Enter Chuck Hagel

[Adrian II]

Read this carefully. It is a new Iraq phase-out plan allegedly based on bipartisan consensus in the Congress. U.S. troops should be replaced by Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi troops. Upon reading the piece I had trouble suppressing a fit of satanic laughter. Does Hagel really think that the newly-elected Shiite government in Baghdad will accept those troops on its territory?
An emerging bipartisan consensus on Iraq is designed to remove the conduct of the war from the nothing-short-of-total-victory hawks in the administration and place an exit strategy under the control of the Senate. So spoke Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., at a special meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on Tuesday.

Hagel also said much thought was being given to building a new coalition of like-minded Arab nations that would place Iraq in a wider regional fabric. This, in turn, would allow U.S. forces to begin phasing out of their combat role before coming home. "The time has come for creative diplomatic thinking," Hagel said, "with a view to reaching out to build new coalitions."

Only the Congress can approve declarations of war, Hagel reminded his audience, "and Congress should now assume its responsibilities in the process of restoring peace" to Iraq.

Hagel did not mention the Arab countries he has in mind to assist as peacekeepers as the U.S. withdraws. But they are believed to be Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Their government officials have frequently remarked privately the United States invaded Iraq "only to turn it over to Iran." They are, of course, referring to the influx of Iranian agents that blanketed Shiite Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion and to the interim government's close relations with Tehran. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, who hopes to become prime minister after the Dec. 15 elections, has taken the lead in the rapprochement with Iraq's eastern neighbor.

The resolutions crafted on the floor of the Senate are a stinging rebuke to President Bush's "stay the course" strategy. "We have made every bad decision we could possibly make," said Hagel. "The problem now," said the senator from Nebraska, a Vietnam War hero whose presidential ambitions are well known, "is how to get out without further destabilizing the Middle East."

[Xiahou]

Sounds like a (idiotic) plan to me! ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

Sounds like a (idiotic) plan to me! ~:cheers:Aww, you're just saying that because Hagel is a Democrat. Naughty naughty! :sneaky:

Hey Xiahou, I wrote a lengthy answer to your post about the Findlaw article in the military tribunal thread. Take a look at my BS, will ya?
:bow:

[Xiahou]

Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.The 'R' means Republican. ~;p

[Watchman]

~:rolleyes: What can I say ? Sheer genius.

[Kralizec]

What a dumbass.

[Red Harvest]

Actually, it makes some sense. If you have non-Shiite troops maintaining order in the Sunni areas, and keeping a lid on the Shiite control. Then you have a potentially workable balance. It is in the neighbors' best interests to insert some peace keeping forces.

The Bush admininstration seriously miscalculated in the way it carried out the de-Baathification. The transition didn't work. The Sunni's instead have actively fought the transition--an even bigger blunder on their part.

Fracturing of the country has been the most likely outcome since Saddam's rise to power. When you have one group that is a minority of the population ruling over two other groups in different zones (with an iron fist), then holding it together after the fall of the dictator is incredibly challenging. The course was set by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Those that want to blame this on the U.S. are ignoring the obvious larger dynamic--one that was not created by us.

The root problem fo the U.S. now is in what to do since the Administration doesn't have a plan that is actually working. Forcing the Iraqi's to start taking responsibility for their own security seems the best course to me. Not just saying it, but forcing it upon them. I hate the idea of deadlines, but they are better than the apparent alternative of drifting deeper into this.

[Kralizec]

I don't expect the Iraqi government to accept troops from those countries, and if they did, I don't expect the Shiite population to just swallow their decision.

[Redleg]

Aww, you're just saying that because Hagel is a Democrat. Naughty naughty!




The 'R' means Republican. ~;p


Someone has just been Pwnd

[Louis VI the Fat]

R-NebNeb = Nebraska? Or is it a generic term?
Just curious.

[Xiahou]

Neb = Nebraska? Or is it a generic term?
Just curious.
Nebraska- correct. When talking about our elected officials, our news agencies usually refer to their party and what state they represent.

[Adrian II]

Someone has just been PwndDefine 'been'. ~:cool:

[Redleg]

Define 'been'. ~:cool:
A very weak attempt at a come back considering the scope of your error. so your not ~:cool: your actually ~:confused:

[Adrian II]

A very weak attempt at a come back considering the scope of your error. so your not ~:cool: your actually ~:confused:Wrong. Now define 'humor'. ~D

[Xiahou]

I suppose it depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is. ~D

[Adrian II]

I suppose it depends what the meaning of the word 'is' is. ~DThere you go. And don't even get him started on the word 'chemical'. ~;)


Oops.

[Aurelian]

Here's an idea, Iranians can patrol the Sunni areas, Saudis/Egyptians/Jordanians can patrol the Shia areas, and the Turks can patrol the Kurdish zone! ~:eek:

[Redleg]

There you go. And don't even get him started on the word 'chemical'. ~;)


Oops.


LOL - try defining pyrotechnics or incendary.

~:eek:

[Watchman]

Would you guys like me to define "infantile"...? ~:wacko:

[Adrian II]

Here's an idea, Iranians can patrol the Sunni areas, Saudis/Egyptians/Jordanians can patrol the Shia areas, and the Turks can patrol the Kurdish zone! ~:eek:Maybe the Israelis can patrol Baghdad; they have their experience in Jerusalem to build on. ~;p

[English assassin]

Aha, NOW the genius of the invasion becomes clear. A sunni-shiite conflict. The rag heads kill each other instead of Americans and maybe we can arm both sides (again).

