NationStates Jolt Archive

Disclaimer: Ok, so I don't visit Jolt forums that much anymore, partly because I get pissed off at the clutter and for other reasons, so if this is a repeat of previously argued/discussed threads, I'm sorry. I want serious talk here. I would like to have a serious discussion about this, since it seems that no one I talk to ever does (and the government sucks anyway, so...).


Ok, for starters, I supported the invasion of Iraq at the start, not totally because of WMD's or the stuff that was being hyped, but because Saddam was truely a bastard and needed to go. Not that he was a bonefid threat to the US, but he was truely an evil man. I hope that that is not a point of disagreement.

Since then (being when "Missions Accomplished" was annouced), I have grown more and more dissatisffied with how the US mission in Iraq is being carried out. I consider myself a military historian (not through with college yet, but very close), and am quite stunned at how there seem's to be no overall plan or course of action in order to 1) defeat the terrorists; 2) win over the general Iraqi citizen; 3) improve living conditions for the general populace; & 4) achieve conditions for the US troops to come home (or at least the overwhelming majority of them). I know that some of my views or information is based on news reports, which can be misleading, but I like to think of myself as someone who looks at several sources for information.


That being said: I want to know people's ideas for how to get US troops home, in the most logical way (ie the most likely way that will happen).

Personally, I think that so far, the success stories have either been hardly reported or few so far. From my understanding, there has been little effort in the past 6-12 months put into civil affairs-type items, such as improving power output or water supplies for the general populace. It seems that this would be a fairly obvious thing to improve to "win over" the populace, which would help with the insurgency/terrorism.

To defeat the terrorists, besides working on infastructure stuff, the US military needs to tackle every place they have listed as a "hot spot," preferably all at the same time. If they did this, then they'd probably catch an overwhelming majority of the people committing the bombings or beheadings. If not this, then what do you think should be done?


That's all I have at the moment. I'm really hoping that this will stay a discussion or debate without the flaming and stuff.

Hmm. Set some criteria on what "the ability of the Iraqi Army to control the country" are, and when they meet them (you also have to come up with a plan to get them to that goal), you leave.

Seems they are already doing this. If you want to come home before the Iraqis can keep the Sunnis from taking the country back, then that's your choice.

Spend more time money and manpower on training up and equiping the Iraqi police and military so that they can crush the insurgency without US troops. Then we can leave. We broke it, we've got to fix it.

Pair up each American unit with an equivalent Iraqi unit. The Americans train the Iraqis and show them how to do the Americans' jobs until the Iraqis can do it on their own. Then the American unit can go home.

thoughts on what should be done to get US troops home from Iraq .we could start by sending Transport ships...and cargo planes...we orderly start loading some troops...and when the big boat is full...we tell the admiral to set an US destination...

repeat as necessary...if we start now...they could be all home by Christmas.

... there seem's to be no overall plan or course of action in order to 1) defeat the terrorists; 2) win over the general Iraqi citizen; 3) improve living conditions for the general populace; & 4) achieve conditions for the US troops to come home (or at least the overwhelming majority of them).

"... stories have either been hardly reported or few so far. From my understanding, there has been little effort in the past 6-12 months put into civil affairs-type items, such as improving power output or water supplies for the general populace. It seems that this would be a fairly obvious thing to improve to "win over" the populace, which would help with the insurgency/terrorism.
There are plans for all of those things and they are being emplimented even as we type. The problem is that bad news is always "good" news for the media, so the truly good news is seldom reported. Every returning military person with whom I have talked has had very positive stories to tell about how the Iraqi people are being helped. The thing is, nation-bulding takes time, and the constant barrage of "bad news" pushed by the media tends to make the American polulace more and more nervous.

This is what the insurgents and terrorists are counting on: draw out the war as long as possible, create a steady stream of American casualties, and hope the American people get sick of it before the nation-buliding process can succeed. It's the same scenario the North Vietnamese used to force a premature withdrawal from Vietnam. There were significant differences, but in that regard there is a high degree of coungruency.

