View Full Version : Winning Ugly
I guess everyone's considered it, but the editor of Roll Call came out and said it. A potential "Plan B" for Iraq would be to allow the civil war to bloom, and force the Sunnis into a realistic appraisal of their position through the process of death, death, and more death. I don't think this is a good idea, as it will position us as the primary western backers of Shiism (a role I don't think we desire).
Roll Call is subscription-only (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_123/kondracke/18405-1.html), but the entire article appears to be reprinted here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/plan_b_for_iraq_winning_dirty.html).
Apparently Kondracke is considered a liberal, but I have no idea if this proposal is generally accepted among the Dems. Frankly, I haven't heard a realistic assessment from the Dems yet as to how they would go about disentangling our nation from Iraq. As per the article I referenced in an earlier thread (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36698&dcn=todaysnews), the choices we face once we decide to get out go from bad to ugly to catastrophic. I know politicians don't want to show those sorts of options to voters, but I really wish the Dems would grow a spine and tell it like it is. The President is unable or unwilling to do so, and it would be a refreshing change if somebody would be honest about Iraq. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from our craven political parties.
Kondracke's proposal is cold-blooded and immoral, which is not to say that it wouldn't work.
Excerpts:
The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.
No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.
On the other hand, as Bush's critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.
Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now Iran's candidate to rule Iraq.
Thoughts?
according to the idiot Bush, We've already won (wasnt that what he said on the aircraft carrier?).
Seriously, at this point I dont think its going to matter if we leave now, or a year from now, or five, there is going to be violence. Islam hasnt reconcilled its schisms, so the Dems have my support mainly because they want to pull out. (well truth be told they want a reasoned withdraw, leaving forces to train Iraqi army/police, but thats so unattractive to say).
Sometimes the devil you know is better then the devil you dont, at least when saddam was in we knew a bit about the person who was doing the violent oppression.
Any dossier's floating around on Sadr? :shame:
Islam hasnt reconcilled its schisms, so the Dems have my support mainly because they want to pull out. (well truth be told they want a reasoned withdraw, leaving forces to train Iraqi army/police, but thats so unattractive to say).
Well, according to their rhetoric, the Republicans want out too ("as they stand up, we will stand down," etc.). It's just a question of timing.
Everyone accepts that we will leave forces on the ground. Everyone accepts that we will also perform some sort of partial withdrawal. The two parties are closer than they sound, once you get past the rhetoric and look at the positions.
ShadeHonestus
05-11-2007, 19:15
Dems have my support mainly because they want to pull out. (well truth be told they want a reasoned withdraw, leaving forces to train Iraqi army/police, but thats so unattractive to say).
Actually, they like many, are having problems with either staying or withdrawing. They want to force a withdrawl while Bush is in office, but if we are still in Iraq when and if the dems take the white house they'll be hard pressed to own the withdrawl. In fact I personally see them keeping the status quo on Iraq. As untenable a situation as the Republicans have, the Dems have a very serious political catch 22 looming. Ted Koppel had something very well thought out and intelligent to say on this matter.
I'm looking for a strong Democrat to own both a withdrawl and continuation policy not pigeon holing us to one strategy or the other. Until that happens I'm going to continue to look for the strongest Republican to get my vote.
HoreTore
05-11-2007, 19:17
....and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious....
Doesn't this remind you of what happened before almost every arab stated turned into a tyranny 30 years ago? This simply wont happen. One of three things will happen:
1. The shiites will be friendly for a year or two, then turn hostile.
2. They will stay loyal to the US until they are overthrown by some other strong man, who hates the US(a new saddam).
3. They will remain both in power and friendly to the US, but they will not have the support of the populace, and so have to transform into a police-state in order to stay in power(pinochet).
I think our strained relationship with the Saudis might break if we condoned the slaughter of Sunni Muslims in Iraq for the purpose of the creation a somewhat strong and independent power as its neighbor.
If this slaughter is required let it happen after the US has left, I don't want to be part of a military that allows the soldiers it trains to exacts genocide on another country's minority commmunity.
I think our strained relationship with the Saudis might break if we condoned the slaughter of Sunni Muslims in Iraq for the purpose of the creation a somewhat strong and independent power as its neighbor.
Excellent, excellent point. That alone torpedoes Kondracke's modest proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modest_Proposal), I believe.
Well, according to their rhetoric, the Republicans want out too ("as they stand up, we will stand down," etc.). It's just a question of timing.
Everyone accepts that we will leave forces on the ground. Everyone accepts that we will also perform some sort of partial withdrawal. The two parties are closer than they sound, once you get past the rhetoric and look at the positions.
Thats just it Lemur, in the republicans case Im not sure its rhetoric at all, I think a lot of them believe the war was justified, its just a matter of political survival at this point to be "anti bush" no matter the issue.
The Democrats well, what exactly is thier position (and Im not being cute or trying to play on a popular anthem of the right). Considering thier majority and the propensity of the media to lean left, I would think thier position on Iraq would be crystal clear, even through the meyer of party rhetoric.
Actually, they like many, are having problems with either staying or withdrawing. They want to force a withdrawl while Bush is in office, but if we are still in Iraq when and if the dems take the white house they'll be hard pressed to own the withdrawl. In fact I personally see them keeping the status quo on Iraq. As untenable a situation as the Republicans have, the Dems have a very serious political catch 22 looming. Ted Koppel had something very well thought out and intelligent to say on this matter.
I'm looking for a strong Democrat to own both a withdrawl and continuation policy not pigeon holing us to one strategy or the other. Until that happens I'm going to continue to look for the strongest Republican to get my vote.
Excellent observation, Shade.
The Democrats well, what exactly is thier position (and Im not being cute or trying to play on a popular anthem of the right). Considering thier majority and the propensity of the media to lean left, I would think thier position on Iraq would be crystal clear, even through the meyer of party rhetoric.
I expect there are two reasons we can't figure out what exactly the Dems intend with Iraq:
They can't see a painless path to a better situation.
Presenting the voters with the full range of ugly options would be political suicide, or so they believe.
Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score. Of course, I'm not up for any sort of election to anything, so it's easy for me to say that. Much harder for someone with an office to lose.
I expect there are two reasons we can't figure out what exactly the Dems intend with Iraq:
They can't see a painless path to a better situation.
Presenting the voters with the full range of ugly options would be political suicide, or so they believe.
Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score. Of course, I'm not up for any sort of election to anything, so it's easy for me to say that. Much harder for someone with an office to lose.
Well that strikes me as logical in its application to the political situation of the future ( IE 08 president), in the end someone has to bite the bullet. Its not always easy being the majority....
I honestly think the dems are so strong in their rhetoric just because they want to deal with Iraq as little as possible if they win the presidential election. I think they realize that if no major withdrawal happens before they get elected into power then whoever the president will be, will like Nixon realize that immediate withdrawal is not feasible. Bear in mind that part of the reason Nixon was elected was because he promised to end the war in Vietnam.
I'm surprised we have 15-20 people in this country who are actually trying to win the 2008 presidential election. Screw the perks, whoever wins is going to be stuck with an hopeless situation, and will be reviled no matter what their Iraq policy turns out to be. I foresee a one-termer coming up, unless he/she can walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead, AND balance the budget. Some of the younger candidates should probably sit this one out, let one of the older guys fall on this sword.
I'm surprised we have 15-20 people in this country who are actually trying to win the 2008 presidential election. Screw the perks, whoever wins is going to be stuck with an hopeless situation, and will be reviled no matter what their Iraq policy turns out to be. I foresee a one-termer coming up, unless he/she can walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead, AND balance the budget. Some of the younger candidates should probably sit this one out, let one of the older guys fall on this sword.
Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit and an easy mark for blame. I think its safe to say Bush is going to carry this baggage for a long long time, and his successor would be wise to capitalize on it.
Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit and an easy mark for blame. I think its safe to say Bush is going to carry this baggage for a long long time, and his successor would be wise to capitalize on it.
I don't think "it's all Bush's fault" will carry much political weight after the '08 election. There will be hard choices to make, and the absolute worst one will be to change nothing. I think drone is right. The '08 presidency will most likely be a poison chalice, and if we didn't have 15-20 blindly ambitious people, we wouldn't have a 44th commander-in-chief.
Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Sorry, I just had visions of Bush doing public speaking. That concept just seems hilarious. ~D
True, 44 will always be able to blame Bush for getting us into this mess. What we really need though is someone who doesn't care about re-election, and just does the best thing for the country. Not going to happen, but maybe after six months on the job, he/she will realize that their political career is over, and just do what needs to be done. Regardless, the Prez will have to fight a divided Congress, with each party desperately trying to lay blame on the other for the inevitable fiasco. Not a good situation for him/her, or us either.
Vladimir
05-11-2007, 20:59
Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score.
"People always love victories brother." :rtwno:
The American people don't want to know how bad it is. The American people don't go about their daily lives worrying about the safety of US service members. The American people want what the president wants (in Iraq), they just want it now.
Very few people care about what they don't hear on the news. Most people are busy living their lives and don't want to be reminded about the ugliness of the world; and there's nothing wrong with that. If this problem was solved in an ugly manor most people wouldn't care in less they were reminded about it.
Yea, sure I just took a snipet out of your post but it's a point I feel strongly about.
Tribesman
05-11-2007, 21:05
It might be irrelevant anyway , the mandate is up for renewal soon and the Iraqi government has tabled a bill to remove all coilition forces from the country .
Kondracke's proposal is cold-blooded and immoral, which is not to say that it wouldn't work.
Add stupid to cold-blooded and immoral and you'd have the current default Democrat "strategy" of full withdrawal. At least Mort's saying we should back a winner that we can live with. The only coherent position the Democrats present is withdrawal. There would still be untold slaughter, the main difference would be that we're not backing a winner we can stomach under this plan (which is more a lack of a plan than a plan). Additionally, Mort thinks that the surge should be given time to succeed or fail on it's own merits- Democrats don't seem to be open to that either as many want to see a withdrawal begin this summer.
I often disagree with Kondracke, but he seems less blindly partisan than many on both sides today and I'm usually interested in hearing what he has to say. He's a regular panelist on "Special Report" and I usually find his comments much more interesting than the right-winger Fred Barnes, who typically comes off as a by-the-talking-points shill.
Add stupid to cold-blooded and immoral and you'd have the current default Democrat "strategy" of full withdrawal.
You are better-informed than I am, 'cause I don't think I've heard any coherent strategy from the Dems. Even people who advocate "full" withdrawal know that we're going to have an ongoing presence. I'm doing my best to ignore what seems to be empty rhetoric from both parties, so I don't really pay attention when a Republican bloviates about "stay the course" or a Democrat yammers about "immediate withdrawal." Neither position is even remotely reality-based.
General Petraeus seems to be a realist and a good man, so let's hope he can apply the basic tools of counterinsurgency and have enough time and resources to improve our choices.
I'm sure you noticed the quotes around "strategy". I agree, they really don't have one- the only common thread they have is get out quickly. They ignore all of the repercussions and consequences of this and offer no accompanying plan of their own about how to manage the aftermath- some even go so far as to say that everything will become rosy just as soon as US troops leave. Regardless of what you think about Bush's prosecution of the war, their plans are just plain irresponsible on the whole. At least if they presented an alternative plan- like Kondracke has, we'd have another plan to choose from. As is, they offer nothing. None of their politicians are willing to put forth a plan or talk about it's consequences because they're trying to maintain a tenuous hold on the support of varied interest groups- some of them being quite irrational on the subject of war.
I think you're largely right, Xiahou. (Pun intended.) I outlined why I think they're refusing to present a real plan in post #10.
What would be interesting, though, is to find out what the Dem frontrunners really plan to do if they win the executive. Let's not even pretend that Clinton and Obama haven't taken a cold, hard look at what they may inherit.
For that matter, it would be equally enlightening to know what the Republican candidates intend. Just ignore cmpaign promises and rhetoric for now -- what does President Romney or President Giuliani plan to do with this mess?
Well, the Dems may be pushing their "strategy" in an attempt to bypass the problem altogether. If they can force a withdrawal (or at least start one) by the time January 2009 rolls around, a Democratic President won't have to worry about it.
If this is their plan, I wonder how they plan on spinning the death toll from the ensuing civil war (the all-out, no question about it, genocide type of civil war, not the one already going on). Might cost them some seats in the mid-terms, maybe they are counting on the short attention span of the public. Without the troops in Iraq, the MSM will go back to reporting on celebs and sex scandals. Oh, wait, nevermind.~:rolleyes:
I'd love to hear real plans from the candidates, they are the only ones with a chance to do anything. The Bush administration could miraculously pull a workable, sensible plan out of it's :daisy:, and it would have no chance of getting implemented in the current environment. The Dem's plan seems to be to show up Bush (not that it's really necessary) and kill the GOP's chances for 2008, regardless of the consequences to the nation, the military, or the Iraqis.
It might be irrelevant anyway , the mandate is up for renewal soon and the Iraqi government has tabled a bill to remove all coilition forces from the country .
Ahhh thank you tribesman you've presented an alternative in 08, This might be a nice out for the next president, not only can they blame Mr Bush for going in, but they can blame the Iraqi's for kicking us out.
Dont tell Mr McCain though, id rather like to see him own part of this political baggage. Its a crap situation because no matter how it ends no one falls into this pile of dung and smells like roses.
least of all the sods left on the streets of Iraq to deal with the death squads once we do finally leave.
ShadeHonestus
05-11-2007, 23:14
I really believe that our course of action in Iraq is not going to be the deciding issue in '08. I believe that our decision in '08 will decide our path but there are some very large elephants in the room which I believe might decide our fate over there. Democrats allowing the tax cuts to expire is one that comes to mind...what is it? 8 million people not previously paying will be forced to file, the 10% bracekt being bumped up to the 15% bracket all the while the rate of new and higher tax registration has grown in record numbers under those cuts. Forget about winning ugly in Iraq, winning or losing we will take our lumps there, while winning or losing ugly at home.
Could you elaborate on that, SH? How will the expiring tax cuts decide what happens in Iraq?
I don't think "it's all Bush's fault" will carry much political weight after the '08 election. There will be hard choices to make, and the absolute worst one will be to change nothing. I think drone is right. The '08 presidency will most likely be a poison chalice, and if we didn't have 15-20 blindly ambitious people, we wouldn't have a 44th commander-in-chief.
Well, it really isn't all Bush's fault, as I read it. Cheney has a very big hand in this, and again (if my reading is correct) was pretty much the sole reason that the CIA 'determined' that there were WMD's in Iraq. Supposedly, Cheney sat in on all high level meetings and purposefully pushed for the worst possible outcome or conclusion, a few high level CIA types who bit the bullet during the post-invasion fallout cried foul on this.
The American people don't want to know how bad it is. The American people don't go about their daily lives worrying about the safety of US service members. The American people want what the president wants (in Iraq), they just want it now.
Very few people care about what they don't hear on the news. Most people are busy living their lives and don't want to be reminded about the ugliness of the world; and there's nothing wrong with that. If this problem was solved in an ugly manor most people wouldn't care in less they were reminded about it.
Yea, sure I just took a snipet out of your post but it's a point I feel strongly about.
Strongly disagree. My family and friends talk about this regularly, and we all agree that the situation is horrible, and we should be out of there soon. I t comes up every so often at work and we discuss it. I overhear people talking about it when I go out to do random stuff like errands or eat. It's definitely in the forefront of American's minds right now, esp. more so for those who have friends or loved ones stationed over there. My dad and I seem to see eye to eye on this which is a first, he's more deeply republican (though thankfully not a christian nutcase) than I am.
We still think "peace" in Iraq is a farce, mainly because of religious (and cultural) differences. We are dealing with centuries, if not millenia, of hatred and loathing, coupled with a willingness to use violence to achieve ends... equals an impossible situation. No, I'm not saying all Iraqis are like this at all, or that it's only Iraqis who are causing the mayhem, but there does certainly seem to be a much higher level of radicals, violent-minded, and "separatist" individuals and groups who are willing to pursue ends such as those. "Peace" may be possible, but probably only under a similar type situation that Iraq was in during Saddam, where you have a totalitarian regime that rules with an iron thumb. Democracy just isn't going to work, as far as we can tell. Thus why we think we should withdraw very very soon, as the goal of implemented a democratic government is doomed to fail. So is the "win ugly" strategy.
:no:
ShadeHonestus
05-12-2007, 02:34
Could you elaborate on that, SH? How will the expiring tax cuts decide what happens in Iraq?
Sure Lemur...
Its one of the elephants in the room that I believe will decide the election. I personally pray that our populace will not try and decide the election on the war and that's not just my Republican side speaking the elephants trumpet in both directions. For anyone to think that given what we've seen and heard they will somehow vote the Iraq war out of existence or vote it into hugs and kisses acceptance is doing our process a disservice. Therefore the rest of the issues will indirectly decide what happens in Iraq.
macsen rufus
05-12-2007, 11:39
After reading the title I was a little disappointed this wasn't a thread about British babes...
but even so, I do believe that Iraq will have its full-blown civil war, the only question is when, and how many foreign (ie non-Iraqi) troops get caught in the crossfire. Sectarianism is an ugly thing, and will only lay down and learn to cooperate once the various parties get heartily sick of fighting. Amazing as it may be at this stage, it still seems some Iraqis still have an appetite for further violence. I'm sure the majority are ready to let bygones be bygones and get on with a normal life again, but of course its what minorities are doing that's the problem. I'm not claiming any great similarities, but ultimately it wasn't due to British military presence that the Irish troubles seem to be entering an end-phase now. BOTH sides - UK govt and the Republican movement accepted that there was no "military win" possible.
I don't really like the idea of this "ugly win" -- backing one side in the hope that it will serve the interests of an outside party. That's partly how Saddam become so entrenched in power. Back in the days of the Iran-Iraq war, lest anyone forget, certain outside parties (and I'm not just pointing at the US here, France and Britain were in there too) were happy to prop up Saddam and sell weapons etc when it looked like he was, if not our friend, at least our enemy's enemy. If anything, the "ugly win" is just resetting the clock on another disastrous "long-timescale lose". Better to let the local shake-down happen, withdraw any external scapegoats the locals can use to justify their sectarian violence, and see what emerges from the dust. I strongly suspect it won't be "Iraq" anymore, though.
:2cents:
Tribesman
05-12-2007, 12:21
Ahhh thank you tribesman you've presented an alternative in 08, This might be a nice out for the next president, not only can they blame Mr Bush for going in, but they can blame the Iraqi's for kicking us out.
Yeah but theres more ,the Badr boys are changing their parties name to reflect the situation as they see it .
Apparently there is no longer any need for an islamic revolution to make the State how they want it , they got it already .
I suppose thats what happens when you rush through writing an important document to meet a deadline and leave all the really important bits out . The really important bits are never going to be written now .:thumbsdown:
Yeah but theres more ,the Badr boys are changing their parties name to reflect the situation as they see it .
Apparently there is no longer any need for an islamic revolution to make the State how they want it , they got it already .
I suppose thats what happens when you rush through writing an important document to meet a deadline and leave all the really important bits out . The really important bits are never going to be written now .:thumbsdown:
Perhaps, but I am inclined to think that once we get the hell out of there the Kurds are going to pull some funny business in Kirkuk and set up thier own state (in practice, maybe not in name) eventually the sunni/shiite mess will play out with seperate states with a larger Iraq.
The worse part is having U.S. troops there and attempting to calm the place down just lets everyone else get thier ducks in a row, thier targets marked, and thier new leaders selected.
sadly the religious schisms prevent the political vacum from being filled, and we might need another dictator or two before we got something stable.
Sir Moody
05-13-2007, 02:46
Sadly it doesnt matter what we do or when we pull out there will be a civil war... tbh it seems like there allready is...
i would imagine this is what will happen
1)we finally pull out or are thrown out
2)in the south civil war breaks out openly with both sides trying to butcher the other
3)the kurds to the north fortify their land practically becoming their own state
4)Turkey invades northan iraq to stop the kurds
5)Iran invades the south under the guise of "ceaseing bloodshed" and there we have it northan iraq occupied by turkey southen iraq becomes part of greater iran...
the only way we can avoid this is to NOT pull out we need to practically occupy iraq for at least a decade to rebuild and calm the populace and we need to occupy it with 3 or 4 times the troops we have now ie conscription - there is imo no way we can avoid a civil war without massivly increasing our occupational forcesand not pulling out until we are sure the trouble has passed - we will never do that and so we may as well pull out now we have screwed it up enough allready
I don't see us being thrown out anytime soon- considering the Iraqi government is busy at the moment sending emissaries to the US and UK to convince our legislature not to push for a pullout.
Sir Moody
05-13-2007, 03:09
the current government maybe but come next election if we arnt allready out we may end up with a hardline government set on getting us out
rotorgun
05-13-2007, 04:45
the only way we can avoid this is to NOT pull out we need to practically occupy iraq for at least a decade to rebuild and calm the populace and we need to occupy it with 3 or 4 times the troops we have now ie conscription - there is imo no way we can avoid a civil war without massivly increasing our occupational forcesand not pulling out until we are sure the trouble has passed - we will never do that and so we may as well pull out now we have screwed it up enough allready
Nicley put Sir Moody. I am put in mind of the Roman occupation of Palestine during the Jewish Rebellion-The need to move in greater and greater force as the rebellion gained momentum and the Roman Syrian based legions came under attack. There were also several factions at odds with one another within the ranks of the Jewish insurgents, each vying for power and who would run the show after the Romans were defeated-a pipe dream in thier case.
The Romans solved this problem with a massive invasion of the region and eventual destruction of Jerusalem. Will the US be forced to do the same in order to save face? It is a conundrum that requires sober thought and wisdom-
qualities that seem to be lacking in either political party at this time.
"Cry HAVOC! And let slip the dogs of war!" Hamlet, William Shakespeare
Banquo's Ghost
05-13-2007, 09:53
The Romans solved this problem with a massive invasion of the region and eventual destruction of Jerusalem. Will the US be forced to do the same in order to save face? It is a conundrum that requires sober thought and wisdom-
qualities that seem to be lacking in either political party at this time.
No, because whatever the frothing-lips-brigade claims, the USA is not the Roman Empire and the American people is not a collection of heartless butchers that get their kicks by watching people die in the arena.
In other words, the people will not allow this kind of brutality - and they certainly won't sign up to be the conscripts drafted to inflict the necessary killing and destruction.
"Sober thought and wisdom" should immediately inform that multiplying the bloodshed and destruction onto a "Roman" scale to "save face" is an option of barbarity not available to modern democracies, least of all to the United States which despite recent mistakes, still stand for something.
Tribesman
05-13-2007, 10:01
I don't see us being thrown out anytime soon- considering the Iraqi government is busy at the moment sending emissaries to the US and UK to convince our legislature not to push for a pullout.
