The War - Now What???

[frenchriver1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15347136/

About time, but Bush also needs to call in many of the brilliant military strategists in this forum to help him change the course of the war efforts.... How many body bags so far this month?

[Ranger Ray]

Get the Sunni's, faction leaders, mullah's together and tell them they have two weeks to get with the program or we are leaving and all guns, ammo, tanks and such will be left behind to the Kurds when we depart and mean it.

[snakebit67]

Get the Sunni's, faction leaders, mullah's together and tell them they have two weeks to get with the program or we are leaving and all guns, ammo, tanks and such will be left behind to the Kurds when we depart and mean it.
nice plan ray, but i have a feeling with all that artillery, they would try to invade turkey:lol:

[eddiejohn4]

This was never going to be an easy task, we have a long way to go. We will adapt to the changes , and hopefully the Iraqi forces will get up to speed to defend their own country from these militias.

It is hard for americans to see their own dying and have patience, but Im afraid that we need to hang in there as this is what the terrorists have been trying to accomplish all along. They want a civil war, they want us to throw up our hands and pull out.

[Gaffle]

How long is too long? Does anyone actually think these thugs are going to listen to any policy? At this point, I would definitely not want anyone I know going to Iraq. We went in thinking that democracy would win the hearts of the people. Well we went in with good intentions, but our cultures are too different. We have no good policy to make changes in Iraq. There is no Iraqi security force strong enough to work independently, the police can't even keep a building intact, death squads roam within the bueaucracy, and in the middle of this are 3 different sections of people who hate eachother.

Staying the course is great. Staying the course is easy because you don't have to hire good problem solving people, just keep on truckin and someday, somehow, everything will be alright.

How long is too long? Was it bad to pull out of Vietnam? Would we have pulled out if oil wasn't in Iraq?

[frenchriver1]

This was never going to be an easy task, we have a long way to go. We will adapt to the changes , and hopefully the Iraqi forces will get up to speed to defend their own country from these militias.
And we have every reason to believe the brilliant military strategy based on "HOPE" will win the day..... If that doesn't work we can always reply on "IF" and "MAYBE" as fallback strategies... I think Custer relied on all three of those, right?

[Kevin]

So what's your plan frenchriver1?

[snakebit67]

Personally i think we need to commit 3 times the troops and get it done right.

Alot of mistakes have been made in the planning of this thing. We can spend time acessing blame, doing the "I told you so" thing or we can set things right. Secure the borders, disarm the militias. The wild card is the Iraqi's themselves. They need to start stepping up.

[Munsterlndr]

I think that ultimately the only workable solution is going to be partition. I've been saying from the beginning that trying to create a democracy is counter-productive and is unlikely to succeed. Better to divide the country into three quasi-independent ethnic areas and then have them form a loose federation for a national government but allow each region to exercise a large degree of autonomy. This makes much more sense then trying to instill democracy in a region where it is a totally alien concept.

[frenchriver1]

So what's your plan frenchriver1?
I don't hold myself out at the military strategist that many forum members think themselves to be, based on their serving in some branch of the military for some period of time. The military solution is not working.

Common sense would dictate we make it clear to the goverment of Irag that minimally they have to address the idea of have two dozen or so armed militia groups running roughshod in their country is not reasonable. Since they are a democratically elected body, they themselves must address this issue, within a reasonable period of time, set a limit. If they cannot do that, then they are on their own. That is a start.

They must also deal with the death squads that are part of their their own police forces. If it takes the police being all of one party or ethnic group, then that is their choice. Having a mixed force is not working.

At some point we may have to walk away and realize that the best efforts, not to say that we have made the best efforts because we have not, are not enough... It seems now we have no exit strategy, we are just an occupying force......

[sweatyspartan]

lets just drop a bunch of nukes and turn that whole area into a sheet of glass...

If only it were that easy

[Nu_2_MI]

I think that ultimately the only workable solution is going to be partition. I've been saying from the beginning that trying to create a democracy is counter-productive and is unlikely to succeed. Better to divide the country into three quasi-independent ethnic areas and then have them form a loose federation for a national government but allow each region to exercise a large degree of autonomy. This makes much more sense then trying to instill democracy in a region where it is a totally alien concept.

