From: John Cuccia 

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:53:38 -0400, "Gary Britt"
 wrote:

>> There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition
>> of victory.
>
>Yes there is.  We will leave when a free Iraqi government and its security
>forces are up and functioning in a self-sustaining manner.

What if that government establishes friendly relations with Iran and is
hostile toward the US?

>>There is no contingency plan for mission creep.
>
>If you recognized the mission was creeping then you could stop it before it
>did.  If you have a contingency plan for it then you are saying you expect
>it to happen.  What good does a contingency plan for creep do anyway.

Well, it's Tom Delay's question, so it might be better if you asked him,
but I'll take a crack at it.

It is a plan for dealing with the fact that a mission, nominally launched
to prevent the imminent use of weapons-of-mass-destruction against the
United States,  turned into a mission to occupy Iraq, build a nation, and
spread democracy throughout the Middle East.  It is a plan that would have
provided the proper staffing and equipment to perform what is essentially a
political mission. Without it, we continue to treat Iraq like a military
problem, when it is not and has not been since US troops entered Baghdad.

>>There is
>> no clear funding program.
>
>There wasn't one for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam either.  That isn't new or a
>valid complaint.

Once again, talk to Tom Delay.  If he demanded it of Clinton in the 90's
why wouldn't he demand the same from Bush?

>>There is no agenda to bolster our
>> over-extended military.
>
>Here we agree.  We need to slice all the pork out of the budget and put the
>military manpower back where it was in 1991 when we had no problem putting
>500,000 troops into Iraq.

I don't know, but I suspect that the number of available combat troops in
that number is not much different from today. The difference, I think, is
that we outsourced support functions to civilian companies.

>>There is no explanation defining what vital
>> national interests are at stake.
>
>Yes there is.  They have been stated many times.  They remain plainly
>obvious to those here with their eyes open and to the Terrorists themselves
>who clearly see Iraq and Afghanistan BOTH being vital to their terroristic
>interests.

Afghanistan was justified.  Iraq was not; the misadventure there will only
serve to further destabilize the entire Middle East.

>> There was no strategic plan for war
>> when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan
>> today.
>
>Yes there was/is and we are still following.  There is a difference between
>not liking the plan and there not being a plan.

There was obviously no strategic plan for dealing with the problems of
post-Saddam Iraq.   We had a military plan (tactical), but not a
political plan, and most of the work in Iraq is political, not military.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5