NationStates Jolt Archive

1) End catch-and-release program immediately. It was intended to keep bad will down but all it does is negate every advance we make and frusturate the public. A few innocents being locked up is a small price to pay for a successful country and lives being saved.

2) Initiate a rating system of 0-100 for how important a province is and how many troops are required there. All ratings updated every 2 weeks.

3) Shift order of battle to the following :
a) Reduce troops from all provinces with a rating of <50
b) Add troops to all provinces with a rating of >50

4) Redeploy infantry to be embedded with one american platoon for every iraqi company.

5) Redeploy support units in the most efficient fashion possible. I can't know what this is seeing as i really don't feel like going through the current order of battle.

6) After 12 months:
a) Redeploy american troops from all provinces with a rating of <25
b) Keep levels in areas with rating of 25-70
c) Raise troops levels in areas with rating of >70

7) Maintain this process until all areas are under a rating of 50.

8) Maintain a reserve force to deploy to any province in need of more troops.

9) Immediately order militias to disband or give up control to the iraqi army.

My Iraq strategy:
Admit getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea and either rise him from the dead or find some other Sunni strong man worse then him, give him lots of weapons and let him go at it. tuck tail and run.(this is presuming I want the US to succeed, when in fact I want them to failm, sorry but its true)

My Iraq strategy:
Admit getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea and either rise him from the dead or find some other Sunni strong man worse then him, give him lots of weapons and let him go at it. tuck tail and run.(this is presuming I want the US to succeed, when in fact I want them to failm, sorry but its true)

Even if you brought back some "strong man", things wouldn't get better, because Iraq isn't centralized anymore. It would be much harder to get control.

Also, now that those sectarian militias got their taste of blood, they ain't just going to drop their weapons and turn themselves in.

Why do you want the US to fail? What country do you live in, anyway?

I have a strategy, you'll likely not like it, but its the only one I see working:


First of all, deploy half a million troops to iraq. Situate them initially in Baghdad, then launch basically Operation Phantom Fury part II, and raid EVERY home in the city. Declare that anyone found with a weapon in their home will be declared an enemy combatant and arrested. If anyone wields a weapon near American and Iraqi Government Forces, they will be shot on site. Then, do this in EVERY city throughout the country. Kill anyone who raises arms against the Americans, that way, we have eliminated the cause and ability of the insurgents to create the havoc they have been. Further, have air craft and helicopters constantly patrolling the Syrian and Iranian borders. Any vehicles coming in from Iran, and and vehicles going into Iran should be targetted and destroyed (They very well could be insurgents going to recieve weapons shipments, or are Iranian/Syrian operatives, i.e Tarkavar Commandos, etc)

I don't like this method, it means in essence killing of possibly a hundred thousand people, but its the only thing I see working.

I have a strategy, you'll likely not like it, but its the only one I see working:


First of all, deploy half a million troops to iraq. Situate them initially in Baghdad, then launch basically Operation Phantom Fury part II, and raid EVERY home in the city. Declare that anyone found with a weapon in their home will be declared an enemy combatant and arrested. If anyone wields a weapon near American and Iraqi Government Forces, they will be shot on site. Then, do this in EVERY city throughout the country. Kill anyone who raises arms against the Americans, that way, we have eliminated the cause and ability of the insurgents to create the havoc they have been. Further, have air craft and helicopters constantly patrolling the Syrian and Iranian borders. Any vehicles coming in from Iran, and and vehicles going into Iran should be targetted and destroyed (They very well could be insurgents going to recieve weapons shipments, or are Iranian/Syrian operatives, i.e Tarkavar Commandos, etc)

I don't like this method, it means in essence killing of possibly a hundred thousand people, but its the only thing I see working.

There are 2 problems with this: We don't have 500000 troops to spare, and after you're done, there's nothing that stops the insurgents from coming back in and toppling the Iraqi government except a prolonged American prescense, so you're back where you started.

Why do you want the US to fail?

So you can hesitate next time you're contemplating a very bad, very divisive, and very expensive course of action, perhaps just long enough to realize that very bad, divisive and expensive courses of action aren't likely to get any better, unifying or cheaper any budget soon; that, and also for you to realize that while you like to imagine yourselves the "cops of the world", that no-one loves a cop.

That's what works for me...

My Iraq strategy: pretend it's not happening. It's too stressful to think about.

