War Exit Strategy Question.

[DawnCt1]

What was Franklin D. Roosevelt's "exit strategy" for World War II? In fact, what was the "exit strategy" for any war that we have successfully fought?

 

[yeartolate]

What was Franklin D. Roosevelt's "exit strategy" for World War II? In fact, what was the "exit strategy" for any war that we have successfully fought?

I think an exit strategy is of more importance when a country is launching a preemtive attack in a region in which our country has little respect. I guess my answer is that you cannot compare a war such as WW2 to Iraq.

 

[DawnCt1]

I think an exit strategy is of more importance when a country is launching a preemtive attack in a region in which our country has little respect. I guess my answer is that you cannot compare a war such as WW2 to Iraq.

When were we attacked by Germany? And just how much "respect" did the Nazi's or the Japanese have for Americans?

 

[Free4Life11]

I thought the exit strategy was the atomic bomb? I think the exit strategy should be to leave once the mission/goals are achieved. That requires the mission & goals to be defined. So just determine what should be accomplished and once it is accomplished you're done.

 

[Tanuki]

The exit strategy in WWII was "unconditional surrender" both Hitler and the Emporer of Japan. America was willing to throw everything she had at those guys to bring them down.

Sadaam has already surrendered and is under arrest awaiting trial -
and yet somehow . . . . the war goes on.

Probably because the elephant in the middle of the room is - the enemy percieves this as a religious war and a war of conquest even if most Americans have been trained to think of it in the way the case was put forth to us by the administration "this isn't a war against Islam it's a war against terrorism".

We have been told that it is traitorous to even try to understand the mentality of the enemy. But somehow devout teenage Muslims are volunteering in droves to commit suicide to disrupt our being there (because it is the only effective weapon they have). The answer put forth to most Americans is "they are just evil". Awfully simplistic, isn't it?

Perhaps they think we are there to take over their country, set up a puppet regieme and take their oil while leaving them with nothing? Naaahhh. It's a war against terrorism. Right. Their strategy is to be ungovernable. Which runs the cost of the war up until it is higher than we are willing (or able) to pay.

Which leaves America two options "cut and run" or as the Republicans will eventually call it "the Victory Strategy". In other words, have the American media tell the American public repeatedly that we won, things are great, our work here is over, and now we can leave the new democracy we built to get by on its own devices and then never mention Iraq in the American press again.

The other strategy is to take on Iraq and conquer and subdue it - which would probably mean reinstating the draft and cost who knows how many lives and if we made the Muslim world mad enough maybe crash our economy - remember they still control the oil and we depend on it.

Sure Sadaam was a bad guy.

When faced with a bad dictator there are several strategies to get rid of him - assasinate him, promote a coup which takes him down using allies within his own country, isolate him with sanctions, have a proxy war between his country and another country. (When you think about it -all these were tried).

And yet the previous two administrations (Bush 41 and Clinton) wisely chose not to actually invade the country - it took our current administration to get us into this war. They forced the generals who told them the war would be more difficult than they wanted to hear into retirement. They presented an overly optimistic case for war. Now we are facing the reality.

It isn't world War II. If it was there would be a draft and more than 150,000 soldiers over there.

 

[bicker]

That's a good point. To end WWII, America did something that many nations consider unforgiveable. While that may not have been necessary to defeat the Japanese, it may have been the only way to preclude a messy post-war period, akin to what we'll have after the Iraq War is "concluded."

It is possible, in the modern age, that "doing the unthinkable" is the only way to successfully bring a regional conflict to a successful conclusion, where that conclusion is truly conclusive. All-the-more reason to avoid such conflicts altogether.

 

[Mugg Mann]

The exit strategy in WWII was "unconditional surrender" both Hitler and the Emporer of Japan. America was willing to throw everything she had at those guys to bring them down.

Sadaam has already surrendered and is under arrest awaiting trial -
and yet somehow . . . . the war goes on.

Probably because the elephant in the middle of the room is - the enemy percieves this as a religious war and a war of conquest even if most Americans have been trained to think of it in the way the case was put forth to us by the administration "this isn't a war against Islam it's a war against terrorism".

We have been told that it is traitorous to even try to understand the mentality of the enemy. But somehow devout teenage Muslims are volunteering in droves to commit suicide to disrupt our being there (because it is the only effective weapon they have). The answer put forth to most Americans is "they are just evil". Awfully simplistic, isn't it?

Perhaps they think we are there to take over their country, set up a puppet regieme and take their oil while leaving them with nothing? Naaahhh. It's a war against terrorism. Right. Their strategy is to be ungovernable. Which runs the cost of the war up until it is higher than we are willing (or able) to pay.

Which leaves America two options "cut and run" or as the Republicans will eventually call it "the Victory Strategy". In other words, have the American media tell the American public repeatedly that we won, things are great, our work here is over, and now we can leave the new democracy we built to get by on its own devices and then never mention Iraq in the American press again.

The other strategy is to take on Iraq and conquer and subdue it - which would probably mean reinstating the draft and cost who knows how many lives and if we made the Muslim world mad enough maybe crash our economy - remember they still control the oil and we depend on it.

Sure Sadaam was a bad guy.

When faced with a bad dictator there are several strategies to get rid of him - assasinate him, promote a coup which takes him down using allies within his own country, isolate him with sanctions, have a proxy war between his country and another country. (When you think about it -all these were tried).

And yet the previous two administrations (Bush 41 and Clinton) wisely chose not to actually invade the country - it took our current administration to get us into this war. They forced the generals who told them the war would be more difficult than they wanted to hear into retirement. They presented an overly optimistic case for war. Now we are facing the reality.

It isn't world War II. If it was there would be a draft and more than 150,000 soldiers over there.

This is perhaps the single most intelligent post concerning the Iraq war I have seen on the Disboards. My compliments......

May I also add that one of the factors compounding the dilemma this country finds itself in is the utter unwillingness of the administration that started this particular war, or its supporters for that matter, to be responsible enough to not only admit that mistakes have been made but are also willing to correct those mistakes.

 

[DawnCt1]

1. The exit strategy in WWII was "unconditional surrender" both Hitler and the Emporer of Japan. America was willing to throw everything she had at those guys to bring them down.

Sadaam has already surrendered and is under arrest awaiting trial -
and yet somehow . . . . the war goes on.

Probably because the elephant in the middle of the room is - the enemy percieves this as a religious war and a war of conquest even if most Americans have been trained to think of it in the way the case was put forth to us by the administration "this isn't a war against Islam it's a war against terrorism".

We have been told that it is traitorous to even try to understand the mentality of the enemy. But somehow devout teenage Muslims are volunteering in droves to commit suicide to disrupt our being there (because it is the only effective weapon they have). The answer put forth to most Americans is "they are just evil". Awfully simplistic, isn't it?

Perhaps they think we are there to take over their country, set up a puppet regieme and take their oil while leaving them with nothing? Naaahhh. It's a war against terrorism. Right. Their strategy is to be ungovernable. Which runs the cost of the war up until it is higher than we are willing (or able) to pay.

2.Which leaves America two options "cut and run" or as the Republicans will eventually call it "the Victory Strategy". In other words, have the American media tell the American public repeatedly that we won, things are great, our work here is over, and now we can leave the new democracy we built to get by on its own devices and then never mention Iraq in the American press again.

3. The other strategy is to take on Iraq and conquer and subdue it - which would probably mean reinstating the draft and cost who knows how many lives and if we made the Muslim world mad enough maybe crash our economy - remember they still control the oil and we depend on it.

Sure Sadaam was a bad guy.

When faced with a bad dictator there are several strategies to get rid of him - assasinate him, promote a coup which takes him down using allies within his own country, isolate him with sanctions, have a proxy war between his country and another country. (When you think about it -all these were tried).

And yet the previous two administrations (Bush 41 and Clinton) wisely chose not to actually invade the country - it took our current administration to get us into this war. They forced the generals who told them the war would be more difficult than they wanted to hear into retirement. They presented an overly optimistic case for war. Now we are facing the reality.

It isn't world War II. If it was there would be a draft and more than 150,000 soldiers over there.

1. Iraq has a provisional government and is in the process of developing a permanent government. In the meantime, they require security, which is what the United States is currently providing. This has always been the strategy and the goal and it is moving forward. To abandon Iraq to the insurgency groups, who are flooding in from across the boarders, is to abandon an entire country, particularly the Kurds.

Iraqis have turned out en mass to risk their lives to vote for what you have alluded to as a "puppet government", and if it were about "oil" we would have invaded Mexico. Its closer to home. Changing the face of the Middle East, giving young Muslims a reason to pursue the same dreams and aspirations that every citizen of any democracy enjoys, it what will change the motivations of suicidal youths who have been duped into believing that the West is evil and that their only hope for happiness and fullfillment is through Jihad. It isn't hard to understand. Their goal is to spread radical Islam to the rest of the world. Are we to sit back and see the minority of Muslims conrol the fate of the tolerant majority?

We were being attacked before 9/11 but it was seen as a law enforcement issue. It isn't. Now Iraqis are being targeted by the insurgents who wish to turn back the clock and cloke women in burkas. If their strategy is to be "ungovernable", then should it be our strategy to engage in that and cut and run? That sounds like surrender to me.

The "strategy" to "conquor" Iraq has never been a strategy that this country has embraced on any level. We are not occupiers, we are liberators. That doesn't mean that we haven't and don't maintain a supportive presence after the initial task is completed. We still have a presence in Germany and Japan after WWII. For several years after the surrender of both of those countries, our military presence was required to maintain stability. We are still in Bosnia. The invasion of Iraq is not a new war, it is a resumption of hostilities
following the first Gulf War in which the surrender agreements that Saddam signed on to were violated dozens of times.

