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.

 

WAR: Rumsfeld has proposed no exit stategy for Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
In a surprise visit to Iraq this week, Rumsfeld proclaimed that America has no intent to leave Iraq and no timetable for doing so in the coming months. The decision for the withdrawal of the U.S. Military is solely in the hands of the Iraqi Security Force.
 



www.bloomberg.com
The U.S. has no exit strategy or timetable for withdrawing its forces from Iraq and a pull-out depends on the readiness of the Iraqi Security Forces, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

``We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy,'' Rumsfeld told soldiers during a surprise visit to Baghdad, according to a pooled broadcast report from the capital. ``The goal is to help the Iraqi Forces develop the skills and the capacity to provide their own security.''

The defense secretary arrived in Iraq today to meet with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and President Jalal Talabani, Captain Darren Luke, a U.S. military spokesman, said by telephone from Baghdad. He'll press the two, who were both elected by National Assembly members last week, to continue moves toward democracy, the Associated Press reported.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


'We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy'

Victory over what might I ask Rumsfeld? We've instilled democracy in the nation. We've come to the conclusion that their are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we've removed Saddam Hussein from his dictatorship.

What else is there left to do?

[edit on 4/13/2005 by Simulacra]

[edit on 4/13/2005 by Simulacra]




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Erm, this is a foreign policy type statement or mentioning.
Its literal meaning can become skewed and twisted by some who read too much into what is said.
The comment:


'We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy'


Simply implies that the objective is not to plan an exit strategy as first priority; that the time will come for that when the time has arrived. The primary goal is to continue the process of stabilization [Iraqi government, infrastructure, the continued deminishing of insurgent and terrorist actions, continued training and building up of the Iraqi military and security forces, etc.]. In continuing these efforts, the "victory strategy" is theoretically fulfilled. The fullfillment or the meeting of the objective of a "victory strategy" will then lead to "an exit strategy."


Try not to read too much into this. Its politiks as usual when applied to foreign policy statements or mentionings.






seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Seekerof
Wouldn't you think because of the recent elections an the 300,000+ peaceful Iraqi protest that these people are ready to take their country into their own hands and no longer require US supervision? I mean they've elected their own president. Insurgents are not fighting their government, they are fighting the US Military. They simply want us out, victory has already been achieved.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

as posted by Simulacra
Wouldn't you think because of the recent elections an the 300,000+ peaceful Iraqi protest that these people are ready to take their country into their own hands and no longer require US supervision?

That is applied to one view, Simulacra. In the process of continued stabilization, there are many or multi-views. Is the Iraqi military ready to secure the security of Iraq? Is the government fully ready to assume all responsibilities? Etc. In both, they are not ready yet. This is not just me saying this, but it is the Iraqi government and military saying this.

I think that patience will be needed on both sides, those who oppose us being there and those who want us there. The time is soon coming. I have friends and family over there; I want them home has bad as anyone else does, but it is going to require patience.




seekerof



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Just wanted to say that this story is in no way bias. This is a direct report reflecting exactly what Rumsfeld stated in a recent visit to Iraq. There is no proposed exit strategy for the US Military in the area of Iraq and no timeline.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Is anyone really surprised by this? I'm not. The U.S. will never leave now that its there. If there was an intention to leave in the future would there be a need for 14 "enduring" bases there?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Er...No bias? When I first saw this I was looking for the "Biased" button, but couldn't find it.


Victory over what might I ask Rumsfeld? We've instilled democracy in the nation. We've come to the conclusion that their are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. And we've removed Saddam Hussein from his dictatorship.

What else is there left to do? While Rumsfeld and his cronies are busy planning their 'Victory Strategy', American soldiers are dying because the Iraqi people simply want us out of their country.


Yeah, no bias in that. None at all. When I'm trying not to turn someone towards an opinion but just tell them the facts and let them decide, I refer to the people involved as cronies and tell people the minds of terrorists in their defence.

Yep, no bias here.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Opinion or bias can be presented in the closing statements [story body], just not in the story introduction leading to the article.

I'm not seeing an issue of 'bias' here.

This might clarify?


Story Intro



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
There's nothing to be biased about here. There's no strategy and no intention to leave - EVER. Its a black and white thing. You either believe it or you don't.

