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.
Printable View
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.
If I was president? If Blair was president? Which one?:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Is there an ignore function on this board?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Yes there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:
Nice one - thanks ~:)
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.
(emphasis mine)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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...
Is that all ? I mean, convincing the PM to confront the Shia militias with Iraqi troops ? Or is there more ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
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.
Thank you, Lemur.
edit: btw, the Ledger link you provided says "Service Unavailable". I'll try it again later.
Here's the best summary I could find that had as little editorializing as possible. Be sure to read both pages. :bow:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Yeah. I 'get' that. And I've gotten that here for some time. Let me re-phrase the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Productivity
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.
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.
Thats been done so many times why not rephrase it entirely .Quote:
Let me re-phrase the question:
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 .
While at the site why not have a read of this .Quote:
Here's the best summary I could find that had as little editorializing as possible. Be sure to read both pages.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/...ord.php?page=1
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?
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
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.
:shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
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.
No argument there, BG. To quote your words from the 'in the 6' thread:
My hope for an inspired, truly new approach, from the guy we pay to be our primary Leader was:Quote:
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
-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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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'?
I would concur with this approach except:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Erm... you forgot the 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.Quote:
How does that strike his Excellency the Ambassador Plenipoteniary for the great State of California to the United Orgahs?
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.
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
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 .Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Yes indeed, the whole area has been fractured terribly. But one has to at least try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
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.Quote:
But they can wait. As you note, the US is going to leave one day
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.
Wellll... is that really the case ? I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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 ?