Why it is all about Bush and always will be
>> You are changing your directive to me from what I know to what has been officially stated.
I meant may be you don't know if an official answer has been provided. I thought that would be obvious.
>> Some of your questions, although simply stated, do not require simply stated answers from a layman such as myself.
I am going to expand on my questions to make them simpler as well as provide my understanding of your answers to them Let's see if answers to the questions are as complicated as you seem to think. Please correct any misunderstandings:
(1A) Are there any FIXED military objectives to be reached?
You seem to believe the answer is yes. But then again, you mention that objectives have changed over the course of time. So it remains to be answered. Are there fixed goals that once the military achieves them they can pull out? Or is this going to remain an open ended adventure at the pleasure of the President?
(1B) What are the FIXED military objectives, if any.
To this you seem to provide this answer from Bush“a government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror”. What the hell does that mean? If the Iraqis choose a government that is not interested in helping the US on its WOT then we'll be there forever and clobber them until they give in? And what does it mean for a government to be able to "defend" itself? Does it mean it will take on and remain in power forever? If in the next elections the Iraqis choose to have Muqtada al-Sadr form an Islamic government, will we come to the "defense" of the existing government?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HOW THE HELL IS THAT ANSWER A MILITARY OBJECTIVE? IT INDICATES A POLITICAL GOAL NOT A MILITARY ONE.
(2)Are these objectives, if any, defined by politicians or by the military?
This is a very simple question. Your answer, based on quoting Bush as the source of the objectives, seems to be a resounding NO. Now before you point out that Bush is the Commander, you should note that just the same he is a civilian politician and when we discuss military leadership, we are never considering the civilian command structure under which they serve as part of it.
(3) Once such objectives (assuming there are any) are reached, will we pull our forces out of Iraq?
Now this seems like an easy one to answer, don't you think? I mean assume hypothetically and next year Iraq is stable and the government can "defend" itself (whatever that means). And it is not hostile to the US. Will we then pull all our forces out or are we going to keep the bases there like so many that we have had around the world? HINT: Once a county has been defeated by US forces, there has NEVER been a case of them leaving the country. At least none that I know of.
(4) Are the answers to above questions predominantly political and devoid of any purely military objectives?
You did not even attempt to answer this question, but I think it is obvious that they are all political objectives and answers rather military ones.
Which brings us back to your misguided bickering about "it would be according to military strategies rather than left vs right political ones".
Explain to us how that could be possible? How can the determination of troop levels in Iraq exist outside of the political war within the US? |
