Stay the Course, Cut and Run, or...? by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Stay the Course, Cut and Run, or...?

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Thursday, September 7, 2006 08:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2221
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 1, 2006 6:27 PM

Okay, back to the sane world we live in (huh?)

I thought I'd start with a buffy quote.

"Your perfectly controlled test seems to have spun rather impressively out of control, don't you think?" - Rupert Giles

The question is, if the main options were not an option, what would you do?

I'm still convinced that the cut and run idea is a bad one. Our cut in run from Vietnam left the people of southeast asia in the lurch, at the hands of a particularly vicious invading communist army which went on to kill 3 million of them. I see the same possibility in Iraq.

Stay the course seems equally flawed to me. The situation is getting steadily worse, and we've backed into the mode of conflict avoidance, which is almost as bad as not being there at all. Every month sectarian violence increases, casualties increase, and it's not us doing it.

The third solution I'm sure is wrong is the Kerry solution, upscale the conflict. I feel convinced that this would escalate the regional instability into an unequivocal world war. Kerry's notion that one needed to "win the peace" was naive. Peace is not won, it is negotiated, because peace is a compromise. The other is called victory.

But I also recognize that, well, as a russian minister said about the Iranians: negotiating with Iran is like banging your head into a wall. I would humbly suggest that since the Iranians are basically educated and reasonable people, that negotiating with the Iraqi insurgents is probably like banging your head into a battle-axe.

I'm not discarding the fourth possibility, but it doesn't work on it's own. I think all of these paths are fraught with danger, and there may be another path as yet undiscovered, maybe one of you has the answer.

Anyway, I'm all ears. Anyone?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 4:44 AM

CHRISISALL

Give the elected government of Iraq body armour, arms, Hummers, instruction manuals, a promise to keep them stocked on what they need, a pat on the head and a sorry for the trouble.
Then leave.
Except to kill Bin Laden, we shouldn't be in that part of the world.

That's all I have Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 7:48 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Give the elected government of Iraq body armour, arms, Hummers, instruction manuals, a promise to keep them stocked on what they need, a pat on the head and a sorry for the trouble.
Then leave.
Except to kill Bin Laden, we shouldn't be in that part of the world.

That's all I have Chrisisall

only problem with that plan; about 2 days after we leave , there'll be a new government, by the ayatollahs, and they'll have all those nice new Hummers and other toys.

I think there are 2 choices: (1) get out and minimize the losses; or (2), if the threat in IRaq is as serious as GWB says, equal to the Fascist threat in WW II, then commit ALL of America's might to winning it.

Use all our weapons, all our technologies, commit ALL of America's troops on the ground, not just 135,000. Re-instate the draft, and send a generation of 19 year olds over there to fight viciously and ruthlessly. Hold the populace collectively responsible for attacks on Americans, Pay back revenge 1000-fold. Leave scorched earth behind where we conduct military operations. Disarm ALL the Iraqis. Beat the Iraqi populace into defeat.Scare the civilians so badly they'll be more scared of US than Islamists or resistance groups.

and I think, if we aren't willing to accept that choice, and what that will do to the American character, then we shouldn't be there...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 8:46 AM

SERGEANTX

I used to be fully in favor of 'cut and run'. Yeah, I'm a big 'defeatist-coward-naysayer'. Whatever. I know it will be bad when we leave, but I'm not convinced staying there will make it any better. Regardless, I share DT's concerns about handing an oil-rich, relatively technologically advanced nation over to terrorists.

But the fucking neo-cons have left us exactly with this dilemma: take over Iraq as another client state, or hand if over to terrorists. Of course the first choice was always their intention. And I believe the dilemma was intentional as well. They want a staging area to threaten Iran and it looks like they'll get it. No real sane way to back out now.

The real question is, is there anyway we can move forward in a way that's moral and sustainable? I dunno. The people of the middle east hate us and I don't blame them. Can we do anything about that without putting ourselves at grave risk? The neocons have done their best to lock us out of that option, but I'd like to think there could be a way out. I just don't know if we can possibly repair our credibility enough to do it effectively.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 9:52 AM

ERIC

Several things need to happen. First, define the mission. This musical chairs bullshit about standing down and someone else standing up doesn't add up to a strategy, it's just a sound byte.

