Just wondering

[Odin]

does the fulfulment of a stated condition change everything or not ?

If I understand you correctly (in the context of the post) well yes the fulfulment of a stated condition does change everything. If the fulfilment of the condition was the prerequsite for change, yes of course.

Now there a really funny thing about this , there was this bloke , his name escapes me at the moment , but apparently there was this plan of sorts where the money from the oil would be used for the rebuilding and stabilisation funding and he voted in favour of the plan .

Its a real knee slapper for me a fiscal conservative. The whole premise of the war was the WMD thing, and a sub premise was changing hearts and minds and spreading democracy (an expensive crock if you ask me). Well the WMD fell through, and we havent won hearts and minds so what left to be taken out of this mess as a positive?

Sure my rational is self serving but for me war is an excersise that should only be done when there is a potential gain to be had, either through some measured treasure or an enhanced political alliance.

Iraq has bore no fruit for the U.S. on any level that I can see, so for me I want to cut our losses and pull out and take what we can from this to defer the costs (on as many levels as possible). The worst that happens is universal condemnation and a loss of prestige/credability, which is already ongoing anyway.

[nokhor]

if democracy and civil liberties are no longer possible in iraq. the u.s. by pulling out now, will be indirectly responsible for several hundred thousand more iraqi deaths in the ensuing civil wars and partitions of iraq. after the rubble clears, iraq will more likely than not be under a control of a sadaam hussein II who built his power base on a pyramid of skulls and him and the general iraqi population will be actively hostile to the americans. not the passive crap that iran and n. korea are doing now with statements and declarations and little kidnappaing dramas, but active crap like officially recognizing al qaida and giving them their own turf and oil revenues since they were part of the solution in kicking out the americans. could you imagine and al qaida leader as education minister of iraq and what would be coming our way 20 years from now? as messed up as the situation currently is, i think the u.s. would prefer a saddam hussein II who is beholden to them as opposed to a sadaam hussein II whose politcal power is based on hatred and confrontation with the americans.

[Odin]

if democracy and civil liberties are no longer possible in iraq. the u.s. by pulling out now, will be indirectly responsible for several hundred thousand more iraqi deaths in the ensuing civil wars and partitions of iraq. after the rubble clears, iraq will more likely than not be under a control of a sadaam hussein II who built his power base on a pyramid of skulls and him and the general iraqi population will be actively hostile to the americans. not the passive crap that iran and n. korea are doing now with statements and declarations and little kidnappaing dramas, but active crap like officially recognizing al qaida and giving them their own turf and oil revenues since they were part of the solution in kicking out the americans. could you imagine and al qaida leader as education minister of iraq and what would be coming our way 20 years from now? as messed up as the situation currently is, i think the u.s. would prefer a saddam hussein II who is beholden to them as opposed to a sadaam hussein II whose politcal power is based on hatred and confrontation with the americans.

given your view, do you have any solutions to offer?

in my opinion we are stuck in a status quo holding pattern, based on the failure to conduct the war correctly from the start. We cant go back and change the past, nor is thier any more political will to carry on in Iraq.

A pullout will happen, it just seems to me that holding onto the status quo for as long as possible is akin to the dutch boy putting his finger in the holes of the dam.

I guess I want out before it bursts because I dont see a way to improve this situation as is. For the record I dont dispute your potential outcome either, but my question is, is it better to go now or later?

[Ice]

given your view, do you have any solutions to offer?

Yes. If it was up to me, I'd recommend that another 200,000 troops be sent over to Iraq. I don't feel like having another Middle Eastern country collapse into an insane Islamic Republic that is even more hardcore than present day Iran.

In hindsight, we should have left Saddam in power. He countered Iran and kept order.

[Odin]

Yes. If it was up to me, I'd recommend that another 200,000 troops be sent over to Iraq. I don't feel like having another Middle Eastern country collapse into an insane Islamic Republic that is even more hardcore than present day Iran.

In hindsight, we should have left Saddam in power. He countered Iran and kept order.

You and I have similar positions, it was a mistake to remove Saddam, and the next best solution to pulling out now is a mamoth surge. The political will for the later is non exsistant in the U.S. now, they waited to long.

