Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Why exactly are we just letting this kind of stuff slide on by?
The U.S. Army has plans that would keep the current level of troops in Iraq — about 15 brigades — through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Uhh, what exactly is it you are “letting” slide? The fact that the Army has plans for an extended stay in Iraq makes good sense. We always make plans for differing contingencies. If you knew anything at all about the military, you would know they have large palnning staffs that do nothing other than draw up palns for all sorts of contingencies, evemn remote scenarios.
But on behalf of the Armed Services, we hope you see fit to let them continue to make contingency palns.
Because Democrats don’t have spines or scrotums.
This has a simple answer to a simple question – copyright Atrios.
Uhh, what exactly is it you are “letting” slide? The fact that the Army has plans for an extended stay in Iraq makes good sense. We always make plans for differing contingencies. If you knew anything at all about the military, you would know they have large planning staffs that do nothing other than draw up plans for all sorts of contingncies, even remote scenarios.
But on behalf of the Armed Services, we hope you see fit to let them continue to make contingency plans.
Nothing wrong with a contingency plan, but the idea that we’re even remotely considering occupying Iraq for 7 years should be an indication that the policy is bankrupt.
More evidence that the Republican “plan” for Iraq is simply failure.
Again, why a group of people who have no experience in the military, and couldn’t meet the qualifications to join if they wanted to, sees fit to have deep thoughts on the “strategery” is beyond me.
Here is an idea for you….
Having a substantial military force in the middle east is a good idea. People like Iran and syria will think twice before acting up if they know there are a brace of F-15 wings, and M1A1 Abrams tanks parked on their borders….
“Having a substantial military force in the middle east is a good idea.”
Tell it to Appeaser-in-chief Bush, who pulled our forces out of Saudi.
“why a group of people.. sees fit to have deep thoughts on the “strategery”
Pedro, one day you’ll understand that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the greatest, costliest strategic mistake of our lives. Worse even than Vietnam. And I, and the American people know this, even though we weren’t all generals, too.
Yeah, sure scared Kim Jong Il out of pursuing his nuclear weapons program didnt it? Whole doctrine of provokation and intimidation is working wonders isnt it?
Or wait, you think Iran and Syria will keep in line because of proximity? Because we’re on the borders? Because Iran for instance wont say “They have numerous enemies in Iraq, and they have numerous enemies here in Iran, so we basically have them surrounded and outnumbered” and that they’ll be so afraid of being so easily to overpower us in a simple concerted effort that they’ll throw up the white flag in a heartbeat? This is honestly what you think? We’re strangers in a strange land with a long history of violence and currently full of people who do not want us there, but the fact that we’ve got a whole bunch of guns, not necessarily more or better guns, just the fact that we got us a whole bunch of them, that thats going to keep everybody peaceful?
You think this plan is working so far?
People like Iran and syria will think twice before acting up if they know there are a brace of F-15 wings, and M1A1 Abrams tanks parked on their borders….
Pedro, how many troops have we had “parked” on North Korea’s border for the last fifty years? How well did that keep them from “acting up”?
Is that the best example of your “deep thought” on military strategy? Because it seems pretty weak.
“but the idea that we’re even remotely considering occupying Iraq for 7 years should be an indication that the policy is bankrupt.”
So CINC/OW would have NO plans for an extended stay in Iraq?? Right? No plans at all (hooray, I actually typed ‘plan’ correctly).
Wow. Again with the insipid “well, what’s YOUR plan?” response.
Here’s a plan. Let’s do ANYTHING other than the ruinous path that Bush has lied us down and intends to stay on, regardless of the damage or cost.
Yeesh.
“Again, why a group of people who have no experience in the military, and couldn’t meet the qualifications to join if they wanted to, sees fit to have deep thoughts on the “strategery” is beyond me.”
The irony of this statement is mind-boggling.
If it comes down to “no plan” vs. “really, really bad plan”, I have no problem choosing the former. In a zen way, sometimes not having a plan is a plan unto itself.
Since none of us know the details of the paln, how is it progressives ‘know’ its a bad plan. yet agian, you provide ample reason why you can’t be trusted to run the country.
I know it’s a bad plan because it’s not working, and because it’s being implemented by malevolent ideologues motivated by nothing more than the desire to remain in power. Why are you defending them?
Somehow, it don’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that a plan that includes people getting killed wholesale, it ain’t a good plan. But you keep defending it, stick with what you’re good at.
The military has plans for EVERYTHING. It’s what they do. They kill acres of trees every year for new plans. And every now and then, someone has to dig something out of the “what the hell were they thinking of when they came up with THIS?” drawer and actually put it to use.
For example, anyone who might have suggested in 1938 that in barely six years we’d have to stage a massive amphibious invasion of France against formidable defenses and fierce resistance, they’d have been locked up in the looney bin.
Maybe we’ll need this plan, maybe we won’t. But to point to a military plan and say that it reflects defined intentions and goals is silliness at best.
J.
The military has plans for EVERYTHING. It’s what they do.
Well, except for plans for occupying a conquered Iraq, if the Sec. of Defense threatens to fire the next person who suggests it.
This reflects the perpetual policy of military planners only, and has nothing to do with administration policy or congressional legislation.
Got it? Good!
Jay Tea, the military’s scenario planing has no necessary connection with the civilian leadership’s choice to use it. See, for example, the war to win the peace in Iraq circa 2003.
Uhh, we always make plans for differing contingencies. If you knew anything at all about the military, you would know they have large palnning staffs that do nothing other than draw up palns for all sorts of contingencies, evemn remote scenarios.
Perhaps dugger could bring to light the contingency plan for defusing an insurgency before it evolved into a sectarian civil war — remote as that scenario may have been.
If it comes down to “no plan” vs. “really, really bad plan”, I have no problem choosing the former. In a zen way, sometimes not having a plan is a plan unto itself.
OK, so in which categoy do you place the post-MISSION ACCOMPLISHED occupation? Maybe that was a no-plan operation.
Uumm… that’s a good question.
My “Bush Hate™” compels me to say the latter.