First, saying the US should go to war because the leader of a country is "evil" is a poor excuse. If that were the criteria we should have picked several countries in Africa and East Asia over Iraq. There are dictators there that make Saddam look like a saint. So there has to be another reason to pick Iraq. What that reason was is a debate in itself.

Now that we broke it, how do we get out of Bushnam. Well, there was once a plan called Vietnamization. The plan was 1. build a government. 2. build an army. 3. give the army the best weapons. 4. pull out. The plan for the current war? 1.......2.......3.......4.......

The problem is the US army can "take" any square foot of ground any place in the world. We could take Red Square if we wanted. Taking isn't the problem. Holding is the problem. In Nam and Bushnam, we take but we don't hold. In order to hold we would have to put in massive numbers of troops and stay forever. The other option is a modfied Vietnamization. We take and the Bushnam army holds. Of course that means there has to be a Bushnam army.

My plan. For every Bushnam soldier trained, one allied troop comes out. The Bushnam army fights and holds the worst. The allies hold the easiest. That takes them out of being a colonial army.

In the end, we can expect helicopters taking people off the roof of the embassy. followed by a dictator with the power to control the country.

If you're a student of history, you can see that the best thing that ever happened to Nam is for the US to get out and let the people establish a government in their own way. The difference here is, Bushnam will become a giant terrorist boot camp. But that was totally predictable before we went in. There has been absolutly nothing surprising about this whole venture. It was as predictable as the sunrise.

Pair up each American unit with an equivalent Iraqi unit. The Americans train the Iraqis and show them how to do the Americans' jobs until the Iraqis can do it on their own. Then the American unit can go home.

That's the exact same strategy we used in South Vietnam. Didn't work so well that time though.

Nuke every populated area surrounding Israel when the prevailing winds are from the northwest. Problem fucking solved. Mind you there would be a pretty heavy loss of life, but it's the only way to permanently solve the problem.

Now that we broke it, how do we get out of Bushnam. Well, there was once a plan called Vietnamization. The plan was 1. build a government. 2. build an army. 3. give the army the best weapons. 4. pull out. The plan for the current war? 1.......2.......3.......4.......

Of course, they had effective opposition in 'nam, which really isn't the case here. Without the NVA, the VietCong wouldn't have accomplished anything truly important.

How about if we just train the Iraqi army and stay around while they get their government situated while we try to track down and destroy the Al - Queada in Iraq fighters and Insurgents until they can do it on their own . Then we go home .
Instead of broadcasting an outline with a time schedule that the enemy can use to plan their strategy like a buch of assholes who wanted to lose a war would do .
We we leave when we are done . Or you surrender or we kill and or capture you . Thats the message you send . No more no less ..or do you think the enemy is in a cave not paying attention to all the bullshit that go's on here ?
Friggin morons want a time table ..like the other side is going to follow it...assholes .

in iraq we are fighting sub humans who use children as walking bombs who run to our soliders then blow themselves up and kill innoncent civillians as well as soliders:mp5:

what to do? kill the walking bomb and get blamed for killing the child or let your self get blown up?

search women in iraq to find consealed weapons or bombs and get reported on news about us troops sexually abusing iraqi women:mp5:

or let another woman suicide bomber blow up a wedding or church or whatever:sniper:

the media is the problem it needs to stop reporting everything and making us look bad

This is WAR the enemy doesnt play by the rules
he uses children and women to attack us
he uses handicapped or injured people as bombs < our soilders go to assit and get blown up >

then they say no torture:mad:
:sniper:
you think the enemy will agree to not torture our soliders when they r captured?
:sniper:
no i think we need to step up efforts and start fighting fire with fire:mp5:
They want to play dirty then we fight dirty
we fight so dirty they will live in fear of relaliation:gundge:

If we leave iraq all the factions and terrorist groups will trigger a civil war to control it and drag the middle east into the war
so we cant leave till the job is done

american soliders gave their lives :headbang: make it worth something:sniper: