Supposedly Iraq has about 150K trained forces. We need to get em up to 271K. We do about 80K per year. There's your exit strategy. Maybe by this time next year, we'll be bringing some troops home.
We won. Why exit ?
Interesting point ...
Maybe the right strategy in Iraq is this: WE SHOULD STAY.
I think if there were no deaths in Iraq, a continued presense there would not be a bad geo-strategic situation, but would be a plus.
If we're going to have bases abroad, why not in the middle of the big scary international hot spot? Mmmm?
I think the author misses the point. What people really want to hear are the conditions in which we can start pulling out troops, and Bush has done a pretty poor job of defining those conditions. If Bush can come out with a set of things that need to be done, and if possible, a timetable in which those things will be completed, it will go a long way.
Wonder what the "exit strategy" is to get out of the Social Security ponzi scheme before it crashes in disaster on some poor innocent generation.
It was sold in the 1930s as a "compact between the generations." They conveniently ignored the fact that a contract entered into with a minor (to say nothing of the not-yet-born) is invalid.
I know it's off topic, but really, if it's an "exit strategy" people want, I can think of many other government undertakings for which it would be more than the war in Iraq.
Not true.
That makes as much sense as saying that it's possible to have an "exit strtegy" while experiencing a tornado.
Random unpredictable events are not subject to that sort of manipulation.
No I don't care what opposition politicians say.
My usual response is:
Name and document one war in history where either side had an "exit strategy"...