[Whacker]

You and I have similar positions, it was a mistake to remove Saddam, and the next best solution to pulling out now is a mamoth surge. The political will for the later is non exsistant in the U.S. now, they waited to long.

Make that 3 of us. As to your earlier comments about the point of war Odin, I'm inclined to agree with them. However, I don't see this as being about WMDs, Saddam, or really even oil. I think it's about the US looking to establish a place where we have a firm toehold for projection of power in the area. Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all but kicked out our military forces. Right or wrong (I think it's wrong), that's what I believe the firm goal is. The oil is secondary.

It seems to me that the most important thing to ensure in the country is stability. Not an easy prospect, by any means. The way we are attempting to bring this about doesn't seem to be working, but were we to withdraw, I have no doubt that the situation would become a great deal more chaotic.

I don't believe this is even remotely possible anymore, though any means whatsoever, as such I am in favor of a quick pullout.

Let's go back to the example in another thread of the bar. (by "you" in this thread I'm speaking figuratively, not at anyone) You're the cop in the bar, and there's 3 guys who want to burn it and themselves down, and you're the only thing that's stopping them (barely). In addition, there are 97 other people who'd go up in flames with the bar.

My firm position is that since it's not your bar nor your jurisdiction, you shouldn't have been there to begin with. And regarding those 97 other "innocents", it is both their perogative and duty, that if they want to restore order and keep the peace in their bar, they need to step up to the plate and do something about those 3 guys making trouble. If they don't, then they have earned whatever is coming to them. Sorry if that's harsh, but that's reality. If I were in the same position here, as much as I do not want to lose my life, I would fight for the same of my family, friends, and loved ones.

Freedom isn't free. If the Iraqi people truly want to be 'free' in the sense of a democratic government and establishing order and a measure of peace, then they have to fight for it, just like everyone else did.

[doc_bean]

Would it be possible to withdraw to a less visible position instead of staying there as an occupation force ? (Withdrawing to ships or military bases away from the cities). That way the Iraqi's have a chance to sort this mess out themselves while the Americans are still close by in case it all gets out of hand and they're (even more) on the edge of a civil war. And the leaders would still know you're there so they'd be a little more careful. If things somehow sort themselves out (doubtful, but can the iraqi screw up worse than the current coalition ?) you could start withdrawing troops.

Whatever happens I think it's important to get sunnis and sjiites back together, no one benefits from them killing eachother (unless you want that to escalade in a civil war across the Arab world, thus making them focused on killing eachother instead of attacking the US/Israel, but I doubt that would ever work, it's quite an immoral plan in any case).

I don't really see what the US can still do there, I've always been in favour of increasing the troop numbers to keep stability, but now I fear it's too late, it's not just rebels anymore, they've become organised, it's politics now, and unless you *really* want to occupy them almost indefinitely I don't think more troops will help. (For the record, I was always opposed to the Iraq war, but if you're going to do something, do it right.)

So yes, I've changed my mind, start pulling back the troops.

[Tribesman]

All of the intelligence points to the fact that Hussein had WMD's which he shipped out (probably to Syria) during the run-up to the war. Of course, the administration couldn't fall back on this information when they were being called liars, because to do so would have begged the question of why we weren't invading Syria.

So tempting ......but I shall leave it for now .

Yes. If it was up to me, I'd recommend that another 200,000 troops be sent over to Iraq.

Would 200,000 more be enough ?
Considering the existing hostiity to the coilition presence , would they be put in as part of the coilition or would a different authority be a better idea(if of course another authority would be willing or able to step up)?

[Odin]

As to your earlier comments about the point of war Odin, I'm inclined to agree with them. However, I don't see this as being about WMDs, Saddam, or really even oil. I think it's about the US looking to establish a place where we have a firm toehold for projection of power in the area.

I think thats where we are at now, and in all honesty I suspect thats where we will end up when the whole thing is wrapped up. A few military installations that allow for logistic support and potential special op force deployment.

I dont know if we are going to end up with the mamoth bases we had in Germany, japan and South Korea in comparisson, due to the hostile populace.

[Somebody Else]

In hindsight, we should have left Saddam in power. He countered Iran and kept order.

I quite agree. However, what's done is done.

It seems to me that the most important thing to ensure in the country is stability. Not an easy prospect, by any means. The way we are attempting to bring this about doesn't seem to be working, but were we to withdraw, I have no doubt that the situation would become a great deal more chaotic.

