My Plan for Iraq

[highnote]

Here's my plan:

Tell the new Iraq government that they need to get their house in order and take care of security because the U.S. will withdraw all it's troops by March 1, 2007. (Of course, this might mean February 28, 2007 if you go by DRF expiration date. :D Small detail to be worked out.)

I digress.

We also tell them that if the Iraq government can secure the country then we will come back in full-force and stay for 100 years and turn Iraq into a colony and maybe the 51st state. That's an exaggeration.

Here's the reasoning behind my strategy. As soon as the U.S. leaves the country all hell WWill break loose. We all know that. However, as soon as things start to overheat we will know exactly who is who and where they stand. We'll have an easier time identifing the insurgents and their leaders. So when the U.S. re-occupies the country it will be much easier to root out the insurgents and other groups that are disrupting and undermining the stability of the country.

If the U.S. withdraws and the Iraq gov't manages to remain stable then it will be a great move. If Iraq descends into chaos, it will not be much worse than it already is and the U.S. will have troops back in Iraq just like we do now. But at least the U.S. troops will have had a break and intelligence will have time to gather info.

In fact, this cycle of full invasion and then full withdrawal might have to be repeated several times before stability is achieved.

--------

On the other hand, staying put, as hard as it is, might be the right thing to do -- just keep grinding away and wearing them down.

-----------

Just my 2 cents on a very difficult situation.

[highnote]

Oops. Typo...

I digress.

We also tell them that if the Iraq government can secure the country then we will come back in full-force and stay for 100 years and turn Iraq into a colony and maybe the 51st state.


That should read... "if the Iraq government CAN NOT secure the country..."

[lsbets]

My plan - we either decide to commit to securing the country or we decide to leave. Which means either:

1) Double our troops, take the gloves off and fight a war, or:

2) Bring everyone home tomorrow. Phased withdrawl is kind of like pull and pray birth control - its stupid. That's what we did in Vietnam - folks still died while we drew down and turned things over to the North Vietnamese. If the end result is going to be a total disaster, let them have their total disaster now without our soldiers.

If we as a nation will not commit to doing what it takes to secure Iraq (which I don't think we are willing to do), than we need to bring everyone home immediately. Our servicemen and women have been let down by the politicians on both sides of the aisle, and ultimately by the people who have elected them.

[ljb]

My plan - we either decide to commit to securing the country or we decide to leave. Which means either:

1) Double our troops, take the gloves off and fight a war, or:

2) Bring everyone home tomorrow. Phased withdrawl is kind of like pull and pray birth control - its stupid. That's what we did in Vietnam - folks still died while we drew down and turned things over to the North Vietnamese. If the end result is going to be a total disaster, let them have their total disaster now without our soldiers.

If we as a nation will not commit to doing what it takes to secure Iraq (which I don't think we are willing to do), than we need to bring everyone home immediately. Our servicemen and women have been let down by the politicians on both sides of the aisle, and ultimately by the people who have elected them.
And again we have agreement.

[GameTheory]

The only problem I see is that even if we pull out completely tomorrow, in fact especially if we pull out completely tomorrow, it ain't over. Any pull-out will be perceived as a major victory by violent Muslims all over the world. It will be open season on the U.S.. What we do in Iraq has consequences much much greater than just what happens to Iraq as a nation.

[lsbets]

The only problem I see is that even if we pull out completely tomorrow, in fact especially if we pull out completely tomorrow, it ain't over. Any pull-out will be perceived as a major victory by violent Muslims all over the world. It will be open season on the U.S.. What we do in Iraq has consequences much much greater than just what happens to Iraq as a nation.

I agree, but the result will be the same if we continue to half ass it as we are now. If we are pursuing a strategy of defeat, than better to pull out now and not get any more of our guys killed. If we prolong it we get the same result with more US deaths. Or, we could commit to doing what it takes, oh never mind, we won't do that, so pull out now.

[luv_america]

Hasn't the problem been all along that we've fought a politically correct war and haven't sought firm victory? If we went in there strong, kicked-butt and took no prisoners from the outset, we would have conquered a people and rebuilt their country by now. For example, the Sunni triangle should have been leveled 3 years ago.

[Indulto]

And again we have agreement.ljb,
I too would like to see America go forward from this point with greater harmony between the political left and right, but on a course that both sides can support with conviction. Not to rekindle flames, but I would appreciate it if you would point me to a post of yours which advocated anything close to lsbet's alternative #1.

lsbets,
Let's assume for the sake of argument the two options you suggest are the only ones available. What details can you offer re: option #1 beyond doubling troop levels? Exactly how should success in Iraq be defined, and how would option #1 acheive that success?

I suspect that total withdrawal, phased or immediate, will eventually lead to GT's expected result. But it is still possible for us to achieve even greater negative results: We could stand by and watch the Kurds, who apparently also want what we want for them, be destroyed.

If you ever posted re: "partitioning" then I missed it. Would you care to comment now as to whether that approach has any merit and what troop level differential it would require?

IMO our newly-configured government needs to clearly state our objectives for Iraq, and get agreement on those objectives from a super majority of Americans, before deciding what our options are, and do it quickly.

Does anyone here disagree that the last thing we want to happen is that American lives and limbs continue to be lost without clearly-defined, well-supported objectives? IMO the voting majority indicated that whether or not it was right to go into Iraq in the first place, the result as it stands is not acceptable, and that some new course of intent/action is desirable.

Can we finally start looking for common ground, or will we simply continue sniping at eachother until the next presidential election?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/worldspecial/03guns.html"
With AK-47's legal in Iraq, not real rebuilding, Bush's goal of fighting them there, allowing foreign fighters and weapons in by refusing to secure the border, keeping sects together, disbursing Hussein's milirary, and a 50,000 USA troop reduction since Sep 2005, do you really think our goal is not chaos and an-all-Islamic Armagedden? Our plans are working out just like planned! Our obvious threat to Iran is to invade then leave!

[linrom1]

Let's leave Iraq now and not worry about what happens there anymore; better yet, invite Iran to take over. :jump: But before we leave, we should bomb a few Sunnis mosques and then bomb a few Shiite. Let the natives sort it out then and f**k them if they can't take a joke. Let's send our boys home now!!!!

[Overlay]

My plan - we either decide to commit to securing the country or we decide to leave. Which means either:

1) Double our troops, take the gloves off and fight a war, or:

2) Bring everyone home tomorrow. Phased withdrawl is kind of like pull and pray birth control - its stupid. That's what we did in Vietnam - folks still died while we drew down and turned things over to the North Vietnamese. If the end result is going to be a total disaster, let them have their total disaster now without our soldiers.

While agreeing in principle with option 1, the problem in Iraq seems to me to be similar to Vietnam. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? In other words, how would we define who we were fighting or know when we had won? And could our efforts be successful when the citizens of the nation we are trying to help or stabilize are fighting among themselves from deep-rooted motives like religion (as opposed to more "superficial" ones such as economic hardship or political oppression), as well as against opportunistic outsiders hoping to exploit the country's chaos for their own purposes? Can such a country ever be stable except through the type of means that Saddam employed, which we ostensibly went in there to eliminate?

[Tom]

I agree with both ls and GT, but the problem I see is the Iraqi's will NEVER stand up and fight for thier freedom. Why? They are scared, they live amoungs animals who continually attack and murder anyone who stands up and we don't stop it. We see people shooting at us from mosques and do nto go in and get them. What the hell kind of war is that?
Bush I called for a revolt, many Kurds followed and he, like Kenedy in Cuba, abandined them and thousands wer murdered by Sadamm.
If you were an Iraqi, would you believe anything an American told you?

I see only two alternatives - complete, immediate, withdrawl or The Fire Bombing of Dresden Part Deux. 100%, all out war, no matter where it takes us - mosques, Pakistand, Iran, anywhere. And soon.

It is sad that our troops were put in this ridiculous situtation to begin with.

[highnote]

It is sad that our troops were put in this ridiculous situtation to begin with.

I agree.

That's why I think pulling out now with the threat of going back in if they don't get their act together is a viable alternative.

Getting out and letting the various scenarios play out will give us a clearer picture of where to go.

Realistically, I don't think we can pull out. We've spent a huge amount of money building a new embassy. If we pull out, that embassy will be sacked immediately. Unfortunately, we might be there for 100 years.

Best option is to make Iraq a 51st state -- or at least a territory or colony.

The very unfortunate thing is that many more U.S. lives are going to be lost.

If, on the other hand we pull out, maybe in 40 years Iraq will become stable enough to resume relations with -- like Vietnam.

What a mess.

[Bala]

Let's just westernize them:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10410578

[Tom]

THEIR plan for Iraq:

[Indulto]

My plan - we either decide to commit to securing the country or we decide to leave. Which means either:

1) Double our troops, take the gloves off and fight a war, or:lsbets,
On the off-chance you don't have me on IGNORE, how would we double troop deployment without re-instituting the Draft?

[lsbets]

We have more than enough soldiers to double the amount over there without a draft - if we have the commitment to do it. Our servicemembers do, our nation does not, so bring everyone home tomorrow.

[Indulto]

We have more than enough soldiers to double the amount over there without a draft - if we have the commitment to do it. Our servicemembers do, our nation does not, so bring everyone home tomorrow.Glad you responded.

But suppose we have to react somewhere else simultaneously? Or new external jahadists join in, e.g., Somalians, or other "mercenaries" funded by Iran?

Can you also talk about the Kurds, or is there "anti-Kurdish" sentiment on the right? ;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Hussein's crowd;
supported by Iran and Syria;
attacking us;
in the minority.
So why not just let the Shia's ahndle it? We act as managemnet, they provide the labor.

[JPinMaryland]

..we tried that and it's not working out so well.

[JustRalph]

lsbets,
On the off-chance you don't have me on IGNORE, how would we double troop deployment without re-instituting the Draft?

There are fifty thousand troops sitting on their hands in S. Korea.

[Indulto]

There are fifty thousand troops sitting on their hands in S. Korea.Are you advocating redeploying all? That would provide a third off what lsbets is advocating, but what is their current mission and why would it be of less priorituy now given N. Korea's nuclear threat?

Did you catch Gen. Abizaid's testimony today in the Senate? He said 1) no more troops are necessary other than to work directly with the Iraqi army, 2) he didn't think the sectarian violence was as bad as it was (but I missed any explanation of how he came to that conclusion), and 3) the Iraqi's don't want partitioning. What do YOU think?

[JustRalph]

Are you advocating redeploying all? That would provide a third off what lsbets is advocating, but what is their current mission and why would it be of less priorituy now given N. Korea's nuclear threat?

Did you catch Gen. Abizaid's testimony today in the Senate? He said 1) no more troops are necessary other than to work directly with the Iraqi army, 2) he didn't think the sectarian violence was as bad as it was (but I missed any explanation of how he came to that conclusion), and 3) the Iraqi's don't want partitioning. What do YOU think?

Ummm......the ground troops are not going to do a damn thing about the nuke threat. there are troops being pulled out of Germany in about a year. It could be done. You could gain enough from Germany and Korea to get the job done in my opine.

I think Abizaids testimony was nothing short of "don't tell them anything they don't already know" the partitioning idea will kill thousands according to many sources. It would foster civil war. My choice would be just taking the country. But then I am an imperialist bastard. If they can't get it right, we can. we are what you might call "pot committed" why not ensure that we take the pot

[highnote]

I had never heard of dividing the partitioning. Maybe that's a good idea for the next 50 years. The country's obviously divided anyway and thousands more are going to die in this mess anyway. Maybe that's the lessor of many evils.

[Indulto]

Hussein's crowd;
supported by Iran and Syria;
attacking us;
in the minority.
So why not just let the Shia's ahndle it? We act as managemnet, they provide the labor.Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that if we threatened to withdraw, the minority Sunnis would be willing to relocate to a partition of their own to avoid massacre by the Shia?

[Indulto]

Ummm......the ground troops are not going to do a damn thing about the nuke threat. there are troops being pulled out of Germany in about a year. It could be done. You could gain enough from Germany and Korea to get the job done in my opine.

I think Abizaids testimony was nothing short of "don't tell them anything they don't already know" the partitioning idea will kill thousands according to many sources. It would foster civil war. My choice would be just taking the country. But then I am an imperialist bastard. If they can't get it right, we can. we are what you might call "pot committed" why not ensure that we take the potFacing withdrawal demands, Abizaid calls for more troops
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-ex-iraq111506,0,153083.story?coll=la-home-headlines
... Abizaid conceded that sending 20,000 additional troops into Iraq might temporarily quell violence, but he said it also would upset American efforts to get the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for the country's internal security.

Abizaid added that, even if it were in Iraq's best interest to increase the presence of U.S. forces, it would be difficult for the Pentagon to find additional combat troops without increasing the size of the active-duty military.

Nonetheless, Abizaid acknowledged that he planned to increase troop levels in the near term. Abizaid ordered the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which has been on ships in the Persian Gulf for months as a backup reserve force, into Iraq.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting that if we threatened to withdraw, the minority Sunnis would be willing to relocate to a partition of their own to avoid massacre by the Shia?
____________
I am suggesting that if we cut and run Hussein and Syria and Iran's buddies the Sunnis will get massacred!

