View Full Version : The Surge
I'm curious about where Orgahs stand on the whole "surge" issue. Do you believe adding 20k troops will help? Hurt? Create conditions for victory?
If you believe the Surge is a good idea, please expand on your notion of how it will work.
If you believe the Surge is a bad idea, please propose alternatives.
Just to get things rolling, here's an analysis of the Surge from my favorite blogger (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/give_bush_anoth.html):
I'm sure some advocates of a two-year permanent surge with sufficient troops to make it work are completely sincere. Their position is respectable, if somewhat unpersuasive. Their laudable goal now is simply to prevent a completely failed state in the Middle East. I'm not so sure, however, about the president's motives. I don't believe he's ever been serious about the war in Iraq - because he has never committed sufficient resources to match his rhetoric, and took his eye off the ball in the critical period in 2004 and 2005. In the end, you observe what a man does, not what he says. And everything Bush has actually done (forget the highfalutin rhetoric) is to telegraph a clear message: Iraq is not that big a deal; my ego comes before candor; as president, I can do what I want anyway. We will soon be faced with an excruciating choice between what looks like another half-measure and trying to make the best of a swift exit via Kurdistan. Under both scenarios, we will have the current president, who is obviously incapable of the kind of deft diplomacy and military focus that we desperately need in either case.
The choice, then, is pretty simple. Should we give the president another chance: six months, say, and see where we are? At least then we will not have to endure the taunts from those who'll declare the Democrats lost the Iraq war, or the predictable stab-in-the-back chorus (take it away, Sean Hannity!) At the same time, isn't it basically immoral to send young Americans to die for a piece of political cover that no one seriously believes can work? Isn't it immoral to ask young Americans to perish in brutal street-fighting so that we won't have to endure the crowing of the stab-in-the-back right?
It now looks possible that we could have an even worse mess: the president will declare a surge, and the Democrats will refuse to pay for it, while continuing to fund the troops already enmeshed in a failed policy. Gridlock in Iraq; gridlock in Washington. The worst of all worlds. I guess we'll have to listen carefully to the president this week, and make our minds up when all the data is in.George F. Will also chimes in (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_perils_of_a_surge_opedcolumnists_george_f__will.htm?page=2) on the numerical obstacles facing The Surge:
Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel.
There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many - perhaps most - of whom are worse than incompetent. Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure.
Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with administration proponents of a "surge" because he believes what he recently told The New York Times: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."
Wayne White - for 26 years with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, now with the Middle East Institute - calls Baghdad "a Shiite-Sunni Stalingrad." Imagine a third nation's army operating between (and against) both German and Russian forces in Stalingrad. That might be akin to the mission of troops sent in any surge.
Sjakihata
01-08-2007, 21:37
The idea is plain enough, if he meant though he'd send 200,000 troopers, not 20,000.
I've said for awhile now that I think more troops may have been helpful in the beginning of the occupation, but I don't see the value of it now. The Iraqis are supposed to be taking on more security responsibilities and the US less. The terrorists in Iraq are going to be a long term problem- a temporary "surge" in troops isn't very likely to end their attacks. Instead, the Iraqis need to learn how to fight them effectively on their own for victory in the long term.
I guess that puts me more or less in line with Casey.
Edit: The only possible benefit I could see is that if they can somehow clampdown hard on violence in Baghdad. Strategically, it would probably only be temporary- and a longshot at that, but it would be a major PR boon since the media seems seldom leave the city and base most of their impressions on its goings ons.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-08-2007, 21:44
With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq, the numbers needed for effective suppression (10-2 ratio of okay-rated+ troops) approach 1M. Since only a small percentage of the "standard" Iraqi Police groups can be counted on in a pinch, a 20k increase (current rumored level of increase) would help, but nowhere near enough to make a definitive difference. Perhaps the small increase will keep U.S. casualties down a bit and let the "band-aid" last through the beginnings of the next administration -- a true solution it is not.
Sjakihata
01-08-2007, 21:54
Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.
Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. soldiers.
Our military was/is meant to destroy, not occupy. We could beat the crap out of most countries, with the exception of a select few, quite quickly.
CrossLOPER
01-08-2007, 22:06
http://www.insulators.com/news/images/surge1.gif
Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work?
The answers are a lot larger than this little thread. A sample reason: Of 1,000 or so people working in the Green Zone, there are only 6 Arabic speakers (and only three are supposed to be truly fluent). This is almost four years into the war, mind you.
It's little things like this that hamstring our operation. Details, details, it's always in the details.
[edit]
Hey Crossloper:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/surge.gif
Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.
Sun Tzu has some words as to why we cannot overcome the situation.
He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
Occupying and destroying a insertion would take something the majority of the US people and the head's of state wont allow at this point in time. No occupying force has managed to win doing what we're doing now. We failed to properly subdue the population before instituting a "free democracy". We allowed it to fall into anarchy without instituting our own laws. We tryed to play the nice guy instead of doing the right thing by them. We allowed their museums to be looted, their infrastructure attacked, all the while looking on screaming look at what freedom we have brought to them.
I think 20,000 will help, but the only thing that will work is more totalitarian methods that no one here wants to see happen. Iraq wasnt screwed by the invasion, it had a good shot then, it was screwed by the soft PC croud.
Duke Malcolm
01-08-2007, 22:29
In comparing the situation to HoI2, or Vicky, send them! Another 2 divisions does wonders to keep the revolt risk down...
PanzerJaeger
01-08-2007, 22:32
What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.
Seems to me that they dont want a democracy. Leave them be if thats the case. If they want a totalatarian priest/dictator then let them have one, how is it our problem?
ajaxfetish
01-08-2007, 23:20
Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.
It's not a military problem, it's a political/social one. The American military is up to just about any military task. When it's asked to do non-military work with bad political planning, it's doomed to failure in spite of its military prowess: same problem we faced in Vietnam.
Basically, Iraq's future is in Iraq's hands. America suffers from a great deal of pride in thinking we can change the world at will. Those other billions of people tend to have a pretty big effect, too, especially on their own turf. We need to accept now that we can't expect things to turn out exactly as we wish, and start figuring out what the Iraqi people really want for their country.
Ajax
Tribesman
01-08-2007, 23:36
What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.
Wow , the nice approach , I must have slept through that .
When was it ?
Good idea though , the crush their spirit approach , now when has that ever worked in anything like the medium-long term in modern times, or even as an effective short term solution .
Developing info: Brits will not match the surge (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=427298&in_page_id=1770). They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.
Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Last updated at 16:53pm on 8th January 2007
Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.
The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.
President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy, has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.
Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests.
Tribesman
01-09-2007, 00:27
Developing info: Brits will not match the surge. They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.
Well fair play to Blair , at least he has the excuse that he was on holiday when the British army went in to disband the death squads in uniform and retrieve the people held there the other week so perhaps you can give him the benefit of the doubt .
Then again he wasn't on holiday the previous time when the British army went into the same base to retrieve the people held there , maybe he just forgot about that .
Perhaps its a pattern emerging , Blair just wants to forget about Iraq .
Anyhow , a nice development from the US with their new strategy (though for it to be new it would suggest that they had an old one which doesn't appear to have been the case) they are no longer going to talk of milestones , instead they will now talk of benchmarks .
It's a terrible idea.
Iraq is the new Vietnam and the "new plan" just solidifies that fate. :skull:
Kagemusha
01-09-2007, 00:42
From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?
Tribesman
01-09-2007, 02:32
From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?
Thats the clever part , in order to get more troops for deployment they are asking people who are no longer in the service to re-enlist .
It was just a bit of a screw up that they sent please re-enlist letters to people who were no longer in the service because they had already been killed in Iraq .:oops:
From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?