My Iraq plan:

- Give the Iraqi government 12 months to get it's shit in order.

- Ask it what, specifically, it needs American troops to do inside that limit.

- Leave after 12 months.

That's all we can do. We don't have the half a million troops it would take to turn Iraq around, and we shouldn't pretend we do. We need a rested and strong military, and that is not what we are acheiving in Iraq. The cost to our security is greater if we stay than if we leave.

So you can hesitate next time you're contemplating a very bad, very divisive, and very expensive course of action, perhaps just long enough to realize that very bad, divisive and expensive courses of action aren't likely to get any better, unifying or cheaper any budget soon; that, and also for you to realize that while you like to imagine yourselves the "cops of the world", that no-one loves a cop.

That's what works for me...

I'm pretty sure that's happening right now, even though we haven't entirely failed in Iraq.

But then again, wouldn't you rather have a democratic, prosperous Iraq, even if it did encourage American intervention elsewhere?

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Not especially. Hey, I'd be thrilled for the people of Iraq if they were to decide they wanted a proper democracy for themselves. And maybe someday that will happen, but that someday isn't today. Nor is it likely to happen before Dubya makes his egress.

1) End catch-and-release program immediately. It was intended to keep bad will down but all it does is negate every advance we make and frusturate the public. A few innocents being locked up is a small price to pay for a successful country and lives being saved.

2) Initiate a rating system of 0-100 for how important a province is and how many troops are required there. All ratings updated every 2 weeks.

3) Shift order of battle to the following :
a) Reduce troops from all provinces with a rating of <50
b) Add troops to all provinces with a rating of >50

4) Redeploy infantry to be embedded with one american platoon for every iraqi company.

5) Redeploy support units in the most efficient fashion possible. I can't know what this is seeing as i really don't feel like going through the current order of battle.

6) After 12 months:
a) Redeploy american troops from all provinces with a rating of <25
b) Keep levels in areas with rating of 25-70
c) Raise troops levels in areas with rating of >70

7) Maintain this process until all areas are under a rating of 50.

8) Maintain a reserve force to deploy to any province in need of more troops.

9) Immediately order militias to disband or give up control to the iraqi army.

Sounds like a plan made by a teenager. You're not working for the DOD are you? :rolleyes:

Even if you brought back some "strong man", things wouldn't get better, because Iraq isn't centralized anymore. It would be much harder to get control.

Also, now that those sectarian militias got their taste of blood, they ain't just going to drop their weapons and turn themselves in.
wouldn't matter, a good dictator like Saddam knows how to get their people in line and stay there.

Why do you want the US to fail? What country do you live in, anyway

So they learn not to fuck with other people, especially Muslims. I live in the US, though probably not for a lot longer.

Sounds like a plan made by a teenager. You're not working for the DOD are you? :rolleyes:

Personally I want to know why the provinces are rated on a scale with 101 degrees. Terribly untidy to a base-ten mind like me.

Personally I want to know why the provinces are rated on a scale with 101 degrees. Terribly untidy to a base-ten mind like me.

Just a guess, but maybe it has something to do with the possibility that the OP thinks this is like an over-sized game of Risk or Axis & Allies.

Sounds like a plan made by a teenager. You're not working for the DOD are you? :rolleyes:

Well, a teenager would be an improvement over some of the numskulls who work at DOD. ;)

Abandon the current government, it's causing just as many problems as the insurgants with their blind support for the Shitte militas. That or ignore them and hunt down the damn militas anyway.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site 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.

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

Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal.

My plan: immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

What hasn't worked for four years won't start working now.

What hasn't worked for four years won't start working now.

only because people like you refuse to clap louder

Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal.

Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?

only because people like you refuse to clap louder

God damnit.

THANKS FOR REMINDING ME COKE REALLY BURNS COMING OUT YOUR NOSE.

Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/photoessay/images/4p012307pm-0462-398h.jpg

I say we grease this rat-fuck son of a bitch right now.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/photoessay/images/4p012307pm-0462-398h.jpg

I say we grease this rat-fuck son of a bitch right now.

I prefer the term "Artificial Person" myself.

I say we grease this rat-fuck son of a bitch right now.

at the 'hey, why not?' yet-another-peace-march-and-rally out here today, there was a guy with a sign that declared that bush deserves a fair trial. i'm not sure i agree.

at the 'hey, why not?' yet-another-peace-march-and-rally out here today, there was a guy with a sign that declared that bush deserves a fair trial. i'm not sure i agree.

Nah, he deserves a show trial. One with high entertainment value. One to remember.

I have a strategy, you'll likely not like it, but its the only one I see working:

First of all, deploy half a million troops to iraq. Situate them initially in Baghdad, then launch basically Operation Phantom Fury part II, and raid EVERY home in the city. Declare that anyone found with a weapon in their home will be declared an enemy combatant and arrested. If anyone wields a weapon near American and Iraqi Government Forces, they will be shot on site. Then, do this in EVERY city throughout the country. Kill anyone who raises arms against the Americans, that way, we have eliminated the cause and ability of the insurgents to create the havoc they have been. Further, have air craft and helicopters constantly patrolling the Syrian and Iranian borders. Any vehicles coming in from Iran, and and vehicles going into Iran should be targetted and destroyed (They very well could be insurgents going to recieve weapons shipments, or are Iranian/Syrian operatives, i.e Tarkavar Commandos, etc)

I don't like this method, it means in essence killing of possibly a hundred thousand people, but its the only thing I see working.

It'd be nice if we could put that half million in, but it's totally unrealsitic. Even with activating all the NG and reserve units indefinately and withdrawing from all our other commitments, we'd have just enough combat forces to put in Iraq. That'd also mean cutting back the already low dwell time between troop rotations to zero. Currently the active force units are deployed for one year and home for one year, with two years for reserves and NG. That means running down the military much, much faster than we already are, due to increased equipment and personnel losses. (The ideal is supposed to be one year deployed and two years dwell time for the active force and five or six for the reserves and NG. Less than that and you start running into morale problems and loosing people.)

There are 2 problems with this: We don't have 500000 troops to spare, and after you're done, there's nothing that stops the insurgents from coming back in and toppling the Iraqi government except a prolonged American prescense, so you're back where you started.

We do have that many - if you include the NG and reserves, but basically yeah, not to realistically deploy.

My Iraq plan:

- Give the Iraqi government 12 months to get it's shit in order.

- Ask it what, specifically, it needs American troops to do inside that limit.

- Leave after 12 months.

That's all we can do. We don't have the half a million troops it would take to turn Iraq around, and we shouldn't pretend we do. We need a rested and strong military, and that is not what we are acheiving in Iraq. The cost to our security is greater if we stay than if we leave.

That's looking like it's the only real option now.

Well, a teenager would be an improvement over some of the numskulls who work at DOD. ;)

As well as in certain other positions.

My plan: immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

^ My plan: do what he just suggested. ^

There are 2 problems with this: We don't have 500000 troops to spare, and after you're done, there's nothing that stops the insurgents from coming back in and toppling the Iraqi government except a prolonged American prescense, so you're back where you started.

Wait... we've got 50k troops just sitting in Japan, of all places, plus countless thousands of Natn. Guardsmen and reserves sitting in America.

How many troops do you think we are able to support, if not 500k?

besides, you're missing the point of the whole strategy... he didn't say we'd have to have exactly 500k troops in iraq... thats quite a bit extreme for a country about a tenth the size of America.

Wait... we've got 50k troops just sitting in Japan, of all places, plus countless thousands of Natn. Guardsmen and reserves sitting in America.

How many troops do you think we are able to support, if not 500k?

First off, the US forces in Japan (and elewhere) aren't just "sitting around" without rhyme or reason. They're deployed for a variety of reasons, including regional security, treaty commitments, peacekeeping, etc.

Secondly, see my post above for why deploying 500,000 to Iraq is unrealistic.

besides, you're missing the point of the whole strategy... he didn't say we'd have to have exactly 500k troops in iraq... thats quite a bit extreme for a country about a tenth the size of America.

The number of troops needed to bring stability to a situation like Iraq is a function of population. Histrorically, to controll such a situation, a force ratio of above 20 troops per 1000 people is needed. That's where the 500,000 plus number comes from.

So you can hesitate next time you're contemplating a very bad, very divisive, and very expensive course of action, perhaps just long enough to realize that very bad, divisive and expensive courses of action aren't likely to get any better, unifying or cheaper any budget soon; that, and also for you to realize that while you like to imagine yourselves the "cops of the world", that no-one loves a cop.

That's what works for me...

Sounds good to me too....

Declare that anyone found with a weapon in their home will be declared an enemy combatant and arrested.
Yay for gun control!