Just wondering

[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.

[Adrian II]

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.

Sure, and Saddam was last spotted boarding the 10.45 to Leeds in a dress and high heels.

EDIT
If winning the war in Iraq is out of the question, so is losing it. I think neither this American President nor the next one can afford to withdraw. The U.S. will be there for many years to come, bleeding energy, money, prestige and goodwill.

[English assassin]

EDIT
If winning the war in Iraq is out of the question, so is losing it. I think neither this American President nor the next one can afford to withdraw. The U.S. will be there for many years to come, bleeding energy, money, prestige and goodwill.

I dare say they said that about Vietnam. If its double or quits, and we CAN'T double (and for lack of resource I would say we can't), then the choice becomes simple.

There isn't much to add to what Odin has had to say on the subject, which seems almost entirely on the money (obviously he's been at Mimir's well again). The only remaining qu then is how to spin the withdrawal to try to get something slightly positive out of it. Maybe these demos could even be part of the solution, bowing to the will of the people and so on.

Very very slim I know, but then there really isn't much silver lining to this cloud is there.

As for Pannonian's three, I'm not sure even one of them is possible. Maybe stability, if we leave now, since in the absence of targets the Jihadis will have to go somewhere else. Maybe. If they don't start blowing their fellow muslims up for teaching girls to read and write.

I may be wildly optimistic here but I don't think a pro-western outlook is wholly impossible after a pull out, although it seems improbable. I'm not convinced we have seen what the ordinary Iraqi in the street thinks about the removal of Saddam and the future for his country, since, rightly, at the moment he would just like the insurgency to stop. Which we can deliver on by going away. If things settle down he might start to see benefits from Saddam's removal.

Well, OK, pro-western is a bit much. But maybe not implacably hostile.