NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202494/

These are the stakes gentlemen. An Iraq run by terrorists. What are you willing to do to prevent this?

what the hell, the people we declared a war on are fighting back?

What's with those fuckers? Don't they know we declared victory like....2 years ago?

Want to wipe out terrorism? Have fun nuking most of the world. :rolleyes:

I find you amusing.

Want to wipe out terrorism? Have fun nuking most of the world. :rolleyes:

I find you amusing.

Who taught you how to read? Preventing al-qaeda from leading Iraq =/= wiping out terrorism. If you respond to shit that doesn't exist that's cool to.

What are you willing to do to prevent this?


I am willing to build a time machine and somehow prevent Bush from destroying a foreign government and replacing it with total chaos.

Who taught you how to read? Preventing al-qaeda from leading Iraq =/= wiping out terrorism. If you respond to shit that doesn't exist that's cool to.
Ok, I'll give a seirous response. :(

We aren't going to prevent the inevitable from happening in Iraq. Trying to force/persuade the Iraqi's to use a US form of govenrment was destined to fail. The best we can do is secure our own safety without directly hurting anyone else (that means not starting wars).

You may be surprised, but continuing a war in Iraq will not stop the civil war and terrorists from taking over Iraqi government. Puppet governments will always fall.

I am willing to build a time machine and somehow prevent Bush from destroying a foreign government and replacing it with total chaos.

You know, I'd almost think it was a diabolically brilliant plan to fuck this thing up SOOOOOO badly just so we'd be able to maintain a miltary presence in iraq.

Almost, because I doubt the chimp is capable of such deep strategy. The saddest part of this whole debacle is that he actually, truly thought we were going to win.

Ok, I'll give a seirous response. :(

We aren't going to prevent the inevitable from happening in Iraq. Trying to force/persuade the Iraqi's to use a US form of govenrment was destined to fail. The best we can do is secure our own safety without directly hurting anyone else (that means not starting wars).
The Iraq doesn't have the US form of gov't. Not only do they have a parliament but Islamic law plays a massive role in their constitution.
You may be surprised, but continuing a war in Iraq will not stop the civil war and terrorists from taking over Iraqi government. Puppet governments will always fall.
You may be surprised but, with an IA capable of providing the current level of security throughout Iraq by itself the gov't will not fall. As long as the insurgency can not take the conflict to 2gw or 3gw they will not be the leaders of Iraq. However if they are allowed to take it to the next level against a weak IA and IP then it is possible that they will succeed.

Are you just throwing out random combinations of letters to make yourself look smart?

The Iraq doesn't have the US form of gov't. Not only do they have a parliament but Islamic law plays a massive role in their constitution.
They had the full backing of the US, and my guess would be most Iraqis would like their government to be independent.

You may be surprised but, with an IA capable of providing the current level of security throughout Iraq by itself the gov't will not fall.
The current level of security doesn't exactly make most of Iraq safe.

As long as the insurgency can not take the conflict to 2gw or 3gw they will not be the leaders of Iraq. However if they are allowed to take it to the next level against a weak IA and IP then it is possible that they will succeed.
They have numbers, support, and the hate of the US working in their favor. I wish I could believe so easily everything is going great and Iraq will become a peaceful country despite the countries it is surrounded by and its culture, but logic and facts suggest it won't happen.

lol

we can have our "War Czar" duke it out with their "Minister of War"

We invade their country, knock down their government (albeit a nasty form of government), dismantle their military and police, put thousands out of jobs and give those jobs to foreign contractors. Gee, golly, I can't imagine why people would be upset. :rolleyes:

We created the insurgency in Iraq. Period, end of sentence. The inrush of foreign fighters (many of whom are al-queda) is also our fault, but not quite as directly. We're providing fodder to every single Islamic militant out there! How well do you think Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and every single civilian death are going over in the greater Islamic world? Take a guess. Go ahead, please. We've fucked ourselves in the Middle East and I don't see any way out of it.

you might want to try to dp with your gf on apr8

They had the full backing of the US, and my guess would be most Iraqis would like their government to be independent.
Their gov't now is fully independent.


The current level of security doesn't exactly make most of Iraq safe.
MOST of Iraq is safe. The current level that the insurgency is at is not capable of overthrowing the Iraqi gov't with current force levels.

They have numbers, support, and the hate of the US working in their favor. I wish I could believe so easily everything is going great and Iraq will become a peaceful country despite the countries it is surrounded by and its culture, but logic and facts suggest it won't happen.
Iraq will become peaceful. Not in a year, not in 5 years. However, much longer down the road, if we do things correctly right now we can leave an Iraqi gov't that is capable of keeping the insurgency down for a long enough time that it gives up.

Their gov't now is fully independent.
Awesome, then they don't need our help.



MOST of Iraq is safe.
I think you watch to much Fox News.

Iraq will become peaceful. Not in a year, not in 5 years. However, much longer down the road, if we do things correctly right now we can leave an Iraqi gov't that is capable of keeping the insurgency down for a long enough time that it gives up.
Money can only buy so many guns, bullets, and other equipment for so long. And of course there are only so many lives that can be wasted because hard headed idiots that didn't understand middle eastern culture and history wanted a "new kind of Iraq".

Edit: The people fighting in the civil war/insurgency take their fight as seriously as Americans took their revolution, what makes you think they would just give up?

Their gov't now is fully independent.



MOST of Iraq is safe. The current level that the insurgency is at is not capable of overthrowing the Iraqi gov't with current force levels.
Iraq will become peaceful. Not in a year, not in 5 years. However, much longer down the road, if we do things correctly right now we can leave an Iraqi gov't that is capable of keeping the insurgency down for a long enough time that it gives up.

Then why are we still there???

Awesome, then they don't need our help.
Where did you get that? Their military needs our assistance in critical areas(anbar and baghdad). The Iraqi military is in the lead in 11 provinces. They are the only forces in several of those provinces. There are 4 where they are on an equal level and 3 where they are in a support role.




I think you watch to much Fox News.
I think I have too much experience and not enough propaganda.

Money can only buy so many guns, bullets, and other equipment for so long. And of course there are only so many lives that can be wasted because hard headed idiots that didn't understand middle eastern culture and history wanted a "new kind of Iraq".
Exactly. The insurgency will dry up when it is understood that it is not winnable.

Edit: The people fighting in the civil war/insurgency take their fight as seriously as Americans took their revolution, what makes you think they would just give up?
If they were put in a non winnable situation then they would have surrendered. However, that war was completely winnable.

Then why are we still there???

B/c if we leave right now that situation will become reversed. The gov't will fall in baghdad and anbar. Their military needs, IMO, a year or so more assistance at current levels then force levels can begin coming down. Thinking in black and white is bad.

Where did you get that? Their military needs our assistance in critical areas(anbar and baghdad). The Iraqi military is in the lead in 11 provinces. They are the only forces in several of those provinces. There are 4 where they are on an equal level and 3 where they are in a support role.
If the Iraqi government is completely inndependent, they could operate their own ountry without help...


I think I have too much experience and not enough propaganda.
Propaganda? Oh, you mean reporting facts.

Exactly. The insurgency will dry up when it is understood that it is not winnable.
This is a fight for what they see as right, and are willing to die for. They will not just give up, they have been at it for hundreds of years.

Where did you get that? Their military needs our assistance in critical areas(anbar and baghdad). The Iraqi military is in the lead in 11 provinces. They are the only forces in several of those provinces. There are 4 where they are on an equal level and 3 where they are in a support role.