[Adrian II]

Aha, NOW the genius of the invasion becomes clear. A sunni-shiite conflict. The rag heads kill each other instead of Americans and maybe we can arm both sides (again).Brilliant. Why didn't we apply that scenario 275 times before?
~:handball:

[Red Harvest]

Gotta wonder when the pundits here are going to realize that the Sunni-Shiite conflict was present before the U.S. invaded. Of course it isn't convenient to look at the bigger cause/problem. ~:rolleyes: Nor would it be convenient to realize the breaking point for Iraq was reached when Saddam invaded Kuwait--requiring his ouster and the end of his rule. Nope, let's just pretend that the U.S. created all of these problems for fun loving Shia and Sunni's in Iraq living under blissful iron fisted dictatorship. :ballchain:

[English assassin]

Gotta wonder when the pundits here are going to realize that the Sunni-Shiite conflict was present before the U.S. invaded.

It was exactly that realisation that prompted my sarcasm.

[Adrian II]

Of course it isn't convenient to look at the bigger cause/problem.Of course. And this is where Chuck comes in.

You see, Chuck doesn't know this yet.

Chuck is going to find out about this in three years time when his plan has utterly misfired, Iran is at war with Saudi Arabia and industrial nations are paying $367 for a barrel of Brent Crude.

[Leet Eriksson]

The arabs refused to help at the begining of the invasion, they will most undoubtedly refuse again.

Its just one big mess to involve other arab countries, especially jordan, egypt and saudia arabia who all sent soldiers in the first gulf war to liberate kuwait. (mind you half of the iraqi army at that time were shiites), so it won't help the situation at all.

[Watchman]

I find it difficult to imagine the sort of political arm-twisitng the US would have to enact on the Iraqi Shi'ites to get them accept "peacekeepers" from Sunni-majority nations... nevermind one tending towards hardcore Wahhabism.

Just about the only things the MidEast Sunnis and Shi'ites can agree on are that they detest a) each other b) Israel.

[Leet Eriksson]

I find it difficult to imagine the sort of political arm-twisitng the US would have to enact on the Iraqi Shi'ites to get them accept "peacekeepers" from Sunni-majority nations... nevermind one tending towards hardcore Wahhabism.

Just about the only things the MidEast Sunnis and Shi'ites can agree on are that they detest a) each other b) Israel.

lets remind them that the troops sent are actually there to protect them from the isrealis, that oughta work wonders ~;)

[Watchman]

...uh, are you planning to only send people who can't read maps enough to find their own butts...?

[KafirChobee]

I find it difficult to imagine the sort of political arm-twisitng the US would have to enact on the Iraqi Shi'ites to get them accept "peacekeepers" from Sunni-majority nations... nevermind one tending towards hardcore Wahhabism.

Just about the only things the MidEast Sunnis and Shi'ites can agree on are that they detest a) each other b) Israel.

er, .... c) USA occupation / or America in general

Still, the plan is atleast a plan - flawed, but atleast it has the merit of being an idea outside the normal box. It may not have been thought out - as to the actual conflicts that would arise should the proposed players accept such an alternative to US occupation (for the next 10 or 20 years, or until the oil wells run dry). But, atleast it is something to consider.

Consider how it might work. Forcing competing nations to cooperate in the creating a stable and prosperous (for the regions people and businesses) middle-east. Forcing them to take charge of their own destinies - versus the US imposing one upon them that suits no one.

Atleast, it is a plan - which is more than we have at the moment.

[Adrian II]

Consider how it might work. Forcing competing nations to cooperate in creating a stable and prosperous (for the regions people and businesses) middle-east.That would be the ideal endgame.

But forcing them to police each others' terroritories would be desastrous. Jordan for instance can hardly afford to send a brigade to Iraq because King Abdullah II needs all his troops to uphold his own cosy little dictatorship in Amman.

Forcing Sunni Arab troops to police Iraq (and forcing Iraqis to accept it) would evitably result in a wider conflagration. Imagine the Iran-Iraq war repeated on a regional scale. If you want to reduce the Middle East to a hotbed of agitation, oppression and extremism for another one hundred years, that would be the way to go.

[Watchman]

And you can bet your arse everybody holding an office down there can see it too. And be predictably keen on the idea - which is to say that if they claim to like it, they're pretty much certain to have some sort of ulterior motive almost quaranteed to cause trouble somewhere down the road...

[Red Harvest]

Well, what will be funny is when we leave. I look forward to watching the rest of you wring your hands about what to do. ~:cheers:

[Watchman]

We'll charge you with criminal neglicence, of course. ~;p

[Adrian II]

Well, what will be funny is when we leave. I look forward to watching the rest of you wring your hands about what to do. ~:cheers:Nobody wrung their hands when the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam or Somalia, nobody will wring their hands now. The situation is a mess, it will continue to be a mess for quite a while. The main difference being that Iraq will be less of a training ground for jihadists. Not a lot less, but less.

[Watchman]

It's not like anyone has the resources or inclination to get stuck down there either. Even the Americans are there only because thus far they haven't figured out a way to pull a "graceful logoff"...