It worries me that the sensible option might be to pick the most moderate warlord we can find, and raise him to the top. It worries me, because this would completely compromise the ideals that we (supposedly or not, this is not a point to argue) went in on. Question is, who would be suitable, or at least, who would be least unsuitable?

And, once the country is stable, perhaps some purges &c. will take place, and we'll wring our hands at what we've done for a while. But in time, in time, we might be able to very gently sway matters towards what we think of as the right and proper way for a country to operate.

Whatever way it happens, I doubt peace will come in our generation. Probably not the next. This will take a lot of time to heal.

*

Time to get on with my hangover.

[Del Arroyo]

I heard 300,000 for the protesters. As far as the Iraqi people, maybe they have a point, or maybe they're not seeing the whole picture. Some that I've talked to, will say first of all Sadaam was a donkey and all Baathis are dogs, so reform in the Baath exclusion law is a no-go. Then they'll say that the foreign troops are actually protecting the 'terrorists' by preventing the Iraqi government from 'dealing' with them. They will say that Iraq needs a leader who will rule with iron and fire, because that is all the Iraqis will understand. In other words, they are saying that Iraq needs a leader like Sadaam-- except he should be just. Or maybe just Shia.

The fact is that the situation is quite complex and neither the US nor the majority of the Iraqi populace would have anything to gain from a precipitous US withdrawal. What might work is a phased, calculated drawdown, which is pretty much what is happening anyway. Yes, we're surging now, but within a year we're going to start drawing down.

So frankly I'm not sure what war critics would have us do differently at this point. We're trying to get out of there as quickly as is realistically possible.

[Pannonian]

I said in a post somewhere that the ideal solution for Iraq would give 3 things.

1. Democracy
2. Stability
3. A pro-American alignment

I then said that an optimistic but realistic assessment would result in 2 of the 3 (pick which 2), but that there was scope for it to slide further, and make even that an impossible task. So where are we? Is it still possible to achieve 2 out of 3?

FWIW, my preference was for 2 and 3, ditching democracy and placing an obedient strongman in charge. Of course, there were those who said this was outrageous, to even think of turning back the clock.

[gunslinger]

Congratulations, everyone, on one of the most reasoned discussions I've seen on this topic.

I am one of those who believes that the decision to invade Iraq was correct at the time. All of the intelligence points to the fact that Hussein had WMD's which he shipped out (probably to Syria) during the run-up to the war. Of course, the administration couldn't fall back on this information when they were being called liars, because to do so would have begged the question of why we weren't invading Syria.

In fact, the threat of those weapons was one of the factors which got us into the mess we're in today. The war planners worked out all of the plans and logistics for the invasion, and once those plans were set in motion, they began work on planning the occupation. They figured they would have several weeks to get troops and supplies into place while the invasion plans were being executed. The commanders on the ground, fearing WMD attacks on their troops, pushed as fast as they could to disrupt the entire country and prevent those attacks. In doing so, they finished their job much faster than the planners had anticipated, and the occupation plans and supplies weren't in place yet. The momentum then swung to anarchy and the terrorists / insurgents.

What Iraq needs now, and what it's needed since the U.S. got there, is a strong, professional police force. Unfortunately, that is a tall order since Iraq has never had such a thing. Even an American, who grows up as a boy scout, is incorruptable, majors in law enforcement for four years, then attends a police academy emerges as a pretty worthless cop. He needs a year or two of learning from the old veterans before he can really be considered an asset. In Iraq, the old veterans are the biggest problem, especially where corruption is concerned.

We need solutions here, right? Ok, here goes. First, you try to get the very best, cream of the crop, Iraqi police from around the country. Then you throw them into special, newly-formed American military units made up of M.P.s and Military Intelligence, and you also attach some U.S. civilian cops, preferably with narcotics investigation experience. Each one of these units would be approximately platoon sized. Once a unit is formed, you send them all to the States for EXTENSIVE training. You bring in Israeli anti-terror experts, American police investigations experts, and anyone else you can think of who may be able to provide some real training in covert investigations, development of confidential sources, etc. Once the units are trained, you deploy them back to Iraq and spread them around the hotspots where they operate through their own military chain of command and definitely outside of the Iraqi police chain of command. Throw in a few regular units to provide security for these platoons along with some SF support to act on the intelligence they generate, and you have a decent chance of seriously decreasing the terrorist acts occuring in Iraq.

Of course, it would take a lot of time to get that plan set up right, and it may already be too late, since we'll probably be out of there in the next couple years if things don't take a turn for the better, but if we really are in it for the long haul, we need to initiate something like this, because regular army units aren't organized properly to provide domestic security, and the Iraqi police may never get there on their own.

[nokhor]

given your view, do you have any solutions to offer?

in my opinion we are stuck in a status quo holding pattern, based on the failure to conduct the war correctly from the start. We cant go back and change the past, nor is thier any more political will to carry on in Iraq.

A pullout will happen, it just seems to me that holding onto the status quo for as long as possible is akin to the dutch boy putting his finger in the holes of the dam.

I guess I want out before it bursts because I dont see a way to improve this situation as is. For the record I dont dispute your potential outcome either, but my question is, is it better to go now or later?

i agree completely with your assement of the current situation. i feel though that it's better to for the dutch boy to keep his finger in the hole than for the city to get swamped. so i will take the trade off of hemmoraging prestige and money and goodwill now to prevent WMD's going off in major cities near where i live in the future.

as for solutions, i am in favor of what some others have posted on other topics here. as in full conscription in terms of WWII levels. if we are at war, then we should start acting like it. yes, it would be extremely costly in terms of money, lives, and popular support. if there is an american patrol on every other intersection in every iraqi city, i think the suicide attacks will stop. i think it is near criminal negligence that our political leaders, once they realized that things were not going to plan, have still not yet come up with an effective plan B. i am shocked that after all this time, the taliban is being allowed to have a resurgence in afghanistan.

if george washington had lost the american revolution, he would have been hung as a traitor to his king. if abe lincoln had lost the american civil war, he most certainly would at the very least have been impeached. if bush can't figure out a way to get this going right, he needs to be held accountable and be replaced with someone who can. if congress doesn't have the wherewithal to remove bush, then remove congress, and get a new one in. whatever the heavy, extreme costs we pay for the war now, it will be far worse if we lose it . to me it is irrelevant now, whether the war was justified or not. i have no desire for my grandchildren to wear gas masks to school.

[Odin]

i agree completely with your assement of the current situation. i feel though that it's better to for the dutch boy to keep his finger in the hole than for the city to get swamped. so i will take the trade off of hemmoraging prestige and money and goodwill now to prevent WMD's going off in major cities near where i live in the future.

I acknowledge your point i just disagree that leaving Iraq is going to prevent or delay an attack in the future.

as for solutions, i am in favor of what some others have posted on other topics here. as in full conscription in terms of WWII levels. if we are at war, then we should start acting like it. yes, it would be extremely costly in terms of money, lives, and popular support. if there is an american patrol on every other intersection in every iraqi city, i think the suicide attacks will stop. i think it is near criminal negligence that our political leaders, once they realized that things were not going to plan, have still not yet come up with an effective plan B. i am shocked that after all this time, the taliban is being allowed to have a resurgence in afghanistan.

Thats certainly a viable solution. Moving to a full wartime economy would certainly make military operations much more effective, economically I think the U.S. can pull it off. The economy isnt that bad really, wages havent kept up with inflation and the housing market is off, but people are working.

The economy is correctable, so I think I agree with your solution of a full conscription, its certainly not a sexy option, but one that would work IMHO.

if george washington had lost the american revolution, he would have been hung as a traitor to his king. if abe lincoln had lost the american civil war, he most certainly would at the very least have been impeached. if bush can't figure out a way to get this going right, he needs to be held accountable and be replaced with someone who can.

Well yes I agree, but it dosent look like anyone is targeting Bush persay, but look around him his close friends are the focus (rumsfeld, rove, cheney, gonzalez). Basically it looks like the dems are trying to isolate him and limit his power, expiditing the lame duck portion of his final term. I agree he should be removed, heck I was screaming rumsfeld should have been fired years ago.

if congress doesn't have the wherewithal to remove bush, then remove congress, and get a new one in. whatever the heavy, extreme costs we pay for the war now, it will be far worse if we lose it . to me it is irrelevant now, whether the war was justified or not. i have no desire for my grandchildren to wear gas masks to school

its hard to argue with this sentiment, but there isnt a political will to move to conscription and the "surge" is bush's effort to do as much as he can without a draft. I am not convinced though that the loss of this war will translate into america being under threat immediately.

