You do understand the difference between tactical and strategic don't you?

 

Please elaborate so that we can make sure we are on the same page and not debating an issue and we aren't even in the same book.

I can appreciate your position on that point, although I do not necessarily agree that we can tell at this point if it was a strategic blunder. If Iraq was to develop a stable economy and some type of democracy that could be used as a spring board to eventually bring some stability to all of the middle East, then I would hope you would agree that invading Iraq and removing Hussein was a brilliant strategic move, correct?

 

Let me be very clear. If all of the groups in Iraq that have been fighting for a thousand years join hands and have a group hug and then elect George Washington Hussein as their president, it will have been a great thing for Iraq, but not worth it to the United States. If Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palistine, etc all decide to follow the same path, THEN, I'll be very happy to shout from the rooftops that I was wrong and glad of it. If democracy, prosperity and peace don't flow from Iraq to the greater middle east will you be willing to say that the Iraq war was a mistake for the United States?

Please elaborate so that we can make sure we are on the same page and not debating an issue and we aren't even in the same book.

 

Stated very briefly, strategic refers to broad policy and objectives. Tactical refers to means and methods. The decision to invade Iraq was strategic. The number of troops and other resources used were tactical decisions.

Let me be very clear. If all of the groups in Iraq that have been fighting for a thousand years join hands and have a group hug and then elect George Washington Hussein as their president, it will have been a great thing for Iraq, but not worth it to the United States. If Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palistine, etc all decide to follow the same path, THEN, I'll be very happy to shout from the rooftops that I was wrong and glad of it. If democracy, prosperity and peace don't flow from Iraq to the greater middle east will you be willing to say that the Iraq war was a mistake for the United States?

 

All of this would take time and might not occur for 100 years. But an event like that would have to start somewhere. Hopefully, it started with America's actions 5 years ago.

Stated very briefly, strategic refers to broad policy and objectives. Tactical refers to means and methods.

 

Tactical I would then feel is totally or at least should totally be the general whom on the ground in charge, their call.

 

Strategic would then be Rumsfield's call backed by the President and whom McCain was calling for his removal.

 

Are we on the same page?

Tactical I would then feel is totally or at least should totally be the general whom on the ground in charge, their call.

 

Strategic would then be Rumsfield's call backed by the President and whom McCain was calling for his removal.

 

Are we on the same page?

 

No, the strategic decision was made by the President. The decision to invade a country is never made by the Secretary of Defense. McCain backed the Presidents decision.

No, the strategic decision was made by the President. The decision to invade a country is never made by the Secretary of Defense. McCain backed the Presidents decision.

 

Yes, I agree on that. It was Bush's call. A call authorized by the Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate(?).

 

But after that part with the numbers that were going in to Iraq, the policies on setting up the government in Iraq, I assume would all come from recommendations from Rumsfeld, correct?

Let me be very clear. If all of the groups in Iraq that have been fighting for a thousand years join hands and have a group hug and then elect George Washington Hussein as their president, it will have been a great thing for Iraq, but not worth it to the United States. If Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palistine, etc all decide to follow the same path, THEN, I'll be very happy to shout from the rooftops that I was wrong and glad of it. If democracy, prosperity and peace don't flow from Iraq to the greater middle east will you be willing to say that the Iraq war was a mistake for the United States?

 

 

I'll admit that I'm an optimist; then again, I'm not sure a line of thinking that follows that we should just throw up our hands and say things will always remain the same and thus we should not try to effectuate change is in our best interests and in the best interests the middle Eastern people. I'm not of the mindset that if we had never gotten involved in the middle East, none of the terrorists would have ever targeted the U.S. We are the leader of the free world and would have been a target regardless of whether we never supported Israel; regardless of whether we never invaded Iraq; regardless of whether we ever had ANY involvement in the middle East at all.

 

Maybe its pollyanish on my part, but I believe that if we didn't do what we did, there is zero chance of the middle East ever stabilizing. I believe we did the right thing in Japan and Germany after WWII; I believe we are doing the right thing in Mexico to support their democratic govt; and I believe we did the right thing in Iraq. To answer your question: if we bring democracy and stability to Iraq yet it doesn't spread to any other country, I will still believe the war in Iraq was not a mistake as I believe that we had to try; we had to make an effort (an effort that I will admit has been very costly in American lives and dollars) to bring change, to bring democracy and stability to the middle Eastern people. I truly believe that that is what America is all about.

 

And before you ask, I believe that America should, as soon as it is able, try to do the same thing in Africa and other portions of the world where people live in despair and have no quality of life and no say in their govt, as I believe that it what America stands for.

I'll admit that I'm an optimist; then again, I'm not sure a line of thinking that follows that we should just throw up our hands and say things will always remain the same and thus we should not try to effectuate change is in our best interests and in the best interests the middle Eastern people. I'm not of the mindset that if we had never gotten involved in the middle East, none of the terrorists would have ever targeted the U.S. We are the leader of the free world and would have been a target regardless of whether we never supported Israel; regardless of whether we never invaded Iraq; regardless of whether we ever had ANY involvement in the middle East at all.