The Dulfer Report confirmed that Saddam's goals were to have the sanctions lifted so he could resume his pursuit of WMD's. The mechanism was well in place to accomplish that. With the oil for food program, which was so broadly corrupted by our "allies, (Germany, France and Russia) he had the means, money and motivation. You are correct when you say that the other options to subdue the evil dictator were tried. They obviously were ineffective and have failed, which has lead us to this point in time. General Shinseki, (one general) retired because he had reached the end of his tenure and it was time. There are those who may disagree with elements of how this war has been conducted but there were disagreements, battles fought and lost all through out our history. The answer is, when things do not go perfectly, we do not retreat, we respond.

Last of all, lets not ignore the progress that has developed in the rest of the middle east. Khadafi has surrendered Libya's WMDS, something that was considered "unthinkable" not that many years ago. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are moving towards democratic reforms and are beginning to grant some rights to women that were also "unthinkable". Egypt is also moving in that direction. While the Iranian government remains a major obstacle to peace in the middle east, their citizens love Americans as demonstrated by their response to our presence following the earthquake in Bam. The Imams monitored the visits to the DMAT/FEMA medical tent while thousands of Iranians walked past the facilities of Germany and France to seek out Americans.

 

[dennis99ss]

Now its that he just had the desire to build wmd's. Nice shift there in an attempt to avoid the discussion about what this administration did, in an attempt to justify your arguments that we are doing the right thing.

Tanuki, great post. Dawn, same old same old. I guess if you tell yourself something over and over, you start to really believe it.

 

[LakeAriel]

Germany attacked us????? Thats' why we entered WW11? Are you kidding?

 

[Charade]

The exit strategy in WWII was "unconditional surrender" both Hitler and the Emporer of Japan. America was willing to throw everything she had at those guys to bring them down.

Sadaam has already surrendered and is under arrest awaiting trial -
and yet somehow . . . . the war goes on.

Probably because the elephant in the middle of the room is - the enemy percieves this as a religious war and a war of conquest even if most Americans have been trained to think of it in the way the case was put forth to us by the administration "this isn't a war against Islam it's a war against terrorism".

We have been told that it is traitorous to even try to understand the mentality of the enemy. But somehow devout teenage Muslims are volunteering in droves to commit suicide to disrupt our being there (because it is the only effective weapon they have). The answer put forth to most Americans is "they are just evil". Awfully simplistic, isn't it?

Perhaps they think we are there to take over their country, set up a puppet regieme and take their oil while leaving them with nothing? Naaahhh. It's a war against terrorism. Right. Their strategy is to be ungovernable. Which runs the cost of the war up until it is higher than we are willing (or able) to pay.

Which leaves America two options "cut and run" or as the Republicans will eventually call it "the Victory Strategy". In other words, have the American media tell the American public repeatedly that we won, things are great, our work here is over, and now we can leave the new democracy we built to get by on its own devices and then never mention Iraq in the American press again.

The other strategy is to take on Iraq and conquer and subdue it - which would probably mean reinstating the draft and cost who knows how many lives and if we made the Muslim world mad enough maybe crash our economy - remember they still control the oil and we depend on it.

Sure Sadaam was a bad guy.

When faced with a bad dictator there are several strategies to get rid of him - assasinate him, promote a coup which takes him down using allies within his own country, isolate him with sanctions, have a proxy war between his country and another country. (When you think about it -all these were tried).

And yet the previous two administrations (Bush 41 and Clinton) wisely chose not to actually invade the country - it took our current administration to get us into this war. They forced the generals who told them the war would be more difficult than they wanted to hear into retirement. They presented an overly optimistic case for war. Now we are facing the reality.

It isn't world War II. If it was there would be a draft and more than 150,000 soldiers over there.

There's so much baloney here that I'm thinking of making some sandwiches.

 

[DawnCt1]

Germany attacked us????? Thats' why we entered WW11? Are you kidding?

No, Japan attacked the US, not Germany. The impetus for entering the war, was the attack on Pearl Harbor. We hesitated to enter the war to respond to the Nazi threat because there was a sense that we could "negotiate and pacify Hitler". Neville Chamberlain was a big proponent of that. Sort of like the
Neville Chamberlains" that have emerged with regard to Saddam.

 

[DawnCt1]

There's so much baloney here that I'm thinking of making some sandwiches.

Except, I don't like baloney sandwiches.

 

[Charade]

I guess if you tell yourself something over and over, you start to really believe it.

Wow, I was just about to say that!!

 

[DawnCt1]

Now its that he just had the desire to build wmd's. Nice shift there in an attempt to avoid the discussion about what this administration did, in an attempt to justify your arguments that we are doing the right thing.

Tanuki, great post. Dawn, same old same old. I guess if you tell yourself something over and over, you start to really believe it.

He had more than the desire to build WMDs, in fact, I still believe he had them and I would be very interested to know, who, in the U.S. Senate gave Saddam the "heads up" that we would be invading. In addition to the "desire" that you minimize, he had used them in the past and it would have taken him less than a few months to be well armed once the sanctions were dispensed with. That wa also a timetable the the United States was up against. You can engage in your revisionist history but you are deluding no one except like minded individuals such as yourself.

 

[LakeAriel]

sigh...............Still looking for WMD's. Shame, should be looking for Bin Laden

 

[dennis99ss]

Your history of WWII is flawed. We did not seek to pacify Hitler. The political winds of the day were isolationist, and hence, the government's attempt to distance itself from the war. You may think that simply because we waited until 1941 to declare war that we were attempting to negotiate a peace. To the contrary, the US was actively helping the allied forces prior to 1941. While the US did not actively participate with formal troops, etc. she did assist with transportation, protection, i.e. USS TEXAS, as well as supplies, and other support for the UK, China, etc. The attack was a necessary evil for the US entrance into the war. The US was not attempting to pacify Hitler prior to our entrance into the war. The US did not have the political strength to enter the war, before Pearl Harbor. As a result, the US was "waiting" for an event around which the US would rally in order to allow it to enter the war. If not Pearl Harbor, then the invasion of England would likely have been that reason.

Iraq is drastically different than WWII. Iraq was not started as a win by all means conflict. It was started to simply change a regime. It was not started to completely pacify the country, and then rebuild. They are two different ideas. Not to say I am for one over the other, but, sometimes it costs more to remodel the house with mold in it than it would to tear it down and start from scratch. We went to Iraq to remodel. However, the people living in the house do not want an extreme makeover. As a result, the plan is flawed. If the plan were to save the region, etc., through the use of a big stick, then, a big stick should have been used. As it is, whether we stay or leave, the region will still look at the US as having failed, as there will be no "change" in the hearts and minds. It seems that opposition grows the longer we are present, which will occur in an occupation. However, one way to combat the opposition is with an iron fist. We have not done that in Iraq. We have not done it because when we invaded, we did not want to look like crusaders, although our goal was the same.

 

[DawnCt1]

sigh...............Still looking for WMD's. Shame, should be looking for Bin Laden

And should we invade Pakistan to look for Bin Laden who has essentially been castrated. Would you like to see Musharraf, who has survived 4 assassination attempts have to deal with an uprising from the Radical Islamists who live in his country? We are looking for Bin Laden with the cooperation of the countries in the region but I hardly think we need to open another front to search for an impotent figurehead who hasn't been heard from in months. His communications has been completely disrupted and 75% or more of his organizational structure has been destroyed.

 

[dennis99ss]

I am actually laughing out loud.

You remind me of the seagulls in Finding Nemo, mine, mine, mine, mine--all saying the same thing, over and over and over. But, in this case, its wmd, wmd, wmd, wmd.

To bad that fish never came up to the surface, huh?

Saddam did use them in the past......the key word you seem to not understand is "in the past", i.e. not the present, i.e. before sanctions, before inspections, etc. Of course, since the use of wmd's in the past is the only justification to go to war that you now have, you simply ignore the fact that nobody has come out and said that the program would be up and running in a couple of months, nobody has said they were present, and all findings indicate that the UN's inspections, and destruction of the materials, used "IN THE PAST" actually worked. Convienent that you forget about that part.

To your second point, So, insstead of going back to the UN, and telling them we want to keep sanctions so no wmd's are built, instead, we invade, kill 2100+ of our men, injure 15,000, kill thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Iraq'a, because we were under a timetable.....Give me a break.

Mine, Mine, Mine, Wmd, Wmd, Wmd

 

[DawnCt1]

.

The allies certainly did attempt to pacify Hitler while the US "stood out". The war would have been unwinable had we not entered with the strength and determination that we did. Certainly the restrictions and punishment that was inflicted upon Germany following WWI contributed to the rise of Hitler but her went unchecked for too long because there were those in Europe who were content to attempt to "contain" him through diplomatic means. There is no doubt that we would have responded to the threat of Hitler with or without the war with Japan, however, we entered WWII following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

With regard to Iraq. The Iraqi people, who risk their lives to vote are the targets of the terrorists. You are totally deluded if you think that it will stop if our troops withdraw prematurely. The security forces need to be developed to defend themselves. A "regime" change does not simply involve accepting the surrender of a leader and replacing him with another one. It has to be embarked upon with the goal of winning. The hearts and minds of the Iraqi people have to be won by the government that they are electing so that they have a stake in it. That is the direction that we are moving in.