Details

In response to some questions/curiousness into "My Plan" I thought I would try my hand at some more in-depth details. Mind you I am NOT a policy analyst or formulator. That is my downfall as a "politician."

We currently have roughly 150,000 troops in Iraq, not counting special forces. Today, some Democratic Senators (including H. Rod Clinton) proposed sending 80,000 more over in the course of the next couple years. Bad idea...first that shows we may be there a couple more years, and second enrollment numbers probably won't support that type of movement.

Currently we are also spending a LOT of money in Iraq. Hey, I would tell you what the number really is, but I CAN'T FIND IT! Our budget is so messed up that any real conservative would have voted for anyone but Bush. Since when are the Democrats the fiscally sound ones? Anyways, reports are that since a new bill in 2004 providing MORE money, we have spent $360 million on top of that the billions we have spent as far as troops and American business contractors.

So here's the deal. We start pulling troops out SLOWLY. We want Iraq to fight for themselves right? A kid doesn't learn to ride his bike with dad always hanging on, they will never fight for themselves with us holding their hand. Well we make our bases solely training and prep for the Iraqi soldiers while starting the removal of our troops (probably looking at a two year process for that). Those who have remaining time left to serve or have signed up again will start protecting the homeland. We also start advertising this in recruitment offices. Our troops will have the opportunity to serve in a new branch of the services...Civilian Patrol (or something like that). They will be assigned positions at airports, subways, railroad stations, nuclear plants, monuments. They are there to help serve the cops/security hired at these places. This will help fill a gap in homeland security and help raise recruitment levels. Those who enter the Army and Naval academies and want to be "real" troops will still go through their training and be assigned overseas where we need them (including Iraq, I think a small number may have to be there for awhile). This way, Johnny (from Mankato, MN) signs up, recieves benefits of money for school, etc AND can be close to home serving at Minneapolis International Airport. These "troops" will be armed but not with big military rifles, etc., nor will they be wearing fatigues. Just extra security.

With money we save, we pump it into the FBI/CIA/other intelligence. We fund them properly and use President Bush's restructure (which was needed). These guys search deep into ANY threat, we use our intelligence to freeze funds for terrorist groups, and we immediately deal diplomatically (by sending the Pres. or Sec. of State) with countries that have any terror connection. If, in last resort, we use our "normal" military. We use our special ops and top secret military groups to go directly after our "hit list" of terrorists. I don't have much more to say here because I don't think any of us really know how the infrastructure of the CIA/FBI works.

Change is a big deal and this wouldn't be an easy sell. Most politicians are afraid for their political careers of trying something new like this. The way I would pitch it is follows: We are not giving up the War on Terror, we are refocusing our attention. Iraq will not be forgotten (with a two year removal program and some troops remaining). The actual terror groups will be focused on more here rather than countries that may be associated with them and creating more terrorists. Money will be more appropriately used so U.S. citizens can see what's being done.

Would we be claiming defeat in Iraq? Again, probably not. Just a "refocus." I believe we would be fighing Terror (remember, it isn't a person or a country) more efficently. This may or may not make sense. If any more questions are out there, let me know.