Here's (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/maps/world/fullpage.troop.deployments/world.index.html) where some troops are currently deployed overseas. Obviously, this doesn't include troops stationed in the US nor is the overseas list comprehensive(last I heard, we have troops in something like 130 countries around the world).
It's not that I think we couldn't- I'm not sure why we should. :shrug:
Kagemusha
01-09-2007, 04:14
Thanks for the link Xiahou.But i already have pretty good source of the current deployments:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm
I was just intrested would they try to handle this via redeployment of current troops or organizing new ones. My personal opinon on the surge is that in the current situation i wouldnt send more troops in. I dont see that the situation on Iraq will be getting any better with the additional troops. With few more divisions when the occupation was started,who knows,in the long run if i would be American i would support withdrawal from Iraq,since there is nothing else to gain, then more casulties there.
With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq...
Hi Seamus,
Where do the above figures come from?
I'm opposed to this 'surge'. I myself also believe that initially as in two years ago two or three more divisions would have made a significant difference in establishing security and training native security forces.
The situation as it is now is not so much one of a fight against the occupiers but a fight between Iraqis (sunnis vs shias vs kurds). The best I think we can do is continue the training of security forces the Iraqi government with the current number of troops while advising policy to the Iraqi government.
Seeing as Sunnis are pissed about their being taken out of power and the Shiites are getting their revenge we need to try and clamp down on the government corruption and misuse of security forces. Iraqis will have more faith in their government when the police don't use their off duty time to act as death squads and hopefully allow people to rely on the police and not militias. As for the Sunnis a complete reconciliation with all non high ranking Baath party members would probably be good, that way those sunnis with a mind for politics will resort to political dialoge instead of violence. Instead of pretending that their government is mature and stable we should point out their flaws and see to it that they are corrected. These changes though are probably impossible to achieve now.
The 20,000 troops are really of a too little too late effort. Not enough to do what we claim they do and too late to effect the upswing in sectarian violence.
The really testing of the Iraqi government will be when the British step down from their primary role of security in the south to just supporting the local authorities this Spring. If the British pullout if you want to call it that, is for the most part successful then it might set a standard for a US pullout of Kurdistan and that in effect would give the Iraqi government the basis for self reliance which would hopefully allow them to fix their miltia problem and provide security for both Shiites and Sunnis. I know that this is a very simplistic outlook of mine but my optimism is just about finished with, yes a know it's taken a while.
KukriKhan
01-09-2007, 05:29
20K
20,000
Twenty-thousand
A hundred companies.
500 platoons.
No matter how I break it down... it ain't enough.
I have no claim to military strategy genius. The Powell Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine) posited that if 6:1 is required for victory, then 10:1 should be committed for the duration. Overwhelming force. Every national resource. "Go big, or stay home."
Half-assed so-called war, on-the-cheap, won't cut the mustard, I think. If a 20K 'surge' is the best we can slap together, then the military I spent most of my adult life in is broken. FUBAR'd. Irrelevant. Our presicion-honed bayonet dulled by use as a screwdriver and hammer.
I hope not.
If KukriKhan were in charge, now would be "all hands" time, every swinging (poncho) from every remote US installation worldwide swarms the place, trying to make a silk purse from this sow's ear our politico's have given us. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Postal Inspection Service, Texas Rangers - everybody.
Anything less means we didn't mean it in the first place - which many of us suspected all along.
If Chuck Noris went with the Texas Rangers then perhaps that'd equal 20K troops.
On the serious side, you're absolutely right Kukri, these halfassed halfhearted efforts do nothing. The US should have either put everything into this or not done it at all.
Samurai Waki
01-09-2007, 08:16
America may be the King of Battle, but when it comes to doing anything serious we can't handle it.
Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.
I always knew Luxembourg was up to something:inquisitive:
Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.
:
Funny you should say that. I talked to a buddy of mine over my winter break who is in the air force stationed in California. He works with nuclear weapons of some sort, I'm not sure the specifics. Anyways, guess where the our nukes are still "concentrated" at? You guessed it, Russia...
Somebody Else
01-09-2007, 09:39
Funny you should say that. I talked to a buddy of mine over my winter break who is in the air force stationed in California. He works with nuclear weapons of some sort, I'm not sure the specifics. Anyways, guess where the our nukes are still "concentrated" at? You guessed it, Russia...
I'll bet there are a few pointed at the world's largest army.
Which would incidentally be the perfect ally in this little endeavour. The US army is superbly hi-tech; great, it'll obliterate anything that it can get to grips with. What's needed now is a whole heck of a lot of men. Not missiles.
Disbanding the world's 9th largest army, already in situ, was inconceivably foolish.
Are we talking about 20,000 additional soldiers into the Baghdad area, or just 20,000 soldiers dispersed like confetti across Iraq? Baghdad has what? Near 7 million inhabitants, 3 million at least in Sadr City. Perhaps 20,000 soldiers could help suppress the militias in Baghdad for a while, but that’s about it.
Unless of course one opts for Panzerjagers “jackboot” and goes Hulagu Khan on Baghdad.
Banquo's Ghost
01-09-2007, 12:13
Are we talking about 20,000 additional soldiers into the Baghdad area, or just 20,000 soldiers dispersed like confetti across Iraq? Baghdad has what? Near 7 million inhabitants, 3 million at least in Sadr City. Perhaps 20,000 soldiers could help suppress the militias in Baghdad for a while, but that’s about it.
As I understand it, the deployment is intended for Baghdad and some nearby troublespots.
The key to Baghdad at present is Moqtadr al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, which the US wants to deal with but Maliki is not strong enough to sanction the actions necessary - even if he wanted to, since he is more of a pawn of al-Sadr's than the US. The only possibility for dealing with the Shia militias in that part of Baghdad is to raze it to the ground - backstreet urban fighting will get a large part of that "surge" coming home in coffins.
A "Fallujah" type action is politically unacceptable. Not only for the humanitarian reasons that seem to escape some posters, but because it would completely inflame the Shia across the Middle East and endanger client governments like Saudi Arabia. Not only that, like Fallujah, it would not even work to suppress the insurgency for long.
People should remember that the US invaded on flimsy pretexts - there was not and is not a moral right to go around massacring even more thousands of civilians out of political expediency. The USA is not a totalitarian state aiming to be ranked with the worst in history. The administration has made a bad mistake, foolish even (given the advice that was available to them before the invasion) but it is not evil. Just because her leaders are unable (as yet) to be charged with war crimes, doesn't make it OK to commit them.
It is time to leave. There is nothing the US can do except lose more of its own troops and kill more civilians. Iraq is in civil war, and the US is powerless. Her power to act is limited precisely because her citizens are decent, freedom-loving people and contrary to what some of you seem to think, this is a good thing. This is why the US is looked up to by many throughout the world, why this episode and its corollaries has caused such counter-reaction - because free peoples (and many that are still unfree) actually care that the US stands for something greater than rapine, destruction and endless tribal warfare.
The civil war will play itself out one way or another - today, after 3,000 US troop deaths and 500,000 Iraqis - or next year, after another 1,000+ troop deaths and who knows how many more innocent Iraqis. Leave now and accept that this should never have been done, and never will again.
Yes, many thousands more Iraqis will die in the ensuing war but there will be no foreign invaders to exacerbate things and the knowledge will be stark that the solution is entirely and truthfully in Iraqi hands. (It's laughable to see serious people saying that Iraq's government has any power to effect change. Let alone the militias, if Maliki decided that he would listen to the advice of the Iraq Group and proposed to engage actively with Iran, do you think his solution would be countenanced for a moment?)