 

Maybe its pollyanish on my part, but I believe that if we didn't do what we did, there is zero chance of the middle East ever stabilizing. I believe we did the right thing in Japan and Germany after WWII; I believe we are doing the right thing in Mexico to support their democratic govt; and I believe we did the right thing in Iraq. To answer your question: if we bring democracy and stability to Iraq yet it doesn't spread to any other country, I will still believe the war in Iraq was not a mistake as I believe that we had to try; we had to make an effort (an effort that I will admit has been very costly in American lives and dollars) to bring change, to bring democracy and stability to the middle Eastern people. I truly believe that that is what America is all about.

 

And before you ask, I believe that America should, as soon as it is able, try to do the same thing in Africa and other portions of the world where people live in despair and have no quality of life and no say in their govt, as I believe that it what America stands for.

 

I don't disagree that we should do what we can. But we do have to evaluate the cost. In Iraq the cost has been too high. Supporting democracy around the world is a good thing and it is part of what America stands for. Imposing democracy around the world is not what America stands for. The use of American force around the world should be based on two things. The first is legitimate American security interests and the second is that the cost must be proportional to the benefit to the United States. I believed that Iraq failed on both counts before the war and nothing that has happened since, including the success bought by our brave young men and women in the past year, has changed my mind.

 

Let's look at WW II and the post war period and compare them to my two criteria. First, American security interests. WW II clearly meets that one. We were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us. Facism had the means and the desire to take over the world. Second was the cost proportional to the benefit? Again, clearly, despite the horendous cost, it was worth it to preserve our way of life and freedom throughout the world. In the post war period, economic and political stability in Europe and Asia were important to break the cycle of Europe's wars and to provide allies and protection against the march of communism. Again, it was worth the cost. Some thought that communism was such a threat to our interests that we should have turned our attention to the Soviet Union and marched from Germany to Moscow. Would it have been a good thing to liberate the Soviet Union from communist rule? Yes. Would it have met my two criteria? Not even close.

I don't disagree that we should do what we can. But we do have to evaluate the cost. In Iraq the cost has been too high. Supporting democracy around the world is a good thing and it is part of what America stands for. Imposing democracy around the world is not what America stands for. The use of American force around the world should be based on two things. The first is legitimate American security interests and the second is that the cost must be proportional to the benefit to the United States. I believed that Iraq failed on both counts before the war and nothing that has happened since, including the success bought by our brave young men and women in the past year, has changed my mind.

 

Let's look at WW II and the post war period and compare them to my two criteria. First, American security interests. WW II clearly meets that one. We were attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on us. Facism had the means and the desire to take over the world. Second was the cost proportional to the benefit? Again, clearly, despite the horendous cost, it was worth it to preserve our way of life and freedom throughout the world. In the post war period, economic and political stability in Europe and Asia were important to break the cycle of Europe's wars and to provide allies and protection against the march of communism. Again, it was worth the cost. Some thought that communism was such a threat to our interests that we should have turned our attention to the Soviet Union and marched from Germany to Moscow. Would it have been a good thing to liberate the Soviet Union from communist rule? Yes. Would it have met my two criteria? Not even close.

 

Well stated. I don't agree with your conclusions, but I can accept your logic and position.

He's an American hero and served his country with love and passion.I voted for McCain in 2000 over Bush. McCain was the best candidate at that time, the country chose Pres.Bush, now at 72 in that position its tough. It will depend on his selection of a vp that will decide my vote.

He's an American hero and served his country with love and passion.I voted for McCain in 2000 over Bush. McCain was the best candidate at that time, the country chose Pres.Bush, now at 72 in that position its tough. It will depend on his selection of a vp that will decide my vote.

Very true. But that doesn't qualify anyone to be President. I agree with you that his VP selection may be one of the most important in our history.

Very true. But that doesn't qualify anyone to be President. I agree with you that his VP selection may be one of the most important in our history.

 

:thumb:

The only problem with that argument, TP, is that nobody planned to be in Iraq with 165,000 combat troops five years after the invasion either, yet here we are. And the cost of the war is going the wrong way: in 2003, emergency appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan totaled $76 billion, 2004-$74 billion. Since then, the annual cost has steadily risen each and every year through 2007 ($165 billion). The Bush Administration's request for 2008 will total $188 billion.

 

I guarantee if the average American saw a line item on his or her paycheck taking out taxes to pay for the Iraq war, there would be a lot less tolerance of this foolishness. But, since it is being put on our national credit card, most are blissfully ignorant...

 

Good posts H that makes one think but the price of freedom is expensive and I think it is necessary

I am honestly considering voting for John McCain. I am not completely sold on either Obama or Hillary. However, I'm not sold on McCain either. My vote is wide open.

 

McCain supporters, convince me. I do NOT want to hear about what Obama or Hillary have or have not done...I just want to hear the good/bad things about McCain. Hopefully more good, than bad.

 

He is the only one of the three that is pro-life. That's what gets my vote this year.:thumb: