Just wondering

[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)?

[Ice]

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


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)?

200,000 is a rough estimation. Pretty much however many are needed to stabilize the country.

They would be used with train more Iraqi security forces and help current Iraqi security secure their country, to put it simply.

[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.