Simulacra, good work



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Lets see the biggest CIA/U.S. Embassy in the world and what 14 military bases are being built, uhm I don’t think the invaders are going anywhere or at lest until the gas pumps are empty and Israel is placated over who rules the Middle East.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
So let me get this straight then, Sauron and AlwaysLearning, are you leading us to believe that the US will never leave Iraq, in that those 140,000 plus troops will remian indefinately?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

by Seekerof
So let me get this straight then, Sauron and AlwaysLearning, are you leading us to believe that the US will never leave Iraq, in that those 140,000 plus troops will remain indefinitely?


No I’m not leading anyone to believe anything, it is only my opinion from what I see and read. As far as how many troops will be rotated out of the country and how many stay I’m not privy to such information.
The bases are being built for a reason are they not, someone is going to man them. One could say no they are for Iraqi troops, but I find that hard to believe as the money could be spent on the rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure.
(IMO)



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Why would Zionists be concerned with exit strategies? How silly is that?


We should compare the US motive to what they accomplished in Japan helping to "neutralize" the region by setting up hundreds of military bases. It has clearly kept communist China intact and under control from heavily progressing anti-american military agendas against the homeland and Japan. Military warmongers with a Christian mandate who are currently calling the shots in the White House are striving to achieve the same results in the Middle-East.

Although, i believe this time around they forgot to calculate the religion factor, plus divide the Israeli hatred times the principal of globalism.

Then you're clearly left with the results leading to WWIII..



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I hate to give away my identity but I've received 5 U2Us regarding this submission as bias. If you believe that this report is bias than it is solely based on your bias beliefs towards the Bush administration.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
While I agree with you, your intro includes the statement "Rumsfeld proclaimed that America has no intent to leave Iraq...", which is an opinion and makes it appear biased. In the source article, Rumsfield states the intention to leave.


``We have to see the institutional capacity developed so that they can take over the security responsibility,'' Rumsfeld said referring to Iraqi Security Forces. ``As that takes place, the responsibility of the coalition forces will decline and they will be able to move away and leave.''


Considering that 14 bases have been established, I think that it is clear that some contingent will remain in Iraq, but for a different purpose--but that is conjecture/opinion & should be in the last paragraph. The stated intention (fact) is for the troops to leave Iraq.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Make sure that the country doesn't fall to a dictatorial regime, like it did after the brits left, or like afghanistan did to the taliban.

Stay until the Free Iraqi Army and IP are capable of fighting them. Better to stay longer than have to return when, lets pretend, al sadr decides to re-mobilize his militia and seize control.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Rumsfeld clearly stated that ''We don't have an exit strategy'. How straight forward can that be? If you don't have:

A.)An Exit Strategy
B.)An Timetable for an Exit Strategy

Then it is safe to say that Rumsfeld clearly has no intentions to leave Iraq. He will be instructed to leave by the Iraqi government when the situation has stabilized.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

as posted by Simularca
Rumsfeld clearly stated that ''We don't have an exit strategy'. How straight forward can that be? If you don't have:

A.)An Exit Strategy
B.)An Timetable for an Exit Strategy

As I mentioned before, the phrase of simply implies that the US has no intentions of leaving before the stabilization has been accomplished or the Iraqi government asks us to leave.

What Rumsfeld is saying is being read into beyond what it simply implies.
You plan an exit strategy and a timetable when it comes near time to exit. Accordingly, the timetable has been set: within two years. A search on Google can verify this, thus, there is a "exit strategy and a timetable."





seekerof



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Rumsfeld stated that the lack of exit strategy planning is due to the inability to ascertain when the Iraqi police force will be ready to take over for the coalition forces--not that the coalition forces will never leave. The stated intention is that the coalition forces will leave at some point, which is different that saying that he intends to keep them there forever.

Of course, the point at which they will leave is an unknown---and right now that seems indefinite. I doubt that 150,000 troops can be kept there indefinitely, especially with Iran to invade this summer.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

as posted by Imgnyc
...especially with Iran to invade this summer.



Not likely, but for armchair politikians and generals, anything is possible, eh?

Advice? Go back to reading The National Enquirer.






seekerof

[edit on 13-4-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join