You can't have it both ways, they either need us there or they don't. You can't say their winning but not winning enough to do it on their own.

You can't have it both ways, they either need us there or they don't. You can't say their winning but not winning enough to do it on their own.

Give me one reason why not. There is much progress. They have the majority of the country under their control. However there are sectors of the country that they are not capable of containing w/o our assistance. With more trained Iraqi forces in those areas, however, they will be able to contain them as we do.

Give me one reason why not. There is much progress. They have the majority of the country under their control. However there are sectors of the country that they are not capable of containing w/o our assistance. With more trained Iraqi forces in those areas, however, they will be able to contain them as we do.
Interesting, last I checked there were still explosions and killings in areas "contained" by the US.

If the Iraqi government is completely inndependent, they could operate their own ountry without help...
Not necessarily. Making their own decisions doesn't mean having a sufficiently powerful military and police.


Propaganda? Oh, you mean reporting facts.
No, I pretty much mean propaganda.

This is a fight for what they see as right, and are willing to die for. They will not just give up, they have been at it for hundreds of years.
They have been at it for 4 years. This is much less an ethnic conflict than you think. There are hundreds of gangs and militias. They are all fighting against each other and for power within the country. If there is no way for them to get that power, then they will not fight.

Interesting, last I checked there were still explosions and killings in areas "contained" by the US.

And there was still a government in that area. Any idiot can set off a bomb no matter how many troops are there. It's just a question of whether that bomb can accomplish anything. And the answer is no, it cannot.

Not necessarily. Making their own decisions doesn't mean having a sufficiently powerful military and police.
There are foreign troops doing a job for the Iraqi government, hence they are not independent.



No, I pretty much mean propaganda.
Like I said, you watch to much Fox News (or any conservative news really). Iraq news on "Liberal" channels and sources report facts, not straight up lies.


They have been at it for 4 years. This is much less an ethnic conflict than you think.
Um...I understand that there has been ethnic/political (kind of) strife in the middle east for hundreds of years, so this is an extension of ethnic strife whether its being fought by gangs and militias or armies of different nations.

There are hundreds of gangs and militias. They are all fighting against each other and for power within the country. If there is no way for them to get that power, then they will not fight.
You think they are only fighting for political power? Its a part of their fight, but not their entire purpose. Please, brush up on your middle eastern culture and history.

And there was still a government in that area. Any idiot can set off a bomb no matter how many troops are there. It's just a question of whether that bomb can accomplish anything. And the answer is no, it cannot.
Then by logic, it is not contained. Also, if a bomb kills someone, it has accomplished something.

My two cents on the issue:

I think that the Us is taking too much of the blame for the current Iraq situation. This is mostly because history has shown that third-world, ethnically and religiously divided countries ruled by totalitarian dictators descend into civil war and anarchy after the leader dies (Somalia, Congo, Yugoslavia, etc.). I think that after Saddam Hussein died naturally, the country would descend into much of what it is right now. The US just sped up the process and is preventing total anarchy. Not to say that going was justified or righteous or such, Iraq was just a time bomb waiting to explode.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202494/

These are the stakes gentlemen. An Iraq run by terrorists. What are you willing to do to prevent this?

gentlemen??

There are foreign troops doing a job for the Iraqi government, hence they are not independent.
Canadian ships aided in the relief effort after Katrina. Foreign troops were doing a job for our gov't. Are we independent?



Like I said, you watch to much Fox News (or any conservative news really). Iraq news on "Liberal" channels and sources report facts, not straight up lies.
I get news from every source that I can. However "news" often doesn't tell you anything except a meaningless body count. Also, why are you so certain that it is the mainstream channels that are reporting facts and not Fox? What experience do you have to back this up with? B/c I'm going to tell you right now that they both get just about everything wrong except the body counts.


Um...I understand that there has been ethnic/political (kind of) strife in the middle east for hundreds of years, so this is an extension of ethnic strife whether its being fought by gangs and militias or armies of different nations.
It happened before so it has to be happening right now. Good logic.

You think they are only fighting for political power? Its a part of their fight, but not their entire purpose. Please, brush up on your middle eastern culture and history.
The leaders, yes. They use religion as propaganda to mobilize supporters sure. That has been the purpose of religion for millennium. That doesn't mean that it is the main underlying reason for war. Please stop talking about things that you have no knowledge about.

Then by logic, it is not contained. Also, if a bomb kills someone, it has accomplished something.
Yes, it is very contained. The territory is in gov't hands. It is therefore contained. The bomb accomplishes nothing except the off chance that it gets in the headlines. Then someone like you reads it and thinks the war is a disaster. You give the bomb meaning. You give them a purpose to kill civilians.

I am willing to build a time machine and somehow prevent Bush from destroying a foreign government and replacing it with total chaos.

Got one better. Go back and prevent 9/11. Then wether or not President Bush is re-elected will be baised on his performance and not by the "War on Terror"

Canadian ships aided in the relief effort after Katrina. Foreign troops were doing a job for our gov't. Are we independent?
Nearly all of the rescue and all of the on going aid is done by the US. Also, we never lost our independence to begin with.


I get news from every source that I can. However "news" often doesn't tell you anything except a meaningless body count.
Body counts are meaningless? How about reports of increased violence in certain areas? It seems like everything but reports of "success" are meaningless to those in support of the war.

Also, why are you so certain that it is the mainstream channels that are reporting facts and not Fox? What experience do you have to back this up with? B/c I'm going to tell you right now that they both get just about everything wrong except the body counts.
Checking Fox News reports against other sources, and watching them distort things so much it seems almost like a joke.



It happened before so it has to be happening right now. Good logic.
Its been happening everywhere, we just allowed it to get more violent and intense.


The leaders, yes. They use religion as propaganda to mobilize supporters sure. That has been the purpose of religion for millennium. That doesn't mean that it is the main underlying reason for war.
For some leaders it is the purpose, but for many more, political power plays a smaller (if not non-existent) part.

Please stop talking about things that you have no knowledge about.
Thats a bit hypocritical.

Yes, it is very contained. The territory is in gov't hands. It is therefore contained.
Oh, so "contained" means troops are in that area. Ok.

The bomb accomplishes nothing except the off chance that it gets in the headlines.
It kills someone, thus it accomplishes its goal. The purpose of them fighting is not to make head lines, its to kill.

Then someone like you reads it and thinks the war is a disaster. You give the bomb meaning. You give them a purpose to kill civilians.
You mean horrible people like me put value on human life and report whats going on?

The war isn't a disaster because a bomb goes off every now and then, the war is a disaster because the people who want to continue US involvement do not understand the middle east or their culture and resolve, and do not realize that we cannot ever "win".

Joke Answer: Build a time machine to 1980, and give Iran all the military hardware and special training they could handle, therefore letting them win the war.

Real Answer: Draft. More soldiers. In fact, I'd say at the very least, we at the very least, tripple our forces in Iraq, all the while being drastically more aggresive.

Bush and the rest of the shitheads in congress need to stop being so God damned indecisive and actually do something to fix the problem at hand. Stop with the what ifs and maybes. They're the dumbasses who declared war in the first place, it's their obligation to to fix it.

What pisses me off even more is that Bush and his yes-man senate also figured they could roll right in, liberate everyone, it would all be happy people with smiling faces and that would be that. Since Bush still probably has this vague notion going about in his head, he figures a surge of a mere 30 thousand soldiers is going to fix it.

The American people are no better, we get all excited when we flex our military muscle, but when things start to turn sour, it's "Oh No! Our boys are dying! How did we ever see this coming??!! Pull them out immediatly!! All is lost!" I'm not saying that our loss of life isn't bad, because it is. But when you look at the casualties compared to most other extensive wars, we've lost a fraction in this war then we did to WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

The USA needs to get a grip. If Bush and Congress seriously want to win the war, they need to get ther thumbs out of our asses, do absolutley everything they can to help finish it, and we can end this chapter in American History.

Too bad it's never going to happen.

Nearly all of the rescue and all of the on going aid is done by the US. Also, we never lost our independence to begin with.
If you go back far enough we did. And most of the fighting is being done by IA and IP also. Just not enough of it.


Body counts are meaningless? How about reports of increased violence in certain areas? It seems like everything but reports of "success" are meaningless to those in support of the war.
When you look at increased violence in an area you need to look at the impact that that violence is having on the ability for the local government to govern. A bomb killing 15 people has very little affect on it.

Checking Fox News reports against other sources, and watching them distort things so much it seems almost like a joke.
It's clear that you believe that but can you back it up with examples? I can give you plenty of examples of every source getting the story completely wrong.



Its been happening everywhere, we just allowed it to get more violent and intense.
Don't say "we". You haven't done anything.


For some leaders it is the purpose, but for many more political power plays a smaller (if not non-existent) part.
Power is the reason that they are leaders. Otherwise they would be content to be foot soldiers where they make the real difference.

Thats a bit hypocritical.
All that you know about arab culture is sunnis and shiites. So basically, you know shit.

Oh, so "contained" means troops are in that area. Ok.
No, contained means a functioning government in that area. If an insurgency can't disrupt the government then that insurgency is powerless.

It kills someone, thus it accomplishes its goal. The purpose of them fighting is not to make head lines, its to kill. You mean horrible people like me put value on human life and report whats going on?
Killing w/o direction gets them nowhere. They kill to make headlines so that people like you who can't stomach blood start screaming about how we it's not worth it and they win the war.

The war isn't a disaster because a bomb goes off every now and then, the war is a disaster because the people who want to continue US involvement do not understand the middle east or their culture and resolve, and do not realize that we cannot ever "win".
Again, all that you know about the culture of the ME is sunni and shiite. Even then you don't know the intricacies of that situation. You're knowledge goes about as far as they don't like each other. And even that can be sketchy a lot of the time.

Leathernecks;

I have given this a lot of thought. If what you say is true, we have both served. I served in the First Gulf and opted for retirement at 22.5 years. We are both officers.

All of the passions aside and a rational analysis of the conditions on the ground indicate that Iraq is in a state of civil war. Would this civil war still be happening if we went in, deposed Hussein and then gradually withdrew after rebuilding infrastructure?

I think so.

Hussein was a bad man and got what he deserved, but he also was the only game in town since roughly 1968. We propped him up for the vast majority of those years with money, weapons and other forms of aid. We did this so Iraq would be a buffer state between Israel and Iran with a secular leader.

Put bluntly, Saddam was a thug, but he was OUR thug. Suddenly President G.H.W. Bush changes the political calculus and declares Saddam a murdering thug, something we already knew. So we pull his teeth, confine him to his borders and let him stew all throughout the remainder of the First Bush Presidency and the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. Intelligence analysts all mostly agreed that Saddam was incapable of independent creation of NBC programs after we took it all from him and destroyed it.

Then along comes the idiots at the helm of the New American Century (read here, the neoconservatives Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney and Rumsfeld) who played on the obvious sympathies of the second Bush Presidency to seek out a reason to fully depose Saddam. Complicate this witches brew with the hard, cold facts that none of these men wore the uniform in hostile action. They lacked the perspective of G.H.W Bush and General Powell who knew the consequences of turning over the hornet's nest.

Further complicating factors include the wholesale mocking, firing and force retirements of competent military leaders who KNEW what sort of shitstorm we were going to start.

Throw into the mix an unwillingness to craft a post-conflict period plan, blithely arguing that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators with flowers and garlands. Any legitimate scholar of the Middle East, be them liberal or conservative could have told you the results we now have.

What should we do? Declare victory and gradually withdraw US forces and be gone by mid-2008. Learn our lesson from getting our noses bloodied by indigenous fighters (It's obvious we failed to learn that lesson from Vietnam).

I am squarely in with General Petraeus. Fighting insurgencies takes a long time and requires as much diplomacy as firepower. In case folks haven't figured it out, diplomacy is not this Administration's strong suit.

The question is no longer a matter of IF we will withdraw, it is a matter of when and how. We lost our chance to do some good there, we let our massive ego get in the way of doing the right thing. Soon, the CIC will be the last man standing on his side. The man who believes he was made President by God (hoo-boy).

It is my sincere prayer that when we get a new President, he/she will think more clearly before applying long term US military force on a problem and make sure they understand the consequences of their actions.

We created this problem, it is our fault. We need to stand up now and accept responsibility for our actions, this includes leaving.

Got one better. Go back and prevent 9/11. Then wether or not President Bush is re-elected will be baised on his performance and not by the "War on Terror"

Then the Democrats lose essentially every issue they have with Bush other than his party alignment--by which I mean classic party disputes. He would just be another Republican President, and I think Gore was a better candidate than Kerry was, so I still think that he would have won in 2004 (even with the war on terror, the 2000 and 2004 electoral maps changed by only 3 states). However, Cheney would have been a good chance for the Rep's in 2008, so I'll stick with what we've got.

Joke Answer: Build a time machine to 1980, and give Iran all the military hardware and special training they could handle, therefore letting them win the war.

Real Answer: Draft. More soldiers. In fact, I'd say at the very least, we at the very least, triple our forces in Iraq, all the while being drastically more aggressive.

Bush and the rest of the shitheads in congress need to stop being so God damned indecisive and actually do something to fix the problem at hand. Stop with the what ifs and maybes. They're the dumbasses who declared war in the first place, it's their obligation to to fix it.

What pisses me off even more is that Bush and his yes-man senate also figured they could roll right in, liberate everyone, it would all be happy people with smiling faces and that would be that. Since Bush still probably has this vague notion going about in his head, he figures a surge of a mere 30 thousand soldiers is going to fix it.

The American people are no better, we get all excited when we flex our military muscle, but when things start to turn sour, it's "Oh No! Our boys are dying! How did we ever see this coming??!! Pull them out immediatly!! All is lost!" I'm not saying that our loss of life isn't bad, because it is. But when you look at the casualties compared to most other extensive wars, we've lost a fraction in this war then we did to WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

The USA needs to get a grip. If Bush and Congress seriously want to win the war, they need to get their thumbs out of our asses, do absolutely everything they can to help finish it, and we can end this chapter in American History.

Too bad it's never going to happen.

I totally agree. Lets see what Happens.

If you go back far enough we did.
We aren't talking about history though.

And most of the fighting is being done by IA and IP also. Just not enough of it.
Great, let them do all of it, put some pressure on them.


When you look at increased violence in an area you need to look at the impact that that violence is having on the ability for the local government to govern. A bomb killing 15 people has very little affect on it.
We aren't talking about 15 people dead one time, we are talking about hundreds dead over the period of a year.


It's clear that you believe that but can you back it up with examples? I can give you plenty of examples of every source getting the story completely wrong.
Just watch The O'reilly Factor, its like where's wally for pre-schoolers trying to find fake facts. (I thought it was a good analogy :rolleyes:)




Don't say "we". You haven't done anything.
We as in the US, which I am part of. Don't start pulling out "I'm a soldier doing the fighting, you have no say in anything" mentality.



