Hypothetical Question: If Bush is out in 2004

[Guest NoCalMike]

I am just wondering. Say, somehow, someway this drags out another year, or another 8 months to where during the re-election we are still in the thick of things, and then Bush loses....what do you think the Democrat would do at that point. I am guessing it depends on if he ran as a supporter or opposer of the war. It just seems like a really interesting/intriguing time for an election to be happening. Thoughts?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

They could not abandon it at this point.

 

I think a lot more rhetoric would be used, and we would be more of a diplomatic body than a pre-emptive attack minded nation.

 

However, we would still continue to prosecute terrorists and whatnot.

[Guest Tim]

It won't come to that, but hypothetically, they would have to continue the war for a while, and arrange a face saving withdrawl a la Richard Nixon. Alternatively, just continue the war.

[Guest teke184]

Iraq won't be a Vietnam if only because:

 

1. We'll have clear goals in being there, mainly "Take out Saddam" and "Destroy any chemical weapons or nuclear material we find"

 

2. This will be a territorial war and NOT a political war. We are not just working off a plan of "Kill off all their troops."

 

and

 

3. We will have the support of the Iraqi people, ESPECIALLY groups like the Kurds, who have been screwed over by Saddam. This is the opposite of Vietnam where we were supporting a series of unpopular dictators / puppets against Ho Chi Minh, who was seen as the hero of Vietnam.

 

 

Considering the type of war we will be putting on, it will probably be like Afghanistan but take several months instead of several weeks. I'd say that the main phase of the war will take a year tops, but we may still be doing mop-up operations for quite a while afterwards.

[Guest Sturgis]

If we are still at war by elections Bush will still be in office I belive it says that in the constitution.

[Guest Brian]

I doubt it will be like Afghanistan, because most of the war will be fought in the cities where Saddam has palaces and hideouts, using his doubles as facades and drawing troops in to create high levels of casualties. In that sense, if Saddam can last it out there will be a high number of non-military casualties. They can't afford for it to take longer than two months before the heat starts to make it really costly. Lots of urban warfare, which most of the army isn't always equipped to handle. Soldiers dressed as civilians, suicide bombers.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

If we are still at war by elections Bush will still be in office I belive it says that in the constitution.

No. Either Bush stays in office, or someone else is elected.

[Guest teke184]

If we are still at war by elections Bush will still be in office I belive it says that in the constitution.

No. Either Bush stays in office, or someone else is elected.

Verne's right. While there IS a precedent for people re-electing a president during wartime but it is NOT guaranteed. LBJ's ass was about to be kicked out of office in 68, which is why he pulled out of the race early and left it to HHHumphrey, RFK, McCarthy, etc.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Iraq won't be a Vietnam if only because:

 

1. We'll have clear goals in being there, mainly "Take out Saddam" and "Destroy any chemical weapons or nuclear material we find"

 

2. This will be a territorial war and NOT a political war. We are not just working off a plan of "Kill off all their troops."

 

and

 

3. We will have the support of the Iraqi people, ESPECIALLY groups like the Kurds, who have been screwed over by Saddam. This is the opposite of Vietnam where we were supporting a series of unpopular dictators / puppets against Ho Chi Minh, who was seen as the hero of Vietnam.

 

 

Considering the type of war we will be putting on, it will probably be like Afghanistan but take several months instead of several weeks. I'd say that the main phase of the war will take a year tops, but we may still be doing mop-up operations for quite a while afterwards.

It won't be that difficult to topple the current regime in Iraq. But afterwards if during the "nation-building" aspect, our military is in the position of propping up a government that's very unpopular locally, it could begin to look a good bit like Vietnam. I don't think anybody knows how that aspect of the operation is going to go.

[Guest teke184]

Iraq won't be a Vietnam if only because:

 

1. We'll have clear goals in being there, mainly "Take out Saddam" and "Destroy any chemical weapons or nuclear material we find"

 

2. This will be a territorial war and NOT a political war.  We are not just working off a plan of "Kill off all their troops."

 

and

 

3.  We will have the support of the Iraqi people, ESPECIALLY groups like the Kurds, who have been screwed over by Saddam.  This is the opposite of Vietnam where we were supporting a series of unpopular dictators / puppets against Ho Chi Minh, who was seen as the hero of Vietnam.

 

 

Considering the type of war we will be putting on, it will probably be like Afghanistan but take several months instead of several weeks.  I'd say that the main phase of the war will take a year tops, but we may still be doing mop-up operations for quite a while afterwards.

It won't be that difficult to topple the current regime in Iraq. But afterwards if during the "nation-building" aspect, our military is in the position of propping up a government that's very unpopular locally, it could begin to look a good bit like Vietnam. I don't think anybody knows how that aspect of the operation is going to go.

Hopefully it will be like the rebuilding of Japan after WWII. We'd probably be installing the expatriate Iraqi government living in France but we'd be there to make sure they do things right, so HOPEFULLY we can get a stable Arab state in that region who don't hate our guys.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Yeah, I hope it turns out that way too, and it's very possible that it could go that way.