I would have agreed whole-heartedly w/ yo Munster last week. I just saw an interview w/ a retired high ranking General who made some points that I had not considered however. He stated that the plan you mentiond is highly unlikely. He backed this up by saying that in doing this, there will be the issue of who gets the oil. If you break it up right now based on population densities, the Sunnis will have very little oil. There will undoubtedly be more fighting in the region than there is now. We would then probably have to try to go back in and clean it up since we would be drawing up the border plans. Another interesting aspect was that the Shiite dominated area would in all likelihood, if it has not happened already, would become just another state of Iran. The Sunnis would align with Syria, and then there is the prospect of an autonomous Kudish state attacking Turky who we really want on our side since they are the only Islamic country in our alliance. I am not saying that the plan dos not have its merits......there is likely to be no end to this mess anytime soon.......but there are many different things to consider when coming up with a plan.

[Swamp Ghost]

Get the Sunni's, faction leaders, mullah's together and tell them they have two weeks to get with the program or we are leaving and all guns, ammo, tanks and such will be left behind to the Kurds when we depart and mean it.

Awesome! :)

[Gaffle]

there is likely to be no end to this mess anytime soon.

Thats the truth.

What kind of good will happen with Iraq at this point? We aren't stabilizing the area. We aren't spreading democracy. We are showing the world how to make a debacle of democracy. Is any Iraqi citizen safer since we kicked out Saddam?

Vietnam guerrillas didn't stop, why should these insurgents?

When the U.S. soldiers die, many American citizens get mad and frustrated. We want those soldiers out of that awful country.

When an Iraqi "warrior" dies, he gets praised. He is going to heaven with his 79 virgins (don't know the actual amount). Why should they fear death from the Americans? Why should they stop?

On a different note, who actually thought that these people would turn so violent? We could leave Iraq, allow the people to kill themselves, and go back and pick up the pieces. Howz about that for a plan???

[Swamp Ghost]

On a different note, who actually thought that these people would turn so violent?

People who knew about Isalm. Just think, we thought of Iraq as a "moderate" Islamic country. :lol:

[Munsterlndr]

I would have agreed whole-heartedly w/ yo Munster last week. I just saw an interview w/ a retired high ranking General who made some points that I had not considered however. He stated that the plan you mentiond is highly unlikely. He backed this up by saying that in doing this, there will be the issue of who gets the oil. If you break it up right now based on population densities, the Sunnis will have very little oil. There will undoubtedly be more fighting in the region than there is now. We would then probably have to try to go back in and clean it up since we would be drawing up the border plans. Another interesting aspect was that the Shiite dominated area would in all likelihood, if it has not happened already, would become just another state of Iran. The Sunnis would align with Syria, and then there is the prospect of an autonomous Kudish state attacking Turky who we really want on our side since they are the only Islamic country in our alliance. I am not saying that the plan dos not have its merits......there is likely to be no end to this mess anytime soon.......but there are many different things to consider when coming up with a plan.

I don't think that the oil issue is insurmountable. There is oil in both the Shia and the kurdish areas. There would still be a federation of the three autonomous areas that could oversee the distribution of oil revenues. The Kurds are not going to attack Turkey, it would be suicide. It is much more likely that Turkey would attempt to absorb an autonomous kurdish state or that kurdish factions within Turkey would attempt to secede from Turkey and join an autonomous Kurdish state. Obviously the U.S. would have to clamp down on both parties and make sure this did not happen. It is much easier dealing with nationalist movements, though, than it is dealing with religious extremists. As far as the Sunnis aligning with Syria, doubtful. Syria is a secular socialist state and it is unlikely that the Sunni religious leadership, after having been under the thumb of Saddam and the B'aath party for so many years, would be very excited about allowing Assad and the B'aathists in Syria to assume control over them. Also, Assad is a fairly weak leader and it would be fairly easy for the U.S. to exert strong pressure on him to back off. As far as I'm concerned let the Iranians have the Shia component. We are going to have to deal with Iran sooner or later anyway and this just consolidates two problems into one.

[Bwana]

I just hope that the next time some Politicians get a desire to launch preemptive strikes against a soverign nation and then attempt an exercise in nation-building, they stop and think it through. We should have never went to War with Iraq in the first place!

With that said, we cannot simply quit and leave this nation in complete chaos. We have developed a reputation, and sometimes deservedly so, as a bunch of pansies that cannot stomach a War anymore. If we quit again, that will only encourage more attacks on our Country. One dirty litle option that no one is mentioning, is installing another Dictator (with a thinn layer of Democracy so we can save face) that will have a firm control over the inhabitants of the Country and get the Oil flowing again and support him. Our policies of supporting Dictators lead to stability in the region for many decades. We do not have any moral authority over those people. To think they want, need or deserve Western Style Democracy is misguided (I originally bought into the spread Democracy concept, but it is apparent that some people simply cannot be trusted to lead themselves). This is the most expedient solution imho.

[frenchriver1]

I just hope that the next time some Politicians get a desire to launch preemptive strikes against a soverign nation and then attempt an exercise in nation-building, they stop and think it through. We should have never went to War with Iraq in the first place!
Might be mistaken Bwana, but were you not a tried and true supporter of King George from way back?

[eddiejohn4]

I do not agree at all that we should not have gone to war with Iraq. For all the reasons I have stated in the past. It is to bad the war is getting tough as war does that. Every time there are problems is this our new thinking,well we should just ignor the problem. Saddam was a problem for twelve years before we went in .Saddam was given the chance to save his country and his regime from war by obeying the UN mandates he chose not to.

Over 48oo men died on Dday , I guess we should of packed up and went home. This is a long fight , get used to it as they have no problems staying focused and they have for thirty years.


Is securing Iraq easy, No. Do we need to continue to change tactics to stay abreast, hell yes.


As for vietnam we were not allowed to finish the job for the same reasons , all the moaning and politcal bs that has shown its face during this war.

[Bwana]

Might be mistaken Bwana, but were you not a tried and true supporter of King George from way back?

You are mistaken. ;) I am a Conservative more than a Republican. Furthermore, I am not a Neo-con in any sense of the word. I do believe that we need to finish what we started, but I do not agree with attacks on another Nation that has not attacked us. If you do not believe me, I encourage you to search the threads I have started and my responses on Iraq have been consistent (basically, we better finish what we started). While I have respect for president Bush as an individual, mainly because he follows his convictions, I am in disagreement with this President with his Liberal Ideals such as Education Policy; his Spending like a Drunken Democrat; his Harriet Miers Supreme Court Choice; his Immigration Policy; his decision to attack Iraq; his Roosevelt esq. response to Katrina; his opposition to Stem Cell Research, The passage of the Patriot Act; his big Government competitive Iniative (what ever it is called). Frankly, I have only agreed with his Tax Cuts, his handling of the Oil Price Spike from an economic standpoint and his Court Nominees (well...most of them).

[Bwana]

I do not agree at all that we should not have gone to war with Iraq.

So when exactly did America get into the business of launching wars of Aggression on soverign nations?


Saddam was a problem for twelve years before we went in .Saddam was given the chance to save his country and his regime from war by obeying the UN mandates he chose not to.

I find it ironic the amount of Republicans, that bemoan the United Nations, using this as an excuse to attack Iraq. When did the UN get the right to encroach on a nations soverignty?


As for vietnam we were not allowed to finish the job for the same reasons , all the moaning and politcal bs that has shown its face during this war.

No argument. But it is the same old trap. The progressives want this Country to fail. They want this utopian style of government that is subservient to the United Nations and as long as we are strong, we will never be a lap-dog to the UN.

The best thing we could do would be to pull out of the UN at once and then quit fighting everyones war around the globe; some of these nations will simply have to fight their own battles (South Korea comes to mind).

[eddiejohn4]

Since world war two. Or should we have left Hitler alone too!