More troops now will provide more targets and more US deaths. In short, the assorted groups in Iraq see the occupation as the problem. Enhancing the occupation enhances the insurgency.
Productivity
01-09-2007, 12:27
Interesting perspective and I agree with a lot of it BG, however I can only think that the void left by a departing US force would only be filled with other outside influences. Would Iran, Saudi Arabia and co filling the void be any better than what we have now?
In a void I would agree with you, with Iraq with no borders but this isn't the case. It's not going to be an Iraqi solution, it's going to be an Iranian solution. I'm not sure if that's better, worse or the same as the American solution but it's something to keep in mind.
Rodion Romanovich
01-09-2007, 13:08
I think both scenarios - leaving and staying - will result in many dead, but if the locals beg for the occupation forces to leave, withdrawal would be considered a much smaller crime than staying would be considered as, if the staying in the area doesn't improve the stability.
If the troops stay, they have to deal with a country with 3 different population groups, all of which don't like the others that much. In order to succeed at bringing order with troops, a combination of pleasing the locals along with extreme numbers (much larger than 20,000) would be necessary. The ways of pleasing the locals would be quite difficult though, and require a lot of thought. As it seems now, there's no obvious solution about how to make the occupation generally seen as a good thing by the locals, and as long as the occupation is disliked, the province can't be held. Nobody can hold a province for long without local support. Here are some starting ideas for how to bring stability in the region while having troops staying there:
- Iraqi oil not being sold at very low prices to the USA would be a good start for making the locals trust the occupation, but hardly enough
- clemency for all POWs, no matter their position or rank (i.e. not sending them to Guantanamo but to a normal prison and promising to release them once the situation in Iraq has calmed down or release them in the event of the US army leaving Iraq)
- refusal to engage in things such as what was done in Fallujah is another necessity to earn the trust of the locals
- organize not only a national Iraqi government, but also organize local governments in the Kurd areas, Shia areas and Sunni area, to give the regions some autonomy from the central government, so they can have own laws and regulations in the different districts, which would solve many of the problems caused by the cultural differences (but also increase the risk of civil war between these factions, but in a way that would be a politically better scenario to work from since you would have official and well defined factions and could always step in to help defending those who are unprovokedly attacked by others)
- write down a new Iraqi constitution which gives the sunnis guarantees that their rights won't be infringed as a revenge for Saddam's rule, as well as shia and kurd guarantees that it won't be legal to pass laws and carry out oppression against their groups
- equip a local Iraqi army with its own weapons including tanks and infantry, in order for the locals to fight the guerilla. But there must be enough locals wanting to fight in such a force and they must consider it worth dying for the cause of a stable Iraq. In order for them to consider that worth dying for, there there must be a promise (that is also kept in the future!) that USA won't use trade embargoes or other forms of extortion methods to force Iraq to accept ruthless oil treaties. There must be promises that Iraq in the future is allowed to sell her oil at a price she decides she wants to sell it for and at the rate she deems appropriate. Then the locals will know they would be fighting for an independent, stable Iraq, not an enslaved, exploited and not free Iraq. If such guarantees could be given, also the UN would be able to consider sending forces to the region. You would also gain increased popularity in the province (i.e. reduced size of enemy forces), and allow the mustering of a large local force with huge numbers and high morale and fighting spirit, as well as huge numbers of UN soldiers equipped with weaponry on par with American equipment. It would guarantee victory and stability in Iraq, but mean no increased control over Iraqi oil. This would mean the Iraq war would be a loss of money for no gain for Americans, but it would mean avoiding an even worse defeat after the mistake of attacking Iraq.
If the troops leave, there would likely be a quite problematic situation as well. After one side gains the upper hand there could be external countries (other muslim countries, both shia and sunni) getting involved in the conflict, maybe also Turkey since they don't won't a Kurdistan or movements for Turkish Kurds' independence from Turkey. It would be likely that American puppet countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be threatened by the spreading instability, but America could insert forces to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (notice this would be a non-occupation war, i.e. a war of the type that the American military is most skilled at fighting), while negotiations give Turkey the right to defend their own territory (possibly send some troops/money to assist Turkey in order to keep up good relations with Turkey considering that it was the Iraq war that would have been the start of any such Kurd independence movement in Turkey if any such thing happens), and then oil west of Iraq could still be secured. Eventually the situation in Iraq would calm down, after numerous deaths, possibly with extensive redrawing of borders and splitting of Iraq into several autonomous states. Alternatively, they will unite rather quickly once the troops have left, and possibly try to threaten Kuwait or something else, in which case American troops may need a short campaign to secure Kuwait again, but after winning a second Kuwait war Iraqi would probably hesitate to repeat the attempt. Alternatively, Iraq gets a new dictator, this time more popular than Saddam also among Kurds and Shias, and he engages in various forms of terrorist activity, plundering and destruction of oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and will require further defensive efforts for USA to defend her own soil from terrorist attacks, and Kuwait and Saudia Arabian oil sources from destruction. A new invasion of Iraq wouldn't be able to solve the problem of newly born Iraqi terrorism since the cause of it in the first place was an invasion of Iraq. Instead, airport security measures and just waiting it out until it calms down would probably be the only way of solving such a problem, if it were to arise.
As I see it both alternatives are a mess, but winning while staying in Iraq would require far more than 20,000 troops. It would take 100,000 - 300,000 troops including UN and local forces, but the UN and local forces wouldn't accept to fight for the American cause unless there are more guarantees that what is considered atrocities won't be carried out again, and that Iraq gets full own control over how their oil is handled. This is another excellent example to add to history of how alliances and diplomacy often by far beats military strength in importance when it comes to achieving victory. Another problem re the insertion of UN troops is that the UN troops first need to finish the mess that was started in Afghanistan. Northern Afghanistan is fairly stable ATM, but southern Afghanistan is a mess and ties up plenty of UN troops already.
Banquo's Ghost
01-09-2007, 13:18
Interesting perspective and I agree with a lot of it BG, however I can only think that the void left by a departing US force would only be filled with other outside influences. Would Iran, Saudi Arabia and co filling the void be any better than what we have now?
In a void I would agree with you, with Iraq with no borders but this isn't the case. It's not going to be an Iraqi solution, it's going to be an Iranian solution. I'm not sure if that's better, worse or the same as the American solution but it's something to keep in mind.
I expect the void would be filled by countries such as Iran and Syria, but yes, mainly Iran. Turkey may well get involved to try and stop a Kurdish state.
However, the key difference would be that those countries would now have a strong interest to achieve a positive and stable situation in whatever remained of Iraq - as opposed to currently, when they have a serious interest in creating mayhem for the US. Iraq is no longer a player in the region, so it will fall under the sway of one of the regional powers. This is what the Iraq Study Group report essentially said - and recommended we engage those regional powers while we still have some influence on the outcome. President Bush appears to have rejected that in favour of the worst possible solution - continuing the occupation all alone.
Ahmadinejad is only strong at home because he has the US to demonise and the Iranian people (and the theocrats) see fellow Shia in perilous positions. The more the west threatens Iran, the more they rally to their leader. Just like we do. His populism on these issues allows him to avoid criticism for failing to alleviate the poverty of his key constituency. The recent elections made him more vulnerable. It's a very good time to talk.
But no, the administration is unable to take these chances and in addition, allows Olmert to suggest Israel might nuke Iran unilaterally. While Iraq is a total mess, Ahmadinejad knows the US has too much on its plate. He has a vested interest in maintaining that unless we can find something better for Iran's future than simplistic threats. We have a vested interest is finding ways to enable the Iranian people to ease Ahmadinejad out (because he is a serious looney, but one we have to do business with).
