NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as a large percentage of people tend to agree that America has fucked up with its foreign policies, especially Iraq's, I'm wondering what people think about fixing the problem. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm)

So we fucked up.

Now what?

IMO, this issue is more difficult than figuring out that we fucked up in the first place. That was hard enough; even now there are some who feel America is doing the right thing.

The most plausible options I see are similar to that of the Pentagon.
1. Cut and run. Basically turn with out tails between our legs and back out. Let them sort their own shit out. Bad because that whole area could explode into warfare, and America would somehow reinvolve itself.

2.Hold out.
In essence, dig in and wait. American troops will die. Lots of them. This is sort of whats going on, and from what we see, its not working either.

3. All out warfare.
Full fledge warfare again; room to room clearing. Would probably need a draft to effectively work, which is why this won't happen soon. I'd say this would work best, if a draft came into place. However, that is a big if.

So lets not focus on whether or not America is right or wrong, do you think its possible to at least stabilize Iraq, and how can that be done?

Any of the poll options while waving shiny things to distract the voting public.

Some combination of the first two. Dig in and wait til we can get the fuck out of Dodge.

Glowing arabs will make them easier to spot at the airport security checkpoints.

Glowing arabs will make them easier to spot at the airport security checkpoints.

But we wouldn't want to expose the staff at the airport and other passengers to their dangerous radiation. It'd be best to just bad them from airports.

I think the third of your listed options is by far the worst. At this point, the notion of instituting a draft is just plain funny. Three quarters of Americans don't support the war, and the percentage is even higher among the key demographic that you'd be drafting first.

Escalating the war is simply not an option. Our military has been crippled by a shitty president with shitty staff. We simply cannot field the troops you need for this option, and pushing for a draft will only serve to get you kicked out of office in a hurry.

Maybe it might once have been a good option to go all-out in Iraq. I honestly don't know. But I know that it's no longer an option thanks to Dubya and his merry band.

Some combination of the first two. Dig in and wait til we can get the fuck out of Dodge.

So wait until we've got a clear opening, then run like hell?

Glowing arabs will make them easier to spot at the airport security checkpoints.

But we wouldn't want to expose the staff at the airport and other passengers to their dangerous radiation. It'd be best to just bad them from airports.

Damn your superior typing skills!

There's no good solution to Iraq. That's generally what happens with gigantic fuck-ups. C'est la vie.

I think the third of your listed options is by far the worst. At this point, the notion of instituting a draft is just plain funny. Three quarters of Americans don't support the war, and the percentage is even higher among the key demographic that you'd be drafting first.

Escalating the war is simply not an option. Our military has been crippled by a shitty president with shitty staff. We simply cannot field the troops you need for this option, and pushing for a draft will only serve to get you kicked out of office in a hurry.

Maybe it might once have been a good option to go all-out in Iraq. I honestly don't know. But I know that it's no longer an option thanks to Dubya and his merry band.
I just imagined our Commander in Chief in tights. I don't know if I can deal with this.

I think the third of your listed options is by far the worst. At this point, the notion of instituting a draft is just plain funny. Three quarters of Americans don't support the war, and the percentage is even higher among the key demographic that you'd be drafting first.

Escalating the war is simply not an option. Our military has been crippled by a shitty president with shitty staff. We simply cannot field the troops you need for this option, and pushing for a draft will only serve to get you kicked out of office in a hurry.

Maybe it might once have been a good option to go all-out in Iraq. I honestly don't know. But I know that it's no longer an option thanks to Dubya and his merry band.

The trouble is that by all reports, we're going to "surge" another 20,000 troops to Bagdad, Bush will announce that in tomorrow night's speech.

And there should have been a joke option in the poll ... actually, they're all joke options.

Crap I voted for the wrong option. >_>

So wait until we've got a clear opening, then run like hell?

We fucked up. We're going to be dealing with these consequences for a long time. I think it would be better if we weren't there doing the ol' in and out longer than we have to be.

Crap I voted for the wrong option. >_>

So? That's all of them.

Option 3. It is what we should have done in the 1st place.

the trouble with ANY option is the man at the top.

the right president could make any of the 3 options work. with bush at the helm, none of them will work.

i think we have to try to wait it out for 2 more years, not fuck up too badly, then hand it over to someone else to get us out with the best possible outcome for us and the iraqis.

the trouble with ANY option is the man at the top.

the right president could make any of the 3 options work. with bush at the helm, none of them will work.

i think we have to try to wait it out for 2 more years, not fuck up too badly, then hand it over to someone else to get us out with the best possible outcome for us and the iraqis.

Which is what Bush himself said, that an exit strategy for Iraq would be the concern of future presidents.

You know, I was just thinking. If we could get the ex-president of Iraq and then hang him, maybe this will all go away...

The trouble is that by all reports, we're going to "surge" another 20,000 troops to Bagdad, Bush will announce that in tomorrow night's speech.

And there should have been a joke option in the poll ... actually, they're all joke options.

sigh

a joke should make you laugh, not cry

Damn your superior typing skills!
I get a lot of that. >.> <.<
I just imagined our Commander in Chief in tights. I don't know if I can deal with this.
Oh God no. Nooooo, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Crap I voted for the wrong option. >_>
There's a right option?

So? That's all of them.Good point... good point.

America didn't mess up ... America's President did. First thing is to get better leadership in the whitehouse. Then we need a better plan of attack if we are going to stay. It might be a good idea to pay attention to the Generals instead of firing them when they don't agree with you.

Which is what Bush himself said, that an exit strategy for Iraq would be the concern of future presidents.

oh thats right, i forgot.

so why is he pretending that he is going to do anything to fix this?

I just imagined our Commander in Chief in tights. I don't know if I can deal with this.
In my head, he's also dancing a little jig.

Seeing as a large percentage of people tend to agree that America has fucked up with its foreign policies, especially Iraq's, I'm wondering what people think about fixing the problem. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm)

So we fucked up.

Now what?

IMO, this issue is more difficult than figuring out that we fucked up in the first place. That was hard enough; even now there are some who feel America is doing the right thing.

The most plausible options I see are similar to that of the Pentagon.
1. Cut and run. Basically turn with out tails between our legs and back out. Let them sort their own shit out. Bad because that whole area could explode into warfare, and America would somehow reinvolve itself.

2.Hold out.
In essence, dig in and wait. American troops will die. Lots of them. This is sort of whats going on, and from what we see, its not working either.

3. All out warfare.
Full fledge warfare again; room to room clearing. Would probably need a draft to effectively work, which is why this won't happen soon. I'd say this would work best, if a draft came into place. However, that is a big if.

So lets not focus on whether or not America is right or wrong, do you think its possible to at least stabilize Iraq, and how can that be done?
I still like my "Berlin Solution"... basically Divide Iraq and Baghdad into sections... each section is only Sunni, Shiite and other Islamic factions. build a wall that keeps em seperate, and keep the center of the city, the government leadership area as the only area where the sectional leaders can meet and guide Iraq in general, but in each section, they govern and police themselves.

It may not be popular, but until they can learn to play together nicely...

One of the biggest screw-ups in this whole thing was the constant rotation of soldiers and the fact that the soldiers simply didn't form social ties there. I know why they did it, it reduced the chances that any individual soldier would die (being exposed less) and kept people happier (their family members were home more). The problem is that this was never going to work - never going to lead to a stable country that US foreign policy could stomach - unless the people would go for it. And since the people see random soldiers that they have no ties whatsoever to with big guns on the streets every day, they are easy to blame for all of the problems - and the other options look better and better.

At this point (and I admit I'm no military strategist), I think the best option would be to dig in, but to keep the same soldiers stationed there for much longer periods of time, allowing them to actually get to know the people and form social ties there. The only other workable option I see is to pull out, let whatever "bad dudes" who win the civil war come to power, and then sweep in to "save" the Iraqi people - not making ourselves look like new, worse rulers this time.

well Denmark is also in Iraq which is why i think i can allow my self to vote on this one... If it was right or wrong to go into Iraq dosent matter.
What matters if what will happen if we pull out, which properly will be, all out civil war (and who knows maybe turkey mite move in irak and create a buffer one from the north (because turkey arent very fond of the kurdes that live in the north), and some would properly also want to live under Irani rule, so the whole situation in the middle east would get unstable, no question in my mind there.

So we are obligated to be in Iraq until the situation. After all the situation wasent this unstable under Saddam (yea i know he was a bad guy, but the question is what is best, a all out paramilitary anarchy cesspool, or a hard dictatorship (i dont know, and i cant answer the queston unless i live in both, which i hope i never will).

I aren't a military tactician, or a expert of great social behaviour, so i dont know how to win the peace in Iraq, but one thing is sure... moving out would just be irresponsible..
maybe a little less Tzu Sun and a little more Niccolo Machiavelli i dont know..

In my head, he's also dancing a little jig.

I had a dream once that I was Bush's parking attendent and he kept doing fake karate moves on me. I joked that his Ferrari(?!) was stolen by terrorists and he looked like he was going to cry. Then I said, "No, no! I'm joking! Terrorists only steal planes." Then he continued doing fake karate moves on me.



I woke up in a cold sweat.


Um... yeah, don't ask me why I told you that.

In my head, he's also dancing a little jig.

[singing]
We're men, we're men in tights.
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
We may look like sissies, but watch what you say or else we'll put out your lights!
We're men, we're men in tights,
Always on guard defending the people's rights.

[The Can-Can Chorus Line]

We're men, MANLY men, we're men in tights.
[Gay voice] Yes!
We roam around the forest looking for fights.
We're men, we're men in tights.
We rob from the rich and give to the poor, that's right!
We may look like pansies, but don't get us wrong or else we'll put out your lights.
We're men, we're men in tights
[High Voice] TIGHT Tights
Always on guard defending the people's rights.
When you're in a fix just call for the men in tights!

WE'RE BUTCH!

oh thats right, i forgot.

so why is he pretending that he is going to do anything to fix this?

The worst part is, I think he believes this is a solution. Do you think he's drinking again?

I had a dream once that I was Bush's parking attendent and he kept doing fake karate moves on me. I joked that his Ferrari(?!) was stolen by terrorists and he looked like he was going to cry. Then I said, "No, no! I'm joking! Terrorists only steal planes." Then he continued doing fake karate moves on me.



I woke up in a cold sweat.


Um... yeah, don't ask me why I told you that.

:eek:

:eek:

Everyone thinks I made this dream up... I hate that.

Do a Troop rush on Iraq. 50k additional troops for a year or so. Freefire on any jihaddi toting an AK in the street.

There's lots of options.

Do a Troop rush on Iraq. 50k additional troops for a year or so. Freefire on any jihaddi toting an AK in the street.

There's lots of options.

....ugh....

well Denmark is also in Iraq which is why i think i can allow my self to vote on this one... If it was right or wrong dosent matter.
What matters if what will happen if we pull out, which properly will be, all out civil war (and who knows maybe turkey mite move in irak and create a buffer one from the north (because turkey arent very fond of the kurdes that live in the north), and some would properly also want to live under Irani rule, so the whole situation in the middle east would get unstable, no question in my mind there.

So we are obligated to be in Iraq until the situation. After all the situation wasent this unstable under Saddam (yea i know he was a bad guy, but the question is what is best, a all out paramilitary anarchy cesspool, or a hard dictatorship (i dont know, and i cant answer the queston unless i live in both, which i hope i never will).

I aren't a military tactician, or a expert of great social behaviour, so i dont know how to win the peace in Iraq, but one thing is sure... moving out would just be irresponsible..
maybe a little less Tzu Sun and a little more Niccolo Machiavelli i dont know..

these are all good points.

but there are other points to be considered

every day we are there we attract more and more insurgents, terrorists and opportunists to iraq.

every day we are there, we train more of the soldiers who will be fighting the big time civil war that will happen whenever we move out.

every day we are there is a day when the iraqis are relying on us to hold things together instead of figuring out how to do it on their own.

every day we are there things get worse.

yes i voted that we should hunker down and wait it out but we are so much of the problem that it might not be possible to make it better while we are there.