[Bwana]

Since world war two. Or should we have left Hitler alone too!

I seem to recall we were attacked in WWII by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Then on December 11, 1941, Japans close allie, Nazi Germany, declared War on us, as did Italy. In this instance, since Japan attacked us and Germany and Italy declared War against the United States, I think FDR was correct to request the Congress to recognize a state of war between all parties involved.

It has to do with that whole being attacked first thing Eddie. ;)

[eddiejohn4]

We were not attacked by germany. Germany invaded another country, sound familar? also we entered world war 1 with out Germany attacking us.

We waited to enter the war. WE SHOULD OF WENT IN RIGHT AWAY when Hitler ignored the varsailles agreement and started rearming again. This would have saved lives. we do not practice isolationism anymore, nor should we. The problems do not go away they escalate!

Also Japan attacked us but we put our efforts into defeating Hitler first, this why we lost the early battles in the pacific.

[Nu_2_MI]

It wasn't public descent in Vietnam that caused the end of the war, it was the failed policies of politicians running the war that lost it for us. The people rose up when they saw the politicians failing as military leaders. In WW2 we let the military run the war. We see the same bungling today in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Politicians have handcuffed the military leaders. Look to Rumsfeld fighting the military leaders on troop levels during the planning period as just one of many examples. Also look towards the apathy in Afghanistan as they concentrated on Iraq which had not attacked us. They should have filled Afghanistan with troops and completely wiped out the now resurging Taliban. To go in and pay the local militias to fight your war for you is ridiculous. Again...a politically run war.

[eddiejohn4]

We keep going over the same ground, who had more weapons Saddam or the taliban? I know everyone says that there were no weapons of mass destruction. But Im sorry he used them on his own people ,refused to allow inspections, and his own general states that these were moved. We found remanents of of old wmds that he was not supposed to have according to all the inspectors and Saddams claims. Training camps at Salman Pak.

Come on guys, put it all together, 12 years of blatent refusal to abide, killing of his own people with wmds, his invasion of another country, his love for us. WHAT DOES IT TAKE!:) Maybe we should have given him a basketball signed by Jordan

[Nu_2_MI]

Eddie, I completely respect your opinion as to the rationale for the war. Sincerely, I do, but I disagree. We weren't concerned about the use of WMD's on his own people while he was doing it. In fact we sold him more after he wiped out on an entire city with nerve gas that we supplied him. As long as he was killing Iranians we simply didn't care. As far as moved WMD's that would have taken a massive effort and conidering the rewards being offered, someone would have broken by now.......they gave up Saddam and his sons, why not these weapons? Remember, it was the contrived statements of one man that convinced the admin that there were WMD labs in the first place that got us in there. Now we cling to the statement of one man as proof that there really were weapons and were moved. If they had no labs to make them, they would have been ancient unusable weapon that we gave him many years ago.

The country was in shambles. He posed no threat to us at the time. I believe we should have kept our eye on the ball and gone after UBL and the Taliban with an entire force. Sure Saddam had more weapon than the Taliban, but Saddam hadn't attacked us on our own soil. That is the difference. SAddam didn't have a religious extremist group willing to die for their leader...UBL did. I would hope that you would go after the biggest threat. I do believe that the admin really did thinkthat there were WMD's in Iraq. I really do. I do not think they went in knowing there were no WMD's. The issue is that they were taken by Chalabi. Chalabi an Iranian sympathizer, removed they only thing that kept them in check. He did what the Iranian military could not. He single-handedly removed Saddam, and now they develop nuclear weapons w/o fear of reprisal. If Saddam bombed them it would not cause as much a stir than if we do.

I consider Norman Schwarzkopf a bit of an authority wen it comes to this stuff. He did an interview with Frontline many years ago where he talks about UN resolutions and why they did not go in to get Saddam. What is even more interesting is his take on what would have happened if they did go into Iraq and remove Saddam. The man is brilliant. He saw then, what we should have seen 3 years ago. Oh...and btw...the UN resolutions that we rationalize the war with did not say that Saddam must be removed. In 91 there were resolutions which said that Saddam must be removed fom Kuwait. Big difference.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SJuMX1GzD6I&feature=PlayList&p=781B03A0525F00F2&index=4

[Munsterlndr]

The topic of this thread was "the war, what now " Rehashing all of the old arguments about whether we should or should not have gotten into the war is pointless....besides being off topic. The options that we have at this point are 1) keep doing what we are currently doing, 2) Abandon the whole thing and withdraw our troops and let the chips fall where they may or 3)try something different.

Of the three options, trying something different makes the most sense to me. Partitioning the country is what should have been done from the beginning. It would reduce the sectarian violence that is occurring, which appears at this point to be the biggest impediment to getting life back to normal for the average Iraqi.

It's kind of like when you have a bunch of 5 year olds screaming and biting and kicking each other. It is much more effective, albeit not as PC, to separate them and send them to their rooms than it is to try and talk to them and rationally explain to them why they must not bite each other and must be friends. They are 5 year olds, they don't understand why they should not fight. They will when they get a little older and mature a little but it is an evolving process.

The same goes with the Iraqi's and a democratic form of government. They have never had this form of government and don't understand it. Separate them, allow their society to stabilize and show them the benefits that come with living under a less authoritarian government and you will plant the seeds for democracy, that will mature over time. Makes much more sense than trying to cram it down their throats when most of them are just worried about getting shot by a rival faction.

[Bwana]

We were not attacked by germany.

No, but they did declare war on the U.S. Do you not see the diference?


Germany invaded another country, sound familar?

Yes, but not ours. We didn't go after Germany until they Declared War on the U.S. Another big difference, our assistance was requested in WWII.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, why didn't we attack the Soviets?


also we entered world war 1 with out Germany attacking us.

You may want to check out the reality of the situation before repeating this one.


We waited to enter the war. WE SHOULD OF WENT IN RIGHT AWAY when Hitler ignored the varsailles agreement and started rearming again.

Maybe. But hindsight is 20/20.


we do not practice isolationism anymore, nor should we.

Who's an isolationist? I surely hope you are not implying that this free-trader is an isolationist. :lol: I just don't believe we we should be guaranteeing security for how many nations again? We are not the Global Cop! Furthermore, being actively involved in Foreign Affairs does not mean we always have to fight every war. Didn't the founders warn against "entangling foreign alliances"?


The problems do not go away they escalate!

The Cold War seemed to work out nicely. Or should we have attacked the Soviets too?


Also Japan attacked us but we put our efforts into defeating Hitler first, this why we lost the early battles in the pacific.

I thought we lost the early battles in the Pacific due to a devastating attack on our Pacific Fleet that hampered our ability to respond quickly and forcefully. Furthermore, I do not believe the Army would have materially influenced the Naval Engagements that we lost. We didn't really start to pick-apart the Japanese Navy until Radar was in wide use.

[Bwana]

Of the three options, trying something different makes the most sense to me. Partitioning the country is what should have been done from the beginning. It would reduce the sectarian violence that is occurring, which appears at this point to be the biggest impediment to getting life back to normal for the average Iraqi.

It's kind of like when you have a bunch of 5 year olds screaming and biting and kicking each other. It is much more effective, albeit not as PC, to separate them and send them to their rooms than it is to try and talk to them and rationally explain to them why they must not bite each other and must be friends. They are 5 year olds, they don't understand why they should not fight. They will when they get a little older and mature a little but it is an evolving process.

The same goes with the Iraqi's and a democratic form of government. They have never had this form of government and don't understand it. Separate them, allow their society to stabilize and show them the benefits that come with living under a less authoritarian government and you will plant the seeds for democracy, that will mature over time. Makes much more sense than trying to cram it down their throats when most of them are just worried about getting shot by a rival faction.

I think the ideal has its merits. At a quick glance I see two problems. First, how will the Oil money be distributed? Second, and probably much more difficult, is how do we placate our Allie Turkey? If I remember correctly the old Kurdmenistan (SP?) includes part of Turkey. Wouldn't this partition potentially lead to political turmoil in Turkey maybe even civil war or a succession?

As for the Sunni, I don't think they would turn to Syria. But I am not so sure the Shia portion would not increase Iran's power in the region. If the shiites were to join or even become close allies with the Iranians, wouldn't that place us in a worse position than we are in today?

[eddiejohn4]

Bwanna ,you have missed agreat deal of what went down in both 1 and 2 world wars and we could discuss this at some length, but munster is right were getting way off topic.

As to what to do, the Iraqis need to step up and end this violence that has been probagated by the insurgents, whose intentions were to cause a civil war. The militias need to be disarmed ,and this might take more boots on the ground. I am not going to get all shook just yet because violence is escalating,as this is just what they want, and plays right along with our media, and what they want to protray.

There is no easy fix to this problem, and will test both the Iraqis and our determination. I personly do not think that separating them at this time is the way to go, but I have been wrong many times before

[Bwana]

Bwanna ,you have missed agreat deal of what went down in both 1 and 2 world wars and we could discuss this at some length, but munster is right were getting way off topic.


:lol: :lol: :lol: Ok Eddie. I'll let it go because I agree with you more than not, but anytime you wish to enlighten me regarding U.S. History, feel free.

[eddiejohn4]

Oh its not to enlighten you, its just that we cannot go into all that happened in a post. Bwanna, the wording is alittle off but my intentions were good. There were alot of reasons we put our efforts into Hitler first and the destruction of the fleet at Pearl was but one . Maybe we will meet one day and enlighten and baffle each other with our wisdom:lol:

[Bwana]

Oh its not to enlighten you, its just that we cannot go into all that happened in a post. Bwanna, the wording is alittle off but my intentions were good. There were alot of reasons we put our efforts into Hitler first and the destruction of the fleet at Pearl was but one . Maybe we will meet one day and enlighten and baffle each other with our wisdom:lol:

After reading your response to my last response, I reread my last response :dizzy: and feel the wording may have came off a bit harsher than it was intended (I have a habit of writeing short and to the point with sarcasm and I believe it sometimes appears terse when it isn't supposed too). When I said "I'll let it go" I was referring to our disagreement, not your choice of words....just wanted to make that clear. :grouphug:

[eddiejohn4]

Bwanna ,your a good man and I never take to seriously anyone's posts. I did not see anything wrong with your reply to my post. I myself get excited in my ramblings ,but post all with a good heart.:)

[Ranger Ray]

Very typical problem found in people that can't aim good. You know the ones that use those over powered bazokoo's where it doesn't matter what part of the deer you hit, it explodes in to little itty bitty pieces. :evil:

[eddiejohn4]

Hey I resemble that remark ( in my best curly voice) nyuk nyuk nyuk.:)

[Bwana]

Very typical problem found in people that can't aim good. You know the ones that use those over powered bazokoo's where it doesn't matter what part of the deer you hit, it explodes in to little itty bitty pieces. :evil:

Kinda like those guys that use .2756 sized bullets driven to magnum velocities? :evil:

[pescadero]

I think that ultimately the only workable solution is going to be partition. I've been saying from the beginning that trying to create a democracy is counter-productive and is unlikely to succeed. Better to divide the country into three quasi-independent ethnic areas and then have them form a loose federation for a national government but allow each region to exercise a large degree of autonomy. This makes much more sense then trying to instill democracy in a region where it is a totally alien concept.

Nice though - the only problem is that the Sunnis won't like it (they won't have any oil), the Kurds will be immediately invaded by Turkey, and the Shiite state will likely quickly ally with Iran and probably attack both the Kurdish and Sunni states.

--
lp

[pescadero]

People who knew about Isalm. Just think, we thought of Iraq as a "moderate" Islamic country. :lol:

Under Hussein's rule Iraq was one of the most (if not the most) secular nation outside Israel in the middle east.

--
lp

[Munsterlndr]

Nice though - the only problem is that the Sunnis won't like it (they won't have any oil), the Kurds will be immediately invaded by Turkey, and the Shiite state will likely quickly ally with Iran and probably attack both the Kurdish and Sunni states.

--
lp

As already stated, oil production and revenues would be controlled by a Federation government, so the Sunni's would still share in the oil revenue. Turkey is unlikely to invade a Kurdish autonomous state if the U.S. tells them not to. Sure it would take some diplomatic maneuvering on the part of the U.S. but it would be much easier dealing with Turkey and the Kurdish leadership than it is dealing with AL queda.

The Shia State may align with Iran politically but any attempt by Iran to absorb it would certainly give the U.S. and the U.N. justification to deal with Iran. I doubt Ahmadinejad is dumb enough to take that risk. If he is, so much the better, it puts the U.N. in the position where they have to support any U.S. moves to guarantee the sovereignty of the Shia territory.

So if you don't like the partition idea what is your solutionl cut & run?

[eddiejohn4]

Disarm the militias, gain control of the streets using more Iraqi boots, put curfews back into effect. Setup more snipers to survey the streets at strategic locations to help stop IED placements.

These are some of the things that will have to be implemented to curtell the violence and gain control.

[WILDCATWICK]

I just hope that the next time some Politicians get a desire to launch preemptive strikes against a soverign nation and then attempt an exercise in nation-building, they stop and think it through. We should have never went to War with Iraq in the first place!

With that said, we cannot simply quit and leave this nation in complete chaos. We have developed a reputation, and sometimes deservedly so, as a bunch of pansies that cannot stomach a War anymore. If we quit again, that will only encourage more attacks on our Country. One dirty litle option that no one is mentioning, is installing another Dictator (with a thinn layer of Democracy so we can save face) that will have a firm control over the inhabitants of the Country and get the Oil flowing again and support him. Our policies of supporting Dictators lead to stability in the region for many decades. We do not have any moral authority over those people. To think they want, need or deserve Western Style Democracy is misguided (I originally bought into the spread Democracy concept, but it is apparent that some people simply cannot be trusted to lead themselves). This is the most expedient solution imho.


I'm in complete agreement with your post. We should not have gone there but we are and now we need to save face or we will have a bitch of a time garnering support for future, much more important endeavors. In order to save face I think we will need to commit more troops. Your either in it to win and are 100% committed or your not. And so far thru all of Bush talk about being in it to win, it has not appeared so in my eyes. Bad planning, lack of thought, often a turned nose to the world, and not committing full resources.

As impressive as the war was it could have been even more impressive if we would have been more commited to success.

How is Haliburton doing over there?:rolleyes:

[pescadero]

As already stated, oil production and revenues would be controlled by a Federation government,

The massive civil war starts the minute our boots leave the ground - and the Sunnis might just start it because they know what will happen if they wait for the others to attack them.

so the Sunni's would still share in the oil revenue. Turkey is unlikely to invade a Kurdish autonomous state if the U.S. tells them not to. Sure it would take some diplomatic maneuvering on the part of the U.S. but it would be much easier dealing with Turkey and the Kurdish leadership than it is dealing with AL queda.

Considering that Turkey has previously stated that a Kurdish state is absolutely unacceptable, and that they would consider the creation of one an attack on their sovereignty... I'm not too sure about that.

The Shia State may align with Iran politically but any attempt by Iran to absorb it would certainly give the U.S. and the U.N. justification to deal with Iran. I doubt Ahmadinejad is dumb enough to take that risk. If he is, so much the better, it puts the U.N. in the position where they have to support any U.S. moves to guarantee the sovereignty of the Shia territory.

Iran doesn't need to take over - they just run their little puppet government in Shia Iraq without ever setting a military foot in the country.

So if you don't like the partition idea what is your solutionl cut & run?

Solution for what problem? If the question is "How do we make Iraq a democratic, secular country that isn't a threat to American interests?" - I think at this point there may be no solution.

--
lp

[Munsterlndr]

The massive civil war starts the minute our boots leave the ground - and the Sunnis might just start it because they know what will happen if they wait for the others to attack them.
I'm not suggesting that we withdraw immediately. Administer it similar to Germany after WWII.


Considering that Turkey has previously stated that a Kurdish state is absolutely unacceptable, and that they would consider the creation of one an attack on their sovereignty... I'm not too sure about that.
Turkey is adamantly opposed to an independent Kurdish state because of the unrest it would cause among their own Kurdish population. What I am proposing is an autonomous Kurdish area which would still be part of a larger Iraqi federation. It may seem like splitting hairs but that is what diplomacy is all about.

Iran doesn't need to take over - they just run their little puppet government in Shia Iraq without ever setting a military foot in the country. So Iran exerts some political influence over a Shia area, so what? They already wield a lot of influence. On a practical basis what would change? If they make any attempt to interrupt the flow of oil or to physically annex the area it gives us a casus belli, one which the UN and the rest of the international community would have to support.

Solution for what problem? If the question is "How do we make Iraq a democratic, secular country that isn't a threat to American interests?" - I think at this point there may be no solution.

I could care less about Iraq being a democracy. The question is how do we stabilize that area so that it does not become a refuge for terrorists, who will target the U.S. and it's interests. Saying there is no solution is not a viable alternative.

[pescadero]

I'm not suggesting that we withdraw immediately. Administer it similar to Germany after WWII.

So you're all for being there 50 years hence? At least that is realistic.

Turkey is adamantly opposed to an independent Kurdish state because of the unrest it would cause among their own Kurdish population.

Turkey is adamantly opposed to an independent Kurdish state because of the unrest in their own Kurdish population due to the years of repression, genocide, and status as second class citizens possibly causing revolt - again.

What I am proposing is an autonomous Kurdish area which would still be part of a larger Iraqi federation. It may seem like splitting hairs but that is what diplomacy is all about.

I don't think Turkey is going to be happy with that particular "hair splitting".

So Iran exerts some political influence over a Shia area, so what? They already wield a lot of influence. On a practical basis what would change?

Prior to WW2 the Soviet Union exerted som political influence over eastern europe, after WW2 they had puppet states. We're not talking "some influence", we're talking "puppet government".

If they make any attempt to interrupt the flow of oil or to physically annex the area it gives us a casus belli, one which the UN and the rest of the international community would have to support.

They don't need to do anything - they want oil cut off, have the Shia Iraqis do it. Why physically annex the area when you can run it as a puppet for no cost?


I could care less about Iraq being a democracy. The question is how do we stabilize that area so that it does not become a refuge for terrorists, who will target the U.S. and it's interests. Saying there is no solution is not a viable alternative.

It is if there actually IS no viable alternative. Not all problems have solutions.

--
lp

[Huntsman27]

Afghanistan. I dont believe that area will EVER be stabilized with all the factions out to kill each other.
Its quite obvious that any "puppet" government we set up will not last. Seizing arms from the militia? I dont think so. Itll only get worse.
If not for oil, that place would be left to rot. The way I see it, the U.S. is worried about the direction the oil heads [our way] or losing it by pulling out and letting say China swoop in and take it and become their best friends.

[Bwana]

If not for oil, that place would be left to rot. The way I see it, the U.S. is worried about the direction the oil heads [our way] or losing it by pulling out and letting say China swoop in and take it and become their best friends.

Ahh, a man than minces few words....but I think you nailed it. The long term solution to the Middle Eastern problem is reducing, maybe one day eliminating, our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil.

[Huntsman27]

dependancy issue. Oh my, what would they do without their oil sales? Dates and fig bars perhaps?

[Nu_2_MI]

Afghanistan. I dont believe that area will EVER be stabilized with all the factions out to kill each other.
Its quite obvious that any "puppet" government we set up will not last. Seizing arms from the militia? I dont think so. Itll only get worse.
If not for oil, that place would be left to rot. The way I see it, the U.S. is worried about the direction the oil heads [our way] or losing it by pulling out and letting say China swoop in and take it and become their best friends.


Need only look to Sudan for a perfect example. More people killed there by government supported thugs in the last few years than ever was killed in Iraq, and we could care less. And it IS sponsored by radical Islamists.