It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maybe Pres. Bush does have an exit strategy after all?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Quite a few people have stated their opinions that we will not attack Iran or Syria, because we are taxed out in Iraq. I think Iran and Syria ARE his exit strategies for Iraq.

I was thinking, with all this focus on winning in Iraq, wouldn’t this provide a way to move the fight to another country and secure democracy in Iraq? The way I wee it, Pres. Bush has three options:

1. He can just pull out of Iraq. Not going to happen, and not even worth discussing (although I think this would be the best thing to do. If you jump out of the boat to avoid the waterfall, you are going to get really wet, but you’re going to avoid the waterfall.)

2. He can stay the course in Iraq without invading Iraqis neighbors. IMO, this strategy is doomed to failure.

3. He can continue to systematically invade other nations. While this is much talked about, most seem to think this would be done to get oil or U.S. friendly governments in charge. I think it is an exit strategy, a hail Marry. If he can shift the fighting to a new country and let Iraq heal, and say “I told you so” while at the same time having the resources in the next country to fight and “win” there by continuing on to the next country after that. It will eventually boil down to a standoff somewhere, but it will no longer be his problem.


Going to war with many nations systematically may be his only choice at this point.




posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Actually your are right in the first one, he will never pull out of Iraq and accept defeat, he will never ever will do that he is to full of himself.

On the second one he has his hands full with Iraq, but he also has a problem with the open borders.

On the third one, his whole idea is to go into other countries but right now Iraq has proven to be not the friendly take over.

Now militarily as now US does not have enough personnel in the ground to invade various countries at the same time, it does not even have enough soldiers to take over Iran.

But he can used air power to try and hope that Iran will fall after an attack on strategic targets.

He is assuming that the people in Iran is willing to take over the government.

My thoughts I think he is going to make the biggest mess in the area and at the end not good will come out of it.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I thought there was a law where you couldnt see combat for more then 12 months?

Most people have already been in a warzore for over 12 months.

If Iran and Syria, they would have to bring in a whole new set of 400,000 troops. Plus cycle in new people into Iraq.

I guess it is possible, but that would mean an enormous percent of our armed forces would be overseas, basically all of it.

Unless you pulled out of germany and japan and korea.

There would hardly be any US soldiers in the US. About only 300,000 at best. Probably not even that.


But we should just take out Germany's military so we dont have to commit ourselves over there. They are obviously screwups anyways. Same with Japan, you know they are waiting for their revenge.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Bush change the withholding of our active troops, right now the administration is holding soldiers indefinitly and its his right to do it under the present administrations views.

That tells how in need of troops we are.

[edit on 17-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Well see if Bush lives through his inaugaration.

I cant imagine how he could think he could hold soldiers in service indefinatly.

I never really read into what "stop loss" was. I mean you sign up for the Army for 4 years, I cant imagine them telling you that you cant leave after you do your four years.

Or keeping you in Iraq for over a year without break.

Im surprised he lived this long, maybe its not as bad as it sounds.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

On the third one, his whole idea is to go into other countries but right now Iraq has proven to be not the friendly take over.

Now militarily as now US does not have enough personnel in the ground to invade various countries at the same time, it does not even have enough soldiers to take over Iran.



But you see that’s my whole point! Right now he doesn’t have the manpower to win in Iraq, HOWEVER, if he invades Iran, the war effort shifts there, not just for the U.S. but the enemy as well. IF he can shift the fighting to Iran, he has exited Iraq AND will be able to # manpower to fight in Iran. Then, when he is committed in Iran, he can do another flip and invade Syria, shifting the fighting and manpower there and restoring a relative peace to Iran just like he would do in Iraq. By then, he is out and it is someone else’s problem. He has the resources to fight another war, because the enemy will shift over and fight him there and their efforts in Iraq will subside enough for him to declare a victory there.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Yes but how long will he be able to hold soldiers indefinitly, even warriors get tired of war.

How long our military will stand for something like that without fresh troops coming in.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The draft is coming. There's no doubt about this. How can we not have the draft if we're starting wars in half the world???

*knows Democrats want the draft* *sigh*



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
The draft is coming. There's no doubt about this. How can we not have the draft if we're starting wars in half the world???

*knows Democrats want the draft* *sigh*


People who do not sign up, sorry to say. I would go, I must first pass the hearing test to get back in. I wear hearing aids as service connected. Plus, my age as I am not a young rooster anymore. But do it like the Civil War, arm those old bastards at least they can stand and shoot. It just running that will kill them.........lol
What would happen is if we do not bring back the draft? (Just a thought now) Troops will be overseas because of shortage of man power, those young men who do not want to join, is their chose. We continue on, wait, one of our allies has back out. Damn! what the hell we do next, keep fighting and do your best, do not depend on relief coming soon, hang in there. People in America complaining that troops are over there to long, even those who did not join are saying this too. Hummmm, do we believe the rest of the world we will lose this fight, yes because they keep backing out and we stand alone again like always. No wonder we are leaders of this world, the USA does something like dogs on chains, if these chains ever slip off, go for the kill to end it all. I do not think these chains will ever be let loose, to do my job, get those bastards who keep coming like roaches out of the wood work. Oh no, Johnny, got it. What will I tell his mom and dad. Johnny is gone and I could do nothing. I must stay alive, no relief in sight, many young guys stay home and I am here fighting. What is wrong with some of them, are they better than me? I lost a friend, we both believe in freedom for all who seek it. I think it is better to be short of men, than die from those who hold up hiding in the sands who refuse to fight.

There are plenty of young men in the USA, it just their right not to go, they prefer others to go for them, even the old men. Grand idea, when the enemy hit our shores, they will have to decide to fight or flight to Canada, or Mexico..........lol . Sorry I am laughing at what will happen, at least I found humor in it.



posted on Jan, 18 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I have a feeling that if the US ever faced invasion, many who have chosen not to fight up to that point would join the armed forces and protect the country. At that point fighting would not mean going off to fight in a war that they do not agree with. Fighting during a time of invasion would not be fighting for the vision of some man behind a fancy desk; it would be fighting for the lives of their friends and those who are important to them. That is something that I can't really believe I would be fighting for if I was fighting today. As for any troops that are fighting today, I hope they know what they are fighting for as I do not wish to belittle their motivation.

As for the US invading many nations at the same time. I believe that this would be the worst situation for the US and I don't think Bush would let this happen. Bush has seen the complications of invading one nation so he should have enough sense to realize what could happen if invading multiple nations went sour.

I would also like to say that I think pulling out of Iraq right now would not be the best idea. The processes of starting a new government has already started in Iraq. If the US was to pull at now without completing the processes then Iraq would be more unstable than ever. I don't think going into Iraq was the best idea, but because we has started something we have an obligation to finish it.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
With congress looking for a quick way out and the way things are heating up in Iran coinciding, I stand by my original post, that Iran is our only way out.

There is just no other way.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Quite a few people have stated their opinions that we will not attack Iran or Syria, because we are taxed out in Iraq. I think Iran and Syria ARE his exit strategies for Iraq.

I was thinking, with all this focus on winning in Iraq, wouldn’t this provide a way to move the fight to another country and secure democracy in Iraq? The way I wee it, Pres. Bush has three options:

1. He can just pull out of Iraq. Not going to happen, and not even worth discussing (although I think this would be the best thing to do. If you jump out of the boat to avoid the waterfall, you are going to get really wet, but you’re going to avoid the waterfall.)

2. He can stay the course in Iraq without invading Iraqis neighbors. IMO, this strategy is doomed to failure.

3. He can continue to systematically invade other nations. While this is much talked about, most seem to think this would be done to get oil or U.S. friendly governments in charge. I think it is an exit strategy, a hail Marry. If he can shift the fighting to a new country and let Iraq heal, and say “I told you so” while at the same time having the resources in the next country to fight and “win” there by continuing on to the next country after that. It will eventually boil down to a standoff somewhere, but it will no longer be his problem.


Going to war with many nations systematically may be his only choice at this point.


Ok, here is the thing. We created the waterfall. Things are already very wet. If we wouldn't have invaded the Middle East and increased the volatility there we wouldn't have these issues.

You must realize that invading Iran is NOT an exit strategy. All that will do is flare up the fundamentalist Muslim population even more. It will FUEL Al-Quaeda with new recruits due to Muslims getting fed up with our presence there. All our presence there currently is doing is adding more and more and more and more and more fuel to the insurgency because they are ANGRY, DEVOTED, and feel JUSTIFIED. There is nothing you can do against that.

The only true exit strategy that will work in any what whatsoever is acknowledging our mistake. Acknowledging that we caused an unforeseen flare of radical Muslim activity. Acknowledging that we must leave the situation as simply our presence is the fuel for the fire.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Unless Iran or Syria does something really stupid, I don't think we will see anymore invasions.

There simply isn't a compelling reason to do so and as we have seen, when pressed to the wall, Iran folded.

No one in the middle east, except for a few Baathists, is sorry that Saddam is gone.

The invasion of Iraq might not have turned up the WMDs that Saddam had convinced the world he had, but it did take a lot of heat off his neighbors, whether they are wont to admit it or not.

I don't favor pulling out now, but the mission was accomplished when Saddam was deposed.

All that is left now is to see that justice continues to be served and that Iraq has a solid chance at true sovereignty.

Deposing Saddam was a piece of cake.

What we're doing now is the hard part and too many Americans don't have the stomach for it.

That's America's shame.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join