Power is the reason that they are leaders. Otherwise they would be content to be foot soldiers where they make the real difference.
Every organization needs leaders, its doesn't matter what their motives are.


All that you know about arab culture is sunnis and shiites. So basically, you know shit.
Wow...thanks for telling me what I do and do not know.


No, contained means a functioning government in that area. If an insurgency can't disrupt the government then that insurgency is powerless.
What do you consider disuption? I consider it to be over turning what they want in that area, which is peace. If they don't allow peace, would they not be disrupting the government?


Killing w/o direction gets them nowhere.
Without direction? Killing in numbers gets them somewhere, even if its only with the locals.

They kill to make headlines so that people like you who can't stomach blood start screaming about how we it's not worth it and they win the war.
I explained this further down in my previous post. Thanks for the typical response for this situation though.


Again, all that you know about the culture of the ME is sunni and shiite. Even then you don't know the intricacies of that situation. You're knowledge goes about as far as they don't like each other. And even that can be sketchy a lot of the time.
And again, thank you for telling me what I do and do not know.

1st 8 paragraphs
I'm completely in agreement with you on every point. The admin screwed up everything that could have been screwed up. However the next part is where our differences come into light.
What should we do? Declare victory and gradually withdraw US forces and be gone by mid-2008. Learn our lesson from getting our noses bloodied by indigenous fighters (It's obvious we failed to learn that lesson from Vietnam).
I disagree whole-heartedly with this assessment. To simply pick up and leave would be an entirely disastrous maneuver. The first reason that this would be a bad move is the moral one. Us leaving before we fixed what we broke is just not acceptable to me. It is my assessment that hundred of thousands more will die if we carry out this COA. The second reason that this is not acceptable to me is that we have interests in Iraq that are not dispensable. Namely oil. I know that I will take heat for saying it but oil is a damn good reason to stay. The world economy now and in 50 years depends on it. The final reason to not execute this is that the potential for our enemies to take have control over the country is too great. If a sunni group wins then we have to worry about terrorism and the possibility of another iraq-iran war. If a shiia group wins then we have to worry about a much more powerful iran.
I am squarely in with General Petraeus. Fighting insurgencies takes a long time and requires as much diplomacy as firepower.
Agreed. We don't have that time but the Iraqis do. I believe that in the mid 08 time line that you gave it may be possible to raise enough quality Iraqi battalions for them to take near full control over their countries security. Of course advisers and logistics will still be required of us.
The question is no longer a matter of IF we will withdraw, it is a matter of when and how. We lost our chance to do some good there, we let our massive ego get in the way of doing the right thing. Soon, the CiC will be the last man standing on his side. The man who believes he was made President by God (hoo-boy).
I agree that at the civilian level there were many mistakes and at some point we will have to disengage. However I disagree that we have lost our chance to do good. I believe, along w/ Gen. Petraeus, that the coming months are critical. If we do it right we could have a sufficient IA and IP in under a year. However if we suffer setbacks I fear that the political landscape will not afford another chance.
It is my sincere prayer that when we get a new President, they will think more clearly before applying long term US military force on a problem and make sure they understand the consequences of their actions.
Amen.
We created this problem, it is our fault. We need to stand up now and accept responsibility for our actions, this includes leaving.
We may have to agree to disagree but it is my judgment that abandoning the people of Iraq in a situation that we created for them is not accepting responsibility.

We aren't talking about history though.
And what is the cutoff for history?

Great, let them do all of it, put some pressure on them.
Unfortunately, that is not one of their capabilities right now.


We aren't talking about 15 people dead one time, we are talking about hundreds dead over the period of a year.
100, 15 it's all the same. It's people killed in horrible ways for no reason and for nobodies gain. Al-qaeda tried killing civilians en mass. Now they are being persecuted by Sunni tribes.


Just watch The O'reilly Factor, its like where's wally for pre-schoolers trying to find fake facts. (I thought it was a good analogy :rolleyes:)
That's an opinion show, not a news show.



Every organization needs leaders, its doesn't matter what their motives are.
Sure it does. Them being leaders shows what kind of personality they have and what their motives are.


Wow...thanks for telling me what I do and do not know.
Then tell me what you do know.


What do you consider disuption? I consider it to be over turning what they want in that area, which is peace. If they don't allow peace, would they not be disrupting the government?
I consider disruption when the government can't pass bills and enforce it's laws. At this point, that is not the case.


Without direction? Killing in numbers gets them somewhere, even if its only with the locals.
Killing in numbers gets them enemies and hurts their cause.

I explained this further down in my previous post. Thanks for the typical response for this situation though.
You told me how I don't understand ME culture. Nothing about this.

*Snip*
I think we have reached the point where we can make point and counter point while gaining no ground. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

I think we have reached the point where we can make point and counter point while gaining no ground. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

Thats what usually happens. Quitter.:D

Thats what usually happens. Quitter.:D
I'm a lover, not a machine who can go back and forth all night.

:fluffle:

I am willing to build a time machine and somehow prevent Bush from destroying a foreign government and replacing it with total chaos.

That's pretty much what it will take.

I applaud this news, it is indeed a good step in the direction of destroying US corporate imperialism in Iraq and moreover the Middle East.

In short, those were named by Sunnis. My bet is that when the US leaves, the shia will probably put them all several feet below the ground. And Iraq would be split into Kurdistan and a suburb of Iran.

This just in: Conquering a nation is bad for its political stability.

Next?

In short, those were named by Sunnis. My bet is that when the US leaves, the shia will probably put them all several feet below the ground. And Iraq would be split into Kurdistan and a suburb of Iran.

That's right. Sunni Al Qaeda will NEVER conquer Iraq, and you can take that to the bank. The Iraqi government, even if and when it can stand up to the insurgency, will be an ally of the newly nuclear Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr is going to be the unelected co-prime minister of any democratically viable Iraqi government, as he is now. And if the US picks a fight with him before it leaves, the country will become completely ungovernable. A peaceful and democratic Iraq is, at this point, inextricably linked with being a peaceful, democratic, Iranian puppet state. That's why we kept saying it was a bad idea to pick a fight there.

A peaceful and democratic Iraq is, at this point, inextricably linked with being a peaceful, democratic, Iranian puppet state. That's why we kept saying it was a bad idea to pick a fight there.

That or installing another Saddam Hussein. But that wouldn't be very democratic.

This just in: Conquering a nation is bad for its political stability.

Next?

This just in, the wheel has been invented.

are they well done, or medium rare?

Leathernecks;

I have given this a lot of thought. If what you say is true, we have both served. I served in the First Gulf and opted for retirement at 22.5 years. We are both officers.

All of the passions aside and a rational analysis of the conditions on the ground indicate that Iraq is in a state of civil war. Would this civil war still be happening if we went in, deposed Hussein and then gradually withdrew after rebuilding infrastructure?

I think so.

Hussein was a bad man and got what he deserved, but he also was the only game in town since roughly 1968. We propped him up for the vast majority of those years with money, weapons and other forms of aid. We did this so Iraq would be a buffer state between Israel and Iran with a secular leader.

Put bluntly, Saddam was a thug, but he was OUR thug. Suddenly President G.H.W. Bush changes the political calculus and declares Saddam a murdering thug, something we already knew. So we pull his teeth, confine him to his borders and let him stew all throughout the remainder of the First Bush Presidency and the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency. Intelligence analysts all mostly agreed that Saddam was incapable of independent creation of NBC programs after we took it all from him and destroyed it.