Is that the same Iraqi government that is in post#18 or is that a different Iraqi government .
rotorgun
05-13-2007, 20:24
No, because whatever the frothing-lips-brigade claims, the USA is not the Roman Empire and the American people is not a collection of heartless butchers that get their kicks by watching people die in the arena.
In other words, the people will not allow this kind of brutality - and they certainly won't sign up to be the conscripts drafted to inflict the necessary killing and destruction.
"Sober thought and wisdom" should immediately inform that multiplying the bloodshed and destruction onto a "Roman" scale to "save face" is an option of barbarity not available to modern democracies, least of all to the United States which despite recent mistakes, still stand for something.
Thank you Banquo for having such faith in the humanity of my countrymen, I agree with you entirely. I only meant that bit about the Romans rehtorically, sort of a way of fostering some idea of a "worst case" scenario. I should like to remind you though, that we are taking about the same peace-loving people who unleashed the Dresden firestorm, the war of annihilation of the Native Americans, fought a war of expansion against the Spanish to gain the Phillipines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. I shall not even mention but in passing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Pushed to the limit, the United States can indeed act in such a manner, and has done so in the past, for much less at times. I only hope that we have learned some of the lessons of the past. Our handling of Iraq has forced us to look inward at these demons and is an akward momement in history. I can't think how we will let go of this tiger's tail without getting bitten.
Certainly, if "pushed to the limit," we Americans are capable of anything. But then, so is anyone. In a real war for survival, we would behave quite differently.
Here's another article (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17218752.htm) about our options, breaking it down into "Staying the course," "Withdrawing the troops," and "Containing the damage." Worth a read.
Posted on Sun, May. 13, 2007
IRAQ WAR
U.S. options in Iraq could soon narrow, ranging from unpleasant to unthinkable
By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Now that moderate Republicans have told President Bush that time is running out on his Iraq policy, he'll have to demonstrate real progress in a matter of months or face choices that range from the highly unpleasant to the nearly unthinkable.
September, only four months away, is increasingly looking like a deadline. By then, it should be known whether Bush's "surge" strategy of increased U.S. troops in Iraq is having an impact and whether Iraqis have undertaken long-promised changes to ease sectarian warfare. The 2008 U.S. presidential election will be in full cry.
After more than four years of conflict in Iraq, analysts say, there aren't many options left.
As former U.S. officials Carlos Pascual and Kenneth Pollack, now scholars at the Brookings Institution, wrote recently:
"The four basic options facing this - and the next - administration are victory, stability, withdrawal and containment. Victory, as defined by President Bush, is not currently attainable."
Here is a look at some of the American options:
STAYING THE COURSE
The president has never wavered from his belief that "failure is not an option" in Iraq, and he may well try to stick to that strategy for the rest of his tenure.
"I don't think that Bush has any interest in giving up on Iraq," Pollack, a former CIA analyst and White House policymaker, said in an interview. "I think he's going to ride the surge until he's out of office."
Pollack and some other analysts, including Frederick Kagan of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who was an architect of the "surge" policy, say it's much too early to declare failure. Two of the five brigades of additional U.S. troops, each comprising about 3,500 soldiers, have yet to begin operations in Iraq, they note.
Yet by most accounts, the best that Bush can hope for now is a slow crawl toward stability. That would mean a reduction in - but not an end to - violence and moves toward national reconciliation on key issues, such as distributing oil revenues.
Key to calming tensions are Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, whom the Bush administration has only now begun lobbying.
Bush might find some public support for hanging tough, or at least avoiding a precipitous withdrawal. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans want to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, but few favor doing it immediately.
Yet the warning to Bush from 11 House Republicans on Tuesday underlines how the political ground will slip from under him if there's no progress and he rebuffs calls for change.
WITHDRAWING THE TROOPS
Even if a U.S. troop withdrawal began today, it would take at least eight to 10 months to get American soldiers, their equipment and the infrastructure they brought with them out of Iraq. Depending on the scenario, some U.S. troops would redeploy to other bases in and around the Middle East; many would return home.
Since taking control of Congress in January, Democrats have pushed for a withdrawal timetable.
Bush warns that leaving Iraq now would create a haven for Islamic terrorists, who could destabilize the Arab world and seek to attack the United States. (Al-Qaida had no presence in Iraq under the late President Saddam Hussein before the March 2003 U.S. invasion.)
But Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said that threat is overblown.
"I don't accept that. I think that runs counterintuitive to everything I know about the people in the Middle East," Hagel said in May 8 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds do not embrace al-Qaida. They do not support al-Qaida. They do not want al-Qaida running their country."
Others acknowledge the risks, but say they are outweighed by the costs of the war, including damage to U.S. prestige; a stretched Army; and the diversion from other terrorist threats. The debate on U.S. troops in Iraq essentially comes down to whether proponents thinks the risks are greater in staying or going.
"Sadly, at this point the best thing we can do is deliberately get out of there," said retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.
Won't Iraq become a terrorist safe haven? "It probably will be. But you know what? We created this condition," said Batiste, arguing that it's more important to fix the Army and rethink U.S. counterterrorism strategy.
A January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate warned that a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops "would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq." Al-Qaida in Iraq would use parts of the country to plan terrorist attacks inside and outside Iraq, the report said, and Turkey might invade to stop Kurdish moves toward independence.
Pollack, who was a supporter of overthrowing Saddam, said the Bush administration ignored all the risks of an invasion and assumed that the best-case scenarios would come to pass. Now, he warned, withdrawal supporters are making the same error.
"We shouldn't leave Iraq the same way we went into it," he said.
CONTAINING THE DAMAGE
If the United States decides it can't stop civil war in Iraq, an option short of withdrawal is to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq's cities and closer to its borders. There, they would provide haven for refugees fleeing the violence and try to stop foreign fighters from crossing into Iraq.
U.S. diplomacy would be pivotal in preventing Iraq from becoming a battlefield for its neighbors. Washington would have to persuade Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia not to intervene to defend their interests.
The past record of containing spillovers from civil war "is poor," states a January Brookings Institution report. "Despite these odds, if Iraq does descend into all-out civil war, the United States probably will have no choice but to try to contain it."
The report recommended more than a dozen steps, including establishing "catch basins" in Iraq borders to protect refugees. "This option would require the extensive and continued use of U.S. forces," it said.
Pollack acknowledged that containment "is going to be hard to make work" politically, not least because of the sight of U.S. soldiers ignoring the likely ethnic slaughter in Baghdad and other cities.
Another option, supported by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and others, is to partition Iraq into zones for Sunni Muslims, Shiites and Kurds. The proposal hasn't won wide backing.
rotorgun
05-15-2007, 20:19
That is a well written article Lemur. In any case except withdrawl, it is my belief that we will have to come to grips with this thing becoming a serious occupation. I forsee longer rotation periods, or even permenatly stationed divisions in Iraq-such as we are did in Europe after WWII and are still doing in Bosnia and Korea. It is unpallitable, but probably the only way to salvage the situation in a practical way. Rotating units in and out for year-long deployments is not providing the kind of continuity needed by the soldiers to really succeed.
As to moving the units out into the border regions, I am all for it. As soon as enough Iraqis are trained to protect the major cities, than we should do so. I also believe we will have to do something to secure our strategic economic interests, ie. the oil, until the Iraqi government is more secure.
Barring these options, than we should leave-just as fast as we can run out of there with our tails between our legs, and admit that we have failed. As I said, national honor will then be seriously eroded, but at least our soldiers will be out of it.
Where is the leadership? What have they done except try to keep the media on thier side? Have we become a nation of sheep? Where are the sentiments that we will " ...bear any cost, bear any burden" to ensure freedom?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.