Stay the Course, Cut and Run, or...?
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, September 7, 2006 18:57
VIEWED: 3109
PAGE 1 of 3
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 governmen
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME