Well, feel free to send some biscuits my way, or feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong (anyone). Because I'm going to take a shot at this. And, any other proposals that others have, spout them out. Hopefully this thread doesn't turn nasty.

--Iraq: #1 priority should be to train Iraqi troops that can adequately provide their own defense. This will allow our troop activity to be reduced in number in the short term and allow our troops to fully leave in the long term.

--Seal up our borders. Put the "defense" back in national defense. Make sure we know who is coming into this country, and make sure that they will not do us any harm.

--Airline security: Make ABSOLUTELY SURE no one can get in or out of the cockpit while the plane is in the air. I don't know whether this has been specifically been taken care of or not, so this could be moot.

--Train special forces that can specialize in capturing or killing specific terrorists that have declared ill will against this country. Diplomatically coordinate with other specific countries to help out pinpoint where these terrorists are.

That's about it for now--I may add some more later.

I'd deport myself to Canada.

Quitter.

We even talk about it up here too, Kenny. A little harsher than some of the US virgin ears like to hear.



A good start would be having a government for the people that is about the people and actually elected by the people.

I really cant say because in my lifetime at least I have never seen a clearly defined foriegn policy. I have seen some directives that were forceful and concise (for instance Operation Desert Storm) but beyond that act of war I have little to compare our current position.

I agree that border control should be instituted for national security reasons but I am also wary of doing so because of the totalitarian overtones that come with it.

Economically, I couldnt venture to say anything substantive because I do not understand the scale or scope of global trade (and neither do most of you which is why I find it rather humurous when you attempt to do so).

In regards to the war on terror and our current position in Iraq I would do the following. Immediately place 50,000 more troops in Iraq, this should be more than adequete because some parts of the country are either strategically worthless or not hostile. Initiatate a program which satisfies all of the points inherent in the Powell doctrine. I cannot suggest what this action would entail or a window in which it could be accomplished because I lack the intelligence information that the CIC enjoys. Lastly I would set a deadline for troop withdrawl somewhere between 12 and 16 months. All personnel would be gone regardless of the situation there by such and such a date. I absolutely LOATHE to draw any correlation between this and the conflict in Vietnam but, to be sure, the Vietnimization of the conflict did not work and I think the best course of action would be self governance of any form which would bring some stability to the region.

Could you list what the points of the Powell doctrine are? I really haven't heard of this.



I disagree with this. It may not be possible to achieve whatever goals are set in that time if we force a departure too early.

Im surprised, I consider you one of the more contemporary and well read of the board members. Its ok though, I confused Ashcroft and Ridge yesterday lol.

From Wikipedia:

General Colin Powell made famous the so-called Powell Doctrine as part of the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

Powell believes that forces should only be deployed when national interest, commitment, and support have been established.

However, once those conditions have been met, there should be use of overwhelming force in the military encounter - rather than proportional response.

This part is perhaps best illustrated by his quote (as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War) about the Iraqi Army:

"First we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."

After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers.

It has been argued that the Doctrine follows from principles laid out by Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense and as such Powell's former boss:

* Is a vital US interest at stake?
* Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
* Are the objectives clearly defined?
* Will we sustain the commitment?
* Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will
support the operation?
* Have we exhausted our other options?

Its a shame this doctrine wasnt followed to begin with.

Oh, there's a lot of details I don't know. This is part of the reason why I started this thread: I wanted to state what I thought made sense, and have others throw in other details that can refine my position.



A lot of these points seem to deal with how we should go to war before it happens, which leads me to agree with your last sentence:



I'll review that a few times before I comment.

The applicable points are:

-Is a vital U.S. interest at stake?
What is the worst case scenario for troop withdrawl, is it a threat to our own security and what are the consequences to the region.

-Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
I adressed this a bit earlier but let me reiterate by saying we should deploy more troops (the number I proposed is completely subjective again, as I said, because I dont have the intelligence capabilities of the U.S. government).

-Are the Objectives Clearly Defined?
As far as I am aware beyond the Iraqi elections we have a very ambigous policy to enact in fostering the growth of a new nation.

-Will we sustain commitment?
This is a huge question.

-Is there reasonable expectation that the public and congress will support the operation?
Yes, we can be reasonably certain that if a straightforward approach were taken with Congress the Houses would side with the armed forces at the moment.

-Have we exhausted other options?
Yes, we went to war and there is no contemparary diplomatic solution to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I think both Green and dbf are in the right on this.

I agree that the Powell doctrine should have been utilized prior to the war as well.

I think we are both right as well, what an exceptional coincidence!