I suspect once we pull out the shia and sunni's will have at it for a while and while we might get pinched at the pump, as long as we are vigilant at home I dont think the extremists are going to have a boat load of time to muster attacks abroad, they will be engaged with the psudeo western governments we left behind.

[Whacker]

I acknowledge your point i just disagree that leaving Iraq is going to prevent or delay an attack in the future.

If anything, I think significantly reducing US presence and activity in the Middle East would reduce both actual and possible attacks in the future. One of the reasons Middle Easterners tend to be averse to America is because we meddle in other's affairs so much. I wouldn't say I'm isolationist, but it's time we stopped this kind of nonsense.

One of the key problems that is going on is that there is a different mindset and culture in the Middle East. Violence is perceived as an often viable and acceptable means to an end. Loyalties are more often based on tribal or religious aspects, more so than to a "nation" or concept of a nation. The US and other "western" nations going in and attempting to enforce western cultural ideals and values is pretty arrogant and, IMO, stupid, and bound to fail. Different does not equal bad or wrong.

Thats certainly a viable solution. Moving to a full wartime economy would certainly make military operations much more effective, economically I think the U.S. can pull it off. The economy isnt that bad really, wages havent kept up with inflation and the housing market is off, but people are working.

The economy is correctable, so I think I agree with your solution of a full conscription, its certainly not a sexy option, but one that would work IMHO.

I disagree completely, in fact I am violently opposed to conscription, and I think most of the rest of America would be as well. There's a reason the democrats won out big time in the latest round of elections, because it would seem that by and large the public is sick and tired of the Iraqi/Middle Eastern situation, and wants to see some closure very soon.

Well yes I agree, but it dosent look like anyone is targeting Bush persay, but look around him his close friends are the focus (rumsfeld, rove, cheney, gonzalez). Basically it looks like the dems are trying to isolate him and limit his power, expiditing the lame duck portion of his final term. I agree he should be removed, heck I was screaming rumsfeld should have been fired years ago.

I'm a bit surprised that serious impeachment proceedings haven't started yet. The Bush administration has done more in the past 6 years to ruin, erode, and disregard it's own and other nation's citizen's rights than I can recall in many years, continuously allowed more corporate greed and illegal activity to go unpunished (and even encouraged it in my view), and got us bogged down in several conflicts that I don't think we should have even been involved in to begin with, not to mention the damage done to our global reputation which is at an all time low.

its hard to argue with this sentiment, but there isn't a political will to move to conscription and the "surge" is bush's effort to do as much as he can without a draft. I am not convinced though that the loss of this war will translate into america being under threat immediately.

Define "loss". I don't equate pulling out as a "loss", more of a win for us. Like I said before, freedom isn't free, if the Iraqi people want to have an honest democratic government, stability, and peace in the region, they will step up and do this. If they don't or are unwilling to do so, then sacrificing more of our soldiers is criminal. There's been what, 4 or 5 years now since the invasion and we captured Saddam? Sorry but I think that's more than enough time to construct a solid, working government and a viable, homegrown peacekeeping force. As to the constant factions squabbling and disagree, that's just tough and part of human nature. We have squabbling 'factions' here in the US and in other countries and we can accomplish it without killing each other.

I suspect once we pull out the shia and sunni's will have at it for a while and while we might get pinched at the pump, as long as we are vigilant at home I don't think the extremists are going to have a boat load of time to muster attacks abroad, they will be engaged with the pseudo western governments we left behind.

You're probably right, you're looking at centuries, if not millenia, of ancient prejudice and hatred based on religion. "Extremism" as I think is meant here, in terms of that originating in the middle east, has and will always be a problem. The point is that it's been on the rise more so lately because of what the US has been doing. In short, we've just given them an external target and a reason to divert their attention away from each other and Israel.

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Odin, I'm not. You just have some good posts to build on.

