Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.
If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.
I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.
But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?
The devil is in the details. Bush and his administration willfully rejected the advice of the generals who were charged with executing the campaign. They exacerbated the situation by continuing to implement strategies that had little chance of success. This Bush plan didn't survive contact with it's own generals let alone the enemy.
Obama on the other hand made a campaign promise to have our troops out within 18 months. It's now become obvious that his plans were somewhat aggressive and the reality is that it will be longer than 18 months.
If you don't see the stark contrast between the two example then you are blind. Bush doesn't get a pass because the situation doesn't warrant one. He got thousands of our men and women killed by invading and occupying a country unnecessarily. It was a war of choice, and it was horribly planned and executed.
Obama is trying to accelerate the timeline and reduce our role in that nation, which would bring more of our troops home. He's realized we will be unable to completely withdrawal for many years. Given our history in Korea, Japan, Germany...probably never.Bush had already started the withdrawal, no? Has obama done anything different? if so what?
Why does it have to be Iraq? Does this same "bring them home now" rule apply to Afghanistan, and if not, why not?