NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to know... I mean, with all of these alphabet-soup-named "intelligence" groups going around saying that there's a way to win the "war" in Iraq, and with no real plan to get out of the "war" in Iraq, I really just want to know...

What is your exit strategy in Iraq? And is it really even a war anymore?

Dang, this topic is boring and it gets more boring for every thread created on it.

In any case, to answer one of your questions, yes, "Iraq is a war" - a civil war.

Arm the shit out of the Kurds and just leave...let our enemies weaken themselves fighting one another for control of Iraq.

Yes it will screw up the oil market...I don't care. If it spurs more research into renewable energy, then it will be a good thing in the long run.

Exit Strategy=
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/c17.jpg

Exit Strategy=
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/c17.jpg

lol

you dont know how many times a friend of mine from his rotc program has bragged about that plane.

Arm the shit out of the Kurds and just leave...let our enemies weaken themselves fighting one another for control of Iraq.

Yes it will screw up the oil market...I don't care. If it spurs more research into renewable energy, then it will be a good thing in the long run.

the saudis just threatened to provide support to the sunnis if america leaves iraq.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061213/D8LVQ2F00.html

the saudis just threatened to provide support to the sunnis if america leaves iraq.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061213/D8LVQ2F00.html

So Iran and Saudi Arabia go at it...which is the exact aim of the strategy I described.

If they are involved in a war with one another, neither can afford to support (directly or indirectly) terror attacks on other nations.

Burn everything down, sow the fields with salt, and slay everyone who protests.

If they can't learn to live in peace in the Garden of Eden, no one will.

Bitches.

Burn everything down, sow the fields with salt, and slay everyone who protests.

If they can't learn to live in peace in the Garden of Eden, no one will.

Bitches.

"Location: Chattanooga, TN"

Now, there's a surprise.

"Location: Chattanooga, TN"

Now, there's a surprise.

I was being funny, but my region is rather conservative.

Arm the fucksnot out of the Kurds, make them an independant nation, and let te rest of Iraq melt into glass.

Exit Strategy:
http://www.post-gazette.com/newslinks/wallclimb230.jpg

"Location: Chattanooga, TN"

Now, there's a surprise.

Alternatively, we could take off, and nuke the place from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Start a marijuana based economy. Add diazepam to the water supply. Make them watch porn.

Get them hooked on novelty electronics from china. (ipod, HDTV and the like).

Within a few years peace will reign across the land.

Arm the shit out of the Kurds and just leave...let our enemies weaken themselves fighting one another for control of Iraq.

Yes it will screw up the oil market...I don't care. If it spurs more research into renewable energy, then it will be a good thing in the long run.

So Iran and Saudi Arabia go at it...which is the exact aim of the strategy I described.

If they are involved in a war with one another, neither can afford to support (directly or indirectly) terror attacks on other nations.

but they go and start terrorist attacks on one another...

exactly what is the point of having the saudis blow the snot out of the iranians? you know that the much dreaded UN would be pissed, and the globe would be too...

and then what if that iranian bigot... er, president decided to nuke the damned saudis?

I like the idea of actually droipping Earth into the sun myself. That way we get the whole dang problem for good.:rolleyes:

I like the idea of actually droipping Earth into the sun myself. That way we get the whole dang problem for good.:rolleyes:

That's no good, we'd also eliminate cute women, sex, and cheese burgers. That would suck.

(Ladies feel free to add why it would suck for you)

I like the idea of actually droipping Earth into the sun myself. That way we get the whole dang problem for good.:rolleyes:

maybe THATS why theyre making that stupid colony on the moon...

The problem with arming the Kurds is that they will have an independent Kurdistan, which will then immediately be attacked by Turkey (for fomenting rebellion in the ethnically Kurdish south, which will rise up to secede and join in greater Kurdistan) as possibly Iran as well for similar reasons. Unfortunately Turkey being a NATO country could leave the rest of Europe and the US treaty-bound to go to war with the Kurds.

Not really an option on that one – as much as I think an independent Kurdistan would be a great thing, the complications with the surrounding nations make it unfeasible.

The Kurds are sitting fairly isolated with their own semi-autonomous territory, so they have little in the way of problems at the moment – just waiting to see how things work out with the rest of them while they consolidate their power. The increasing unrest helps to play into them getting the borders stretched a bit into more territory.

Unfortunately we have an untenable situation because the Sunni countries in the middle east want to make sure there is not a Shia dominated nation acting as a puppet of Iran, so they want to keep the violence going to overthrow the current government.

Iran and the Iraqi Shia see no benefit in stopping the violence because the longer it goes on, the more politically dominant they become in the new government, where as stopping the violence would only mean stopping their death squads and militia.

So essentially you have all the players in Iraq and the surrounding nations with a vested interest in continuing the violence. None of them benefit more by peace. That is except for the average Iraqi caught in the crossfire, but they support the very people that are keeping the pot boiling.

As it stands, there is little to be gained from the presence of outside forces. The basic effect is to continue pissing away billions of dollars for negligible return.

While the US invasion precipitated this state, it is not wholly responsible for its creation, and has worked in good faith to bring it under control. The trillion dollars spent on this fiasco was flushed down the drain.

At this point, the only thing that can be done is to let the combatants have at it. Until they are willing to sit down and stop the violence, all we are doing is continuing to piss away our lives and fortunes.

Without the will to do what is necessary, all the troops are doing is effectively walking around with ‘shoot me’ signs on their backs. Unless the leadership is prepared to make some very tough decisions and stop being so pussyfooted, there is no point in remaining. While a pullout will leave chaos behind, chaos is what we have now, and what we can expect in the foreseeable future anyway – all we are doing is prolonging the agony.

*snipped for space*


you didnt exactly lay out any kind of exit plan there...

Alternatively, we could take off, and nuke the place from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Ho-ho-hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

EC gave what there is, so no solution because possibly there isn't one?

In reality we have two ways we can go:

Either beef up our own forces there, including of course severely beefed up training and advising their military.

or

Get out as quickly as possible and take our lumps.

Anything else we do is going to be too middle ground to actually work tactically or strategically. I hate to say it, but that's the damned truth. We westerners love compromises, but sadly war rarely involves compromise. We should either recommit our national treasure and children to cleaning up the mess we created

or recognize that we have entered into another Vietnam style contract where we will fight the war and they will ride our coatails and pull the hell out.

anything between the two is gong to waste a lot of people and money and probably not get much done.

Essentially, the way I see it is that there is no real exit strategy possible. We are mired in this mess forever unless the US makes a decision – either drop what they are doing and leave, or actually commit to making a substantial effort to make a hard-nosed no-bullshit drop the politically correct niceties and just acknowledge the truth in front of everyone’s eyes operation.

The US is effectively training and paying for the very militias that are fighting. The Iraqi army is paid by the US, and gets one week a month off to take their pay back to their families and take care of things at home. On top of that, there is no punishment for being absent without leave. That’s right, come and go as you please, but don’t forget to drop by once a month to pickup your paycheck.

The soldiers get training from the US, get money from the US, and then go fight for the militias for a couple weeks. Then they come back, get a little more training, a little more money, and return to the militias. Doesn’t anyone else think that we just might want to be honest about how crap that is and not just say “well we need to be sensitive to their culture”. I’m sorry, but culture or not, this is total crap. So long as the commanders are not willing to enforce a little discipline, the army is a waste of time. It is far better to have a tiny but well trained and combat ready army than a large amorphous blob of troops who take turns fighting for each side (when they can be mustered to fight at all).

Politicians who continue to have militias should simply be arrested for fomenting rebellion. Any militia group should be absorbed into the army (one where discipline is enforced) and split up among deferent units to be effectively disbanded. Anyone holding their own private army should be considered a threat to the state and imprisoned. Not a popular thing to do, but pretty damned obvious to me.

The list of completely asinine behavior like this is endless – unless the leadership gets off their ass and does something, we are continuing to throw away the lives of our soldiers and drain our own finances for the privilege.

Ho-ho-hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

They can bill me.

Build new villages, then mass relocations. Split up the known villains and cut them off from each other.

A few black bag operations against the biggest gobshites wouldn't hurt.

Close the borders.

so you want to vietnamize them? In order to save the village we need to destroy it?


EC, funny that I was typing what you said while you were tyoing it lol! Are you ex military?

I just want to know... I mean, with all of these alphabet-soup-named "intelligence" groups going around saying that there's a way to win the "war" in Iraq, and with no real plan to get out of the "war" in Iraq, I really just want to know...

What is your exit strategy in Iraq? And is it really even a war anymore?

Easy. Just cross the Eastern border of Iraq into Iran to get a jump on the next war.

Seal Iraq's borders with as many troops as required, wait.

10-15 years everyone who felt like fighting ought be dead. Colonize.

Finally. I'm glad you asked. I had this idea in 2003 and I believe it will still work now. Billions of dollars of cream pie dropped from every plane, jet and helicopter we can get our hands on. Confusion followed by hilarity will ensue. It is impossible for it to end any other way than the shaking of hands.

Exit strategy: install a dictator who is incredibly brutal, has no tolerance for any ethnic squabbling and retaliates with excessive violence. Also has an extreme hatred for the Iranians. Arm him to the teeth. Arm and enrich a certain ethnic group/tribe in the region and turn a blind eye when they brutally slaughter those who oppose the incumbent power and pretty much anyone else

Pros: Another pro-US presence to counter Iranian power. Stable source of oil.

Cons: US loses face. Many civilians die. Perhaps create more anti-US sentiment (leave this for future generations to deal with)

Well, carpet fire-bombing would end the violence but I don't like that idea so much because innocents would likely get hurt.

We could try building archologies for civilians to live in and shift the city names to those massive structures. Without weapons and everyones needs met I think there would be a significant drop in violence. Think a super-duper-mega-dome except instead of seating there'd be housing with a large garden/playground/zoo/whatever where the field would be. It could have some of my farm facilities along the outside and run sea water through a boiler for salt and fresh water for the people inside. And having big concrete walls would make it awfully safe. Anyone who wants to continue the violence could do so outside. I just wonder what the price would be. I know it'd be very high but it just might work. And even if it didn't, it'd be the worlds first finished archology.

Arm the Kurds, give southern Iraq to the Kuwaitis (turnabout is fair play). Or see if the King of Jordan has a cousin who'd like a throne.

I dunno. In relationships I usually cling obstinately until she leaves. I'm not sure that would work in Iraq.

I dunno. In relationships I usually cling obstinately until she leaves. I'm not sure that would work in Iraq.

Hmm, maybe we should stay until all the Iraqis leave? I hadn't considered that.

Hmm, maybe we should stay until all the Iraqis leave? I hadn't considered that.

With the numbers who've already fled the country it might not be a long wait....

With the numbers who've already fled the country it might not be a long wait....

Can one man's bumbling incompetance in love ofset another's bumbling incompetance in foreign policy?

Can one man's bumbling incompetance in love ofset another's bumbling incompetance in foreign policy?

'Twould be fantastically poetic.

We'd have to get James Stewart to play you in the movie.

maybe THATS why theyre making that stupid colony on the moon...

Don't be silly

Georgie boy just wants somewhere safer than nebraska to run to
if theres any more trouble in the states.

Build a large concrete dome over the whole end of the continent. Remove dome in ten years.

I wrote an essay on this the other day here it is:


A Change In Course?
On November 8, 2006, the engineer of the Iraq War, and creator of the pro-war slogan “stay the course”, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned. All day, political pundits proclaimed that the exit of the “SecDef” will usher in a change in strategy that will allow for United States troops to leave Iraq, claiming that this exit would be soon, and would leave Iraq as a somewhat stable state, a nation with a hope for the future. This exit will only occur, however, if a series of drastic reforms are taken, not only in the military strategy in Iraq, but in U.S. foreign policy for the region.

Throughout Iraq, sectarian violence runs rampant. The Shiite majority and the Sunni minority fight a constant tit-for-tat battle in the volatile neighborhoods of the urban centers of Iraq. Though the bloodbath rages relentlessly, the American soldiers stand on the sidelines, in the outskirts of the major cities, far away from the fighting. This sectarian violence will never come to an end without a greater military presence inside the centers of resistance. Rather than the large military strongholds on the outskirts of the larges cities of Iraq, the coalition forces need to decentralize into smaller, more compact bases within the most explosive city boroughs; acting as a police force, by regularly patrolling these hotbeds. The American casualties would inevitably go up thanks to the greater visibility of the troops, nevertheless, the sectarian violence tearing the Iraqi people apart would decline, allowing the United States a greater chance of leaving Iraq in the near future. Although U.S. troops are not the police force of the country, they will have to step into the role until the Iraqi government can clean their own police forces of the very insurgents that they are supposed to be fighting.

In the early days of the war, the strength of the Iraqi police forces were viewed as the benchmark for when our troops could exit the country, however, the milestones have came and gone, but in Iraq we remain. The Iraqi security forces are at best crooked. According to and article for the Washington Post by writer Amit R. Paley “…seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army.” This corruption is unacceptable. While Sunni blood runs red in the streets of Baghdad, the Shiite cops supposedly preventing such monstrosities stand by allowing the slaughterers to continue on with their morbid business; while some honorable officers openly join in the butchery. Such horrors must end. If we ever want our young men to come home, we must crack down upon this corruption, perhaps by scrapping the current security force and starting from the ground up if necessary. Though a gloomy prescription, it is vital for any hope of a stable, peaceful Iraq.

The Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia, run by the radical Islamist Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, strikes fear into the hearts of all Sunnis and moderate Shiites throughout Iraq. The militia’s influence becomes greater by the day, its ranks larger by the day, and its soldiers smarter by the day. On al-Sadr, President Bush sticks to his Texas sheriff “no negotiations with terrorists” catchphrase. This policy is irresponsible. If we ever want to piece together any variety of stable nation in Iraq, al-Sadr must play a part. We need to swallow our pride and negotiate. Al-Sadr is a charismatic leader who some Iraqis see as their version of Ataturk (Turkish nationalist who, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, took back the lands of his people from Greeks occupying them), the answer to the Western encroachments on Iraqi liberty. His followers are violent, and fiercely loyal; thus we must concede to some of his demands--for the sake of Iraq--damned be our pride. Before we can obtain concessions from al-Sadr however, we must negotiate him out of his supplies and training, by coming to the table with Iran.

Of all the nations in the world, none support extremist Islam to the extent of Iran and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For years, the Iranians stood against the United States, waging a virtual cold war against us. Since the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981, the States have cut off almost all negotiations with the Theocracy, the nation that not only holds the keys to a victorious ending in Iraq, but also stands on the brink of nuclear capability. The current U.S administration has refused time and time again to cut a deal with the Islamic Republic, however, such an approach to Iran is no longer an option. We must come to the table, without conditions, and come to an agreement on Iranian involvement in the new Iraq and Iran’s nuclear future. We must concede to them on some matters, such as allowing them to possess peaceful, civilian nuclear power, though we cannot allow ourselves the liberty of leniency on matters such as nuclear weaponry. If anywhere holds key to a U.S. success in Iraq, it rests on a bargaining table in Tehran.

This is merely a list of suggestions. Take it with a grain of salt. All of these may be enacted, and Iraq may still be the “catch-22” it is as I write, none of these may be taken, and it may turn into a somewhat stable nation. But if we want to have any hope of changing the current way of the country, something’s gotta change.

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

please contribute something relevant, please

Put in some one who will support and further the Islamic Revolution, and get the Americans out.

has successfully held this nation together, and kept a lid on the ethnic divisions that are currently tearing it apart. The solution to the Iraq problem is simple.

Pardon and reappoint Saddam Hussein as President



I in no way intend this as flamebait, but rather to invite sensible responses as to why it's flawed. After all, he did hold the nation together. Perhaps Iraqi solutions are more apt to Iraqi problems. Neh?

My exit strategy? Run really fast. Maybe drive or fly, if I can.

Seriously though, I think everybody will just eventually forget about it and it'll fix itself. Always does.

please contribute something relevant, please

How is that not relevant?

How is that not relevant?

Because we cannot just nuke all americans, there'd be other nationalities hurt.

Because we cannot just nuke all americans, there'd be other nationalities hurt.

I was referring to the mideast. There going to do it themselves sooner or later.

Pardon and reappoint Saddam Hussein as President

We could not reappoint Saddam, he was not what was holding the nation together, rather, the Baathist party--which would be unable to come back in a democracy of fundamentalists as is the current situation--and the military--which has been flattened to the ground.

I was referring to the mideast. There going to do it themselves sooner or later.

because, we cannot go around waging nuclear war on every single nation that we have ever had a grievance with, this is the problem with my generation, we have no respect for diplomacy, as we have grown up in a time when we hold a power monopoly over the world

No. Of course we couldn't, really. But a secular strongman of his ilk may prove the only viable solution. That was my point, really.

Exiting through Iran (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30931/print/) its our best bet! :D