You call all your executives together and say...
"We want to aquired a small city, and have located one who's mayor and planning commission is willing to help. We're going to tear it down and build the world's largest theme park, just like Dolly Parton did but on a larger scale."
"In the beginning, we expect a lot of resistance from the citizens about having their homes condemned by eminent domain. We're going to need process servers, sheriff's and deputies to carry out evictions, etc. We're going to hire some outside help as well to handle part of the situation. Once that's accomplished, we're going to need a lot of labor to run the bulldozers and demolition equipment and truckers to haul the material away, etc. We're going to meet again next month, and I want all the department heads to bring me the data on how much it's going to cost and how long it's going to take to accomplish the task."
They meet next month and the department heads have prepared a report that it's going to take 30,000 laborers, and that the evictions and main demolition will take about 18 months, after which they will be able to begin reducing the work force gradually, depending on how it's going, until it's done at which time they can bring in the architectural firm and local sub-contractors to erect the theme park.
Do you see where I'm going with this???
A corporation owes it to their stockholders to know the costs and time frame an endeavor that large and that expensive should take. They would be remiss if they started the project without knowing how much it cost or when it was going to be finished...
Shouldn't the government have the same obligation to it's citizens? Shouldn't we take some time before rushing into a war, sit down with the generals and advisors etc. and work all the numbers out, even if it take a few months to do so, dot all the i's and cross all the t's, figure out the costs and with the military's best estimates be able to present an exit strategy BEFORE commiting money and troops?
I think it's a much more sensible plan that the one implemented in Iran where nobody had an exit strategy or even an idea of how long we needed to be there.
And yet, all of the conservative media and even a signiicant amount of the liberal media seem to be outraged that Obama set a time-frame to his Afghan plan.
But shouldn't we do that with any military action? I mean, it's not like Obama came up with this on his own sitting in the dark and just picked an arbitrary number out of his ass. I'm sure he set the goals, sat down with everyone involved including the top military people and said; "If we want to accomplish this, and I give you X amount of troops, how long is it going to take to accomplish?" or "If we want to achieve this goal, and I want it done in X number of months, how many troops will you need to get it done?"
Shouldn't a "Plan" be a plan, and include a beginning, a middle and an end?
First, you don't plan war the way you plan to build a factory.
The first rule of military planning is that the first casualty of war is the plan.
You don't say, "We will land at Gold at dawn, be up the cliff at noon, be halfway to Paris is three weeks...."
It is easy to see contingencies in building a factory and you don't start until you have as many in control as possible.
The entire purpose of the enemy is to throw your plan off. They don't tell you how many soldiers they have, where they are, what weapons they will use, how many they will kill, how long they will stay in one spot, or where they will go next.
EVERY detail has to be discovered during the action.
Second, you don't even have the choice as to when to go to war. Obama says this is necssity. Obama says this is in the vital national interest. Presumably the same thing was true two months ago, but people died while he decided what to do. His current plan is urgent and necessary.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly."
Third, you can't set an exit date, because you don't know how long it will take. If this is a necessity and in the national interests, what happens if in 17 months we are only 1/3 of the way to our goal? That nasty little enemy has been doing things to throw off our plan and are most uncooperative.
Fourth, Obama did not say, "This is what we need to do." and then ask his generals what he needed. They told him six months ago they needed 40,000 to avoid failure. (I think they said more but cut it down to 40K as the minimum.)
He said, "It is necessary that you win, but I will give you 3/4 of what you say you need. Good luck, assholes. And you have a year and a half."
That is a set up for failure.
Do we now say, "Well it was in our national interest, but we give up." If the enemy sees us give up because it took too long, what will that teach them about our ability to fight for what we believe is necessary. (REMEMBER, IT IS NOW OBAMA SAYING IT IS NECESSARY. HE MAY HAVE INHERITIED IT BUT IT IS STILL NECESSARY IN HIS OPINION.)
The sad thing about my generation, which grew up in the late 60's is that we were inspired by JFK, but we give up everything he believed in.
The first inaugaral address I remember is JFK saying, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe..."
If war is necessary, as Obama says it is, you can't say, "Well, we will do it for a year and a half."
Finally, before 2002, there never was an exit plan in war. Then, the Dems said, "The first rule of war is you don't go in without and exit plan."
The press then said, "Wow. Bush is so dumb. No exit plan."
What was the exit plan in WW II. What was the exit plan in the Civil War. (That one took longer than Lincoln planned on. Oh, hell. Let's quit.)
Clinton had a good exit plan in Bosnia. Stay there through 8 years, give it to Bush, and let him pass it on to Obama.
Korea had a good Exit plan. Stay there 60 years, and get out quickly.
The only exit plan in war has always been simple. Kill enough of the enemy until they give up.
Saved me a lot of typing, lol.
to finish up.
Of course, we are not at "war" in Afghanistan - the "war on terror" is just a PR phrase used by Bush to galvinize support and, of course, after invading he then had to back off the "war" analogy bc that meant whoever was captured were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva convention rights. So his PR spin was to label the people we were fighting in the "war" as "enemy combatants." Pure fiction.
If it's not a war, what is it? Well, essentially it is a police action conducted by the army in the middle of an Afghan civil war. Whoever fires at them, they fire back. Al qaeda is long gone for the most part. Certainly not enough left to require 100,000 US troops.
Bc it is a police action, there is no possible end. There will always be bad guys shooting over there. So to give a timetable for leaving makes no sense at all. If the bad guys have any intelligence, they will simply lay low until we declare victory, exit the country, and then they will overthrow the corrupt government.
Call it "war." Call it "police action." Call it "George."
The one indisuptable fact is that Obama - not crazy, jack booted, neo-Nazi DNCPHIL, but OBAMA - said it is a necessity and in our vital national interests that we do something there. He never said "Victory" or "win," so I am not sure what. But is is in our national interests to do what ever. (Someone please tell me.)
BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH. It is Obama saying it. NOW Yeah, he may have inherited it. He thinks it is a necessity. NOW. Not only Crazy DNCPHIL.
If it isn't a war, Obama can say so and do what he wants. Send Holder and the FBI to arrest all those nasty criminals. Read them Miranda, and try them in the U.S.
But if it is a necessity and in our national interest, I think we treat "George" (or what ever name you decide to call it) the same as a war.
PS. What was Korea? Surely not a war. We never declared war. What was that shooting match between Alabama and New York in the early 1860's. It sure as hell wasn't a war. Never declared. Indeed, Lincoln did not want it called a "war."
That putz Lincolm did all those nasty things like lock up people and confiscate property and never went to war. What a jerk.
That is what your brethren –the lawyers – came up with when they drafted the new Military Commission Act. Turns out “unlawful enemy combatants” was all wrong. All detainees are now “alien unprivileged enemy belligerents.”
No wonder people hate lawyers so much. How do you defend your brethren?
I can see it now- "Look out! There's an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent about to shoot....Too late."
This is almost as bad as the French who call an umbrella
“un parapluie.”
First, this is not just limited to law. "Undocumented aliens" are people who came here in violations of the law, which is "illegal." "Specially abled" are people who can't walk so they use a wheel chair.
Euphamisms are one of the primary tools of the politically correct. Although there are some exceptions, politically correct is more likely to be from the left than the right.
The fact that some attorneys came up with such a stupid name is not a reflection on law, so much as it is on current society.
Second, why do you imply that I defend this. I have railed against that type of speech for as long as I can.
I have nothing against the word "retarded," I think it is so silly that they had to rename a disease to avoid offending the stupid people in Mongolia. I would love to do it with Siamese twins, even if they are not co-joined.
Third, this was avoidance. Obviously, I do not serously approve of calling the "situation" in AfPak as "George." That was a sarcastic comment for those who can't say, "War."
Even my point there is let's just call it with a nice three-letter word.
"War" does not require a declaration of war to be one. I think we were at "war" in the Civil War, as well as Korea, Vietnam, etc.
It does not need a state to fight against. One of the very first wars the marines engaged in was the "FIRST BARBARY WAR." That was really against the pirates, more than the state itself.
I am a simple person. I don't care about labels. If you send a military contigent overseas to accompish a goal with guns that go bang bang, it is a war.
Hey, you and the rest of the people who say it isn't a war are much closer to “alien unprivileged enemy belligerents” than I am. You are the ones who need a phrase for enemy.
Finally, you avoided the entire real thrust of my post, namely that you can't plan a war with the nicities and sureness that you plan building a factory, and that during an "armed combatant stage of relations involving international hostile groups in violent conflict" - is that good? - shit happens.
I do hope you at least agree with that.
Setting a timeframe for military action is teh act of a true idiot.
Eisenhower said it best. Military plans are essentail and becomer worthless as soon as teh first shot is fired.
BTW, if you have not noticed, the government is not a private business so your analogy is completely wrong.