Iran has had a bellicose and dangerous neighbour on its border for thirty years. The US kindly solved that problem for them. Reconstruction will be on Iran's terms. We should be influential in those terms, rather than crocking the country more until they can do what they want.
Kanamori
01-09-2007, 13:36
All that I really can say that I know is this: If the US forces are poorly looked upon in general, and are really seen as foreigners invading and certainly not helping, we have lost and 20k more troops will not remedy the situation.
We'll probably see an era of new Republicans distancing themselves of all this in the future. The circumstances that lead to it will probably be very sad ones.
Then again, I am far less knowledgable of the facts than I ought to be:shame:
If the US forces are poorly looked upon in general, and are really seen as foreigners invading and certainly not helping, we have lost and 20k more troops will not remedy the situation.
I think it's safe to say that we are not well-regarded in Iraq right now. Think about it -- if Madison, Wisconsin were invaded by the French, and they removed the government, disbanded the police, allowed widespread civil disorder, holed up in compounds, and didn't bother to learn the language, how would you feel about them? You probably wouldn't go blowing them up, but you might be a bit resentful, yes?
Now imagine that Madison is split between, say, a Native American minority that has ruled with an iron fist and a white majority that wants to get its own. And suppose that both sides think that violence is a perfectly acceptable political argument. And let's say that both sides believe that when the conflict is over, they're going to run things, and they'll be in charge of the death camps. And the French soldiers are just kind of in the way.
Sorry, my analogy is groaning under the weight of too many suppositions. But you get the idea.
Kanamori
01-09-2007, 19:15
I think it's safe to say that we are not well-regarded in Iraq right now.
This is not to say that we are viewed in a negative enough light for us to earn outright malicious behavior and total lack of cooperation from enough people for it to matter enough that we cannot do anything there.
Think about it -- if Madison, Wisconsin were invaded by the French, and they removed the government, disbanded the police, allowed widespread civil disorder, holed up in compounds, and didn't bother to learn the language, how would you feel about them? You probably wouldn't go blowing them up, but you might be a bit resentful, yes?
Now imagine that Madison is split between, say, a Native American minority that has ruled with an iron fist and a white majority that wants to get its own. And suppose that both sides think that violence is a perfectly acceptable political argument. And let's say that both sides believe that when the conflict is over, they're going to run things, and they'll be in charge of the death camps. And the French soldiers are just kind of in the way.
Sorry, my analogy is groaning under the weight of too many suppositions. But you get the idea.
Yeah, I was leaning towards that ultimate conclusion, but I feared my negativity and my tendancy to 'nay-say' coloring a truly accurate judgment where I admitidly have very few hard facts.
First, I have no idea about how widespread the rule was "sunni" as much as it may have been a good number of 'sunni' arses putting the boot to the face, and whether or not the shia actually saw the boot stomping accurately, ie whether or not they extented their hatred to all sunni based on facts of repression by all sunni or misguided feeling that all sunni were responsible, and possibly whether or not the boot stomping was under percieved, which would mean that they really all were arses, but for whatever reasons, the sunnis' hiding the truth of it or whatever, the shia don't actually see the sunnis collectively as the problem.
That affects the shia's notion of how the country ought to be afterward, and to a good extent, how they are going to go about establishing order. Then, I have no idea about the real extent to which the shia and sunni death squads have effected the opinion of the average, or most numerous group, inside both the shia and the sunni, regarding each other. Further, I have no real idea about how the US soldiers are seen in the eyes of either... one would expect some to most sunni resent them, but the shia may easily see them as a means to their end, whatever that is, if it involves violence, but they could also be seen widely as pig-dogs whose armored cars need to be blown up more than the sunni need to be blown up -- Americans aren't exactly known for being liked and in the Mid-east they are, supposedly, seen very poorly in general... again, I don't know, I haven't read statistics or been there myself, I only have the word of others to go on, who generally have shown themselves to be either untrustworthy, by being misguieded or purposefuly inaccurate, in their conclusions.
More than the shia actually resenting us being the problem, I tend to think that they do not feel bound to each other and their own common protection.... I think most people in Iraq are actually looking out for their own safety first, and their colored perceptions, be they rightly or wrongly gotten, generally lead them to lend their support either way, not their lives though... which means that the shia are generally unwilling to risk themselves greatly for the protection of things that they do not see as really being their own, and many sunni. In such a case, the chaos is because of weak government and a relatively large, albeit spintered, insurgency. The Iraqi government itself does not have strong popular support, as it is young and incredibly splintered, as I see both shia and sunni groups to be... not knowing just how splintered both groups are further clouds just how strongly both groups collectively are at each other's throats, and the strength of general opposition.
I, to my own shame, have not been paying near enough attention to the Iraq war lately, and specifically the facts that would take many many hours to surely get -- the media has shown itself to be almost totally 'sensational', thus untrustworthy and needing to be questioned, and lacking proper description of the facts that count. I have also noticed in myself a tendancy to interpret such cloudy matters in a light that would favor my already existing opinions.
In short, I just don't know, and I really ought to go find these facts at some time, but now, I know that they would be hard and time consuming to find, and I am tired... ranting again.:beam:
yesdachi
01-09-2007, 19:53
I would be interested to see an Iraq vote on if the US should stay or go. In the past I believer that the indication has been for the US to stay, I don’t think that has changed. It would suck to have my countries decisions made by other countries media.
Tribesman
01-09-2007, 21:54
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush !!!!!!!
As I understand it, the deployment is intended for Baghdad and some nearby troublespots.
The key to Baghdad at present is Moqtadr al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, which the US wants to deal with but Maliki is not strong enough to sanction the actions necessary - even if he wanted to, since he is more of a pawn of al-Sadr's than the US. The only possibility for dealing with the Shia militias in that part of Baghdad is to raze it to the ground - backstreet urban fighting will get a large part of that "surge" coming home in coffins.
A "Fallujah" type action is politically unacceptable. Not only for the humanitarian reasons that seem to escape some posters, but because it would completely inflame the Shia across the Middle East and endanger client governments like Saudi Arabia. Not only that, like Fallujah, it would not even work to suppress the insurgency for long.
People should remember that the US invaded on flimsy pretexts - there was not and is not a moral right to go around massacring even more thousands of civilians out of political expediency. The USA is not a totalitarian state aiming to be ranked with the worst in history. The administration has made a bad mistake, foolish even (given the advice that was available to them before the invasion) but it is not evil. Just because her leaders are unable (as yet) to be charged with war crimes, doesn't make it OK to commit them.
It is time to leave. There is nothing the US can do except lose more of its own troops and kill more civilians. Iraq is in civil war, and the US is powerless. Her power to act is limited precisely because her citizens are decent, freedom-loving people and contrary to what some of you seem to think, this is a good thing. This is why the US is looked up to by many throughout the world, why this episode and its corollaries has caused such counter-reaction - because free peoples (and many that are still unfree) actually care that the US stands for something greater than rapine, destruction and endless tribal warfare.
The civil war will play itself out one way or another - today, after 3,000 US troop deaths and 500,000 Iraqis - or next year, after another 1,000+ troop deaths and who knows how many more innocent Iraqis. Leave now and accept that this should never have been done, and never will again.
Yes, many thousands more Iraqis will die in the ensuing war but there will be no foreign invaders to exacerbate things and the knowledge will be stark that the solution is entirely and truthfully in Iraqi hands. (It's laughable to see serious people saying that Iraq's government has any power to effect change. Let alone the militias, if Maliki decided that he would listen to the advice of the Iraq Group and proposed to engage actively with Iran, do you think his solution would be countenanced for a moment?)
