Posted on 10/27/2007 4:42:33 PM PDT by BGHater
So what part of Iraqis going about their daily business without being blown up would involve LEAVING AL QAEDA IN IRAQ?
Settle down Francis and read the article again....
Like I said, I am still evaluating his words/position.. it appears to me that he is NOT sending a very strong message to our ENEMY .. THAT is THE point.. The only way to defeat this enemy is to let them know that we are in this for as long as THEY decide to fight.. PERIOD.. anything short of that is CUT/RUN in my book.. 100% IN THE FIGHT PERIOD... NON-NEGOTIABLE pre-requisite to be Commander in Chief in my book.. If I misunderstood Fred’s position on this, I will apologize.. but it seems to be that he is NOT in it to win it.. that is a HUGE problem.. tell me where I am wrong... Please
You are wrong.
Does that help?
Seriously, reread it and then look at everything else Thompson has said about the WOT.
It does not give aid to the enemy to say that mistakes were made in execution, indeed it may well scare the crap out of them that someone wants to correct that, could end up getting more of them killed, something we are failing at IMHO. I know some of my buddies coming back sure would have like to have a little more “flexibility” in day to day operations.
He states in this article a very simple and elegant goal, go about life without being blown up. Al Qaeda does the blowing up so if the goal is no more blowing up, they must be gone. Sounds like a win to me. Then we can come home or move on to the next garden spot with nut jobs.
FWIW I am of the opinion that a lot of folks don’t see us with anything but a small base at most in country there long term. The Iraqis are a proud and nationalistic people and have stated they want us gone once we finish up. It’s a fair deal since we will of course still have a little “pull” there and we have resources in the region anyways.
That’s the problem here. Red flags; just like Arnie. Will he go soft on illegals too?
BTTT
Fred received the entirely predictable bump immediately after his entrance and the entirely predictable settling of that initial bump.
Last Rasmussen has him at 19% after Rudy’s 20% IIRC. Contrary to your statement, Fred’s a consistent second and steadily gaining.
And please don’t insult the thread’s intelligence denying Fred-trashing from Hunter supporters. People aren’t stupid, you know.
First we’re presented with NY Times articles as unbiased insight and now the AP.
Next we’ll be told by the Hunterista’s that Maureen Dowd’s columns and Ted Rall’s cartoons represent mainstream opinion and thought.
Thompson is exactly right that this will not be a desirable development. He is also right that nobody in a position of resposiblility, or who might actually be in a position of responsibility, can admit the ugly truth. Duncan Hunter enjoys the freedom of insignificance. He can talk about staying in Iraq because he’s never going to be President and everyone knows it including Duncan Hunter.
To admit that we will have a major presence in Iraq when everyone now participating in this forum is long dead would be politically and diplomatically disastrous. Instead of announcing a longterm deployment we will boil the frog. Our withdrawal will be slow and incomplete. The years will drag on until both the American public and the Iraqis are accustomed to our presence there. The American occupation of Iraq will go from unthinkable to natural.
Nothing in what Fred said indicates a lack of commitment to our Arab and Persian War. It only shows that he understands the state of play much better than those who are falling all over themselves to demonstrate their naivete by criticizing him.
They don’t?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I've heard of that place...somewhere...
I think we have to recognize at some point that there is a line that constitutes US occupation for our own interests and not for shepherding internal Iraqui stability. It does sort of support that “imperialism” label that some Americans and Europeans have tried to stick on us. We can still have bases like we have in Turkey and not have the military presense and involvement in internal matters that we currently have. But why wouldn’t our other current bases suffice? I don’t think anyone wants to be a permanent police force like in Korea and Germany. - Remind me why we are still there again?
What’s wrong with setting measurable objectives of internal stability, declaring the war won when we achieve them and pulling out except for advisors?
Duncan Hunter brother.
I really like Duncan Hunter!
BTTT
We need to be there. For a very long time. Strategic strike forces using bases in Iraq can keep the mid east evildoers in line.
Concur. But do note that if we have largish facilities in the theatre, it'll make the possibility of fratricide more problematic if we have to go nuclear, retaliatory or otherwise.
Thompson may have a valid point, or he may be waffling.
If he can't come up with a clearly focused position paper, we'll know.
What possible policy could Fred have for dealing with Iran where a presence in the country that shares it’s longest border wouldn’t be beneficial to that policy?
I 2nd that ! ... A strong U.S. presence in Iraq is KEY to stability in the Middle East.. that is one of the reasons I have stated over and over again that Baghdad in CENTRAL to the Global war on terror.. PERIOD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.