Bush's strategy in Iraq

[phreak]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I did. Perhaps I said it in a way that confused you. I will try and say it in a way that will be easier for you to understand.


"Stay the Course" means literally to maintain the present heading even under difficult conditions. This also implies that you should not change course, but that much should be obvious.
When asked what his opinion was on the failing Iraqi conflict, Bush's answer was always. " We have to stay the course". I don't know what that means to you, but to most people in the country it meant that we will keep on doing exactly what we are doing, no matter what. So it means that we won't withdraw, we won't set a time table, we won't consider letting Iraq transform into a confederacy, we won't try and break Iraq up into 3 countries. etc. We will continue to fight insurgents in the streets and keep training iraqi security forces until such time when they can take over for themselves. That is what "stay the course" means, and it has been the official policy of the administration for several years now.

In light of current events in Iraq and the current situation there, the policy of "Stay the course" is no longer viable, and the administration has backed away from it. They will no longer even use those words.

Bush drops 'stay the course' slogan as political mood sours | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited


"Change", is the exact opposite from "Do not change".

I hope that was clear enough for you.

If you want to argue semantics about what stay the course actually means and what actually constitutes changing course then you can go somewhere else. This is simple. During the campaign in 2004, anyone who suggested rethinking the Iraq war was either a defeatist or they were simply wrong, and that the way to win the war in Iraq was to stay the course. Now, he has stopped saying stay the course. It's simple for most people to see that the President is doing now what he once derided, and for someone who made a big issue out of so called "flip-flopping", it's a bit ironic.

i guess you'd rather post useless babble than answer the question.

you stated

Now the administration is turning around and saying that they might re-think strategy. So they are doing the very thing that everyone on the right blasted us for wanting to do.

all i wanted to know is when the admin came out and said they would not consider other strategies. strategies... not stupid friggin slogans like "stay the course" or "cut and run".

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by phreak

i guess you'd rather post useless babble than answer the question.

you stated
all i wanted to know is when the admin came out and said they would not consider other strategies. strategies... not stupid friggin slogans like "stay the course" or "cut and run".

You are the only one posting useless babble.
You are trying to argue semantics of the meaning of words and I won't do that. Sorry. Try it on someone else.

[Scrum]

I love this pathetic attempt to turn this around by these Bush supporters.

Now, since we have wanted a strategy change all along, we are supposed to applaud him for doing it after 2 years? Not to mention the fact that anyone even suggesting that "stay the coarse" wasn't the perfect solution was labeled anything from "cut and runners" to "appeasing the terrorists". Now suddenly all the options are on the table and everything should be forgivin? I don't think so.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I love this pathetic attempt to turn this around by these Bush supporters.

Now, since we have wanted a strategy change all along, we are supposed to applaud him for doing it after 2 years? Not to mention the fact that anyone even suggesting that "stay the coarse" wasn't the perfect solution was labeled anything from "cut and runners" to "appeasing the terrorists". Now suddenly all the options are on the table and everything should be forgivin? I don't think so.

Yeah, I'm just glad that they did finally realize that it wasn' working out. Better late then never I guess, But It would be hard for the administration do to anything to gain my respect at this point.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

These are the people with the 'power of the purse' as you say. Yet they all voted for the war, they all continue to support it financially, and then they go and say we should pull out? Hmmm...

No, the ones I'm talking about that should STFU are the ones that have nothing at all to do with the war or government. Even some on LL.

does this logic apply to areas of discussion other than war?
if not, why not?

[avsp]

Phreak: IMO you don't understand what's happened, & I suspect that is is due to viewing the situation through the prism of US domestic party political 'point-scoring' & bickering. I may be wrong, It has been known.

However, here is my take on the situation

There is a difference between strategy & tactics, ...., even between 'strategy' & 'grand strategy'

'Stay the course' is quite clearly the preferred strategy & is defined in opposition to 'cut & run', ..., ie continue doing what we set out to do as opposed to not doing it at all & coming home to do something else instead.
The original aim was to 'nation build'. To some extent this has been done, (elections etc.), but the democratic institutions are not in properly in place & achieving this has been hampered by the ongoing insurgency. Thus 'staying the course' requires defeating, (or at least considerably quelling), the numerous insurgencies.

What has happened is that various tactics have been tried with the available resources to achieve the aims. No tactics has thus far worked effectively. Even the most basic everyday aims (order on the streets of Baghdad, for example) have remained out of reach.

Thus strategic aims have, seemingly, been downshifted to getting it as stable as possible to allow the forces to withdraw without allowing conditions to deteriorate to the point where the whole region explodes.

There is still no clear answer to how to achieve this tactically in the military sense. Thus the strategy is now almost wholly political, but again what to do remains unclear.
But then that's life anyway, isn't it?

This is the, seeming, change in the admin's attitude, one where it is recognised that the 'grand strategic' aim/priority is no longer one of 'transforming the region by creating a shining example of democracy' as a beacon to the oppressed people of the ME, because it isn't achievable. Instead the priority is one of avoiding regional conflict arising from a burgeoning Iraqi civil war.

To worry about the admin being seen as having 'flip-flopped' is to entirely miss the point of the significance of the change.

It also doesn't seek to resolve the question of how to minimise the escalation of conflict in Iraq.

Those in the region who wish to direct the instability for their own ends can make very good use of the seemingly ever-present tendency of many in the West to see the problem as one of domestic party political advantage.

For a start they can use such tendencies to argue that democracy is weak.

So, although I cant show you exactly when the admin said they'd not consider other strategies I feel I have explained why the question is now irrelevant.

this was, i think, the intent of the thread, ..., possibly