[Odin]

If anything, I think significantly reducing US presence and activity in the Middle East would reduce both actual and possible attacks in the future. One of the reasons Middle Easterners tend to be averse to America is because we meddle in other's affairs so much. I wouldn't say I'm isolationist, but it's time we stopped this kind of nonsense.

I agree completely, I am fairly isolationist however I am leary of U.S. troops in any war unless its absolutely a necessity, and or a direct threat to the U.S. I personally believed that spec op forces, along with tactial air strikes, along with the power projection of our air force via carriers is sufficent to bring enemies to bare.

One of the key problems that is going on is that there is a different mindset and culture in the Middle East. Violence is perceived as an often viable and acceptable means to an end. Loyalties are more often based on tribal or religious aspects, more so than to a "nation" or concept of a nation. The US and other "western" nations going in and attempting to enforce western cultural ideals and values is pretty arrogant and, IMO, stupid, and bound to fail. Different does not equal bad or wrong.

I agree, but i must admit my knowledge of the mindset of the middle east is somewhat tainted by the shaping of the news I see. I have very limited access to those from the middle east and my instincts tell me that there choice to weave thier religion into all aspects of thier lives somewhat bares out your claim.

I disagree completely, in fact I am violently opposed to conscription, and I think most of the rest of America would be as well. There's a reason the democrats won out big time in the latest round of elections, because it would seem that by and large the public is sick and tired of the Iraqi/Middle Eastern situation, and wants to see some closure very soon.

I dont advocate it as a policy, but as a solution to the current situation? I think it would work. "boots on the ground" has been contested with the Iraq situation since day 1, on top of afghanistan and a potential conflict with Iran.... Conscription might be the only way forward if we continue down the path we are on with the middle east.

I know Mr Bush only has 2 more years to set policy, but a lot can happen in that time.

I'm a bit surprised that serious impeachment proceedings haven't started yet. The Bush administration has done more in the past 6 years to ruin, erode, and disregard it's own and other nation's citizen's rights than I can recall in many years, continuously allowed more corporate greed and illegal activity to go unpunished (and even encouraged it in my view), and got us bogged down in several conflicts that I don't think we should have even been involved in to begin with, not to mention the damage done to our global reputation which is at an all time low.

I personally dont care about our global reputation, being somewhat of an isolationist myself I can afford myself that view. The conflicts he has gotten us into are not illegal, by U.S. law, unless someone can prove he knowingly falsefied the intelligence reports. The only person who might be willing to go out on that limb is one Colin Powell, heard his name lately?

AS far as the other scandals, well technically the patriot act allows for so much ambaquity with its interpretation that i dont see it sticking to anyone. Mr Bush inst a genius by any stretch but the raping of the civil liberities under his rule, he has managed to cover his butt on.

Define "loss".

not achieving the stated goal, a stable self suffient Iraq that is able to defend itself from its neibhors (I dont have Mr Bushes quote, but its along those lines)

I don't equate pulling out as a "loss", more of a win for us. Like I said before, freedom isn't free, if the Iraqi people want to have an honest democratic government, stability, and peace in the region, they will step up and do this. If they don't or are unwilling to do so, then sacrificing more of our soldiers is criminal. There's been what, 4 or 5 years now since the invasion and we captured Saddam? Sorry but I think that's more than enough time to construct a solid, working government and a viable, homegrown peacekeeping force. As to the constant factions squabbling and disagree, that's just tough and part of human nature. We have squabbling 'factions' here in the US and in other countries and we can accomplish it without killing each other.

You sold me, perhaps "loss" isnt the best term for me to use, how about "accepting the reality of the situation and maximizing the benefits for ourselves first"?

The point is that it's been on the rise more so lately because of what the US has been doing. In short, we've just given them an external target and a reason to divert their attention away from each other and Israel.

Yet the targets for attacks in Iraq are more often along sunni/shia lines. Yes extremism has increased because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but its much more then that as well, its our devoted loyalty to Israel. All that aside the U.S. might be a target but clearly the sunni shia devide is bubbling to surface. So we pull out, will there be a long enough lull for extremist to export attacks to the U.S. ? Or will the sunni bombers and the shia death squads knock each other off first?

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Odin, I'm not. You just have some good posts to build on.

I dont feel picked on, I rather enjoy a good conversation that has substance.