Then along comes the idiots at the helm of the New American Century (read here, the neoconservatives Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney and Rumsfeld) who played on the obvious sympathies of the second Bush Presidency to seek out a reason to fully depose Saddam. Complicate this witches brew with the hard, cold facts that none of these men wore the uniform in hostile action. They lacked the perspective of G.H.W Bush and General Powell who knew the consequences of turning over the hornet's nest.

Further complicating factors include the wholesale mocking, firing and force retirements of competent military leaders who KNEW what sort of shitstorm we were going to start.

Throw into the mix an unwillingness to craft a post-conflict period plan, blithely arguing that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators with flowers and garlands. Any legitimate scholar of the Middle East, be them liberal or conservative could have told you the results we now have.

What should we do? Declare victory and gradually withdraw US forces and be gone by mid-2008. Learn our lesson from getting our noses bloodied by indigenous fighters (It's obvious we failed to learn that lesson from Vietnam).

I am squarely in with General Petraeus. Fighting insurgencies takes a long time and requires as much diplomacy as firepower. In case folks haven't figured it out, diplomacy is not this Administration's strong suit.

The question is no longer a matter of IF we will withdraw, it is a matter of when and how. We lost our chance to do some good there, we let our massive ego get in the way of doing the right thing. Soon, the CIC will be the last man standing on his side. The man who believes he was made President by God (hoo-boy).

It is my sincere prayer that when we get a new President, he/she will think more clearly before applying long term US military force on a problem and make sure they understand the consequences of their actions.

We created this problem, it is our fault. We need to stand up now and accept responsibility for our actions, this includes leaving.
Well stated thread winning commentary!! :)

USMC - what is the current PR message to the Iraqi people?

You know, it used to sound stupid when people said if we leave the "terrorists" win. Because the next question should be "which terrorists?" The Shia terrorists who don't want us in Iraq, or the Sunni terrorists who don't want us in Iraq? Now they say we have to put down the insurgency before we leave, to give the Iraqi government a chance. So we have to ask which insurgency? The Iranian backed Shia insurgency trying to force us out? The Sunni Al Qaeda insurgency that wants to force us out? The native Sunni insurgency that fights against the naturally Shia dominated democratic government? The Shia insurgency getting its own back against the Sunnis who murder Shia Iraqis daily? And which of all these are the ones who are going to hide in the airliner luggage compartments to "follow us home" if we don't put them down before leaving?

That's right. Sunni Al Qaeda will NEVER conquer Iraq, and you can take that to the bank. The Iraqi government, even if and when it can stand up to the insurgency, will be an ally of the newly nuclear Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr is going to be the unelected co-prime minister of any democratically viable Iraqi government, as he is now. And if the US picks a fight with him before it leaves, the country will become completely ungovernable. A peaceful and democratic Iraq is, at this point, inextricably linked with being a peaceful, democratic, Iranian puppet state. That's why we kept saying it was a bad idea to pick a fight there.

I agree.

And which of all these are the ones who are going to hide in the airliner luggage compartments to "follow us home" if we don't put them down before leaving?

So much for my hopes of winning this thread.

are they well done, or medium rare?
Knowing Iraq, rare with blood coming out, probably.

You know, it used to sound stupid when people said if we leave the "terrorists" win. Because the next question should be "which terrorists?" The Shia terrorists who don't want us in Iraq, or the Sunni terrorists who don't want us in Iraq? Now they say we have to put down the insurgency before we leave, to give the Iraqi government a chance. So we have to ask which insurgency? The Iranian backed Shia insurgency trying to force us out? The Sunni Al Qaeda insurgency that wants to force us out? The native Sunni insurgency that fights against the naturally Shia dominated democratic government? The Shia insurgency getting its own back against the Sunnis who murder Shia Iraqis daily? And which of all these are the ones who are going to hide in the airliner luggage compartments to "follow us home" if we don't put them down before leaving?

Since when has Bush examined the intricate facts instead of just blasting out random doomsday predictions about Iraq?

What is the worst thing is that the CPA essentially created the insurgency through their 'debaathization' program, and privatised everything they could see, resulting in the Iraq we see today. Forced capitalism ruined Iraq.

Since when has Bush examined the intricate facts instead of just blasting out random doomsday predictions about Iraq?

What is the worst thing is that the CPA essentially created the insurgency through their 'debaathization' program, and privatised everything they could see, resulting in the Iraq we see today. Forced capitalism ruined Iraq.

And I, and the rest of the world, all yell, at them: "We told you so".

The unofficial withdrawal date in Iraq is January of 2009 - that's when George Bush leaves office. There's no way in hell Americans will elect anyone who wants to continue pouring money into Iraq as president in November of 2008. Like it or not, that's the situation.

How does that leave Iraq? Probably in a civil war with Sunni guerrillas fighting a Shiite government. Since the Saudis have declared that they will fund the Sunnis in Iraq, this could easily continue for another ten years. Count on seeing reinforcements coming into the country from Iran, Pakistan, Syria and other parts of the middle east. Oil Production? Curtailed. Life expectancy for residents? Shortened.

How does that leave the U.S.? Loaded with debt - bad enough so that most citizens will work three to four months of the year before they pay off their annual contribution to the interest paid out of taxes to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and anyone else the Bush administration can borrow money from.

How does that leave American troops? Those who return alive will find their contribution rewarded by little but lip service from the politicians. It's incredible how little the U.S. has learned since the Vietnam War. At least this time, most Americans aren't going to blame the troops for the lack of planning and rush to judgement that have come out of the White House. Our objective in going into Iraq was to eliminate the possibility that the Iraqis could use nuclear weapons against us and to depose Saddam (mission accomplished), not to install the U.S. system of government and economics throughout the middle east.

A profound thanks to all who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

B/c if we leave right now that situation will become reversed. The gov't will fall in baghdad and anbar. Their military needs, IMO, a year or so more assistance at current levels then force levels can begin coming down. Thinking in black and white is bad.

We keep hearing this. Just give us 2 more Friedman Units. Just give us 1 more Friedman Unit. Every single time we've been promised that the war would be over in a year, or half a year, it has continued. The insurgency has been in its last throws for 3 years now, and shows no sign of letting up. There have not been 2 Friedman Units in a row where violence decreased in Iraq yet. Forgive me, but I don't beleive you. The reason should be obvious.

Our Generals are saying we've lost, no one will even touch the position of the War Execution Manager, and even Republicans can't keep their heads in the sand about this war any more. What more do you need, Hussein rising from the dead and leading a parade of undead Al Quaeda members in the Cha-Cha through Baghdad's markets?

Their gov't now is fully independent.
.

I'm sure that they don't have to get the all-clear from the Pentagon/Whitehouse to buy new staplers, but their country is effectively under US rule. The idea of the "surge" was not an Iraqi one, the detention of the Iranians was not an Iraqi decision.


MOST of Iraq is safe. The current level that the insurgency is at is not capable of overthrowing the Iraqi gov't with current force levels.
.

"most of Iraq"? Hardly. The least populated areas are generally safe, which is hardly suprising. Secondly, they cannot overthrow the Iraqi state as its constituted because of the American presence.


Exactly. The insurgency will dry up when it is understood that it is not winnable.

O its more than winnable. Not nessecarily by a military victory but still winnable. Vietnam, for example. The American public don't have the stomach for a long war with regular US casualties.

