To: Chi-townChief
Plan B will involve "a draw-down" of troops before next year's elections, the concentration of American forces in "forts" (a string of Fort Apaches?), and preparations for a "long war" like the one in Korea. Americans would no longer attempt to police Baghdad, and there would be fewer casualties. If Plan B is a "success," Bush can stumble out of office in a year and a half with another "mission accomplished" and the claim that he had won a victory in the "war on terror."Why go to Plan B when the surge is working perfectly...violence in Al Anbar has quelled to a slow drip and Bahgdad is around 65 percent free of terror. The problem is that (thanks to the incompetence of Don Rumsfeld) the surge wasn't enacted soon enough and requires time (i.e no one should expect a kettle of cold water to immediately boil). The sad fact is that Bush (again thanks to Dumbsfeld who, IMO, ought to be imprisoned in Gitmo for his mismanagement of the war) is now being tarred with the former plan rather than the newer one.
8 posted on
06/22/2007 10:30:54 AM PDT by
meandog
(Bush--proving himself again and again to be the best friend the Dems have EVER had!)
To: meandog
No Just rabid Dinocons, who worked tirelessly to elect Sen James Webb D VA last year, would rather do anything but admit they have been wrong about Iraq from the start
Try actually finally learning something about Iraq instead of clinging to your emotion based hysteria about Rumsfeild.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iraq
20 posted on
06/22/2007 11:44:50 AM PDT by
MNJohnnie
(If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson