http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...y_nov2005.html

The White House is trying now to convince people they have a "plan" for an exit strategy in Iraq. So they have released a "document" that they can then claim is a plan.

So Far I have only read the executive summary, I will read more and try to give it a fair shake. However, What I have read so far seems to be nothing new whatsoever and basically seems to be just a bunch more of the ambigious sound bites the republicans have been using. However there seem to be no concrete benchmarks or dates or anything tangible. Just more soundbites:

So was this the mission presented to the American People to start this war?

This is not mission creep, this is mission re-write. And re-written to be a "Vision". Wars should not be started based upon a leaders "vision" of the future. Not should they be maintained for one. Our mission there is to get out of Iraq without leaving a Taliban type government in place.

Your very last sentence is absolutely correct....and it's been our goal from Day One. And the PLAN dipicts 3 parts below. We are somewhere in the middle (number 2) part of that plan today. One of the reporters in Iraq said that there is a huge difference in Iraqi forces from what he saw this time a year ago and what he sees today. More and more of them are taking the lead.



The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.


"Our strategy involves three integrated tracks -- political, security, and economic -- each with separate objectives, but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists, and secure a new democratic state in Iraq.

The Political Track
(Isolate, Engage, Build)

Objective: To help the Iraqi people forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic government, thereby isolating enemy elements from the broader public.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate hardened enemy elements from those who can be won over to a peaceful political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in a viable, democratic Iraq.
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of peaceful participation.
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track
(Clear, Hold, Build)

Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.
Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track
(Restore, Reform, Build)

Objective: To assist the Iraqi government in establishing the foundations for a sound economy with the capacity to deliver essential services.
To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure so it can meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy.
Reform Iraq's economy, which has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future.
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis. THIS STRATEGY IS INTEGRATED, AND ITS ELEMENTS ARE MUTUALLY REINFORCING."

We're on track for being able to pull some troops out next year. But we won't give the terrorists a timetable to work around. It's best to leave them guessing.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

has gone on record as saying the US is making significant progress in Iraq, and the Bush plan is succeeding. Liberman made his comments upon his 4th return trip to Iraq in the past 16 months.

You may recall Joe was Algore's running mate in 2000. Something tells me if there wasn't any progress being made, he'd said so.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Bush, you lying, duty-dodging, coke-snorting, pot-smoking, booze-guzzling wimp; the only president in US History to declare war without provocation, a president w/ a 30 percent approval rating; if America does not turn and run, it certainly won't be because they have a righteous, honest, commander-in-chief that is leading us to victory in his own footsteps. It will be only because so many of our wonderful, self-sacrificing troops have died in this big lie of yours, and somehow their comrades cannot let them all die in vain. They are desperate now to achieve the impossible, because their hearts and minds won't allow them to see the truth, that they are all there based on a pack of lies. I hope I live long enough to see the history books put you to shame.

__________________
"Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and the waves, and they obey Him." Luke 8:25

The point of my last line is when can we leave without the government deteriorating to ataliban style government.

It looks like the Bush plan is to stay until Iraq is completely at a level equivelent to any western democratic society, completely stable, without any insurgants at all. This is not as early as possible, nor is it neccessary.

If Iraqi's truely want freedom and democracy, then there is a point far earlier than this where they can stand on their own and finish the job on their own.

When a democratically elected government is in place in January, why can't this government do the job on it's own with support from the US in the form of Arms and training being performed in just a couple of isolated locations?

Why won't the administration state that it's goal is to withdraw all US troops and not leave military bases in Iraq? This would help take some of the support out of the insurgancy from the large faction that is fighting to remove US troops from muslim soil. The answer is because the administration intends to leave permanent military bases in Iraq.

Iraq should be able to stand on it's own far earlier than what the end goals of this "plan" are. The complete withdrawl of US troops would also force the insurgancy to focus on only fighting the Iraqi government, i.e no longer a fight against occupation, but a civil war. This is a strong strategic move to turn the population against the insurgancy. With the backing of the US, the new Iraqi government should be able to win this civil war on their own.

There is expected to be some unrest and chaos with the transition of Iraq. But does the presence of US troops help fuel this unrest? Yes, it does. The earlier US troops leave, the earlier the Iraqi government will stand on it's own, which is when our goals are accomplished, i.e. we acheive victory. So the earlier the US troops leave, the earlier we win. And this point is earlier than when complete harmony and the end of political unrest is acheived.

Well, once when I was a little boy I stumped my toe on a door and it made me so mad that I could spit.

And so I spit and my dog licked my toe and I grew up to be a man.

Now, now, does the Bombeni feel better?

Yes certainly, I feel somewhat better by facing the truth about what this clown has down to my beloved country. (BTW, I believe approximately 70 percent of the rest of the nation agrees with me.) I won't really feel better for 3 more years though, when that puppet has been reduced to goat farming or some such thing. Now that's something he might be good at. He certainly seems to find it an interesting subject; wasn't able to tear himself away from a book on the subject WHEN OUR COUNTRY WAS UNDER ATTACK! Did you get that last part?? WHILE OUR COUNTRY WAS UNDER ATTACK! It's really very sad, all the thousands of jobs being lost, all the businesses shutting down. It breaks my heart, why just last week I read 7,000 more will lose their jobs in my state due to GM closings. What is it, 20 thousand going to lose their jobs due to Merck downsizing? It makes me sad, but then I have to pull myself up by my bootstraps and remind myself: MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR JOBS VOTED FOR THE AVERAGE/BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE DORK. Ok, there, NOW I feel better. And thanks for asking.

__________________
"Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and the waves, and they obey Him." Luke 8:25

Can you clarify your position? Let's take a look at the five most recent wars:

Afghanistan
Yugoslavia
Iraq (the first war)
Vietnam
Korea

Now, explain to us how each of these countries provoked us, making Bush Jr. "the only president in US History to decalare war without provocation."

We did not declare war on Vietnam or Korea; we were there to support the South Vietnamese/Koreans in their fight against the Communists of the North. As far as Afghanistan goes, our invasion after 9/11 was to seek and destroy the raghead scumbags who planned and plotted the attack in NY. Total provocation. Remember, I said first prez to declare war w/o provocation. He is a buffoon, and fooled a lot of nice folks. I admit that many of us were going along for the ride at first, but when it became evident we had been lied to, and the cover up was exposed, it was time for that weasle to step up to the plate and begin pulling out of that raghead country. Do you feel safer in US now? Did you fall for his lies this last time that if you voted for him you would be safer in the US? Well, if voting for him was supposed to make us safer, then one would assume his administration would have begun an immediate plan to react to any type of attack within our own borders. What do you think about the govt. response to Katrina? The results of that hurricane are a simulation of what terrorists could do here any day. Is the US ready to protect and rescue you and your loved ones? I am sorry, but I have to believe that anyone, even republican, that can still make a stand for that dork has to be one of three things: getting paid for it, or, has a loved one currently deployed in Iraq and feels they have to fight to make what they are doing seem like the right thing, or, las a loved one already dead or crippled for life.

__________________
"Who can this be? For He commands even the winds and the waves, and they obey Him." Luke 8:25

We did not declare war on Iraq either. I guess by your reasoning -- given that we supported the Kurds in their fight against Saddam in the south, I guess this war is no different than either of the two you sidestepped.

How about Yugoslavia and Iraq I?