O'Reilly: Dems are right, get out of Iraq now

[Navaros]

The people in Iraq are not crazy. They just have conviction strong enough to fight to the death, and do anything, to protect their faith from infidel institutions like democracy.

He is right that the USA soldiers are never going to be able to dull the fires in their hearts, hence they should pull out now because it's only going to keep getting worse and worse.

[Reenk Roink]

I could care less how many people with guns and bombs on both sides get killed. I just worry for the innocent men, women, and children who just want to live their lives...

[Tribesman]

i'm saying if the US pulls out now the country will implode and people will blame us cause we pulled out...upon there wishes.
Ah I see , so the situation is buggered , the glue that is holding it together , as you put it , is also ripping it apart .
Oh and in case you didn't notice , those peoples who you are saying are wishing for you to get out , are actually the people who said don't go there in the first place.
So get it right will you .If people say , pehaps you shouldn't have gone there , then don't try and blame them when you finally realise that perhaps you shouldn't have gone .


Nope. I'm still waiting. Give me a link if you have been down this road. I know I have asked you plenty of times what your solution was.

Well Divinus , this part should have told you enough ...
Tribesman: What is your answer to the Iraq war? What is your plan?
Ah , for that you will have to go back to find "President Tribesmans" inaugral address .
Though that won't work now , the situation is too far gone and there is no way the US population would swallow it , or be able to afford it .

As I said its too far gone , is there any viable solution anymore ?
I don't think so .
I will see if I can find the old post , but you know how much trouble it is to trawl through all the old backroom posts .
Oh, until then... like the idea of transfering peace keeping to a joint UN-Iraqi force.
That was one of the first parts , though not the joint Iraqi bit until a long way down the road .
And.....*Maybe* splitting up Iraq along ethnic lines would be a good thing.

That was an absolute no-no , no bloody way , stop right there , forget it , issue .
And there is a very very good reason for that .


It's easy to sit and point out problems. The hard part is coming up with solutions. And when you do come up with a solution, good luck on having enough people agree on it and good luck seeing it through to the end because the armchair quarterbacks will knock it a year in.

Yeah , thats funny , because if I recall correctly thats almost exactly the same post as led to me writing it in the first place , all this "you only moan about Iraq" , "you are always negative about iraq" , "whats your solution then"
.....and I think it got two replies , both just wanting further clarification on some minor points .
No responses at all from the gung-ho patriotic crowd

[Ice]

i'm saying if the US pulls out now the country will implode and people will blame us cause we pulled out...upon there wishes.

Indeed.

[Divinus Arma]

Yeah , thats funny , because if I recall correctly thats almost exactly the same post as led to me writing it in the first place

Sorry, a bit of a language barrier here. Led you to write what in the first place?

, all this "you only moan about Iraq" , "you are always negative about iraq" , "whats your solution then"
.....and I think it got two replies , both just wanting further clarification on some minor points .
No responses at all from the gung-ho patriotic crowd [/QUOTE]


What only got two replies?


I am genuinely interested. I think there is a misconception amongst folks out there that conservatives refuse to listen to other points. The problem is that there are no viable alternative solutions. I really would like to hear some, and that is why I have repeatedly asked you. It really is easy to point out problems, especially after a decision has been made. But pointing out problems are not going to help the situation. And this is exactly what the Democratic Party faces. They have become the pack of complainers and the Democratic leadership only leads at all by complaining the loudest. But we are not getting solutions from them. The ones who are offering solutions end up getting shouted down because those solutions mirror Republican Solutions. I give Hillary and Lieberman as examples.

Oersonally, I'm tired of hearing the complaints. There not even worth rguing anymore. The question is: What do you plan on doing to fix it?

[Tribesman]

Sorry, a bit of a language barrier here. Led you to write what in the first place?

President Tribesmans inaugral address .
What only got two replies?

See above

I am genuinely interested.
Hey , I will try and find the original post , but as I said it won't work , the will isn't there anymore , or the manpower , or the money .

The problem is that there are no viable alternative solutions.
Yep , you have ;
Pull out now ....bad move .
More of the same ....bad move .
completely new approach....OK but who is going to step into the abyss and who is going to pay for it ...and more importantly what are they hoping will be the end result ? three states , one state , democracy , stable dictatorship (apart from those that the dictator doesn't like) , long term standoff , containment ?

Oersonally, I'm tired of hearing the complaints.
Yep and I am tired of hearing how everything is going OK , and it isn't really that bad , or that its all the fault of the French , or people still posting "facts" that have been shown to be lies months or even years ago (I mean seriously someone even posted an article to back up a long disproven claim , without even realising that the article had a big write up on it saying that it had been shown to be Bull ).

Heres a thought , how about deploying some bhuddist peacekeeping forces , they should be fairly neutral .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The people in Iraq are not crazy. They just have conviction strong enough to fight to the death, and do anything, to protect their faith from infidel institutions like democracy.

Pssst. Their fighting over who has the right version of Islam. You remember when the christians went through this stage. How many wars were fouhjt between Protestant and Catholic. America is caught in the middle. This is why although I feel the invasion was justified I oppossed it from the start.

completely new approach....OK but who is going to step into the abyss and who is going to pay for it ...and more importantly what are they hoping will be the end result ? three states , one state , democracy , stable dictatorship (apart from those that the dictator doesn't like) , long term standoff , containment ?

As President itsyour call Tribesman. So pick your poison. Dont just give us a list of possibilties . Tell us what you would do. And how you would implement it.

Stop using your favorite tactic. That being beating around the Bush.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The people in Iraq are not crazy. They just have conviction strong enough to fight to the death, and do anything, to protect their faith from infidel institutions like democracy.

He is right that the USA soldiers are never going to be able to dull the fires in their hearts, hence they should pull out now because it's only going to keep getting worse and worse.

Err....

[Brenus]

I am afraid it isn’t so simple. You have to keep you face. The Russian did that very well in Afghanistan, parades, flowers and small flags, and immediately after the last tank, they blocked the bridge. The USA in Vietnam was less successful, even if the US didn’t lost the war, of course. Nor the Russians did, by the way… It is still time for the retreat in dignity (soviet option). I just hope that this time, all the decorum felt and a real politic will be engaged to resolve the mess done by this stupid and ill-prepared invasion.
Now, solutions: how tempting for a French, to give lessons…
Negotiate with the local terrorists. Well, difficult to swallow, but inevitable. Give back to the Iraqis the spoils of the war. Anyway, the future Iraqi Government will annulated all the contracts which were given to the US companies. Better to do like if you want to do it.
Stop importing mercenaries called security guards, employ locals. Create local markets, develop the schools, and stop torturing people and bombing wedding party. Stop using shell with phosphorus, even if it isn’t illegal, it bad for the image.
Put police instead of army. Not immediately, but RESOLVE things.
Stop to thing “we have the bigger guns so we will win”. Ho Chi Minh told us, French and American, was is a Revolutionary War. It is when a leader or a group of person are willing to loose as much people it needs to discourage the attackers.

[Adrian II]

The problem is that there are no viable alternative solutions.

Well, I can try. Here goes nothing.



A new strategy is impossible without a proper assessment of what went wrong. The critical failure in the Iraqi situation is the security vacuum that the United States created on April 9, 2003. The intervention created a failed state, a state apparatus that has all the formal trappings, but none of the meat and bones of a democracy. This is the real issue.

The ethnic strife, the growing impact of the insurgency and the foreign meddling in Iraqi affairs are mere symptoms of this lack of a credible, workable and respectable Iraqi state. What common sense dictates and what all polls, elections and media reports confirm is that Iraqi democracy can not grow under a state that can not provide or guarantee basic physical and economic security, freedom of movement, jobs, adequate medical care, gasoline, electricity, education, clean water, sanitation.

For this reason Iraqi’s turn to primitive patronage systems and organised crime, to tribal and religous affiliations, and to leadership by strongmen who promise to provide for their own etnic, religious or local group. This rot has progressed to the point where government minister are operating their own militias and deaths quads. The outcome of this is either an extremely violent split-up or an extremely violent new dictatorship under a second ‘Saddam’ (only this time clad in Shi’ite garb).

The real solution would to invest massively in the creation of a credible, workable and respectable Iraqi state. No more talk of ‘exit strategies’ – instead concentrate on ‘reconstruction strategies’. This will require an internationalisation of the foreign military presence (under UN auspices) to demonstrate to Iraq and its neighbours that this is no longer a uniquely American effort. It will require a doubling or tripling of troops on the ground. It will require a huge investment in the bulding of institutions and the training of staff for those institutions, which will take years and years . It will require a large degree of regional and local autonomy in most areas of government, but a centralised, internationally supervised distribution of Iraq’s oil wealth to make sure that oil revenues do not become a lever for those forces that would want to split up the country. It will require an Iraqi’s-first policy in the economy, where foreign companies only fulfill the tasks that can not be accomplished by Iraqi firms, and on condition that they employ and train Iraqi’s to eventually take over from foreign workers.

Is this going to happen? No. The U.S. is not going to give up military and political control of the situation, double or triple its troops on the ground, cancel contracts of its own companies, or take the trouble of training and equipping entire ministries over the course of the next ten to twenty-five years. Other countries will not be prepared massively invest or send troops under American supervision.

Hence my next-best-solution which I proposed before: a controlled split-up of the country in a Kurdish, a Sunnite and a Shi’ite rump-state, during and after which the U.S. acts as a guarantor that (1) no foreign meddling or intervention in either of the three parts shall take place, and (2) distribution of the country’s oil revenues shall be run and administered by an international body and enforced by American arms.

I am well aware of the risks this entails, but it is preferable to an early exit resulting in an uncontrolled split-up.

[Tribesman]

As President itsyour call Tribesman.
Thanks Gawain .
As your President I am now pleased to inform you that further progress has been made , i know you were all slightly worried when we announced that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of operating by themselves had dropped from 3 to 1 , in keeping with our steady program of advancement I can now announce that the number has increased from 1 to zero

So pick your poison. Dont just give us a list of possibilties . Tell us what you would do. And how you would implement it.

Oh thats simple , I want at least 500,000 troops in there now , I want all mercenaries out of there now , I want all non-specialst foriegn civilian contractors out of there now . Seal the borders , forcibly disarm the Pershmerga the Mahdi and Al-Badr , give the interior minisrty to the Turkomen and the Defense ministry to the Christians . The Kurds can get stuffed , they ain't getting their own state . The Iranians and Israelis can bugger off , any further interference will lead to a maritime blockade and withdrawel of all aid respectively .
And Turkey better get all its troops and agents back to its side of the border pronto , they are not America so they had better learn to hunt terrorists on their own territory right .
Now its time to go begging to the UN and trying to bribe all the nations to supply the troops and finance the operations , its gonna be a long haul having the whole country in lockdown for decades until the locals are thouroughly sick of the killing , lets give it say....50 years for a start .
Oh did I mention , learn to use the bus 'cos your gas prices are going through the roof , but then again sell the car as the massive tax hike means you cannot afford a car anyhow , but on a plus side you won't need a car as you is getting drafted , as there is no way that other countries are going to voluntarily supply the required amount of casualties ..errr..statistics...err ....heroes , yes thats it , gool ol' patrioric heroes .
I nearly forgot , accountants , proper ones this time , I ain't having billions of your tax dollars disappearing in the back of pick up trucks like last time . I did mention that I had used my special veto to overturn the block on further reconstruction funding didn't I .
On a brighter note I am hoping that the increased security will lead to an increase in the flow of Iraqi oil revenue to assist with the funding , we should soon be able to get back to the levels of a decade ago ,well maybe 5 years ago ,..possibly last years levels .....damn how about we try for the levels six months ago , OK OK , we will try to see if we can manage to pump almost as much as we did last month, but no promises right , you must understand , this presidenting isn't an easy job , if it was it could be left to any old halfwit like Bush .

[Xiahou]

Hence my next-best-solution which I proposed before: a controlled split-up of the country in a Kurdish, a Sunnite and a Shi’ite rump-state, during and after which the U.S. acts as a guarantor that (1) no foreign meddling or intervention in either of the three parts shall take place, and (2) distribution of the country’s oil revenues shall be run and administered by an international body and enforced by American arms.

Trouble there is that Turkey would literally be up in arms if you wanted to create an independant Kurdish state, and the Sunnis would be very unlikely to give up territorial claim to all of the oil wealth based on an assurance that it'll be split up fair. Then there's the fact that most Iraqis want a unified country not 3 independant states.

A new strategy is impossible without a proper assessment of what went wrong. The critical failure in the Iraqi situation is the security vacuum that the United States created on April 9, 2003. The intervention created a failed state, a state apparatus that has all the formal trappings, but none of the meat and bones of a democracy. This is the real issue.

It's still my belief that the biggest mistake made early on was the outright disolution of the Iraqi armed forces in their entirety. Even if we had just disarmed them, and coralled them on their bases until we could sort them out, it wouldve been an improvement, imo. When you take 10 of thousands of soldiers and tell them 1) You're not needed anymore- beat it and 2) You're not getting a paycheck to feed your families with anymore- tough luck; you're asking for problems. I think these soldiers made for easy recruiting for insurgent groups that promised them some action and some cash.

At this late stage, I think doubling or tripling troop levels would do nothing but make more targets, increase casualties and put an even bigger foreign face on the situation. What we need to continue doing is training up competent Iraqi forces and moving increasingly into the background as a supporting role when they need our combat expertise. Unless we're going to have a soldier following around every Iraqi man, woman, and child, I dont think numbers is going to solve this.

[Tribesman]

Trouble there is that Turkey would literally be up in arms if you wanted to create an independant Kurdish state,
Turkey is already up in arms , and in Iraq .
What you could say is that two more countries would be up in arms , with two or three more to a lesser extent .

Then there's the fact that most Iraqis want a unified country not 3 independant states.

Apart from the majority of the Kurds , who do want an independant State , and the minority of the shia arabs who want an independant state , not a majority , but a damn big chunck of the population .

Adrian , why do you think that a breakup along religeous or ethnic lines would work ?
The population is so fragmented it would involve huge movements of people (ignore the fact that the ethnic cleansing is already well underway anyhow) .
While the territorial claims for a Kurdish entity are no longer put forward on such a scale as they originally were , (they really claimed a hell of a lot of the middle east didn't they when they went to the League) and the major parties no longer lay claim to all of that territory , what you are talking about is a country where the nationalists will rise to the fore , and the real nationalists still hold to the original claims .
Besides which you have two really vehemently opposing parties with a long history of conflict between them , at present on a very heavily subsidised ceasefire , yet both with their arms stores and armed forces mainly intact . One group outnumbers the other by roughly 3-1 , how long do you think the ceasefire would continue ?
Fair enough , splitting the country is an option , but can you think of any situation where a region has been split up on religeous /ethnic lines with lots of people finding themselves on the wrong side of the line , that hasn't ended up in a complete brutal , bloody mess that has ended up going on for decades ?
Well there is the Czech Republic and Slovakia , but that isn't really the same is it (and the Slovaks are a bit miffed at their part of the deal) .


Oh Xiahou .....What we need to continue doing is training up competent Iraqi forces .........I dont think numbers is going to solve this.
You are right , three - one - zero are not really the numbers that suggest progress towards training anything competent are they .
Sorry , couldn't resist it .

[Divinus Arma]

Now this is a discussion I like. My God. Recommendations. Potential solutions. What I like most is seeing the similarities within the left and the right on some issues. I won't play the tear down game because frankly I am seeing inconsistencies from every party these days, even back here. And I am guilty too. Sometimes I say "Sheet of Glass" and other days I say "Sheet of colored Glass".

But seriously, good discussion goin here. Everyone seems to agree that cutting and running is pretty much nuts, right?


There seems to be an interesting divide on troop levels.

Xiahou says that we need to maintain troop levels in order to keep an Iraqi face on the sitruation. He also affirms that we need to keep training Iraqi forces, and gradually replace foreign troops with Iraqi troops.

Tribesman, on the other hand, wants to triple or quadruple current troop levels, but increase troop levels with a true multinational force under, prehaps, the banner of the UN. He is opposed to security contractors because of the negative PR perception. Tribesman, no mention of Iraqi troops here?

Adrian II also wants an increase in troop levels, also from a multinational force under an international banner like the UN. He also seems to favor Iraqi forces gradually taking over their own security, but that is only indirectly alluded to with a foreign responsibility to "train Iraqi’s to eventually take over from foreign workers".

Brenus also wants to see "Iraqiazation" of the security forces, and Solypsist seems to favor as complete withdrawal, as does Reenk Roink.

I have stated that I favor a multinational force and am willing to explore the possibility of a controlled break-up.

As I was reading everyone's arguments, I though of our own U.S. system and the colonial squabbles for representation that occurred during the formation of our constituion after the Articles of Confederation failed. What struck me was the need to balance local needs against population size. How could Rhode Island, as small as it was, hope to have say in governance against a population behemoth like Virginia? Well, in the U.S the answer was a bicameral legislation. Why has this not been implemented in Iraq? A bicameral house with a lower population-based House of Representatives, and a second, more senior, Senate with equal regional power? The Kurds would hold 1/3 of this Senate, as would both the Sunnis and the Shiites. This, of course, would be generally by region and not ethnicity. The lower house would be divided based on population only.

That would seem a reasonable answer to political power sharing, which is one of the major sources of pain right now.

As for troop levels, I think a huge multi-national force and increase in troop levels would be a good thing. True, it does put a foreign face on the situation. But at least it is not an American face, my country which is being seen by some as an oppressor. I think it is reasonable to conclude that this new international face would be construed as a positive thing. Further, regualr rotation of regional responsibility among participating countries would give Iraqis a whole new exposure to the "global environment" that we all indeed share. Of course, as Iraqis themselves become more proficient in law enforcment, they would assume additional responsibility. This would also work to curb mob rule, criminal enterprises, and local regional warlordism.

In order to make this work, the United States would need to negotiate hard and heavy across the board. It would cost us tremendously in terms of international political power, but that is a very worthwhile trade off. It may, in fact, bring the U.S. closer to its traditional allies, which will be necessary in order to counterbalance rapidly growing Chinese power.

[Xiahou]

As I was reading everyone's arguments, I though of our own U.S. system and the colonial squabbles for representation that occurred during the formation of our constituion after the Articles of Confederation failed. What struck me was the need to balance local needs against population size. How could Rhode Island, as small as it was, hope to have say in governance against a population behemoth like Virginia? Well, in the U.S the answer was a bicameral legislation. Why has this not been implemented in Iraq? A bicameral house with a lower population-based House of Representatives, and a second, more senior, Senate with equal regional power? The Kurds would hold 1/3 of this Senate, as would both the Sunnis and the Shiites. This, of course, would be generally by region and not ethnicity. The lower house would be divided based on population only.

I seemed to remember polls from very early on in the occupation that said Iraqis favored and American-style government.... instead, they ended up getting a more European-style government. Maybe Im biased, but I do perform our system. I wonder if in Iraq, they were afraid of creating a powerful executive branch that could've accumulated too much power.... Meh, who knows?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow, Tribe, that was a damn fine answer. I don't agree on all points, but you make a good argument and your solution isn't a bad one.

Interesting degree of commonality here. I've suggested before that suppression needs a 10-1 ratio. Tribe's 450k speaks to that clearly. The real problem is getting 400+k of decent troops in country, even multi-national. Just how many could the NATO powers put in -- and lets face it, there will be no PLA or Russians showing up.

The easiest blend of the above mentioned is to establish three to seven "states" with their own local government and an overarching federal structure. Bicameral legislature would help this. I'd probably advocate two armed forces: a carabinieri-style heavy police force under the control of a multiple member supreme court and a national army directly responsible to the chief executive -- who should not be part of the legislature. The legislature balances this by having full control of the paychecks.

Problem with 3 truly separate "rump" states is the instant war with Turkey for one of them. That and the fact that the "ethnic" parties are almost as hodge-podged as they are in the Balkans.

[Divinus Arma]

I seemed to remember polls from very early on in the occupation that said Iraqis favored and American-style government.... instead, they ended up getting a more European-style government. Maybe Im biased, but I do perform our system. I wonder if in Iraq, they were afraid of creating a powerful executive branch that could've accumulated too much power.... Meh, who knows?

If so, they certainly could have put in more aggressive checks on the executive branch- a 2/3 vote in the house along with a majority vote in the Senate for impeachment perhaps? Either way, I agree with ya.

[Major Robert Dump]

Just curious if anyone has read about or knows people in the military who are dealing with the Iraqi forces because the situation is a real stinker.

500 sign up. After first paycheck, 150 are left. They are seperated from US forces in bases by huge walls, they are fueding within the police thanks to the same reasons as a possible civil war, they sell each other out, they allow IEDs to be placed within plain view of their watchposts and then say "i didn't see nuthin!" when it blows up some real soldiers, the early stages of the team building failed due to situations where they were understaffed and underarmed and without supplies and people abandoned their posts never to come back because they felt the Americans were't giving them enough support and heres the big one....

The food sucks. Anyone who is or has been in the military knows how important it is to have good, plentiful chow for the men.

I feel like the teambuilding failure in the early stages lost us decent recruits who never came back. Now its a mix of a few people who really believe what they are doing, and a bunch of others in it for a paycheck who will run when you say "boo"

Of course, building an army is only half the problem, the other is finding the people to control the army who aren't going to dismantle the constitution and declare a monarchy the day the coalition pulls out

[Divinus Arma]

I just said alot of stuff and Divinus Arma wants to reference it all without wasting space. Heh.

MRD, you just said alot of stuff and I wanted to reference it all without wasting space.

Yes. This is a problem. So what is your solution?
(This has turned into such a productive thread, let's try to keep it that way. )

Here is the word I get from my former boss who now conducts training with the Iraqi forces. Essentially, the problem has been one of culture dissimilarity between the U.S. and Iraqi People. The UNited States attempted to train Iraqis like they were Americans, ignoring cultural dissimilarity in an attmept to bring them to an American standard. Big Mistake. The Iraqi people are so incredibley primitive in terms of military culture that it is inconceivable to one who has not seen both first hand.
One big example- the sharing of knowledge. In the U.S. Military, training is a must, and NCOs and leaders take great pains to see that training is conducted so that the mission can be accomplished. Well not so in the Iraqi military culture. There, knowledge is something to be hoarded, because it gives an individual esteem and social power to be more knowledgable. So trying to get Iraqis to train each other is next to impossible.
Another example- social time. Iraqis like to sit and socialize over the most minor thing for hours and hours on end. Decision making grinds to a halt because leaders sit and smoke pipes or drink tea until midnight every single night. Nothing gets done. They just posture, bloviate, and fuss over their perception of macho image all night long.

The cultural difference has all but crippled the initial US training plan. So, about a year ago, the U.S. started to try and work within the Iraqi culture instead of forcing the Iraqis into the American mold. We accepted that the basic Iraqi unit is going to be far far less proficient when compared against a U.S. unit. There will be a very few instances of Iraqi elite units, and these will come from individuals who are willing to adopt the American military culture only. The bulk, however, will be barely proficient.

[Redleg]

Just curious if anyone has read about or knows people in the military who are dealing with the Iraqi forces because the situation is a real stinker.

My brother is training Iraqi troops. Along with his company. Haven't got much of an update yet.

If I good any decent information from him - I just might share it.

[Redleg]

MRD, you just said alot of stuff and I wanted to reference it all without wasting space.

Yes. This is a problem. So what is your solution?
(This has turned into such a productive thread, let's try to keep it that way. )

Here is the word I get from my former boss who now conducts training with the Iraqi forces. Essentially, the problem has been one of culture dissimilarity between the U.S. and Iraqi People. The UNited States attempted to train Iraqis like they were Americans, ignoring cultural dissimilarity in an attmept to bring them to an American standard. Big Mistake. The Iraqi people are so incredibley primitive in terms of military culture that it is inconceivable to one who has not seen both first hand.
One big example- the sharing of knowledge. In the U.S. Military, training is a must, and NCOs and leaders take great pains to see that training is conducted so that the mission can be accomplished. Well not so in the Iraqi military culture. There, knowledge is something to be hoarded, because it gives an individual esteem and social power to be more knowledgable. So trying to get Iraqis to train each other is next to impossible.
Another example- social time. Iraqis like to sit and socialize over the most minor thing for hours and hours on end. Decision making grinds to a halt because leaders sit and smoke pipes or drink tea until midnight every single night. Nothing gets done. They just posture, bloviate, and fuss over their perception of macho image all night long.

The cultural difference has all but crippled the initial US training plan. So, about a year ago, the U.S. started to try and work within the Iraqi culture instead of forcing the Iraqis into the American mold. We accepted that the basic Iraqi unit is going to be far far less proficient when compared against a U.S. unit. There will be a very few instances of Iraqi elite units, and these will come from individuals who are willing to adopt the American military culture only. The bulk, however, will be barely proficient.

This is the exact same problem faced by Americans training just about any military unit in the Middle-East.

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, no mention of Iraqi troops here?

Its in there Divinus ....give the interior minisrty to the Turkomen and the Defense ministry to the Christians .
At present they are run by the Shia and the Kurd , each are still operating death squads (despite some people only mentioning the Shia ones) , any one being currently appointed to roles under the jurisdiction of either ministry who is not aligned (and that means neutral as well) with the people running those departments is either dismissed or has an unfortunate accident .

I also mention the progress of level 1 troops....three - one - zero
I had thought that the dismissal of the 270 unreliable troops from the single battalion would ensure that it stayed in there , but perhaps the replacements are the reason for lowering its status .
That being said there has been an increase in the numbers of level 2 battalions .


Tribesman, on the other hand, wants to triple or quadruple current troop levels, but increase troop levels with a true multinational force under, prehaps, the banner of the UN
Yep , but how are you going to get the UN to agree in the first place , how on earth are you going to get countries to voluntarily commit enough troops , as you will not be able to get enough how do you sell it to the US that they will supply the bulk of the troops but will not be in command ?
As I said before , it ain't gonna work .

He is opposed to security contractors because of the negative PR perception.
Nope , I oppose it because of the cost and lack of accountability .


Wow, Tribe, that was a damn fine answer
no Seamus , thats pretty much the same crap as I wrote last year , (but can't find on the forum) the only differences since that is that I don't bother metioning the Arab league this time , and Al-Sadr has risen to take more of a role .

Just curious if anyone has read about or knows people in the military who are dealing with the Iraqi forces because the situation is a real stinker.

One real problem , (apart from those that just join up for the paycheck) (BTW they still appear in the released figures even if they leave after a week)
is the many different levels of authority they have to work under .
Not only do they have the coilition and central government , there is the two rival factions running the two security departments , then in the North you have the automonous council , and everywhere you have the regional councils , the town councils , the religeous councils , the tribal elders .
Each has a massive input , varying objectives , varying levels of co-operation and varying levels of loyalty as far as each individual troop is concerned .

[Adrian II]

Adrian, why do you think that a breakup along religious or ethnic lines would work?

Remember this is plan B. So the break-up will have to be made to work. The world is not prepared to put in the massive long-term investment needed to make a unitary state work, fend off all outside interference, discipline the Peshmergas and the Shi'ite militias, boycot Israel, etcetera. That's a given.

The best (interim) solution is a controlled break-up. Most ethnic break-ups were extremely bloody because they were uncontrolled processes. In fact what we are seeing today in Iraq is just such a process. The world will have to accept the separatist logic just as it did with regard to the former Yugoslavia after the interminable civil wars of the 1990's. The Yugoslav civil war started as an uncontrolled break-up, it ended as a controlled break-up because of U.S. interventions. In the end the United States (in the person of their envoy, who was none other than Mr Galbraith mentioned above) sanctioned the Croatian invasion of the Serb Krajina as part of the definitive, imposed settlement of Dayton. Yugoslavia is no more, but the fighting has stopped...

[rory_20_uk]

We can help matters, but Europe has had enough of sorting out other countries' problems. It will require the locals to wish for the process to happen. If it is seen as outsiders dictating, it will not work. Sometimes a country has to be forged in blood to create a functioning unit. I hope not, but it's not up to British troops to continue to get shot at by both sides, and then greeted with howls of rage at home when finally it gets too much and they fight back.

Build wind farms in Texas, solar pannels in Arizona - reduce the need for oil in the region.

If they ask for help, we should consider giving it, but to jump in as if we know the answer to a problem when the locals don't is a recepie for disaster - as we are seeing.

[Fragony]

No friggin way that would work AdrianII, most conflicts are ethnic and trancend the iraqi borders. Splitting up Iraq will make it even harder for it's neightbouring countries. Kurdish Turkey would want to join the kurds, etc etc. Why make a small mess a big mess.

[Adrian II]

No friggin way that would work AdrianII, most conflicts are ethnic and trancend the iraqi borders. Splitting up Iraq will make it even harder for it's neightbouring countries. Kurdish Turkey would want to join the kurds, etc etc. Why make a small mess a big mess.

The same things were said about the break-up of former Yugoslavia, yet the region has been pacified by Dayton and the Kosovo intervention.

[rory_20_uk]

Shouldn't the Kurds be allowed to have the right to persue their own country? It's what they want, and have wanted for years. Why should the local powers be allowed to be imperialists in preventing them from doing so? The only reason I can think of is that the Kurds are divided and weak, and we the West have nothing to gain from backing them, but have a lot to loose.

Altering many boundries in the Middle East could lead to fewer tensions in the long run as peoples are finally placed in the ethnic countries where they want ot be.

[Fragony]

The same things were said about the break-up of former Yugoslavia, yet the region has been pacified by Dayton and the Kosovo intervention.

But that was only the ethnic breakup of a country(And it is far from pacified, it's a truce), here it would mean the ethinc breakup of a great part of middle-east/Asia. Nobody would know where the borders are, civil war in iraq is bad enough as it is, why make it even bigger. Better let he people in Iraq get used to the idea that Iraq is here to stay and that they will have to work together. May take a while though.

[Adrian II]

But that was only the ethnic breakup of a country(And it is far from pacified, it's a truce), here it would mean the ethinc breakup of a great part of middle-east/Asia.

No way. These are the same overblown fears that used to be voiced with regard to former Yugoslavia: 'The Russians are bound to intervene, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey will be drawn into the conflict, etcetera'. None of that transpired. If anything, the break-up has served to allay concerns in surrounding countries.

[Fragony]

No way. These are the same overblown fears that used to be voiced with regard to former Yugoslavia: 'The Russians are bound to intervene, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey will be drawn into the conflict, etcetera'. None of that transpired. If anything, the break-up has served to allay concerns in surrounding countries.

You know more words then me so you are probably right, but it could be argued that Iraq wasn't founded in a natural way and that it is little more then 3 races trapped within borders, and every race 'had' his own land before at the other side. Borders don't really mean anything then, not for Iraq, and not for it's neightbours, they weren't fought over, it was just decided where they should be. Iraq could become an epicentre for something a whole lot worse then what we are seeing now.