Get the troops off the streets. There's nothing for them to accomplish there. They go out on these patrols, get hit by roadside bombs, and the ones who did it melt into the population. The only way to get them is to waste the whole neighborhood. And we've seen the fallout from when that happens. So there's nothing they can do anyway, they're just highly visible, slow moving targets. Redeploy the troops to the border to stop or at least slow the influx of weapons that's fueling the insurgency and the civil war.

Get serious about reconstruction. The Iraqis are like any other people- they're intelligent, reasonable and polite when their bellies are full, their lights are on and they have jobs and showers and such. After more than three years, vast sections of the country have no water, power, employment or basic sanitation. In a DESERT. Imagine what such long term stress would do to any of us. Then add the bombs, US and suicide variety both, killing at random. That kind of environment turns many rational people into nasty violent killers. We need to get basic utilities going. And employ IRAQI companies with IRAQI workers to do it, not KBR mercenaries. We keep hearing about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq when someone builds a school, but if it has no water, lights or books, what good is it? It just gets blown up by people who are fed up and looking for a target.

Stop dropping bombs on towns. This is the most idiotic thing that happens. If you think there's an insrugent (or terrorist if you like) holed up in a house somewhere, and instead of committing troops to a direct confronation (which is a soldier's job, by the way) you drop a bomb on the house, which may or may not hit its target, killing a buch of innocent people (whose job, if they have one, is NOT to die because some jarhead doesn't want to risk his TROOPS), then you've created many more insurgents than you've supposedly killed.

Limit US military forces to patrolling the border, providing air support to Iraqi troops (except dropping bombs on towns), antiterrorism missions (against REAL terrorists, not insurgents who didn't care a rat's ass about America four years go and don't have any plans to blow up his shoes on a plane anyime soon), intelligence gathering, reconstruction support, protecting key infrastructure, and advising. It may require an increase in the number of troops, but if they're not easy targets, the body count will drop and the public will support it.

Amnesty for the less virulent insugent groups. Yes, even those that have attacked Americans. Yes, they're the enemy. No, they're not all terrorists. Yes, they're going to fight you. No, you can't demand special status because of it. It is a war, and wars end with negotiated peace. You can't brand everyone that fought you a war criminal.

Get the assistance of surrounding countries. They have as much or more interest in a stable Iraq as we do, so why aren't they helping out? Jordan has offered to provide training for police forces, but the US has declined. How about putting that Saudi oil wealth we paid for to good use with Arab reconstruction companies and security training assests? Or would that cut too much into Hallibuton's profiteering?

The most difficult part is propping up the Iraqi military and police force. They're weak, poorly trained, have low morale and are populated by people just as likely to join one of these sectarian death squads. Iraqi and US forces need to infiltrate these radical militias they way they've infiltrated government forces. Get intel on where they are and wipe them out when the opportunity presents itself (i.e., not near populated areas!) Prime Minister Maliki needs to decide whether he's going to continue to support- and be supported by- these militias, or make an honest effort to forge a real national unity government, with 'blood and iron,' if necessary. The militias need to be either defeated or absorbed into the national forces.

No one is saying 'cut and run' in the sense that that pig Karl Rove is suggesting. Change the mission so that it has some chance of success, get the troops out of the daily eye and put them to better use, start rebuilding the country for real, give the government support but let the country deal with its internal issues on its own. This thing cannot be won militarily, but it must be won. Not because "they" will come here if we don't get them there ("they" already ARE here, and everywhere else), but because we don't want another Iran to arise out of the ashes of a failed state, and because we owe it to the Iraqi people, who didn't ask to be "the central front of the war on terr'r."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 9:56 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Give the elected government of Iraq body armour, arms, Hummers, instruction manuals, a promise to keep them stocked on what they need, a pat on the head and a sorry for the trouble.
Then leave.
Except to kill Bin Laden, we shouldn't be in that part of the world.

That's all I have Chrisisall

only problem with that plan; about 2 days after we leave , there'll be a new government, by the ayatollahs, and they'll have all those nice new Hummers and other toys.

I think there are 2 choices: (1) get out and minimize the losses; or (2), if the threat in IRaq is as serious as GWB says, equal to the Fascist threat in WW II, then commit ALL of America's might to winning it.

Use all our weapons, all our technologies, commit ALL of America's troops on the ground, not just 135,000. Re-instate the draft, and send a generation of 19 year olds over there to fight viciously and ruthlessly. Hold the populace collectively responsible for attacks on Americans, Pay back revenge 1000-fold. Leave scorched earth behind where we conduct military operations. Disarm ALL the Iraqis. Beat the Iraqi populace into defeat.Scare the civilians so badly they'll be more scared of US than Islamists or resistance groups.

and I think, if we aren't willing to accept that choice, and what that will do to the American character, then we shouldn't be there...

That makes a lot of sense. Good thinking, NOBC!

EDIT:

Quote:
No one is saying 'cut and run' in the sense that that pig Karl Rove is suggesting. Change the mission so that it has some chance of success, get the troops out of the daily eye and put them to better use, start rebuilding the country for real, give the government support but let the country deal with its internal issues on its own. This thing cannot be won militarily, but it must be won. Not because "they" will come here if we don't get them there ("they" already ARE here, and everywhere else), but because we don't want another Iran to arise out of the ashes of a failed state, and because we owe it to the Iraqi people, who didn't ask to be "the central front of the war on terr'r."

Those are great ideas too, Eric!

---
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 10:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Way I see it, we got two, and only two options.

#1 - Get out, NOW.
No puff-piece handover, no shoveljob PR, just drop every damn thing and leave - sorry bout that, too bad, so sad, if you want a certain type of government, spill ENOUGH blood to build it and keep it, but keep it here, ok guys... good luck!

There's nothing we can do credibility-wise, but if we got the hell out of there en masse (specifically including exploitive american companies like KBR and Haliburton) and left Iraq... TO Iraq, sure, we'd wind up with a government that hates us, but one more interested in building their Iraq than coming after us, for a little while...

A little negotiation and diplomacy during that period could solve the problem or at least mitigate it - or a bunch of "axis of evil, spawn of satan" screaming could make WWIII happen pretty quick, so you might consider firing Bolton before that point.

And then there's Option #2
Genocide.
NOBC put it nicely, sure - but in the end, what it amounts to is the complete annihilation of Iraq, and Iraqis.

Which wouldn't bother some folks in this country a damned bit any more than it did when we did it to the native americans, mind you....

But in essence, those are our choices - neither of which is even gonna be viable without removing the administration which keeps sticking our necks in these situations.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 12:04 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER

If this were a good idea, I'm sure somebody else woulda' already had it, but how about this:

Follow time tested method and redraw borders.

Partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous, ethnic regions, respecting historical boundaries while demanding energy reveunes be shared in an equitable fashion through the threat of military force and internal destabilization (US co-opted bloody coup) while guaranteeing their protection from other external forces. We further demand that the US and its allies be allowed the privilege of purchasing the lion's share of all energy exports (let's be honest folks, that's what this is about). Fall back to Kuwait and protect energy interests.

While it is likely this method would lead to further ethnic violence 20 or 30 years in the future (see India & Pakistan), it is also likely that this could slow current ethnic simmering. As a bonus, energy production in Iraq would have already peaked by then and thus when things explode, it would no longer be our f*ck*ng problem (see Britain).

Meh, just a thought...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 12:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

NOBC

These aren't solutions.

1. If we cut and run, the Iraqis get slaughtered, as did the south vietnamese and combodians at the hands fo the commies.

2. If we escalate the conflict then we have world war three, and millions more will die.

3. Stay the course is clearly better than both of those, but it still objectively sucks. Violence is increasing, and things are spinning out of control.

I'm certain that you're world war would be a disaster, as would Chris' pat on the head.

Remember, it is possible. We managed to end the Korean war without and after-slaught, or an upscaled world war. Ergo, I know it's possible.

Sgt X.

Quote:
But the fucking neo-cons have left us exactly with this dilemma: take over Iraq as another client state, or hand if over to terrorists.

Sure, but f^&king democrats did the same thing to Eisenhower and he dug his way out. I'm trying to think of other good ends. Anyone have any suggestions?

Eric,

Thanks, that was a well thought out response.
And yes, a lot of liberals are saying "bring them home" by which they mean "cut and run." But you have a good plan. I want to add a proposal of my own.
We should define those borders that we should patrol as not just the external borders of Iraq, but some internal borders that divide factions, and ones that divide relatively stable areas from unstable areas, where terrorists are more likely to be, who might try to destabilize the more stable regions.

I think that, following the Korea example, we might ultimately have to face the possibility that we might be able to save part of Iraq. If part falls under the rule of a brutal dictator, then it's still progress, because all of Iraq was under a brutal dictator to start with.

But I'm not making that call here. I think it's probably still possible to save all of Iraq, even if it's not as one nation, and even if it means beating ones head into an axe, ie., negotiating with terrorists.

Chris, that's too close to cut and run. And the counter point that we don't want the terrorists to get our weapons (or more of them) is a good one. Plus, I don't have that much against Bin Laden, now that 9-11 and the russian school thing may be the work of someone else. He might end up being one of the key people we may need to negotiate with (I didn't say it would be easy.)

Obviously, the admin's idiotic stance on Iran is part of the problem. We should be enlisting Iran's help in stablizing Iraq, which is what a lot of the military guys on the ground would like to see happen. War makes even stranger bedfellows then politics, as witness our being allied to stalin in wwii. (not to mention all the other alliances. None of them seem logical except maybe the US and britain, and even that is iffy, given prior history.)

Frem,

You missed the part where there is a civil war, and where we are responsible for the state of Iraq, as much as we are responsible for Puerto Rico or South Korea. I'm convinced that if we bail on the Iraqis it will do more damage to American credibility than the war has.

FellowTreaveler,

I posted something very similar some time ago. Yours and Erics were the best.

The US I suspect will need to maintain a force in Iraq for a very long time (We're still in Korea)

Korea, South — GDP: $ 925,100,000,000
Korea, North — GDP: $ 30,880,000,000
Cambodia — GDP: $ 26,990,000,000
Vietnam — GDP: $ 227,200,000,000
Japan — GDP: $ 3,745,000,000,000

Just a curious comparison of we stay vs. we leave in economic terms.

Casualty terms are much more drastic.

But we definitely need a new non-genocidal, non-nuclear, non-wwiii plan.

Eric gets to be secretary of defense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 1:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Frem,
You missed the part where there is a civil war, and where we are responsible for the state of Iraq, as much as we are responsible for Puerto Rico or South Korea. I'm convinced that if we bail on the Iraqis it will do more damage to American credibility than the war has.

No, I didn't miss that part, not at all.

We HAVE no credibility to lose, we have as much credibility as the Soviets did in Afghanistan mid-invasion, zip, zero, squat.

Those people are gonna die, FACE THE FACT.

They're gonna die if we pull out and they get caught up in the bloody civil war we caused - or we're gonna kill em when they start shooting at us in pissed off frustration and annoyance.

We smash anything they build, seemingly randomly kill just about anyone, and just flail about screaming like a two year old who got stung by a bee in the sandbox, that's our military plan ?

They're gonna die whether there's a bloody civil war, or whether we kill em ourselves, it's GOING TO HAPPEN, and yes, we are directly responsible.

But the sooner we get out, the lower that end number is going to be.

The reality of the situation ain't pretty, and denying that (flower throwing iraqis, anyone ?) is what caused this mess in the first place - continued denial is gonna make it worse, it's just that simple.

We're bailing a flooded oil tanker with a canteen cup here, folks.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 1:44 PM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Eric gets to be secretary of defense.

Sweet! I know I have some big shoes to fill, but-

...oh, wait. No I don't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 4:46 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

I really disagree. I think that genocide is not a certainty, and the number will not increase because we're their. We're not evil. Top decisions may be evil. We need to change those top level decisions.

Eric,

Them shoes are pretty small

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 6:10 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
NOBC

These aren't solutions.

1. If we cut and run, the Iraqis get slaughtered, as did the south vietnamese and combodians at the hands fo the commies.

2. If we escalate the conflict then we have world war three, and millions more will die.

3. Stay the course is clearly better than both of those, but it still objectively sucks. Violence is increasing, and things are spinning out of control.

I'm certain that you're world war would be a disaster, as would Chris' pat on the head.

Not sure that if we escalate the war, we'd get WW III- my suggestion was an extreme war, limited to Iraq. If other guys wanted to jump in on the other side, MIGHT turn into WW 3. or not...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 2, 2006 6:53 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'm going to have to go with Eric's.
I'd like to add my own internal borders though, help prevent secatrian violence. The hard part is the negotiating with insurgents and terrorists. If anyone has any ideas on this, then I'm all ears.

Curiously, the posters on this thread were the moderates. Not a lot of opinion coming from the fringes. kind of the reserve of what I expected. I guess it worked out better than I thought it would.

Which leaves us with one other problem. How do we encourage a change in policy? Other than the obvious: electing people to positions of power. People seem to spend all of their effort on that one, and on the write your congressman. I honestly don't think any executive decisions are being made on either of those channels, but if someone has a suggestion, again I'm listening.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 3:57 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The hard part is the negotiating with insurgents and terrorists. If anyone has any ideas on this, then I'm all ears.

Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.

With that distinction in mind, to the insurgent, the military is a legitimate target. Just as the Allied military was a legitimate target of the Axis military. It's an act of war, not a crime. Hyperbole aside, we again have a clear historical blueprint we can follow and that blueprint requires negotiation with the enemy.

Quote:
Curiously, the posters on this thread were the moderates. Not a lot of opinion coming from the fringes. kind of the reserve of what I expected. I guess it worked out better than I thought it would.

I think it's how you framed the question. Helped eliminate the dogmatic partisan responses we're all trained to recite. Sir, yes sir!

Quote:
Which leaves us with one other problem. How do we encourage a change in policy? Other than the obvious: electing people to positions of power. People seem to spend all of their effort on that one, and on the write your congressman. I honestly don't think any executive decisions are being made on either of those channels, but if someone has a suggestion, again I'm listening.

Bloody coup? That's all I got...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 4:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Eric:
First, define the mission.

Eric, your whole post was so well thought out and interesting. Made me feel kinda...dum.

Keep it up!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 3, 2006 1:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.

I think this is spot off. which is to say, dead wrong, IOW, you're right about how that would go over. Iraqi internal terrorism is our problems for a number of reasons: 1. It didn't exist before we came, 2. It destablizes Iraq which makes our job harder, and 3. Stopping the deaths of random iraqis is our job, that's what it means to occupy a territory. When we didn't occupy Iraq, it wasn't our job, but it's our job now in just the same way that it's our job to stop random killings in puerto rico or texas.

Quote:
With that distinction in mind, to the insurgent, the military is a legitimate target. Just as the Allied military was a legitimate target of the Axis military. It's an act of war, not a crime. Hyperbole aside, we again have a clear historical blueprint we can follow and that blueprint requires negotiation with the enemy.

Sure. I think we can actually negotiate with terrorists too, and should probably do so, but none of this is going to be easy, and it probably means having something to negotiate with, and it will mean some concessions and compromise.

Quote:
I think it's how you framed the question. Helped eliminate the dogmatic partisan responses we're all trained to recite. Sir, yes sir!

Huh. It's never worked before. Whattaya know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 4:49 PM

PIRATEJENNY

The U.S isn't leaving Iraq, we are building ,massive bases their for the long haul,

lets not kid oursleves here!! folks

Quote:
.We're not evil. Top decisions may be evil. We need to change those top level decisions.

Why kid yourself...evil is evil...doesn't matter who is making the decesions...top level or bottom level or inbetween..its still our government thats doing it and we are allowing it so therefore we are evil!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 6:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm still convinced that the cut and run idea is a bad one. Our cut in run from Vietnam left the people of southeast asia in the lurch, at the hands of a particularly vicious invading communist army which went on to kill 3 million of them. I see the same possibility in Iraq.

Huh? If you're referring to Pol Pot, he wasn't a commie. In fact, as I recall it was the N Vietnamese who tried to control him. But we were so afraid of "Communism" that we would rather Pol Pot take over Cambodia. Or perhaps I remember it all wrong.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:29 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:
Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.

I think this is spot off. which is to say, dead wrong, IOW, you're right about how that would go over. Iraqi internal terrorism is our problems for a number of reasons: 1. It didn't exist before we came, 2. It destablizes Iraq which makes our job harder, and 3. Stopping the deaths of random iraqis is our job, that's what it means to occupy a territory. When we didn't occupy Iraq, it wasn't our job, but it's our job now in just the same way that it's our job to stop random killings in puerto rico or texas.

I get all of that. It didn't exist before we got there. The violence is destabalizing and stopping Iraqi deaths is our job, now. No disagreement here.

I think your first point is moral one and I was leaving morality out of the equation. Personally, I think the whole damn affair is immoral.

As for your second and third points, I think what I meant to say was we can't stop internal Iraqi terrorism, so we should stop trying. Nearly every week we are given news of the number 2 or 3 Iraqi terrorist being killed, but it has done nothing to slow the sectarian strife, in fact it gets worse. I am suggesting that the level of violence grows not in spite of our efforts, but because of them.

From what I understand (and that isn't a lot, admittedly), most of the violence is one sect attacking another. I think partitioning the country ethnically would eliminate most of these types of attacks. In that scenario, the killing of Iraqi civilians would not be our problem. It would be a matter for law enforcement (or regional militias, if you prefer) to address and I suspect these militias could do a much more effective job, as they do not have to follow the same rules or war as do US troops (they can get Medieval on their asses).

Most certainly, under the current paradigm, it is our resposibility. But, I submit the current paradigm has failed and is doomed to future failure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 3:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The question is, if the main options were not an option, what would you do?

My plan would involve staying in Iraq for another year or so until we've geared up the indig security forces to handle day to day affairs. Then we withdraw.

We keep a fire brigade in Kuwait and another in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) as well as fighter bombers to support the Iraqi government, discourage Iranian aggression, and perform occaisonal unilateral and joint operations against terrorist strongholds.

Such a plan would be effective, but not until the Iraqi army is fully operational.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 3:43 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
From what I understand (and that isn't a lot, admittedly), most of the violence is one sect attacking another. I think partitioning the country ethnically would eliminate most of these types of attacks. In that scenario, the killing of Iraqi civilians would not be our problem. It would be a matter for law enforcement (or regional militias, if you prefer) to address and I suspect these militias could do a much more effective job, as they do not have to follow the same rules or war as do US troops (they can get Medieval on their asses).

Not trying to be too glib here but that sounds an awful lot like Saddam's Iraq.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 6:09 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
From what I understand (and that isn't a lot, admittedly), most of the violence is one sect attacking another. I think partitioning the country ethnically would eliminate most of these types of attacks. In that scenario, the killing of Iraqi civilians would not be our problem. It would be a matter for law enforcement (or regional militias, if you prefer) to address and I suspect these militias could do a much more effective job, as they do not have to follow the same rules or war as do US troops (they can get Medieval on their asses).

Not trying to be too glib here but that sounds an awful lot like Saddam's Iraq.

Posting to stir stuff up.

I don't deny that one bit. One has to admit, Saddam did keep everybody in line...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 11:19 AM

DREAMTROVE

Jenny,

No, we're not, because we have no say whatsoever in this rigged-democracy-dictatorship. Our soldiers aren't evil either, for the most part. They signed up because either they wanted to protect america from al qaeda or other foes, or they needed a break from the school of hard knocks.

I'm increasingly coming to the position that I just think the federal govt. is evil as an institution, and needs to be disolved, and replaced with a more loosely bound federation. Our Federal system is actually a misnomer, it should be called the imperial system, since that's where it's based. The original federalists stole the word by distorting it from the original confederates, our *real* founding fathers, and then dubbing the confederates as the "anti-federalists." Democracy was already too moron-based, and so people supported the federalists because it was a good sounding word and supported the ideas that the revolution had spouted, and were against the anti-federalists because it was anti- and negative and bad-sounding. This is the way this country went off course, and i was being driven by people very much like G.W.Bush.

Signym,

You have it all backwards. It was very muddied in our media, particularly the part of the left-wing underground press which hates America (and I do mean that literally) which is constantly spinning stories like "we supported Pol Pot."

The facts as they really are (anyone can check)

Pol Pot, aka Saloth Sar was a communist, and the leader of the Kampuchea communist party, the Khmer Rouge, backed by China, the USSR and the VC. Nixon crossed the border to oppose Pot, over the protest of countless democrats. US forces were able to hold of the slaughter for a while, but when US peacenik pressure overwhelmed Washington, we cut and ran, leading to wholesale slaughters, not just in cambodia, but in vietnam and some spill over into laos.

I think Vietnam is a classic case of a war we were clearly on the right side of, but that lacked decent direction and leadership. A lot of partisan blame will probably continue on both sides for some time, but objectively, in the end, America failed the people of South East Asia, and millions paid for it with their lives, and tens of millions more with their freedom.

I see this situation as beginning to happen all over again with the people of the middle east. Sure, there's a difference, we didn't have to go in in the first place, we created this war. The vietname war was basically created by China, who, if they hadn't funded the communist rebellions, nothing notable would have happened.

Our concern about communism is not misplaced. Communism is not just an economic policy we disagree with, or which hurts our profits, not just an enemy to the civil liberties we seek to preserve, and to our way of life, but it's an enemy to the human race. Communism has easily killed more people than any other single ideology on Earth. What makes it so dangerous is that it cannot safely coexist with other systems, so it becomes like a religion, hell bent on spreading into buffer states upon buffer states until ultimately it becomes a world conquest agenda.

Take a look at the recent wars in africa for example. The hand of the so called "african union" is a collection of powermad socialist and communist leaders who want to conquer the continent, and causing trouble everywhere they go.

Look into the backers of George W. Bush, the so called "neocons" and you will find a large number of 'former' communists. But all these plans for mideast take over they're engaging in now aren't new ideas spurred on by capitalist (taking over Iraq for oil would never pay for itself. The total cost will be around $2,000,000,000,000 for 2,000,000,000 barrels of oil, that's $1,000 a barrel.) This idea was cooked up back in the 60s when these same clowns when they were trotsky communists, and the same package of lies they sold Carter in the 70s when they (the neocons) were masqueading as democrats.

[/rant]

Well, that's how the whole situation looks from over on this side of things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 11:27 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
I think your first point is moral one and I was leaving morality out of the equation. Personally, I think the whole damn affair is immoral.

Sure. But you still have a moral responsibility. The soviet union was totally wrong in its conquest of eastern europe at the end of WWII, but nonetheless they felt some moral responsibility to keep people from killing each other, as they did after the collapse of the USSR. You inherit a mess, it's still your responsibility. Baby left on the doorstep, you don't say "damn, not my problem."

Quote:
From what I understand (and that isn't a lot, admittedly), most of the violence is one sect attacking another. I think partitioning the country ethnically would eliminate most of these types of attacks. In that scenario, the killing of Iraqi civilians would not be our problem. It would be a matter for law enforcement (or regional militias, if you prefer) to address and I suspect these militias could do a much more effective job, as they do not have to follow the same rules or war as do US troops (they can get Medieval on their asses).

Essentially, yes, but you're missing a ton of grey here. It's not a miracle cure, there would still be work to do, and there would even be work to do creating the separation.

Quote:
Most certainly, under the current paradigm, it is our resposibility. But, I submit the current paradigm has failed and is doomed to future failure.

Under any paradigm it's our responsibility. It's the baby on our doorstep. Our father killed it's father, and that may make it more of a responsibility. Which is not to say Iraqis are babies and need big white daddy, but that Democratic Iraq is a baby, and needs America daddy to protect it, or it will get hacked into pieces. Some people say, "well, that's not certain" and sure, nothing's ever certain, but it's certainly a possibility, and do you want that on your conscience?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 11:31 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

My plan would involve staying in Iraq for another year or so until we've geared up the indig security forces to handle day to day affairs. Then we withdraw.

We keep a fire brigade in Kuwait and another in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) as well as fighter bombers to support the Iraqi government, discourage Iranian aggression, and perform occaisonal unilateral and joint operations against terrorist strongholds.

Such a plan would be effective, but not until the Iraqi army is fully operational.

Well said. I think that was a well thought out response.

The only small snag is that we can't seem to build up Iraq defenses in a conflict like this. We would need to somehow protect them from attack.

The Iraqi forces have become the primary subject of attacks by inurgent groups. This is the main reason we've made little progress getting the operation up and running.

ie.

As they stand up, the insurgents shoot them down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 2:59 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As they stand up, the insurgents shoot them down.

Everybody get your heads down.

Quote:

Iraq Takes Control of Military From U.S.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq formally took over command of its armed forces from the U.S.-led coalition Thursday, a milestone American officials have hailed as crucial to the country's difficult road to independence and eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 3:10 AM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Give the elected government of Iraq body armour, arms, Hummers, instruction manuals, a promise to keep them stocked on what they need, a pat on the head and a sorry for the trouble.
Then leave.
Except to kill Bin Laden, we shouldn't be in that part of the world.

That's all I have Chrisisall

I couldn't agree more.

The "war" in Iraq is an illegal, immoral, and unethical debacle.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 3:22 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure. But you still have a moral responsibility. The soviet union was totally wrong in its conquest of eastern europe at the end of WWII, but nonetheless they felt some moral responsibility to keep people from killing each other, as they did after the collapse of the USSR. You inherit a mess, it's still your responsibility. Baby left on the doorstep, you don't say "damn, not my problem."

Well, If we're gonna' use General Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule and be all moral about it, I guess we have to stay and fix what we broke. Damn value system...

Quote:
Essentially, yes, but you're missing a ton of grey here. It's not a miracle cure, there would still be work to do, and there would even be work to do creating the separation.

I get that. Any change will take some time to implement. Even "cutting and running" would take some time to organize.

Quote:
Under any paradigm it's our responsibility. It's the baby on our doorstep. Our father killed it's father, and that may make it more of a responsibility. Which is not to say Iraqis are babies and need big white daddy, but that Democratic Iraq is a baby, and needs America daddy to protect it, or it will get hacked into pieces. Some people say, "well, that's not certain" and sure, nothing's ever certain, but it's certainly a possibility, and do you want that on your conscience?

Hey brother, I didn't vote for a single person who is responsible for this war. I have never voted for a winner and have no voice in my government. A situation that most liberals in the South or conservatives in New England are all to familiar with.

That being said, these people (that's right, I said these people) have been at each others throats for a thousand years. Shiites and Sunnis were killing each other long before the US arrived and they will be killing each other long after the US leaves. They don't need a bunch of Christians refereeing the fight. We distract them from their goal: killing each other. Come on, admit it, it's crass, but not altogether untrue.

If we are really shooting (bad word choice) for a democratic Iraq, then I agree, we must stay in it for the long haul. I, however, don't think that is our [government's] goal. I think the goal is relative stability and protection of our energy interests. If that is the case, democracy is incidental. A strongman could help us protect those interests as well as, perhaps better, than a democratically elected parliament.

Edit- Or three strongmen

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 7, 2006 8:57 AM

DREAMTROVE

FT

mostly, well put

Quote:
these people have been at each others throats for a thousand years.

This misses the point. There are always ethinc groups which hate one another. Stability is not destroying that hate, that is impossible, stability is preventing it from turning into genocide. Most societies do it pretty well. America is full of groups that hate each other intensely (yeah, true, all the far lefties will say nonsense, but just ask them to ask their friends what they think about fundies) Hating each other, sure, disagreeing, certainly, but killing, no, that's not a given. Three distince ethnic groups, shiia, sunnis and christians, have been not killing each other in lebanon for some time.

Quote:
If we are really shooting (bad word choice) for a democratic Iraq, then I agree, we must stay in it for the long haul. I, however, don't think that is our [government's] goal. I think the goal is relative stability and protection of our energy interests. If that is the case, democracy is incidental. A strongman could help us protect those interests as well as, perhaps better, than a democratically elected parliament.

But in the end, who care's what the goal of the commander-in-chimp is? In a couple of years he'll be a carbon scrapheap with a tv in crawford, and the problem will still be there. The responsibility we have now is not directly connected to the idiot who created the problem. If that logic followed, then when Charles Manson came into your town and killed 14 people, and chaos ensued, you'd say "It's Manson's problem, let him deal with it." You see where that doesn't work.

The democracy is better than a strong man, because it gives a voice to people who disagree. If there is no place for discussion, than the dissenters have only guns to speak with.

Strong men are notoriously bad. It looks like there's no conflict because they always win decisively, but all of bush's chalabi propoganda b^!!$#!+ aside, Saddam did kill over a million people. Stalin killed as many 20 million, many more if you credit him for his involvement in the russian civil war and wwii. Mao has about 10m under his belt, and of course the list goes on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE