem isn't with the Administration; the problem is with the Nervous Nellies who turn tail, not at the first whiff of gunpowder, but rather at the first hint of slightly higher casualties. I refuse to worry about a butcher's bill that adding in the conventional war and Afghanistan doesn't add up to a bad week in Vietnam. The American people just aren't that gutless.

[Burkeman1]

Why do you need more "divisions" to fight irregulars?

Answer? We don't. The Iraqi army should never have been disbanded to begin with. It should have been properly and quickly vetted and then re-deployed. The Iraqi Army was not a terror tool of the Hussein regime nor even put up much of a fight during initial combat operations as the irregular units of Fedeyeen had done. A well fed, well paid Iraqi national army could be doing 90 percent of the security work we are doing now and not receive the same hostility as "foreigners" as we do now.

[Gumption]

You are exactly right.

"... and not a single day longer".

[AMNZ]

A Victory Strategy means defeating them, bringing surrender, no interest in further conflict. Exit Strategy means disengagement for now, it's not over, we'll need to go back - and again - and again. Time to end this now!!!

[Huck]

We are into the reserves and guard as it is, aren't we? Would we need to recruit/draft in order to add the #s he is talking about?

[cksharks]

I despise that POS kristol and his magazine. This mccain lover hates bush and has never seen a war he dosent want to send (YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO FIGHT IN). I am not sure but I would bet that SOB has never seen the inside of a uniform.

[caltrop]

Kristol and Kagan, along with the rest of their fellow neoconservatives, expended a lot of effort to sell this fool's errand. I suspect most of them calculated that, once we were in Iraq, there'd be no turning back even if they were wrong on all counts and it turned out to be a major mess. I suspect that moment of truth is beginning to arrive. The realization that we can't bully most of the world into committing their troops to bail us out of the mess they told us to avoid is beginning to sink in. It looks, at least to me, more and more likely the country will divide into its three historic parts - whether we like it or not. We're more than tied down in only a small portion (the Sunni Triangle) of the country and there is evidently a sense that the top Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who issued a fatwa urging Shias to cooperate with the occupation may be disappointed in the lack (and direction?) of political progress thus far.

Whatever we do, the neocons won't be happy with it but our choices, IMHO, come down to two. Either we stay and continue digging ourselves a deeper hole or we declare victory and get our troops home. It looks to me like the administration is opting for the second, and far more sensible, option. Finally. I wondered how long it would take them to do something right.

[q_an_a]

do you think that mcCain had a quiet talk with bill and told him all the things wrong with iraq and all the things fright with campaign finance reform? wait till the next time bush needs support, then see if kristol is part of his supporters or detractors.

he is like all those old Klinton goof balls, say anything to stay in power. i turn him off as fast as george s. the hair boy with the falling ratings.

[dwd1]

Anyone want to take bets that Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein will be captured or killed next August, September, or October?

Just in case the cynics are correct!

[WOSG]

Actually, it is brutally simple: Take out some of the 37,000 posted in South Korea and the 50,000 posted in Germany, if you need more troops in Iraq.