The worst part is, I think he believes this is a solution. Do you think he's drinking again?



yes i do. i know i would be.

Seeing as a large percentage of people tend to agree that America has fucked up with its foreign policies, especially Iraq's, I'm wondering what people think about fixing the problem. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-12-poll_x.htm)

So we fucked up.

Now what?

IMO, this issue is more difficult than figuring out that we fucked up in the first place. That was hard enough; even now there are some who feel America is doing the right thing.

Actually, figuring out it was FUBARed was pretty easy.

The most plausible options I see are similar to that of the Pentagon.

You forgot the most important one, the one that has the best chance of working. More in a moment.

1. Cut and run. Basically turn with out tails between our legs and back out. Let them sort their own shit out. Bad because that whole area could explode into warfare, and America would somehow reinvolve itself.

Simply pulling out is my number two choice. Not onlyy does it pull the last leg out from under what little stability exists, it gives the US a black eye in the "you broke it, you bought it" department. Yet again, we will have shown the world that we have no interest in really following through with anything.

2.Hold out.
In essence, dig in and wait. American troops will die. Lots of them. This is sort of whats going on, and from what we see, its not working either.

Exactly this is the loose-loose option. If this is the policy that is used in the near/intermediate future, (and it looks like it will be - the supposed surge is nothing but a dodgy dodge for domestic political purposes) the situation declines on all fronts.

3. All out warfare.
Full fledge warfare again; room to room clearing. Would probably need a draft to effectively work, which is why this won't happen soon. I'd say this would work best, if a draft came into place. However, that is a big if.

This is simply a no go, for several reasons. First, the type of war we're in now is COIN, which proceeds differently from conventional warfare. Secondly, we simply do not have the numbers to do it effectively. The ratio for sucessful COIN operations of military to occupied persons is under 1:20. To commit the sufficient forces would require abandoning every single military commitment we have. A draft, or the more likely and effective course of doubling the size of the volunteer force (easily doable, and very much in need of doing - it's simply a return to the cold war levels) will take too long.

So lets not focus on whether or not America is right or wrong, do you think its possible to at least stabilize Iraq,

It's a far outside possibility, and it depends largely on the Bush administration's abandoning the central tenets of it's ideological foreign policy.

and how can that be done?

It's not too late to act on the rough reccomendations of the ISG. I don't perfectly agree with the reccomendations, but a gradual pull out while engaging in a regionwide diplomatic initiative to help stabilize the region, while abandoning the ideology of the neo-cons is the plan with the only real chance of working now.

Do a Troop rush on Iraq. 50k additional troops for a year or so. Freefire on any jihaddi toting an AK in the street.

There's lots of options.

And how do you know if it's an insurgent or a citizen exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms?

And how do you know if it's an insurgent or a citizen exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms?

That depends on what the Constitution of Iraq has to say about bearing arms. Does it allow it?

Do a Troop rush on Iraq. 50k additional troops for a year or so. Freefire on any jihaddi toting an AK in the street.

There's lots of options.So how do they tell the difference between Jihadi and law-abiding citizen?

That depends on what the Constitution of Iraq has to say about bearing arms. Does it allow it?Every family has the right to an AK-47.

The worst part is, I think he believes this is a solution. Do you think he's drinking again?

I think he's been drinking since Hurricane Katrina, but that's just me.

Maybe a "pan-Muslim peace force under UN mandate replacing US and UK invasion troops" could be a viable option, don't you think?

The most plausible options I see are similar to that of the Pentagon.
1. Cut and run. Basically turn with out tails between our legs and back out. Let them sort their own shit out. Bad because that whole area could explode into warfare, and America would somehow reinvolve itself.

It would probably follow you home, though, and I think you know it.


2.Hold out.
In essence, dig in and wait. American troops will die. Lots of them. This is sort of whats going on, and from what we see, its not working either.

Try and get diplomacy back on its feet. Get into active dialogue with the countries bordering Iraq, get a humanitarian effort on the way. Stop beinf the focus, basically.


3. All out warfare.
Full fledge warfare again; room to room clearing. Would probably need a draft to effectively work, which is why this won't happen soon. I'd say this would work best, if a draft came into place. However, that is a big if.

Warfare on whom? Or what? The problem I see in Iraq is that US troops are being fought against, without being able to find anyone to fight back against. That won't get any better by sending more people in, you know?

The most plausible options I see are similar to that of the Pentagon.
1. Cut and run. Basically turn with out tails between our legs and back out. Let them sort their own shit out. Bad because that whole area could explode into warfare, and America would somehow reinvolve itself.

Too much external pressure on Iraq for it to support itself. Fragile state, internecine warfare. We leave, Iraq erupts in warfare. Shiite/Sunni rivalries peak. Bunnies die.


2.Hold out.
In essence, dig in and wait. American troops will die. Lots of them. This is sort of whats going on, and from what we see, its not working either.

America's armed might is not designed to be a defensive force. Right now we don't have enough capable Longstreets to make this a viable solution.


3. All out warfare.
Full fledge warfare again; room to room clearing. Would probably need a draft to effectively work, which is why this won't happen soon. I'd say this would work best, if a draft came into place. However, that is a big if.

Offense is the best defense. Period, dot. Draft is not needed. Mobilize stalled forces in area, bring back the offensive. Take the fight to the enemy.


So lets not focus on whether or not America is right or wrong, do you think its possible to at least stabilize Iraq, and how can that be done?

Aggressive, decisive action. Fight the war on grounds the military is designed for: precision. Don't let the enemy choose the battlefield. Basically, we need to regain the initiative by taking the offensive.

Offense is the best defense. Period, dot. Draft is not needed. Mobilize stalled forces in area, bring back the offensive. Take the fight to the enemy.



Aggressive, decisive action. Fight the war on grounds the military is designed for: precision. Don't let the enemy choose the battlefield. Basically, we need to regain the initiative by taking the offensive.

FIND the enemy would be the first objective there....

It would probably follow you home, though, and I think you know it.
Yeah, I do.



Try and get diplomacy back on its feet. Get into active dialogue with the countries bordering Iraq, get a humanitarian effort on the way. Stop beinf the focus, basically.

Diplomacy with who? We won't speak with Iran on the basis that they're trying to expand their nuclear ambitions. Syria won't have all that much influence, and as long as the Saudis have their oil with us to buy it, they don't care. In my mind, they probably support the war because they make more profit on oil.

FIND the enemy would be the first objective there....
Warfare on whom? Or what? The problem I see in Iraq is that US troops are being fought against, without being able to find anyone to fight back against. That won't get any better by sending more people in, you know?

While I tend to agree with this, if the room to room clearing policy was enacted (incredibly unrealistic, and won't happen), you shoot back at anyone who shoots at you when you enter the room/building etc. Possibly happening now, but the way I mean it, I'm thinking basically a national breach and clear mission. Look for people to fight against. Yes, people would shoot us in self defense, but they'll become targets then. Honestly, if they're willing to shoot at us, then they must expect return fire.
That would be the most effective (not necessarily effecient) method to unroot an insurgency, but again, it won't happen due to lack of manpower, human rights' concerns, etc. etc. etc.

FIND the enemy would be the first objective there....

so you disarm everyone. those who obtain weapons are then the enemy. the smart ones would then wait till America says "Job Done" and leaves, then pick up arms again... but by that time, we're outta there.

so you disarm everyone. those who obtain weapons are then the enemy. the smart ones would then wait till America says "Job Done" and leaves, then pick up arms again... but by that time, we're outta there.

So you say that either way, whether we're in Iraq or not, the shit is going to/has already hit the fan?

You missed 'partition' in the poll.

So you say that either way, whether we're in Iraq or not, the shit is going to/has already hit the fan?
we're already in Iraq. so whether or not we're in Iraq or not is moot. We're already the Great Western Devil. The only thing at this point, that the USA can do is Damage Control, it's gonna hit the fan, but with proper planning, we can deflect it so that most of it either A) doesn't reach the fan, B) most of it splatters harmlessly against the wall, or C) we (the USA) takes the brunt of it and try to take any heat off of our allies.