"Stay the Course" out, "Change" In

[ezrider]

Link

It looks like The Bush Administration is now about adapting to the enemy and their tactics. To achieve this they dropped the "Stay the course" rhetoric and set out a timetable for relieving itself of the responsibility of Iraqi National Security.

12 to 18 months is apparently how much time is needed to wrap this up and hand over to the Iraqis. The strategy for doing this however remains the same. No coincidence that this month has seen high U.S. and Iraqi casualties and is only a few short weeks before the Mid terms.

What d'ya reckon?

[Goofball]

Link

It looks like The Bush Administration is now about adapting to the enemy and their tactics. To achieve this they dropped the "Stay the course" rhetoric and set out a timetable for relieving itself of the responsibility of Iraqi National Security.

12 to 18 months is apparently how much time is needed to wrap this up and hand over to the Iraqis. The strategy for doing this however remains the same. No coincidence that this month has seen high U.S. and Iraqi casualties and is only a few short weeks before the Mid terms.

What d'ya reckon?

Agreed. The mid-term elections have prompted the admin to roll out an all new cunning array of stunts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not so sure GelCube.

So far, the Iraqis aren't --en masse -- showing enough "stand up," to enable our stand down. If this gooses their efforts a bit.....

[Ronin]

Mebbe. I just want to see Iraq done right. When we leave, however long that is from now, we should be leaving a stable, federalist, democratic republic in our wake.

damn right! and if the iraquis don´t want it......tought ****

[Samurai Waki]

I don't think the Iraqis really care whether they have a stable democracy or not, I think what they do care about is not waking up in the morning to a Salvo of Gunshots ringing in their ears, and then having to duck, roll, and cover every 3 feet as they try to walk to work.

[CrossLOPER]

Even if we take the welfare of the Iraqis out of the equation, it is imperative we "stay the course" until we succeed in our goal: Set up a stable democracy. We can't afford to "lose" another war.

If we pulled out now, we'd just be losers, like the French. It'd take a looong time for our national ego to recover.

Good luck with your hopeless enterprise.

[IRONxMortlock]

Even if we take the welfare of the Iraqis out of the equation, it is imperative we "stay the course" until we succeed in our goal: Set up a stable democracy. We can't afford to "lose" another war.

If we pulled out now, we'd just be losers, like the French. It'd take a looong time for our national ego to recover.

So how many thousand Iraqi lives is America's ego worth? How about the USAs safety? How many innocent people must pay with their lives for that?

I think the only possible solution to the incredible disaster Iraq has become is to make three autonomous states. A kurdish state, a sunni state and a shia state. There will have to be some kind of arrangement where the sunni state receives large ammounts of aid so that they aren't just left with a big chunk of worthless desert in the middle of the country while the kurdish and shia states pave their streets enjoy all the oil wealth.

This will never happen though. The LAST thing the US wants is for the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves to come under Shia control. They might want to join up or make a close alliance with their Shia brothers across the boarder in Iran. Maybe Iran would then decide to nationalise the entire oil industry? Well, from the example of 1953 we know that even a democractic Iran can't be allowed to do that! That would be taking freedom too far.

Off topic - Just noticed you're off to the military soon GC. As a former army officer my advice is simply this: Don't let them mess with your head!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, from the example of 1953 we know that even a democractic Iran can't be allowed to do that! That would be taking freedom too far.

Nationalisation has nothing to do with freedom, just stealing the hard-earned effort of others.

Crazed Rabbit

[Samurai Waki]

sometimes it is a more honourable thing to admit defeat on this battlefield, than to lead fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters into believing that everything is worth the blood price, for an injust purpose, and a vague cause.

We can win, but at what cost? 3000 lives can easily multiply in a number of years...3000 doesn't sound so bad, do we wait until it becomes 30,000? or 300,000?

[Samurai Waki]

Than we might as well pack up our bags and leave for New USA, otherwise known as mars, because humans are humans, we fight, we hate, and we terrorise for whatever cause it may very well be, it's a hopeless struggle, unless we get rid of the problem at hand, and that is humanity and belief.

[CrossLOPER]

There is far more honor in seeing this through to the finish, no matter what the cost. And I don't mean just Iraq, I mean the whole War on Terror.

lol War on [insert noun here]

[Samurai Waki]

lol War on [insert noun here]

Bad Manners ...now thats a cause I could fight for.

[CrossLOPER]

Bad Manners ...now thats a cause I could fight for.

You missed it.

[Samurai Waki]

And how are we going to do that exactley? It's not such an easy thing to march into a sovereign nation with gun's a'blazing and expect good results, as we've found out...twice. Movements generally peter themselves out, before we can do anything about them militarily. We just reinforce what we have, expand our economy, and leave them to their misery... What will the Fundimentalists have to fight for if they don't have any real enemy to fight? Sod their oil, and their Baba Ghannouj, and then these soldiers will be scratching their heads wondering why they haven't been paid in six months.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

We win the war by destroying these countries, and doing what we can to ensure that they are in no position to repeat past transgressions in the near future.

By destroying countries you can only worsen the situation. The "movement" of terrorism does not rely on states and their infrastructure. That's why it is so popular and widespread in undelepoved areas. Furthermore by destroying countries you can only make an example. Examples do no hold for long and there is the added risk of more terrorism breeding. And besides uing force to force a country and its civilians to "repeat past transgressions" qualifies as terror. So you lose your high moral ground (if any). So good work, your proposed strategy is the ideal to send you around chasing ghosts and getting no results.

The only way to eliminate terrorism is through raising living standards, education, secularisation and perhaps stop blindly supporting Israel. It has go you in enough trouble as it is, don't you think?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The War on Terror is not war on an idea. It is war on a movement. That movement being the existing well-supplied, capable, and high-infrastructure extremist movement that is out to cause the USA harm. This movement has its bases and support in many countries. We win the war by destroying these countries, and doing what we can to ensure that they are in no position to repeat past transgressions in the near future.

The "movement" as you call it, is nothing more than a common idea. You cannot fight it like you fight a country. There doesn't ever need to be an actual conection between different cells, other than the idea.

Your view, as well as you enthusiasm for "Federal Democracy" is exactly the problem.

What if the Iraqi's don't want a Federal Democray? What if they want a Constitutional Monarchy? Or a non-Federal DEmocracy, such as we had in the UK a decade ago.