Iraq - 10 More Years?

[AEON]

Here is a Newsweek article describing the new U.S. strategy. I'm guessing it is 3 years too late - but it may be worth a shot.

Unless someone sees another valid option.

US: In it for the Long Haul?

 

[LyricalDrug]

"If George Bush doesn't end this war, then when I am president, I will." - Hillary Clinton

 

[yolland]

I don't have another option. I too am very worried about what kind of state might emerge from the shakedown if we pulled back (not that militarily reasserting 'order,' if successful, would necessarily yield a stable state either) and what kinds of regional manipulation it might be subject to (not that I don't often find some of the rhetoric about Shiite mega-states overblown and unlikely). However, if it's true that the Bush Administration originally envisioned this as in some sense a jumping-off point for possible future campaigns in the region...it's a long way to go before it'd be likely to provide solid ground for something like that (not that it necessarily should). And those are just basic strategic concerns--human costs aside.

10 years is a long time.

 

[anitram]

Why would you want to fight in this war?

Is this what a US soldier signed up for? Wars built on false pretences, wars meant to stifle or minimize civil strife halfway around the world which doesn't actually affect your own security at home (no matter what Dick Cheney wants you to believe)?

I wouldn't want my children dying in this war.

 

[Irvine511]

Why would you want to fight in this war?

Is this what a US soldier signed up for? Wars built on false pretences, wars meant to stifle or minimize civil strife halfway around the world which doesn't actually affect your own security at home (no matter what Dick Cheney wants you to believe)?

I wouldn't want my children dying in this war.

and it's amazing how those who profess such love for the military don't seem terribly concerned with the situation these soldiers are currently facing, and the massive bait-and-switch the administration has pulled on them, treating them as political cannon fodder.

 

[MadelynIris]

If George Bush doesn't end this war

Well if "ending the war" equates to pulling all of our troops immediately, then yeah, that solution would be fine as long as the sunnis and shiites kept this sort of steady, small scale civil war. I'd say, let a leader emerge from within that civil war.

But the problem is the Saudi's backing the Sunnis and the Iranians backing the Shiites. Wouldn't be long before either side is staking a big old claim. Then do we go back in to defend Iraq's sovereign rights?

Another twist. We took the fight to the middle east. If we pull our troups, who will Al Quaeda attack? Sure other embassies, but will that basically give them enough opportunity to regroup for the big one?

Does it matter?

I don't set policy, I follow it. I'm completely neutral to the subject. Regardless, we have to have a long-term strategy to deal with this problem. They will not stop. They have a 100 year plan to topple the US.

 

[MadelynIris]

Why would you want to fight in this war?

Why would you want to fight in any war? Usually it's to protect your country/family, etc...

One could say that by establishing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan, we have make our country safer.

One could also argue that the cost might be to high to do so, and we'd have a better return on investment of detecting, identifying, tracking, and killing targets of the highest threat. That still costs a lot of money and the intelligence infrastructure to conduct these operations is huge.

But that philosophy allows for this activity to breed, while do our best to defend.

The current philosophy is to scorch the earth and plant new seeds and wait for them to grow.

Either way has risks, either way is very expensive. Either way, we are destined for a fight.

Not our choice, but theirs.

 

[Teta040]

Not to mention what the families of these poor soldiers are going through even at 4 yrs out, esp the National Guard. They shouldn't even be OVER there, for God's sake. Are they supposed to be largely a "domestic" force? How many tours of very hazardous duty are they going to be asked to complete? How will the army meet its recruitment quotas in 5 yrs let alone ten? (another brilliant reason for the Roberts/Alito Supreme Curt to do away with Affirmative action this spring, folks...) I just read somewhere that in some states prison terms are being commuted for some offenders--they are being given a "miltary" option. Is this our "volunteer" army?

How long can this go on? Every back-bending measure currently being taken to avoid the "d" word can't be taken forever. I don't care what anybody says, if you want to aovid the first-ever cases of mass mutiny in the active rank and file, you are going to have to have a draft. Every other major American conflict has had one. The sick thing is, the draft-dodging career criminals who started this shindig will not have to make any of the really tough miltary consitions. Like Pilate, they will wash their hands of it all. I believe future Presidnets, whatever their party, will soundly curse Bush and co. in the bosoms of their families.

 

[anitram]

Why would you want to fight in any war? Usually it's to protect your country/family, etc...

One could say that by establishing democracy in Iraq and Afganistan, we have make our country safer.

Do you think if there was a draft tomorrow, people would go? To protect their country and families? Or would they revolt?

In wartime, military recruitment is easy. I know, I lived in a country where basically overnight, there was a draft. That was when your home was getting blown up and your women were getting raped. But do you honestly believe that American citizens believe Iraq is vital to their safety and security? If that were the case, why aren't large numbers joining up?

If there was a draft tomorrow, Bush would be out of office in a week and the lineup at the Detroit-Windsor crossing would be 3 days long. Guaranteed.

 

[BVS]

Not our choice, but theirs.

Who is "they" and how did they force our hand?

 

[MadelynIris]

Who is "they" and how did they force our hand?

BVS,

Of course, I'm not talking about Saddam or Iraq. I'm talking about Al Queda and all with the same philosophies. No tie, of course, other than geography.

Taking the fight to their geographic region, is one of the only few good things that has come of Iraq. Its' a short drive to the fight, and we have the benefit of them fighting trained soldiers, with modern weoponry.


Anitram, I completely agree. There isn't enough for the average american to stand behind this fight, especially up to a draft.

But, for a fleeting moment, when we did experience an attack on our homeland, we did lash out. We just didn't have an army to fight. So, basically we dropped in and set up a bug zapper, where we drew them to us.

Does a bug zapper ever kill all of the bugs? Does a bug zapper ever win?

No.

It just keeps zapping bugs as long as it's plugged in.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What about transforming it into a more mercenary enterprise; smaller and more ruthless targeted killings by those paid by the state rather than the clumsy hand of government power.

 

[MadelynIris]

A_Wanderer,

I think I know what you're getting at, but I don't understand the statement "by those paid by the state rather than the clumsy hand of government power".

state=government, right?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I mean that empowering the government to fight terrorism has meant secret prisons, torture and infighting within and between government departments (visibly found through leaks by those with competing agendas). Some of that could be avoided through outsourcing.

 

[ntalwar]

As currently drafted, the Democratic legislation says the military "shall commence phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days" after the bill's enactment. The goal is to complete the withdrawal by March 31, 2008.

Hopefully it will be only 10 more months instead of 10 years that the US occupies Iraq.

 

[deep]

Everything we (the U S) do in Iraq

We do for Iran


there is no way Iran will not come out of this as the biggest winner

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Thousands of Shiites on Saturday protested the U.S. detention of the son of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politician, and the country's Kurdish president deplored the "uncivilized" behavior of the American soldiers responsible.

The real message of the demonstrations: Don't push the Shiites too far either over concessions to the Sunnis or ties to Iran.

In cities throughout the Shiite south, protesters carried Iraqi flags and chanted slogans against the detention of Amar al-Hakim, 35, who was taken into custody by U.S. troops Friday as he returned from Iran.

He was released about 12 hours later — with a public apology from U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.

Al-Hakim is the elder son of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Republic in Iraq, or SCIRI, a Shiite party with close ties to both Iran and the United States.

 

[Irvine511]

Taking the fight to their geographic region, is one of the only few good things that has come of Iraq. Its' a short drive to the fight, and we have the benefit of them fighting trained soldiers, with modern weoponry.

this has been the biggest lie perpetrated by the Bush administration, and i'm sorry that some of us still buy it.

the GWOT will not be won by armies that are easy to see, easy to follow on CNN, and give good media when you land on an aircraft carrier. the Iraq debacle is a great example of how conventional, state-on-state warfare have nothing to with the GWOT where you don't have nation states, but certain players within each state who are united not by geography or nationalism but by ideology.

the Bushies knew this, but they also knew that secretive strikes and intelligence work and cooperating with foreign governments isn't sexy, and it doesn't win elections when you could start a great big war against a great big bad guy.

so many decisions about the GWOT made in 2002-6 were made with the concern of what would look best on CNN/Fox and the 2004 election rather than what's the best strategy for fighting islamist fascism.

and putting Americans in the Middle East was exactly what Bin Laden has been complaining about since 1991. "taking the fight to the enemy" is precisely what Bin Laden and the Iranians want, because now they get to kill Americans on their soil (far, far easier to do than organize another 9-11) and if/when Americans redeploy from Iraq -- which seems the only logical thing to do, given the absurdity of asking American soldiers to police a civil war -- they will claim victory, that hte Americans pulled out like the British before them.

however, pulling out might be the smartest long-term strategy, despite the initial claims of victory by Al-Qaeda. yes, there will be violence in Iraq, not that there isn't now, but what it might well do is change the narrative. instead of Islam vs. America, it becomes Sunni vs. Shiite, or Islam vs. Islam, and it will focus the governments of the Middle East to focus on their own problems without the easy scapegoats of the Americans.

 

[MadelynIris]

the GWOT will not be won by armies that are easy to see, easy to follow on CNN, and give good media when you land on an aircraft carrier. the Iraq debacle is a great example of how conventional, state-on-state warfare have nothing to with the GWOT where you don't have nation states, but certain players within each state who are united not by geography or nationalism but by ideology.

There is no war to win here, but I am saying that essentially this is a temporary solution. It's costly to keep the zapper plugged in, but it will never get rid of all the bugs. It's a temporary diversion.

I'm not buying into anything, I know the score.

We go and Al Queda goes. There is no reason for them to continue to fight in Iraq anymore, unless it's to support their Sunni brothers.

But this will also Al Queda to turn their sites onto US soil again.

 

[BVS]

There is no war to win here, but I am saying that essentially this is a temporary solution. It's costly to keep the zapper plugged in, but it will never get rid of all the bugs. It's a temporary diversion.

I'm not buying into anything, I know the score.

We go and Al Queda goes. There is no reason for them to continue to fight in Iraq anymore, unless it's to support their Sunni brothers.

But this will also Al Queda to turn their sites onto US soil again.

It's an expensive temporary "solution", lot's of lives lost.

Why don't we spend our time and efforts into protecting and trying to solve issues of an attack on US soil?

 

[MadelynIris]

Why don't we spend our time and efforts into protecting and trying to solve issues of an attack on US soil?

I think, that if we are to change strategies, this needs to be explicitly stated by the democrats. I think that this will resonate with the american people -- back to a defensive posture again, instead of offensive. Exercising your offense occasionally though, provides a healthy reminder to those that assume we 'would never attack'.

At the end of the day, that is the fundamental difference in Bush's policy from his predeccesors. He was offensive (no pun intended).

 

[trevster2k]

It's an expensive temporary "solution", lot's of lives lost.

Why don't we spend our time and efforts into protecting and trying to solve issues of an attack on US soil?

I agree 100% but unfortunately, I think this will never be addressed by decision makers for the same reasons the U.S government refuses to leave Iraq. It's all about saving face and of course, maintaining the rights to Iraqi oil. To address policy issues which have drawn the attention of extremists is to admit a flaw or fault in policy. Politicians like to think they are infallible. Look at how many people still refuse to admit Vietnam was a failure even 30 years later.

 

[anitram]

We go and Al Queda goes. There is no reason for them to continue to fight in Iraq anymore, unless it's to support their Sunni brothers.

But this will also Al Queda to turn their sites onto US soil again.

Is it moral to induce a war in Iraq and attract al Qaeda there because it's better for cheap Iraqi civilian lives to be taken than your own American ones on US soil?

This is why the cycle will never end.

 

[trevster2k]

I think, that if we are to change strategies, this needs to be explicitly stated by the democrats. I think that this will resonate with the american people -- back to a defensive posture again, instead of offensive. Exercising your offense occasionally though, provides a healthy reminder to those that assume we 'would never attack'.

At the end of the day, that is the fundamental difference in Bush's policy from his predeccesors. He was offensive (no pun intended).

Attacking a sovereign state is one thing. Neat and tidy with a set out agenda. Attacking a small group of people with no central location or structure is another. All the attacking has done is feed the propaganda and arguments for the extremists who don't want U.S interference in the Middle East. And like Anitram mentioned, this whole mantra of "it's best to fight them over there instead of here" really can't make civilians "over there" feel very good about being used as a proxy battleground. Civilians who probably end up joining or sympathizing with extremist groups after suffering loss due to the fighting thus creating more enemies, not less.

One problem with U.S interventions is that the decision makers fail to understand the culture and people of the region. Huge assumptions are made without any attention to points brought up by people with differing opinions about the social and political history of the region. Sadly, the U.S political environment seems focused solely on who's right/who's wrong vs what is the correct solution and what is the best way to implement it using all of the knowledge from every possible source like countries which have dealt with terrorism in other regions like true home-grown terrorism in Ireland.

 

[MadelynIris]

Is it moral to induce a war in Iraq and attract al Qaeda there because it's better for cheap Iraqi civilian lives to be taken than your own American ones on US soil?

Anitram,

I'd say that situation is more of a by-product, and was not soley induced for that purpose, but it was one of them.

Same could be said for Afghanistan, right? Plenty of innocent civilians getting wrapped up in a war because of their Taliban leadership.

If you go back to 9/11, and empathize with the administration and (all the democrats in congress too), I'm sure the rhetoric was something like, "we've got to do something".

And everyone agreed, and supported both wars.

And neither party had a vision for what to do afterwards.

 

[MadelynIris]

Sadly, the U.S political environment seems focused solely on who's right/who's wrong vs what is the correct solution and what is the best way to implement

.

Completey agree.

Which bums me out about the leading democratic candidate, Hilary. I can't think of anyone more 'political' than her.

One reason I'd vote for McCain.

 

[BVS]

Exercising your offense occasionally though, provides a healthy reminder to those that assume we 'would never attack'.

So flexing your muscle purely for show?

I knew guys in high school like that. They're all fat, lazy, and talking about the glory days now...

 

[MadelynIris]

So flexing your muscle purely for show?

Sometimes right? Ever stand up to a bully just one time to remind them of the consequences?

 

[anitram]

And everyone agreed, and supported both wars.

And neither party had a vision for what to do afterwards.

I don't think everyone agreed.

The Congress is one thing - most of them are political windbags and don't stand for anything at all (Rs and Ds both). But if you look at your country, it was divided on Iraq. If you look at the rest of the world, pretty much nobody supported the Iraq war. Even countries that sent soldiers, like the UK and Spain - polls indicated that something like 70-90% of their population was against it.

So a prudent man, or at least one with some minimal amount of foresight, could have seen that Iraq would be a mess. Some of us did see it. Bush was either reckless as to considering the implications or he was willfully blind, which is even worse.

 

[BVS]

Sometimes right? Ever stand up to a bully just one time to remind them of the consequences?

Standing up isn't attacking offensively. Sorry.

 

[MadelynIris]

Standing up isn't attacking offensively. Sorry.

I guess. I was thinking more along the lines of someone extorting you, threatening you, etc... where they weren't actually attacking you -- and you've had enough and you just beat the crap out of them.

Not a pacifistic approach, but one that I would still endorse under certain circumstances with my children.