More troops now will provide more targets and more US deaths. In short, the assorted groups in Iraq see the occupation as the problem. Enhancing the occupation enhances the insurgency.
Are you sure your family didn't leave the Pale and go on a wild oats spreading spree in the West ?
Am I not your disreputable foul mouthed inarticulate long lost bastard cousin ?
Or is it just obviouis common sense that anyone could have seen if had they got their head out of their patriotic propoganda filled posteriors before any of it even started
Well, now it's official. 21,500 troops. To re-take Baghdad block-by-block. What do the Orgahs think?
If we retake Baghdad block by block and then send the 20K back home or to Kuwait was anything really accomplished when the militias come back again? If the 20K were to stay it'd be really hard to garrison Baghdad, a city of millions is rather difficult to control with tens of thousands.
Also bear in mind 20K is not 20 thousand ground pounding infantry. There's a lot of support and combat support soldiers that will mostly stay in the base.
Tribesman
01-11-2007, 10:34
Well, now it's official. 21,500 troops. To re-take Baghdad block-by-block. What do the Orgahs think?
Well this orgah thinks that Bush is once again showing what a complete fool he is .
Well, now it's official. 21,500 troops. To re-take Baghdad block-by-block. What do the Orgahs think? I hope they don’t kill al-Sadr. Though I am sure that al-Sistani and the two al-Hakim’s would secretly appreciate it (and thoroughly exploit it).
And interestingly, it seems as if al-Sadr has lost control of that rag-tag mob of the Mahdi army (or at least a good portion of it). Only God knows what will happen if the occupation forces attempts to forcefully disarm them.
This plan is laughable nonsense. In gambling terms it would be called chasing losses. Already having pissed away most of your chips on roulette, you decide to stick all the remaining on a long shot, that even if it comes off, probably won't get what you already lost.
Ok - so lets take a brief look at the do's and don'ts of taking on insurgents (using history as our faithful guide)
Do
Infiltrate them
Cut off supply lines
Isolate them from their backers
Undermine their recruiting drives
Negotiate
Engage with the populous
Avoid attrocities to harbouring population
Don't
Expect success from military assault
Rely on technological advantage over numerical advantage
Ignore regional backers
Ignore the possibility of political deals with leaders, co-opting of militia groups
Hmm.. on the basis of that, this latest strategy is just a tragic and directionless flail that will end it massive US losses, which will trigger the US troops to embark on revenge atrocities. Dreadful.
KukriKhan
01-11-2007, 12:39
Well, now it's official. 21,500 troops. To re-take Baghdad block-by-block. What do the Orgahs think?
I'm pessimistic. He's holding Aces and 8's, praying that the 5th card is an ace (to extend Idaho's analogy) - the classic 'dead man's hand' - though he's doomed to draw a diamond 9.
I think he's wrong. I truly hope, in the end, that I am wrong, he draws to that Full House, Iraqis step up, and by this time next year, all that remains of the US in Iraq is a northern Air Base that we quietly lease for 99 years.
If I had to bet today, I'd bet the new US Commander asks for double that number within 60 days.
Sounds like LBJ announcing another fifty-thousand for Vietnam.
Tribesman
01-11-2007, 13:25
OK I know Bush didn't like the Baker report and didn't like its recomendations .
But for gods sake just because they didn't like the idea of diplomatic involvement of regional players to bring about some sort of peaceful solution there was no need to go attacking the Iranian consulate and handing it over to the Isreali backed pershmerga .
What the hell are they playing at , do they want the Israeli and Iranian backed Kurdish factions to end their ceasefire and turn that area into another bloodbath .
Do any of them idiots in charge have any idea at all about what the hell they are playing at in Iraq ?
If we retake Baghdad block by block and then send the 20K back home or to Kuwait was anything really accomplished when the militias come back again? If the 20K were to stay it'd be really hard to garrison Baghdad, a city of millions is rather difficult to control with tens of thousands.
Also bear in mind 20K is not 20 thousand ground pounding infantry. There's a lot of support and combat support soldiers that will mostly stay in the base.
I read somewhere that the plan would be to use US forces in specific neighborhoods that consist of split Sunni/Shiite populations. By focusing on hotspots, the plan was to improve the population to troop ratio in those areas.
Do any of them idiots in charge have any idea at all about what the hell they are playing at in Iraq ?
No they don't. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing. These right-wing yanks have elected a bunch of imbeciles upon the world. Thanks :dizzy2:
yesdachi
01-11-2007, 16:30
What a bunch of half empty glasses. Leaving is not going to happen and continuing what we are doing is not working so I think adding more troops and better securing Baghdad is a good move. With Baghdad less volatile the Iraq people can start enjoying what they are fighting for and I think once people can go a few days in relative peace they might start supporting it a little more. I am optimistic.
Tribesman
01-11-2007, 17:12
What a bunch of half empty glasses.
OK , have some half full glass stuff ......the plan would be to use US forces in specific neighborhoods that consist of split Sunni/Shiite populations......now we know why so few troops are being sent . The number of split neighbourhoods has reduced drastically .
If it works, great. My opinion is that this is too little, too late.
When I stop and think about it, I wonder if this "surge" or "escalation" is being blown out of proportion by both sides. When you look at it, troop levels have risen and fallen by large numbers throughout the occupation- this isn't really so different in that respect.
Blodrast
01-12-2007, 01:46
You're right, it prolly isn't a big deal. It's more hoopla by the administration to show that "we're changing the plan", because the populace is in favor of that. It's just dust in your eyes to appease all the unhappy folks out there clamoring for a change. Well, here's your "change". By blowing it out of proportion, we make it look more important/significant than it really is.
Old trick in the book ~;)
Tribesman
01-12-2007, 01:53
this isn't really so different in that respect.
And that is the problem .
There was supposed to be new ideas , new approaches , new strategy .
All bush came up with is same old same old tried and failed stuff .
Well apart from changing the amount of time the reserves can be called up for and getting rid of a few top yes men who due to their experiences in Iraq were not saying yes so readily anymore .
PanzerJaeger
01-12-2007, 02:18
No they don't. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing. These right-wing yanks have elected a bunch of imbeciles upon the world. Thanks :dizzy2:
I see that you are from the UK.. making such a statement somewhat less meaningful... or do you think Blair had a gun to his head?
KukriKhan
01-12-2007, 03:32
No they don't. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing. These right-wing yanks have elected a bunch of imbeciles upon the world. Thanks :dizzy2:
I think you wanted "unleashed" there.
So far, some Orgahs have diagnosed:
fool, A person with poor judgment or little intelligence.
idiot, A person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal four-year-old.
imbicile, a person who lacks the capacity to develop beyond the mental age of a normal five to seven-year-old child
Steady progress, it seems. Time will tell whether he progresses up the ladder to Einstein-level, or regresses to nixonian (madman-in-the-white-house) psychosis.
Pray tell, if the Honorable Gentlemen were, hypothethically, the US President (stop giggling) - in this situation: what would they have done? "Go bigger", "Go Home", or something in-between?
You're right, it prolly isn't a big deal. It's more hoopla by the administration to show that "we're changing the plan", because the populace is in favor of that. It's just dust in your eyes to appease all the unhappy folks out there clamoring for a change. Well, here's your "change". By blowing it out of proportion, we make it look more important/significant than it really is.
Old trick in the book ~;)
Both sides are spinning this force adjustment using their own "smell" words that have the connotations they want to reinforce. The administration spread the term "surge", while Democrats are almost uniformly using "escalation" because of it's association with Vietnam...
I think the real story would be on the merits of the new strategy (or lack of merit) as opposed to a slight change in troop levels. On paper, the plans I've heard sound interesting, but yet again, it all hinges on the Iraqi forces and the resolve of their government. We're told that this time they're really committed- but we've heard that before. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it.
Strike For The South
01-12-2007, 06:04
When I get drafted do I get to choose which branch I serve? becuase Im going to be pretty POd if I get sea cook.
Banquo's Ghost
01-12-2007, 10:35
I think the real story would be on the merits of the new strategy (or lack of merit) as opposed to a slight change in troop levels. On paper, the plans I've heard sound interesting, but yet again, it all hinges on the Iraqi forces and the resolve of their government. We're told that this time they're really committed- but we've heard that before. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The "new" strategy is to force Prime Minister al-Maliki into confronting the Shia militias with Iraqi troops.
Given that the Iraqi army and the police force are largely comprised of people sympathetic to the militias (both Sadr and Badr - isn't that a delicious pair of names? :laugh4: ) and that al-Sadr's support props up al-Maliki's Shia government, and that al-Maliki has previously been dismissed as weak by the administration, and has never come through on his promises to the administration, and he has said that he never wanted to be Prime Minister and would really like to leave now, and that the Sunni are already alienated so why not add the Shia to that alienation by attacking the only people they see actually protecting them, and that the rest of the Shia Middle East would have all their prejudices exacerbated, and that Sadr city is a warren of urban death for infantry, and that this approach of increasing numbers and asking the Iraqis to step up has failed at least three times before - I would say that as a plan, it was a trifle flawed.
I still don't think they have enough soldiers. They either need lots and lots and lots, or very few (acting as advisors or something). Merely having quite a lot will accomplish little and result in lots of extra death.
Pray tell, if the Honorable Gentlemen were, hypothethically, the US President (stop giggling) - in this situation: what would they have done? "Go bigger", "Go Home", or something in-between?
If I was president? If Blair was president? Which one?:laugh4:
I see that you are from the UK.. making such a statement somewhat less meaningful... or do you think Blair had a gun to his head?
Is there an ignore function on this board?
Banquo's Ghost
01-12-2007, 11:07
Is there an ignore function on this board?
Yes there is.
If you go to your User Control Panel, under Miscellaneous on the left hand side, you will find the Buddy/Ignore lists. You can add a member to that list.
:bow:
Major Robert Dump
01-12-2007, 13:02
Did Bush just relieve some military brass who disagreed with his idea for more troops? Did Bush relieve brass who caled for more troops 2 years ago? Please, someone help me here. I guess every generation needs its utter, bitter, failure of a war president, and if this is the case then Bush is mine with hugs and kisses. He should start drinking again, no wait, he never stopped.
Blodrast
01-12-2007, 20:08
I think the real story would be on the merits of the new strategy (or lack of merit) as opposed to a slight change in troop levels. On paper, the plans I've heard sound interesting, but yet again, it all hinges on the Iraqi forces and the resolve of their government. We're told that this time they're really committed- but we've heard that before. Personally, I'll believe it when I see it.
(emphasis mine)
I was gonna ask what IS the new strategy, since I wasn't aware of any other significant changes besides the extra 20k, and changing a few visible folks.
I guess Banquo's Ghost answered that, though...
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The "new" strategy is to force Prime Minister al-Maliki into confronting the Shia militias with Iraqi troops.
Given that the Iraqi army and the police force are largely comprised of people sympathetic to the militias (both Sadr and Badr - isn't that a delicious pair of names? ) and that al-Sadr's support props up al-Maliki's Shia government, and that al-Maliki has previously been dismissed as weak by the administration, and has never come through on his promises to the administration, and he has said that he never wanted to be Prime Minister and would really like to leave now, and that the Sunni are already alienated so why not add the Shia to that alienation by attacking the only people they see actually protecting them, and that the rest of the Shia Middle East would have all their prejudices exacerbated, and that Sadr city is a warren of urban death for infantry, and that this approach of increasing numbers and asking the Iraqis to step up has failed at least three times before - I would say that as a plan, it was a trifle flawed.
Is that all ? I mean, convincing the PM to confront the Shia militias with Iraqi troops ? Or is there more ?
Oh, and BG, while I usually admire your coherence, is there any way you could have made that phrase even longer ? ~D
I got lost several times while trying to read it...~;p
Is that all ? I mean, convincing the PM to confront the Shia militias with Iraqi troops ? Or is there more ?
How do you convince a guy whose entire base of support is the Shiite death squads to rein in the death squads? Pure fantasy. Of course there's more, and of course we're not hearing it. Here's a pretty good analysis (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/ZNYT03/701120453):
A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. “He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias,” the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. “He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side.”
Views such as these — increasingly common among the political class in Baghdad — are often accompanied by predictions that Mr. Maliki will be forced out as the crisis over the militias builds. The Shiite politician who described him as incapable of disarming militias suggested he might resign; others have pointed to an American effort in recent weeks to line up a “moderate front” of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders outside the government, and said that the front might be a vehicle for mounting a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki, with behind-the-scenes American support.
Blodrast
01-12-2007, 20:28
Thank you, Lemur.
edit: btw, the Ledger link you provided says "Service Unavailable". I'll try it again later.
Here's (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/assess.php) the best summary I could find that had as little editorializing as possible. Be sure to read both pages. :bow:
Productivity
01-13-2007, 05:06
Pray tell, if the Honorable Gentlemen were, hypothethically, the US President (stop giggling) - in this situation: what would they have done? "Go bigger", "Go Home", or something in-between?
Not been there in the first place? When people call Bush a fool, idiot and imbecile over this they are taking into account that this is entirely a mess of his own making - he was not forced into this, he was not tricked into it, indeed there was significant advice *not* to get into it yet he continued on.
Would the respective members of the org do better at this stage? Possibly no, possibly yes. Would they be idiots for making this choice, no, because they didn't choose to be there. The idiot is the one who allows himself to walk into the quicksand, not the one who gets dumped there...
Blodrast
01-13-2007, 06:06
Here's (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/assess.php) the best summary I could find that had as little editorializing as possible. Be sure to read both pages. :bow:
Cool stuff, thank you Xiahou. Was only vaguely aware of IHT's existence, from movies/books, haven't heard of it in a long time. Guess I'll be checking it out occasionally from now on. Thanks again.
KukriKhan
01-13-2007, 15:34
Not been there in the first place? When people call Bush a fool, idiot and imbecile over this they are taking into account that this is entirely a mess of his own making - he was not forced into this, he was not tricked into it, indeed there was significant advice *not* to get into it yet he continued on.
Would the respective members of the org do better at this stage? Possibly no, possibly yes. Would they be idiots for making this choice, no, because they didn't choose to be there. The idiot is the one who allows himself to walk into the quicksand, not the one who gets dumped there...
Yeah. I 'get' that. And I've gotten that here for some time. Let me re-phrase the question:
Given that real-life has no rewind button, and the decisions made so far can't be undone... and there are real live UK/US/Oz & other soldiers on the ground, in jeopardy, today in Iraq,
How does one get them out of there, without further wrecking that country?
If you, personally (any of you), instead of Bush, were the 'big decider', what would you decide to do?
The answer: "I never would have gone there in the first place", though surely honest, is moot, and overcome by the reality that we're there now, trying to find the best way through/out.
Sjakihata
01-13-2007, 15:49
Unfortunately, Bush has now brought Iraq in an unfixable position. Therefore, it is unfair to demand the answers of the protesters. If we had to go there, in the frist place, then we should have gone in with a viable strategy. To quickly secure Iraq and focusing on training their militia. Not completely destroying their army etc. This was not done and the mess Iraq is in now, because of bad decisions made beforehand, renders it is impossible to fix quickly.
There are two ways: pull out or stay in.
Personally, I want the US out as the US and a bigger UN force in there, mainly to restore order and train their militia. That force should be extremely disciplined. They are there because we demolishe their country in the frist place, they should behave respectfully, since it is OUR responsibility now, given the fact that we destroyed it.
Tribesman
01-13-2007, 16:08
Let me re-phrase the question:
Thats been done so many times why not rephrase it entirely .
How about a viable suggestion from some of the pro-war crowd instead .
One that doesn't involve nonsensical crap like kill them all or invade more countries .
Here's the best summary I could find that had as little editorializing as possible. Be sure to read both pages.
While at the site why not have a read of this .
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/12/opinion/edcord.php?page=1
KukriKhan
01-13-2007, 16:08
Cool. Replace 150k US troops with more than 150k UN troops, to re-train and re-build Iraq. I'm all for it. We'll even pay for most of it.:2thumbsup:
US airlift capacity could get US troops evacuated in 72-96 hours. How soon should we expect the blue-helmeted replacements?
Louis VI the Fat
01-13-2007, 16:36
Well given that real-life has no rewind button indeed, and the decisions made so far can't be undone, and that the current situation can't possibly go on like this, the options are fairly limited: advance ahead or pull out.
I would like to say that they should pull out, but I fear that will only aggravate the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Which leaves the single option of pressing ahead. Which, I think, unfortunately won't improve the situation either.
What a tragedy the situation in Iraq is. :no:
They are there because we demolished their country in the frist place, they should behave respectfully, since it is OUR responsibility now, given the fact that we destroyed it.I hear this all the time. But, whatever beef I have with Bush and co over all this, I won't subscribe to the idea that the place was destroyed by them. That happened at the hand of Saddam and his croonies. Iraq was already a dump in 2003, with one of the worst human rights records and a ruling elite of despots that sucked dry one of the world's potentially richest countries.
I blame them for losing the moral high ground, with Abu Graibh, with a securing of Iraq's oil resources that borders on plunder; and for their short-sightedness in going in in the first place. They should've stayed out, Iraq is a trap, quicksand, a wasp nest that shouldn't have been poked a stick in.
Iraq was a miserable, wretched country already on the eve of the invasion. Weren't we already shaking our heads back then and sighing 'what a tragedy the situation in Iraq is...'
Now, three years on, we're still doing that. But now with the West entangled in it, taking the blame for it.
Banquo's Ghost
01-13-2007, 16:39
Personally, I want the US out as the US and a bigger UN force in there, mainly to restore order and train their militia. That force should be extremely disciplined. They are there because we demolishe their country in the frist place, they should behave respectfully, since it is OUR responsibility now, given the fact that we destroyed it.
:shocked2:
You would be one extraordinary diplomat if you could achieve this.
Who on earth is going to make up this UN force? Why would the UN be interested in picking up the pieces of a war it expressly didn't want to happen? How on earth could a US administration that has called the UN utterly marginal go cap in hand to ask for a bail out?
Kukri, the answers to many of your questions are contained in a little meaningless distraction that is currently propping open the cat-flap in the White House: the report of the Iraq Study Group.
KukriKhan
01-13-2007, 17:49
No argument there, BG. To quote your words from the 'in the 6' thread:
The important lesson here is that Ervine, and many of the politicians at his funeral, were once regarded as terrorists. Some, thankfully few, still do regard them as such.
To solve bloodshed, you have to talk. One day, preferably sooner than later, you have to talk peace. And you need brave men like David Ervine, brave men from the men of violence to join you in talking. It's the men of violence who have the power to bring peace
My hope for an inspired, truly new approach, from the guy we pay to be our primary Leader was:
-find neutral ground
-send out diplo's to all the players, major and minor (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Badr, Sadr, Sistani, all of 'em), with an invite to that neutral turf, for a 3-day "solve Iraq" summit. Guaranteed safety.
-Talk. No media (until finished).
-US chairs the talks. Start with: "Either we all find accomodation here, or US must apply all its national resources to force accomodation. Please do not fail."
-Day 1: recriminations, accusations, verbal gut-spillage.
-Day 2: find common ground.
-Day 3: work out power-sharing details & implementation.
The whole idea being to try and skip the intervening years of toil, death and hardship, and get to that time (15-20 years hence, at the current rate of progress) where we're talking and trading with each other. It's gonna happen. It always does. Let's have it today, instead of 2026.
Instead, I (we) got: increase troop strength by 15%, put the entire results-based leadership burden on Iraq, apparently expect it to fail, and pull out by late summer '07, throwing up our hands, and let the place fall apart, the "problem" too hard to solve, ala Israel-Palestine.
Not serious, inspired leadership, IMO. Just more "woe is me" same-old, same old.
The point is that you cannot 'solve' Iraq without active engagement of it's neighbours. Iraq was created as a bulwark against it's neighbours as well as a compromise of the various demands for partition and non-partition.
There is no way to create Iraq in the image of the US. You are not going to create a western-centric capitalist democracy there.
KukriKhan
01-13-2007, 18:41
The point is that you cannot 'solve' Iraq without active engagement of it's neighbours. Iraq was created as a bulwark against it's neighbours as well as a compromise of the various demands for partition and non-partition.
There is no way to create Iraq in the image of the US. You are not going to create a western-centric capitalist democracy there.
With you 100%, and have been since you typed almost the identical post back in 2002, regarding Afghanistan. At the time, that concept threw me - I'd never realized that I thought a "a western-centric capitalist democracy" was the one answer to everyone's problems. I had to concede that Kabul does not (and can not) be Washington D.C. And now I likewise concede that neither can, or should Baghdad.
Or London, or Beijing, for that matter.
I'm not even interested in trying to impose such (though my national leaders still might). All I've been trying to do here is, since we here are smarter than my current crop of leaders (and I do think that's true) what would we have done or decided differently than a 'surge'?
Banquo's Ghost
01-13-2007, 19:03
My hope for an inspired, truly new approach, from the guy we pay to be our primary Leader was:
-find neutral ground
-send out diplo's to all the players, major and minor (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Badr, Sadr, Sistani, all of 'em), with an invite to that neutral turf, for a 3-day "solve Iraq" summit. Guaranteed safety.
-Talk. No media (until finished).
-US chairs the talks. Start with: "Either we all find accomodation here, or US must apply all its national resources to force accomodation. Please do not fail."
-Day 1: recriminations, accusations, verbal gut-spillage.
-Day 2: find common ground.
-Day 3: work out power-sharing details & implementation.
The whole idea being to try and skip the intervening years of toil, death and hardship, and get to that time (15-20 years hence, at the current rate of progress) where we're talking and trading with each other. It's gonna happen. It always does. Let's have it today, instead of 2026.
I would concur with this approach except:
The US has to swallow the bitter pill that her influence in the region is near gone and her presence merely inflames the situation. Therefore, I propose that the conference gives Iran, Syria and Turkey the joint chair. The US is a delegate with an interest like the other parties, not the arbitrator of a solution. If she takes on that role, the accusation will always be that she imposed the solution.
First order of business, to get everyone at least working on something they can agree on in principle, is the date of US withdrawal. Unless the conference decides otherwise, this is a total withdrawal of all forces leaving not so much as a lapel badge.
I agree that the price of failure should be presented in stark terms to the chair and conference - US unilateral solutions would be the only options left.
I suspect it might take a teensy bit longer than three days, but Heads of Agreement and a communique should be possible.
How does that strike his Excellency the Ambassador Plenipoteniary for the great State of California to the United Orgahs? :inquisitive:
Pannonian
01-13-2007, 19:12
Well given that real-life has no rewind button indeed, and the decisions made so far can't be undone, and that the current situation can't possibly go on like this, the options are fairly limited: advance ahead or pull out.
I would like to say that they should pull out, but I fear that will only aggravate the situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Which leaves the single option of pressing ahead. Which, I think, unfortunately won't improve the situation either.
What a tragedy the situation in Iraq is. :no:
Back in 2003, just as we went in, someone predicted it would be like grabbing a tiger by the tail. Letting go results in a mauling, while holding on will only annoy it further and make the eventual climax that much more brutal. To this day, that remains the best description of the Iraq dilemma I've seen.
KukriKhan
01-13-2007, 22:22
How does that strike his Excellency the Ambassador Plenipoteniary for the great State of California to the United Orgahs?
Erm... you forgot the Grand Poobah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Poobah) bit; goes between 'Plenipoteniary' and 'for'. All the same, your fleshing out is just the kind of diplomatic 'surge' that should precede any actual military movement of further troops into Iraq, in this poopy-doopy doobah's opinion, and I'm on-board with the US not chairing.
I'll call George and tell him what we've decided - though I think he has my number on "block" on his caller ID machine.
Blodrast
01-14-2007, 00:36
Kukri, I think your idea is a very sensible option. And it may come to (some form or other of) that, eventually. Of course, there can be adjustments, like Banquo's Ghost suggested, but the main idea remains, roughly, the same.
I like your idea (again, details can be agreed upon at a later Orgah summit ~D).
Now I'll throw my 2 bugged cents in.
I see a number of difficulties that may prevent it from reaching its goal, even if it is put into practice:
- in some way, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness on behalf of the US. Both within, and outside the US. In my opinion, this itself may be a reason powerful enough to make the administration think twice about implementing this.
- it demands a LOT of parties; while it's true that "the more, the merrier", in this particular case, I think it will be extremely difficult to even convince all the parties you mentioned to come to such a meeting.
- finally, the achievement of the meeting's goal depends to a large extent on the goodwill, and good faith, of the involved parties. I am referring here mainly to Iran and Syria (possibly Turkey, too).
What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?
Let me point out a couple of things: first, we all agree that every country pursues its own interests before anything else. Now, allow me to be Iran or Syria, and to develop the following train of thought:
- the US is gonna leave here (sooner or later)
- once they leave, it's VERY unlikely that they will return, no matter what I do (the world's, and, more importantly, the US population's, reactions, would be extremely strong - against it, naturally) (please, pretty please, try not to counter this with "we'll turn them into glass". It wouldn't fly in a million years).
- so what's stopping me from playing ball now, and then pursuing my own interests as soon as the US are gone, especially if I can rally my other buddies in the region, and allow them a piece of the cake ?
What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?That's a very real concern, and in my opinion, a very likely outcome. Additionally, let's consider what Iran or Syria would demand in exchange to stop destabilizing Iraq. Syria would likely ask for something like the Shebaa Farms in return- which isn't America's to give. Iran would most likely want the US to back off of their nuclear program. Of course, a nuclear Iran is arguably worse than the current situation in Iraq and is not a good solution. Particularly when you consider they'd likely go back to doing whatever they wanted after such an agreement.
Tribesman
01-14-2007, 11:45
Additionally, let's consider what Iran or Syria would demand in exchange to stop destabilizing Iraq. Syria would likely ask for something like the Shebaa Farms in return- which isn't America's to give.
Additionally let us consider ........all of that is dealt with in the report Bush got but didn't like . Though that particular piece of land you mention would be in the proposed tri-party agreements under the UN recommendatations for defining the Isreal-Syria , Israel-Lebanon , Syria-Lebanon borders .
Banquo's Ghost
01-14-2007, 12:16
I see a number of difficulties that may prevent it from reaching its goal, even if it is put into practice:
- in some way, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness on behalf of the US. Both within, and outside the US. In my opinion, this itself may be a reason powerful enough to make the administration think twice about implementing this.
The bald truth is that the US is not only percieved as weak after the debacle in Iraq, but has proven herself unable to project her power effectively without becoming a monster. Bite the bullet - the US is no longer the lynchpin for the future of Iraq - the question is how do you get out with at least some sort of positive result.
- it demands a LOT of parties; while it's true that "the more, the merrier", in this particular case, I think it will be extremely difficult to even convince all the parties you mentioned to come to such a meeting.
Yes indeed, the whole area has been fractured terribly. But one has to at least try.
- finally, the achievement of the meeting's goal depends to a large extent on the goodwill, and good faith, of the involved parties. I am referring here mainly to Iran and Syria (possibly Turkey, too).
What's to stop them from agreeing to whatever solution is proposed, and then defaulting on the deal, once the US is gone ?
Let me point out a couple of things: first, we all agree that every country pursues its own interests before anything else. Now, allow me to be Iran or Syria, and to develop the following train of thought:
- the US is gonna leave here (sooner or later)
- once they leave, it's VERY unlikely that they will return, no matter what I do (the world's, and, more importantly, the US population's, reactions, would be extremely strong - against it, naturally) (please, pretty please, try not to counter this with "we'll turn them into glass". It wouldn't fly in a million years).
- so what's stopping me from playing ball now, and then pursuing my own interests as soon as the US are gone, especially if I can rally my other buddies in the region, and allow them a piece of the cake ?
Nothing at all. Except maybe self-interest. Remember, this is not about what the US can impose, but how she can leave with fewer dead servicemen. If the surrounding powers wait, the US will leave with many more dead and they will do what they like with the remnants. To talk now might convince them that the problem is going to be in their lap sooner or later, and to agree a way forward might make their future workable.
But they can wait. As you note, the US is going to leave one day.
KukriKhan
01-14-2007, 14:37
But they can wait. As you note, the US is going to leave one day
Sort of. Undeniably, the ones in uniform toting M16's will leave (alive, it's hoped). If it's done right, they'll be replaced by non-uniformed guys bringing Microsoft campuses, Ford Motor Assembly plants, Coca-Cola bottling factories and start-up Baghdad Film Studios.
The question is: when will that transition occur, and how is the intervening time best managed by all parties? If such a summit of stake-holders could see their way through to "skip" the violent part, and get to the (inevitable) peaceful prosperity part, the whole world wins. And they set the template for future conflict resolutions.
Blodrast
01-14-2007, 21:52
Remember, this is not about what the US can impose, but how she can leave with fewer dead servicemen. If the surrounding powers wait, the US will leave with many more dead and they will do what they like with the remnants.
Wellll... is that really the case ? I dunno.
I honestly dunno. Let's ignore for now the reasons why the US went there to begin with, because they are not necessarily the same reasons with what the US wants to accomplish now.
So my question is, really, what ARE the US's goals right now ?
To leave with as few casualties (forgetting about the oil, the freedom and democracy for the Iraqis, etc), as you suggest ?
To "bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq" ? What exactly would the measure of that be ?
To get out of there with the main goal of saving face (potentially at the cost of additional human (american) lives lost) ?
To do whatever it takes to secure the oil, including making sure that when the US leaves, Iran/Syria/whoever won't grab the wells and stop the flow towards the US ?
What do you folks think ?
Watchman
01-14-2007, 23:09
I know I can't shake the feeling that "we'll, uh... send more soldiers!:sweatdrop: " is a pretty belated "better than nothing" response.
:shrug:
But what the heck, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt they have some idea behind it this time. I'm just not counting on it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.