| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Shays' Shift Causes A Stir |
| 2006-08-29 |
| By suggesting that a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops might force Iraqis to more quickly establish their own security, Rep. Chris Shays, R-4th District, vigorously stirred the pot in Connecticut and Washington. Ned Lamont's Senate campaign Friday seized on the statement by Shays, a supporter of the war in Iraq, as a dramatic shift that places Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in a dwindling minority opposed to considering deadlines. CNN, MSNBC and other news networks gave prominent play Friday to the ramifications of Shays' new position, which he first announced Thursday on a conference call during a London stopover on the way home from his 14th trip to Iraq. "It is a pretty dramatic shift in course," said George Jepsen, the chairman of Lamont's campaign to unseat Lieberman. "[Shays] is buying into the rationale that the Iraqi army, political leadership and security folks won't step up to the plate." Shays' new position further isolates Lieberman politically in Washington and Connecticut and undercuts Lieberman's claim that Lamont is reckless for suggesting that Iraqis need to prepare for a reduced U.S. presence, Jepsen said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #5 Sarge, I think our disagreement is in semantics not conclusions. The Army War College’s evaluation criteria for an exit strategy encompass 3 areas; Military; Political and Threat. Their "battlefield framework" is based on both Mission and Intent. The politicians you listed narrowly define their definition so that it is tailored to their agenda. Quote from the Council on Foreign Relations: “If you ask most politicians what an exit strategy is, they will look at you blankly, because they consider the answer obvious: a plan to bring American troops home from some mission abroad. The simplicity of this definition reveals the concept's political, as opposed to intellectual, origins: it is a response to perceived popular impatience with messy foreign entanglements.” Link |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-08-29 12:56 |
| #4 Depot Guy, if having an “Exit Strategy” is a measurement of the success of a conflict then WWII was a dismal failure. We still have large numbers of troops stationed overseas in Asia and Europe. No an “exit strategy” is either victory (the other guy gives up, ie Germany/Japan) or defeat (when you give up, ie Vietnam). For some reason I get the idea that most Democrats and some RINOS believe that the world would be a better place if the U.S. was defeated in Iraq. I am a simple person and I can’t understand how letting Iran, Al Queda or both take control of Iraq would be a good thing. But then I don’t have the keen intellect or military finesse of Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin and now Shays. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-08-29 11:34 |
| #3 “I have always thought that the ONLY exit strategy is victory.” Sarge, I think most would agree with that statement. However, it’s somewhat of a “chicken and egg” argument. The definition of “exit strategy” to the battle-planner is an essential component to achieve victory. To the political boneheads it is simply a cliché to bandy about in an attempt to hide their ignorance. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-08-29 11:03 |
| #2 I can't really understand that you "Have to have an exit strategy" when you begin hostilities. I have always thought that the ONLY exit strategy is victory. If we decided to bring our troops home and let Iraq to it's own demise we would have a MUCH bigger problem to deal with in a few years. I can pretty much state that Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the Kurds DO NOT want us to leave anytime soon. Only Iran, Al Queda, Syria, and the Democrats seem to preach an early departure for our troops. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-08-29 10:29 |
| #1 You can'r rush a miracle, sonny. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-08-29 01:41 |