[Indulto]

____________
I am suggesting that if we cut and run Hussein and Syria and Iran's buddies the Sunnis will get massacred!Since when are Sunnis buddies of Iran? Aren't an overwhelming majority of Iranians Shia?

[MikeDee]

Iraq is a tribal war inside of religious war.

We cling to this belief that the "elected" Iraq government will be able to train and deploy enough men to police the country.

Meanwhile most of the men who join the Iraq police only join to get their hands on trucks and guns so they can round up and kill their enemies.

Freedom and democracy are at the bottom of the totem pole compared to religious cleansing and reprisals for your clan, tribe and or religious sect.

No one will ever have a workable plan, because there is none. We can form committee's, make studies, blah, blah, blah.

I don't care if we pull out tomorrow, or 50 years from now the results will be the same. As soon as we leave Iraq, they will find their own solution. Civil wars take about 8-10 years to run their course many will die.....and there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it.

We broke it and we cannot fix it.

[fergie]

Mike Dee,

What you said! Yeah!
Fergie

[Indulto]

We broke it and we cannot fix it.MD,
After re-reading your last three posts on Iraq which appear to contain much truth and common sense while being free of either partisan or ideological shading, I can only hope our elected representatives are also considering the issues from your perspective. Thanks for sharing it.:ThmbUp:

[luv_america]

Mike Dee,

insightful post.

Do you mean negotiations just won't work? I'm confused. Liberals (I'm not saying you're a liberal) always tell us that negotiations work.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's got nothing to do with liberal or conservative, right or left, dem or repub.

What we have to do now is stop the bullshit and face reality. Now, I'm not sure what exactly that reality is....but it's time we face it one way or the other and stop hiding behind rhetoric and worn out labels....young American lives are on the line every single minute over there....

[Tom]

We have to re-evaluate the whole situation.
What is the best possible outcome we can expect?
What is the worst?
What is the cost in terms of lives and dollars?

If we really want to get sound answers, put that "study group" in a hotel in downtown Bahgdad and let them talk all they want - on the scene. Perhaps the urgency will become apparent to them.

Nobody sitting in comfy meeting rooms stateside can possible make a rational, real world desision.

[MikeDee]

Luv - I don't know what there is to negotiate.

All of the plans discussed revolve around the Iraqi government taking on the responsibility for policing their country and then we stand down.

What bothers me is that I don't see any evidence that a democratic government is more important to the Iraqis then their alligence to their religion/tribe.

How do you turn over the country to a army and police force that will not enforce laws and arrest their fellow clansmen? That use their authority to avenge killings?

Will this police force / army ever pledge alliance to the country of Iraq and mean it? If not then I arrive at the conclusion that it just does not matter when we leave.

[bettheoverlay]

Democracy in Iraq! What they need is a strong dictator to keep all their crackpot differences suppressed. They are unworthy of the gift we have bestowed upon them. Will they be worthy in 5 years, and a few hundred billion more?

[Tom]

Look at the "Iron Curtain" countries - under the Soviet regime, the had peace, but as soon as the iron fist was removed, the first thing they did is start shooting at each other again. All people do not deserve to be free. Perhaps we should bolster more dictators - all our troubles started over seas when we stopped doing that, no?

[Indulto]

... How do you turn over the country to a army and police force that will not enforce laws and arrest their fellow clansmen? That use their authority to avenge killings?

Will this police force / army ever pledge alliance to the country of Iraq and mean it? If not then I arrive at the conclusion that it just does not matter when we leave.This has been a recognized problem for a long time now. Does anybody know what steps have been or could be taken to address this? What is the basis for Gen. Abizaid's confidence that we will succeed in building such an Iraqi force?

[Secretariat]

Luv - I don't know what there is to negotiate.

All of the plans discussed revolve around the Iraqi government taking on the responsibility for policing their country and then we stand down.

What bothers me is that I don't see any evidence that a democratic government is more important to the Iraqis then their alligence to their religion/tribe.

How do you turn over the country to a army and police force that will not enforce laws and arrest their fellow clansmen? That use their authority to avenge killings?

Will this police force / army ever pledge alliance to the country of Iraq and mean it? If not then I arrive at the conclusion that it just does not matter when we leave.

Thank you for this intelligent post.