I disagree whole-heartedly with this assessment. To simply pick up and leave would be an entirely disastrous maneuver. The first reason that this would be a bad move is the moral one. Us leaving before we fixed what we broke is just not acceptable to me. It is my assessment that hundred of thousands more will die if we carry out this COA. .

The occupation is immoral, as was the invasion. Bit late to get morals now.



The second reason that this is not acceptable to me is that we have interests in Iraq that are not dispensable. Namely oil. I know that I will take heat for saying it but oil is a damn good reason to stay..

Honest, at least. However, 'fuck you and your imperialist ambition' is the short and polite answer to that. The world is not the US' oyster. One would have thought that the trouble caused by previous colonial powers should serve as an example as to why the whole enterprise is a bad idea.

Any idiot can set off a bomb no matter how many troops are there. It's just a question of whether that bomb can accomplish anything. And the answer is no, it cannot.

If any idiot can kill 100 people with a bomb placed in the very midst of the US-controlled zone of Baghdad, then clearly the US military aren't very good at containing the insurgency and the terrorism.

Also, I wonder how can a person claim that killing a thousand of people each month is "nothing". Doublethink plusgood goosetongued.

What are you willing to do to prevent this?

My solution to the problems of modern salafi movement has always been the same - Invasion/bombing of targets in KSA and Pak. Remove ideological and funding sources from KSA, and remove the leadership and the shelter provided by Pak and it will the end of a very large part of problem. Iraq was a diversion from the real problems and it still is. :cool:

My solution to the problems of modern salafi movement has always been the same - Invasion/bombing of targets in KSA and Pak. Remove ideological and funding sources from KSA, and remove the leadership and the shelter provided by Pak and it will the end of a very large part of problem. Iraq was a diversion from the real problems and it still is. :cool:
Bombing Pakistan/Saudi Arabia would be as counter-productive as you can get. You may as well just hand over the keys of the Islamic world to Iran on a silver plate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202494/

These are the stakes gentlemen. An Iraq run by terrorists. What are you willing to do to prevent this?

I'm reading this on a day the Whitehouse releases yet another anti-Castro terrorist to live here in the US.

I'm about sick of the double standard.

The only way the US can win this war is if they send 50.000 teachers along with their army to stay in the country for 20 years, teaching the new generation to stay away from religion and learn to trust in democracy.

Because I´m pretty sure not even 10% of Iraq´s population know what Democracy means, much less follow it.

Its just alien for their culture. They think democracy means eating babies, leting women take pills and their sons use drugs.

Got one better. Go back and prevent 9/11. Go one better.. go back to Abraham and make him Buddhist :D

as a result Judaism, Christianity and Islam are never created.

The only way the US can win this war is if they send 50.000 teachers along with their army to stay in the country for 20 years, teaching the new generation to stay away from religion and learn to trust in democracy.

Because I´m pretty sure not even 10% of Iraq´s population know what Democracy means, much less follow it.

Its just alien for their culture. They think democracy means eating babies, leting women take pills and their sons use drugs.

Based on recent electoral college fiasco, and current theocratic leaning in America... maybe we should send those teachers here first...

Wait a minute. What *do* they hold their tents up with in Iraq? It can't be stakes, because the sand is so loose they'd just fall over in the ground.

That is not enough. Democracy would mean nationalism, working together towards a single goal, and considering all the diferent tribes, groups, ideologies and powers, everyone working together just because someone was elected president doesnt seem possible to me.

There are people in Iraq that dont even feel like they are iraqi, but only members of their group.

none of u guys actually has an answer as to what can be done to make things okay again in Iraq......the rest of the world told you americans it was a bad idea but would you listen ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202494/

These are the stakes gentlemen. An Iraq run by terrorists. What are you willing to do to prevent this?

Don't worry, that won't ever happen.


The end result will be a whole lot worse, however...

That is not enough. Democracy would mean nationalism, working together towards a single goal, and considering all the diferent tribes, groups, ideologies and powers, everyone working together just because someone was elected president doesnt seem possible to me.

There are people in Iraq that dont even feel like they are iraqi, but only members of their group.

You've just described the United States, do you realise that?

none of u guys actually has an answer as to what can be done to make things okay again in Iraq......the rest of the world told you americans it was a bad idea but would you listen ;)

I seem to recall saying to my husband when the war started that it would do nothing but provide a breeding ground for terrorists, that Iraq would become a quagmire, etc. It's not just the rest of the world, plenty of people here in the US were against the war, too.

none of u guys actually has an answer as to what can be done to make things okay again in Iraq......the rest of the world told you americans it was a bad idea but would you listen ;)

And more seriously, I'm not sure I can see a way out. Pulling out is going to leave a country in chaos. Chaos that we caused, for right or wrong. It would seem that we have an obligation to fix what we smashed, but how? I think that getting Iraqis employed would be a good start. Make the defense contractors hire locals to rebuild the infrastructure. Logically, people who have jobs are less likely to be planting bombs. Beyond that? Installing a decent education system, an alternative to the madrassas would help. But these are all long-term, and they don't go boom, thus the Dubya doesn't seem like them very much.

Bombing Pakistan/Saudi Arabia would be as counter-productive as you can get. You may as well just hand over the keys of the Islamic world to Iran on a silver plate.
...

Iran is positively progressive in areas such as women's rights compared to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

Anyway, it's all completely fucked at this point in time. And it's going to stay like that. For ages. Until a new fairly bloodthirsty dictator is prepared to rule the country with an iron fist, to try and get some kind of unity, if only the unity gained by everyone shitting themselves about getting killed for rising up.

I'd bet on Al-Sadr to be that man.

You've just described the United States, do you realise that?
No they obviously haven't.

Since the more militant members of the natives and colonists actually succeeded in annihilating each other, the problem is not even the beginnings of as severe as it could be.

On the other hand, if, say black people, Catholics and white Protestants were paid to start shooting at each other, as is happening in Iraq, the situation might be rather different.

The US should take a lesson from the good old Roman Empire. They dealt with terrorists first by killing them, then recruiting their descendants into the army, then by making those descendants and their homelands Roman.

The problem with US foreign policy is we've only taken the first step. We need to proceed to making Iraq a province. Once the Iraqi's have all the priviliges of the US free market and media, and the chance to volunteer for 20 years in the US army, we'll have the problem solved.

Bread and circuses for everyone!

...

Iran is positively progressive in areas such as women's rights compared to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...

Anyway, it's all completely fucked at this point in time. And it's going to stay like that. For ages. Until a new fairly bloodthirsty dictator is prepared to rule the country with an iron fist, to try and get some kind of unity, if only the unity gained by everyone shitting themselves about getting killed for rising up.

I'd bet on Al-Sadr to be that man.
I can't say whether Iran is more progressive than Pakistan or not, beyond Pakistan abolishing Sharia for rape cases and personal experience, but I was talking more about their government's geopolitical agenda, not their domestic policy.

The US should take a lesson from the good old Roman Empire. They dealt with terrorists first by killing them, then recruiting their descendants into the army, then by making those descendants and their homelands Roman.

The problem with US foreign policy is we've only taken the first step. We need to proceed to making Iraq a province. Once the Iraqi's have all the priviliges of the US free market and media, and the chance to volunteer for 20 years in the US army, we'll have the problem solved.

Bread and circuses for everyone!

Well it would atleast given an awnser to the question of whether the USA is building an Empire or not.

A short analasys though:

Iraq has (besides under Saddam) NEVER been a nation of it's own, Iraq has ALWAYS been a part of another empire etc. The difference in culture in the country is unheard of even in Europe and the USA.

Also look at it this way: The entire region is benifitted by a stable Iraq, all nations in the region are aware that the Iraqi civil war can spill over to its neighbours, and if it goes on much longer... it will. But those nations also know this: If Democracy becomes succesfull in Iraq then all the neighbouring nations are in GRAVE danger or atleast its leadership. Why? If the people of Iran,Saudi Arabia etc. etc. see what Democracy can bring them, they'll want it too. Those nations can supress democratic tendencies for a while but not forever. A democratic Iraq equals the end of the monarchies and dictatorships that exist around Iraq. So a Democracy in Iraq will NEVER happen, peace can happen. If the USA leaves and the neighbouring nations take controll then they can stabilise Iraq, however with the side effect of Iraq becomming a Monarchy or dictatorship again.

I can't say whether Iran is more progressive than Pakistan or not, beyond Pakistan abolishing Sharia for rape cases and personal experience, but I was talking more about their government's geopolitical agenda, not their domestic policy.
Their geopolitical agenda is actually more worrying to me than Iran's to be perfectly honest.

Although Ahmoujenidad(?) is certainly a vocal little bugger, the Persian military is one of the weaker ones of the region, with the exception of their pretty world-class special forces, and they don't have any kind of force projection.

Pakistan, on the other hands, is both fighting India in Kashmir, which is one of the most densely populated regions of the world, basically letting this crap with terrorists groups running from Afghanistan into Pakistan slide and it does actually have nukes, it just keeps a bit quiet about it.

I disagree whole-heartedly with this assessment. To simply pick up and leave would be an entirely disastrous maneuver. The first reason that this would be a bad move is the moral one. Us leaving before we fixed what we broke is just not acceptable to me. It is my assessment that hundred of thousands more will die if we carry out this COA. The second reason that this is not acceptable to me is that we have interests in Iraq that are not dispensable. Namely oil. I know that I will take heat for saying it but oil is a damn good reason to stay. The world economy now and in 50 years depends on it. The final reason to not execute this is that the potential for our enemies to take have control over the country is too great. If a sunni group wins then we have to worry about terrorism and the possibility of another iraq-iran war. If a shiia group wins then we have to worry about a much more powerful iran.

First off, the beginnings of a withdrawal with an eye on mid-2008 is not a policy that I originally agreed with. It came to light as more and more evidence indicates this "surge" is farting in a whirlwind. Surely you and I, who have both gone to War College, realize that an extra 30k-50k of troops are not going to make much of a difference in long term stability in Iraq. Yes, we have vital national interests in the region via oil, that's just plain common sense. But securing all of Iraq is not something we can do with 160k troops. General Shinseki projected 400k. That is a figure that is more realistic.

Until this administration fully commits to all of the tools that General Petraeus needs (diplomacy, etc.), we are going to have this problem. The US Military will not be able to solve this situation with pure firepower alone.

As far as the terrorism issues? We reaped the whirlwind by embracing the "four P's" (Piss Poor Prior Planning) early on in this matter. How do you propose we defeat the terrorists? The real terror masters are nowhere near the sharp end. They recruit through the Mullahs that teach the most extreme form of Wahabiism, and then give them enough rudimentary training to kill themselves while taking the maximum number of innocents with them. You don't need much in the line of training facilities for that. The most rigourous part is inducing the fanatical beliefs necessary to send out these human bombs. It's been the same for millenia. Teach the hate, reinforce the hate by telling these young men (and now women) that they are guaranteed a place in Paradise by their acts of martyrism.

This problem has not been solved for centuries, but we have the chance to solve it an about one hundred years of trade and diplomacy. You change the underpinnings of society with trade.


Agreed. We don't have that time but the Iraqis do. I believe that in the mid 08 time line that you gave it may be possible to raise enough quality Iraqi battalions for them to take near full control over their countries security. Of course advisers and logistics will still be required of us.

Maybe, but I am sceptical of the current idiots who "run" that country. Puppets are ill equipped to make strong, calculated decisions.


I agree that at the civilian level there were many mistakes and at some point we will have to disengage. However I disagree that we have lost our chance to do good. I believe, along w/ Gen. Petraeus, that the coming months are critical. If we do it right we could have a sufficient IA and IP in under a year. However if we suffer setbacks I fear that the political landscape will not afford another chance.

Lay the blame right where it belongs. This White House. Setbacks are inevitable and this President is ill-equipped to have a national conversation with the American people. He will just bull ahead and not give a damn, he has proven that by the choices of the men and women he surrounds himself with.


We may have to agree to disagree but it is my judgment that abandoning the people of Iraq in a situation that we created for them is not accepting responsibility.

Same argument presented almost word for word about leaving Vietnam. These are the consequences of going to war ill-prepared, and the longer we sit there, the harder it will be to make a clean break.

I refer you all to the thread about Alec Baldwin yelling at his 11 year old daughter. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524617

I think my feelings on this matter have been made clear.

First off, the beginnings of a withdrawal with an eye on mid-2008 is not a policy that I originally agreed with. It came to light as more and more evidence indicates this "surge" is farting in a whirlwind. Surely you and I, who have both gone to War College, realize that an extra 30k-50k of troops are not going to make much of a difference in long term stability in Iraq. Yes, we have vital national interests in the region via oil, that's just plain common sense. But securing all of Iraq is not something we can do with 160k troops. General Shinseki projected 400k. That is a figure that is more realistic.
When you take Iraqi forces into account you find that we do have that 400k number.
Until this administration fully commits to all of the tools that General Petraeus needs (diplomacy, etc.), we are going to have this problem. The US Military will not be able to solve this situation with pure firepower alone.
Since when were we using firepower alone?
As far as the terrorism issues? We reaped the whirlwind by embracing the "four P's" (Piss Poor Prior Planning) early on in this matter. How do you propose we defeat the terrorists? The real terror masters are nowhere near the sharp end. They recruit through the Mullahs that teach the most extreme form of Wahabiism, and then give them enough rudimentary training to kill themselves while taking the maximum number of innocents with them. You don't need much in the line of training facilities for that. The most rigourous part is inducing the fanatical beliefs necessary to send out these human bombs. It's been the same for millenia. Teach the hate, reinforce the hate by telling these young men (and now women) that they are guaranteed a place in Paradise by their acts of martyrism.
I don't think it is possible to stop terrorists from trying to commit terroristic attacks. However it is very possible to prevent them from having a country to base conventional ops from.


Maybe, but I am sceptical of the current idiots who "run" that country. Puppets are ill equipped to make strong, calculated decisions.
They have spoken against the U.S. before so i would be hard pressed to call them puppets.



Lay the blame right where it belongs. This White House. Setbacks are inevitable and this President is ill-equipped to have a national conversation with the American people. He will just bull ahead and not give a damn, he has proven that by the choices of the men and women he surrounds himself with.
Laying blame will accomplish nothing.



Same argument presented almost word for word about leaving Vietnam. These are the consequences of going to war ill-prepared, and the longer we sit there, the harder it will be to make a clean break.
Vietnam was a completely different enviornment. There was a very present conventional element in the equation. And you are assuming that I think we made the right decision to leave Vietnam.

Bombing Pakistan/Saudi Arabia would be as counter-productive as you can get. You may as well just hand over the keys of the Islamic world to Iran on a silver plate.

Why would that be a bad thing? Is it because the US has allergies to anything Iran?

Seriously, what is that bad about Iran, that makes you give KSA and Pak sponsored salafi terrorism a pass?

Why is KSA and Pak "allies" of "war on terror" while Iran is "axis of the evil" when KSA and Pak are together culpable in a variety of huge and real problems such as islamist terrorism and nuclear proliferation, in degrees and magnitude FAR MORE than Iran can be accused of ?

If we can characterize evil in the form of nations, then KSA and Pak are the leading contenders in today's world. They both have regimes conscious of what they are doing and they are still doing it and we still watch them doing it.

What we should have done is given the place back to S. Hussein. He seemed to have rather more control over Iraq than we do. Perhaps a Bloody dictator is the right kind of leader for the manic shit hole!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202494/

These are the stakes gentlemen. An Iraq run by terrorists. What are you willing to do to prevent this?

Build a time machine and take incriminating photos of Bush at a frat party. You?

Why would that be a bad thing? Is it because the US has allergies to anything Iran?

Seriously, what is that bad about Iran, that makes you give KSA and Pak sponsored salafi terrorism a pass?
I mentioned Iran because they have a theocratic government (which they undoubtedly want to spread, as almost every system of government wants to), not because of anything to do with terrorism.

Bombing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would undoubtedly turn many more people, both in these countries, and in the wider region, against the 'west', however you define it, and only make the terrorism problem worse, whether it be in Kashmir, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan or anywhere else. I'm sure that's not what anybody wants to do. More people, I think, would end up supporting an Iran style theocracy. That's what I was getting at.

Military force would make the problem only worse, I feel.

Why is KSA and Pak "allies" of "war on terror" while Iran is "axis of the evil" when KSA and Pak are together culpable in a variety of huge and real problems such as islamist terrorism and nuclear proliferation, in degrees and magnitude FAR MORE than Iran can be accused of ?

If we can characterize evil in the form of nations, then KSA and Pak are the leading contenders in today's world. They both have regimes conscious of what they are doing and they are still doing it and we still watch them doing it.
Of course nuclear proliferation cannot be tolerated, and that has to include Iran, Pakistan, India, NK and Israel - the law should apply equally to everybody. However, whether this is right or wrong, I'm sure countries like the USA would much rather have countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as allies, good or bad, rather than outright enemies, which I don't think they are at the moment.

EDIT: And for the record, I don't believe in this Iran/North Korea 'axis of evil' rubbish, either.

I mentioned Iran because they have a theocratic government (which they undoubtedly want to spread, as almost every system of government wants to), not because of anything to do with terrorism.

Well, the monarchy of KSA has always exported its brand of sunni Islam. The madrassas that breed terrorists in Pakistan are funded by them. Madrassas affiliated to the local flavor of Islam (Barelvis) do not pose problems. I wonder how it is different from Shia Iran exporting its brand of worldview to shia communities in Lebanon and elsewhere.

I also contest the assertion that just because the army is in power in Pak, it is not a theocracy. It was the army general Zia who started the "islamisation" process. The motto of the Pak army is "Iman, Taqwa, Jihad fi Sabilillah" -meaning "Faith, Piety, Jihad in the path of Allah".

The leaders of these countries project a different image when there is western press around. If you follow domestic policies - they are no different from overt theocracies like Iran when it comes to deriving legitimacy from Islam and use Islam for political purposes. They too don't derive their mandate from the people - unlike Iran's regime which at least has some mandate from its people.


Bombing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would undoubtedly turn many more people, both in these countries, and in the wider region, against the 'west', however you define it, and only make the terrorism problem worse, whether it be in Kashmir, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan or anywhere else. I'm sure that's not what anybody wants to do. More people, I think, would end up supporting an Iran style theocracy. That's what I was getting at.

The leaders of these countries have no internal legitimacy from the people. The islamists are projecting these leaders as western stooges and this view is gaining currency in many muslim countries without democracies. By supporting these leaders, you are perpetuating that view and more people are going to turn to islamist parties anyways.

I do understand that there is no easy solution to this mess. But we can start by not using these leaders as a layer and talk to the people directly.


Military force would make the problem only worse, I feel.


Well, if you don't attack the taliban and AQ in their base (NWFP and Quetta etc), then you have to face a war of attrition in Afghanistan and the numbers and time are on their side. You can bite the bullet now or later....or withdraw from there and face the consequences. None of these choices are pretty.


Of course nuclear proliferation cannot be tolerated, and that has to include Iran, Pakistan, India, NK and Israel - the law should apply equally to everybody. However, whether this is right or wrong, I'm sure countries like the USA would much rather have countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as allies, good or bad, rather than outright enemies, which I don't think they are at the moment.

Armed men from Pak cross over into Afgh and shoot at US soldiers.

With friends like these....:rolleyes:

I'm sure countries like the USA would much rather have countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as allies, good or bad, rather than outright enemies

I want to debate this further.

If that be the case, then why not Iran as an ally instead of enemy. Surely, more Americans have been killed as a result of the policies of the "allies" Pak and KSA than Iran, no ?

If we draw a list of Americans killed by hostile action, we can find that apart from the Beirut incident, almost every other incident that killed Americans, starting with 9-11 can attributed to actors from KSA-Pak.

When you take Iraqi forces into account you find that we do have that 400k number.

How many of these brigades are fully functioning and better than say average preparedness? How good is their equipment? 240k men who are ill-prepared and only have been given rudimentary training are not up to the task. Most importantly, where are you getting the 240k figure? Most agree that 80k Iraqis at acceptable levels of readiness are closer to the truth.


I don't think it is possible to stop terrorists from trying to commit terroristic attacks. However it is very possible to prevent them from having a country to base conventional ops from.

Nonsense. It may be possible to deny them KEY bases of operation, but not an entire country. These are indiginous people that look like everybody else. Plus, they do not use conventional operations. They use asymetric, irregular or "guerilla" warfare. This is why fighting an insurgency can take decades. Petraeus lays it out very nicely for you, please re-read the doctrine, my friend.


They have spoken against the U.S. before so i would be hard pressed to call them puppets.

You would be hard pressed to call them independent, strong leaders either. It's one thing to shoot your mouth off for the locals. It's quite another to have the political will and wherewithal to make the people who put you in office go away for good.


Laying blame will accomplish nothing.

Finding out where the blame lies helps accomplish damage control. Intelligence agencies routinely, after finding out where they screwed up and who did it, do a full blown damage assessment and then do what is necessary to fix the problem. If this administration and the people who run it have screwed the pooch, then we need to find out where the blame lies and HOW to fix and prevent such a thing from happening again.


Vietnam was a completely different enviornment. There was a very present conventional element in the equation. And you are assuming that I think we made the right decision to leave Vietnam.

On the surface you are correct. But Vietnam was still a war fought conventionally by the US against enemies who fought asymetrically. Our doctrine was to fight an established national army that used conventional or near conventional tactics and strategy. The NVA fought a war against a superior foe and fought us to a draw. In some places they kicked our fannies.

I won't go on to the list of American tactics that failed there. It is a matter of record. A lot of young men who fought there are now Generals and tried to prepare us for an irregular war, but the inertia was simply too much for them. The old cold warriors (of which I am one, the last of that breed) absolutely insisted on making conventional warfare the primary strategy. Rumsfeld had ONE thing right, we needed to be faster, lighter and quicker to respond. We are still slow, ponderous and conventional by that standard. We have made undeniable progress in unconventional strategy and tactics, but we have a long way to go.

Finally, whether you agreed with the final withdrawal of US troops out of South Vietnam is not really relevent, we might be on the same side or the opposite side. The fact remains, Vietnam is the closest war tactically and strategically to the situation we face in the Middle East.