Lots of people who read this site are die-hard supporters of President Bush. Folks who shook their heads in disgust at Rep. John Murtha’s call to withdraw American troops from Iraq; who nodded in agreement when White House press secretary Scott McClellan responded that now “is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.“
So guys: I’m curious to hear your reactions to the Administration’s apparent newfound-readiness to take tens of thousands of U.S. forces out of Iraq, pronto.
As someone who’s been skeptical about the war since before it began, I’m worried that pulling out — without a viable Iraqi military, and without a discernable “victory” to declare — gives the global Jihadist movement a gigantic win. After this war, and the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, there are a whole lot of radical Islamists out there who are going to see the scoreboard as Jihadists 2, Superpowers 0. Which, as a resident of the most-bombed city in America, is more than unnerving. Because that first score is what eventually lead to the Twin Towers getting knocked down.
And even if the terrorists never return to New York, without American troops, how do we keep a thoroughly-screwed up Iraq from becoming “a hornets’ nest,” as Martin van Creveld puts it, with “a hundred mini-Zarqawis spread[ing] all over the Middle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah’s name.“
What’s the plan? (And, for God’s sake, don’t tell me it’s air power.)
THERE’S MORE: Eighteen months ago, when a left-leaning defense analyst told me that the U.S. military in Iraq was paving the way for Salvadoran-style death squads, I blew him off as a Bush-hater. I guess I owe him an apology now.
| Withdraw, then What?« « Rapid Fire 11/29/05 | Recon on Radio Project » » Leave a ReplyNOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces. By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement | |
There are currently 212,000 ISF members at this time, while the objective is to reach 271,000. Meanwhile, it would not mean all would be fully trained until then, that goal is likely to reach next summer. If Iraq is left without security provided by the coalition force at this time, there are risks for chaos in Iraq, even not enough to defeat the Iraq government. Our country relies on foreign oil, and Iraq is likely to be one of the large exporters once its infrastructure is reconstructed. If this country was left in the hands of undemocratic anti-American government, US will have a much more difficult time with shares of oil to support its economy. Meanwhile, it will give another safehouse like Syria for Al Qaida, and could result in another attack on the home ground. Liberals have a hard time to recognize this and seems to have no strategy after the immidiate departure they demand of US Armed Force. Before the coalition force leaves, terrorists must kill or capture much as possible so they would not be able to organize for another attack on the homeground. If we leave a dozen of terrorists alive with coalition force leaving too early, those terrorists that were unable to be captured or killed may reorganize to defeat the Iraqi government and even plan attacks on US afterward. Once again, I see no plans of liberals after an early departure of coalition force. I would ask the liberals what they would say if the terrorists have succeeded in attack for results of early departure of US Armed Force. Who are they going to blame? I expect they won’t blame themselves for their stupidity and lack of strategy.
Just think of it like this… as with several other things (mmmm.… secret bilateral talks with N.K.), the Bush administration is just realizing that John Kerry had it right all along.
laff.
Also, about the whole death squad thing: this Peter Maass article is sorta required reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?ex=1133413200&en=e39bd3936ad916fc&ei=5070
Oops, I better edit one portion from the previous posted message… sorry for the mistake.
Before the coalition force leaves, terrorists must [be] kill[ed] or capture[d] much as possible so they would not be able to organize for another attack on the homeground.
Im just not sure if the US military is helping pave the way for death squads or if it just would rather not get involved in stopping them. I would guess the latter. Its not worth it since it would mean putting out some fires that long ago went out of control and would look bad publicly (i.e. much of the progress in building up Iraqs security forces would be undone).
John Robb wrote about this possibility last Oct too.
The US definitely wants to significantly reduce their footprint in Iraq, but not completely. Unless something has changed, the US still plans on having permanent bases in Iraq.
Here’s the link to the John Robb Oct 2004 entry on the paramilitary option in Iraq:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/10/solution_decent.html
Nick:
Agreed, “pave the way” is probably too strong a term.
nms
Judging from the image you’ve chosen, I assume you read the Economist’s leader, “Why America must stay.” They get it perfectly right, and the Left would do well to pay attention, when they say “the argument about whether America should quit Iraq is not the same as the one about whether it should have gone there in the first place. It must be about the future.“
I was against going in all along, but we’re there and to leave now would create a far greater danger than has ever existed there.
Timetables are a double-edged sword. On the one hand you don’t want to give the insurgency a goal to achieve. On the other hand, the Iraqis are a lot less likely to get there act together as long as they know we’re in it for the long haul.
My fear is that the administration begins bringing home troops for the sake of bringing home troops. That would be disastrous. Hopefully (?) the Right will shift the focus of the mid-term elections to the US-Mexico border.
Well, another fine mess you’ve gotten us into Ollie. Whether or not the war was right to start is moot. We’ve invaded a foreign county and removed it’s government. We are now fully responsible for the rehabilitation of this country. We shouldn’t even be thinking about withdrawing yet. Iraq is far too unstable right now. Maybe if we could get some Arabic troops in there to help with peacekeeping duties it could help further our goals. There is still a long road ahead and we have to travel it.
What would it say to the troops to pull out now? Sorry, our bad, too bad your buddies got killed or maimed for nothing.
Scott: The choice of image was completely coincidental. I’m checking out that issue now.
Joe: You’re right, Al-Qaeda types as death squads probably aren’t news. But Iraqi government death squads, hunting those AQers down with U.S. approval? That, my friend, is noteworthy.
nms
Now, the plan. Four things.
One, the Sunni arabs of Iraq need to understand that no amount of gunfire and terror is going to put them back in charge. They have to lose that hopem, because wars don;t end until people lose hope. The Shi’ites and Kurds have no intention of going back to a scenario in which the Sunnis get to be the Klan, and they’re left defenseless. But the Sunnis aren’t quite willing to give up their long experience of being the Klan. That has to change.
There’s a 2-track strategy to deal with that. One is the presence of well-armed Shi’ites in Sunni areas. They may hate them, but they can also read the writing on the wall, and do the math given that Sunnis are 20% of the population.
For those who can do the math, part 2 is a strategy of retail co-optation. Get involved in politics, suppress the jihadis in your area, and your tribe can share in the benefits. Hurry up, before your neighbouring tribe decides to cut a deal first (Shi’ite-Sunni isn’t the only significant cleavage here).
If it comes to it, back the Shi’ites and Kurds in a civil war, just as we backed the Croats and Bosnians against the Serbs. But I don;t think it will come to that.
American/Iraqi offensives in the Anbar region now have participation from local Sunni tribes, and we’ve seen this phenomenon in Qaim (where the locals finally called up the Americans and asked for help, they were so fed up), Mosul, and elsewhere. Al-Qaeda’s hearts and minds strategy is TERRIBLE, even for a guerilla movement. So that’s a big asset to the retail co-optation strategy.
The second part of the effort needs to be an “oil-spot” + chase approach. The “oil spots” are places like Mosul, which was hairy a year ago and is a lot calmer now. The airport highway in Baghdad is another. Those are areas where the Islamist death squads have been beaten down, and Iraqis can step in behind to take charge and stay. (A better American CONOPS would have allowed the USa to do some of this themselves over the last couple of years, but they didn’t have that and still don’t). This frees US forces to execute the “chase” portion of the strategy, going up the ratlines to ensure no lasting sanctuary and make the enemy’s supply routes treacherous.
They could do a few smart things along these lines, like buy about 20 lightly armed Cessnas (that’s cheap) and ship them over so the Iraqi air force could use them for patrolling key roads etc. (just as Cessnas do in America for radio stations and cops). But that’s a tactical/CONOPS quibble, not a strategy issue except to the extent that they’ve been less effective than they could be.
As this strategy succeeds, the ops profile in Iraq starts to look more like Afghanistan, but with a much stronger central government. Terrorism and attacks continue (Syria and Iran will see to that), but it becomes harder and harder to target the Americans because they’re more of a big brother backup, logistics force (that’s the one thing Iraqi units are missing — but then, standing up fighting units was more important given that the USA could play this role), and pursuit/strike force.
This transition is already well underway in several areas of Iraq.
This brings us to part 3. As long as Syria and Iran have nothing to fear from their meddling and terrorism efforts, Iraq may manage an Israeli existence of civil society hit regularly by terrorists, but never anything more. The American government’s lack of action on the Iranian democracy front has been a major failure of this war. Those tools were used successfully against Syria in Lebanon, however, and other means need to be explored until Syria is clear that continued support of the Islamist death squads in Iraq will have serious consequences.
These efforts need not necessarily be military. Many other elements can be explored. But the outside elements really do need to be choked off over time, and the regimes that work with them must have their own hands too full for mischief elsewhere. The Reagan Doctrine worked precisely because it was a relentless full court press on all fronts, and this needs to be as well. By the end of this exercise the USA will either have watched the end/change of terrorist regimes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, or this phase of the war will have failed in all 3 places (the Saudis come at the end, not before).
Finally, note that I’m using terms like “phase” and “campaign”. Iraq isn’t the war. Iraq is one front in that war, which leads to other fronts. The nature of the Islamist enemy means that the war goes on whether or not America even acknowledges that fact.
That brings us to part 4: the state of the Reserves and Guard.
Both of those groups are currently under major stress, and it has been obvious for a while that the present situation could not continue. Yet little of substance has been done, for various reasons (incl. the Pentagon’s big force structure reorg into brigade-based formations etc.).
That failing goes straight to the largest failure, by far, of the war — and it was on full display the day after 9/11, when the President told everyone to go shopping. There has been no concept of mobilization, national sacrifice or contingency in this administration. It’s the failing that could cost them the whole war, and I do not see it changing until the administration changes because this administration is incapable of those things. McCain grasps this. Guys like Biden do, too. I’ve entirely given up on W. getting it.
But it matters.
Whatever happens in Iraq, even if troop numbers drop as the above strategies continue to improve the situation and better CONOPS are implemented, the manpower situation is going to need fixing. Because there’s still the rest of the war to fight, and it’s there whether we like it or not. Unless the USA substantially changes it game plan (a civilization-denial plan aimed atr designated enemies, for instance, is far less manpower intensive), it’s going to have to change this aspect so the guard and reserves are either fully called up and committed en masse, or put on a reasonable rotation schedule and pulled out of regular force specialty duties that require constant manning.
Right now, I see no bright ideas, no campaign of persuasion that Uncle Sam Needs You, and no acknowledgement that this is even a problem. And I absolutely blame George W. Bush for that.
Correct me if I am wrong…but they are talking about bring home 3 combat brigades in early CY 06. That will bring the total forces on the ground to just above the ramp up a year ago for the elections. I fail to see the big issue.
Fear and doubt. I like this web page and visit often I like the all the cool gadgets and military information, but fear and doubt is all I hear today. What is it more fear or more doubt that you think will turn things around? Strange that when I visit Al Qaida web (and I have) sites they don’t believe that fear or doubt improve there situation, but what do they know.
I have read of one Al Qaida leader after another being shot, blown up, of them dying by the hundreds. I have read in the last several weeks interviews will several that are still alive they all have lost several family members. The woman bomber in Jordan for instance lost 2 brothers. Most of the provinces in Iraq not reporting much activity at all and most of the reports from active areas involve our army attacking or IDEs which more often than not blow up on unintended targets.
I suggest you widen you viewpoint a little and try looking a things from a different perspective. Try seeing things from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi point of view for once, a man who has already been shot in the back and almost died once already, who has lost one after another of his hand picked leaders, who has been denounced by his own family, who has been charge as a coward by his own people for leaving Fallujah to its fate, who is no closer today to his goals as he was a year ago. Still after all this I dont see him posting his fear and doubt on the web. Maybe he knows that pessimism is not a survival trait!
Maybe my perception is off, maybe yours is, either way I think you will appreciate more and fear less when you see others (like Al Qaida) can take their losts with some grace.
I think all the arguments here are based on the all is going to hell theory that not only wrong but inappropriate.
Addendum: actually, Noah, given the area’s cultural history, I’m deeply surprised that major efforts of this type have taken this long to show up. The formation of armed secret socieites to exact revenge for sectarian killings was a near-inevitability.
As the USA, it’s not wise to ignore that — especially since it likely that the Iranians are playing both sides, arming the Sunnis with shaped-charge land mines et. al. and then fostering Shi’ite secret societies in response (which they can always use later). That way, Iraq’s Shi’ites can’t assert their natural pre-eminent place as the center of Islamic Shi’ism, and their traditional enemies the Iraqi Sunnis are kept busy and neutralized.
So the US definitely wants to keep tabs on that stuff, play the intelligence game to see where the connections lead, and look for opportunities to pick off a couple of these as opportunities present themselves. That’s wise, responsible, and also good for the image as a neutral arbiter, which US Ambassador Khalizad is apparently quite excellent at.
But the center of gravity for success in Iraq remains the Shi’ites above all, and they must be kept on side. Likewise, the same is even truer in the wider region — Iran, and of course Saudi Arabia whose oil coast is populated by Shi’ites who remain second class citizens under Sunni/Wahabbi oppression.
The USA is walking a fine line, but the example and meta-messages it wants to send seem pretty clear: The Iraqi government are not out puppets. Sunni supremacism is done (and so is theocracy). To its victims: stand up for your rights, we’re with you.
As long as the Sunni death squads choose to make themselves the enemy center of gravity in Iraq add wage a sectarian campaign against the Shi’ites, they’re going to be and should be the USA’s main focus of attention. The overriding strategic consideration in Iraq remains the absolute imperative to avoid a two-front war (vs. Sunnis and Shi’ites), which means whichever one you pursue hard, you have to back off a bit on the other (recall the first back-off on Fallujah while al-Sadr was pursued hard).
It’s all too bad in a way, because the Sunnis could choose a different approach that would make (and keep) them as key national players, unsettle their hostile neighbours, and feed their yearning for Iraq to be a major player in the region, all in one stroke. The trick is that they’d have to loudly embrace their Shi’ites and Kurds in a certain specific way. Meanwhile, a key subset of Sunnis who play ball stress their indispensability, in order to keep things smooth with the Sunnis while serving as the Shi’ites & Kurds legitimizing voice and quasi-protectors in the larger region.
Maybe we can send them some folks from the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada to explain how the racket works. It’s very successful.…
Anymouse: If this troop reduction is just part of the normal ebb-and-flow in Iraq, you’re right in saying no “big issue.“
I suspect that’s not the case, however.
Joe: I hope your plan works out. Right now, there aren’t all that many “oil spots” — although I agree, with some first-hand experience, that the airport road is one. Hopefully more can be developed.
And I couldn’t agree with you more about the spirit of national sacrifice. If the war against Islamic extremism really is one of national survival, why aren’t more people being asked to chip in? Half the time, it doesn’t even seem like folks in the *Pentagon* are taking this war that seriously; they’d rather focus on blasting the Chinese with next-gen fighters and destroyers instead. I don’t get it.
Anyway, thanks everyone for the comments. Keep ‘em coming.
nms
If the Iraq IDF can start to take up more of the jobs that our guys are doing, and our guys scale back our forces in country and withdraw more of them to support positions inside the wire of our FOBs then I suspect we will see less and less insurgent activity. I personally don’t see a problem with slowly removing or at least removing the visability of our forces and see not only how the IDF does but also if it gets a little more quite (I personally suspect it will as there are much fewer western targets).
N8
I read reports of the Iraqis taking over responsibility for security in places and of
American forces turning over bases to Iraqi
forces and that seems to bolster the claim
that the Iraqis are slowly but surely becoming
capable of providing security for the country
which would lessen the need for American forces
to do the job. Then I read a more pessimistic
view from a person with first-hand knowledge
and I have to wonder if Senator Murtha isn’t
correct in saying that we’ve done all we can.
In your opinion, are the Iraqis going to be able
to secure their own country any time soon?
Good Afternoon Noah and all,
As much as I would like to agree with pull out of Iraq now, I don’t see where that is currently a workable option.
I’ve been against the war in Iraq since it first got serious consideration in the Fall of 2002 and I still think all things considered leaving Saddam in power seems in 20/20 hind site was not a bad option.
From what I can see our invasion of Iraq has created two major big time problems.
The emergence of al Qawda of Iraq with al Zarqawi and Iran. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq al Zarqawi didn’t exist and al Qaeda’s leadership was boxed up in North Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Al Zarqwai has now, it appears assumed most of the operational leadership of the al Qaeda organization. In another post I showed what appears that al Zarqwi’s al Qaeda of Iraq is spreading beyond it borders into Jordan and now it appears Afghanistan.
The second factor that everyone seems to be igoring is Iran. What ever type of military the United States would leave in Iraq, it would be no challenge for any incursion from Iran who still is very unhappy about the out come of its war with Saddams Iraq in 1979.
In todays papers there are articles about a three way split with in the Shiites, those of the new Government, those who have alligance to one of the militas mainly al Sar’s (remember him, President Bush wanted him dead or alive for killing Armericans) and then the Irian Shiites who feel that Iraq should be part of an Islamic religious State.
The internal dynamics of Iraq 2005 only become more unsettleing when independant minded Kurds are add to the festering wound we now call Iraq and then the fractious Suuni’s who are now killing each other are added to the infection. Oh did I mention al Zarqawi and the foreign insurgents/terrorists.
President Bush and his neocon advisors have created a delima that appears to have no good solution. Either U.S. forces with draw and let things sort themselves out, few of the options seem to be in the United States best interest. Or as most likely we will stay in Iraq and in nearby middle eastern states for several decades to come.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
First of all, the ‘death squad’ report is hardly earth-shattering. I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘death squad’, but when you’re waging a guerilla-type war in a largely urban environment, those are the tactics that work. One example is Task Force Black, the SAS/Delta team that’s been taking out suicide bombers before they can strike.
As for the ‘exit strategy’ of Iraq, I hate to parrot anything the president is saying, but I think a good shot of patience is needed. We’ve been in Iraq a little over two-and-a-half years and we’ve accomplished a great deal, especially considering the geography of the region and the cultural differences between our troops and the Iraqis. It hasn’t happened quickly and it hasn’t happened as well as it could have, but war never does.
The fate of Iraq lies solely on the shoulders of the Iraqis themselves. The training of ISF troops, while belated, is radically changing the dynamic of US responsibility. In the short term, the Iraqis will continue to inch their way to competency. In the long term, say ten years from now, consider the strength and combat prowess of an Iraqi military shaped and refined from a decade of urban guerilla warfare. Much like the Israeli expertise in counterterrorism developed under fire, the ISF has potential to become one of the most experienced and battle-hardened militaries in the world.
Finally, concerning the widespread–and mostly sincere–desire to ‘bring our boys home’, we must remember that there are things we don’t know. I am 100% positive that the government has some sort of plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Hell, they probably have five! In a country that has a military plan for every imaginable scenario in any possible theater, we certainly have strategies for Iraq. They just aren’t publicized, and for very good reasons. Whether those plans are any good or not remains to be seen, but remember that our troops are well-trained and extremely well-equipped to do their jobs.
Sometimes that job requires dying, but that’s what makes them heroes. Yet even to save the lives of additional soldiers, it would be a disaster to undermine the excellent work they’ve done so far with a hasty feel-good half-strategy.
Here’s the bottom line… there is no putting Iraq back together anytime soon. We broke it too well, and ignored the problem too long. The way the war was organized from the start has sealed our fate. It has been a situation that was past the point of no return from the beginning.
The future situation is this, no matter what we do or how long we take to do it this country is headed for civil war. The Shiites will come out on top, it will be a theocratic government, and they will be closer to Iran then the US.
There is no way the “terrorists” (Sunni’s) will win. The only thing holding them together right now is our presence in the country. As soon as we leave they will be more then occupied by fighting the Shiites. They will lose because they do not have the numbers, or the oil.
The only question is how many US lives do we want to spend in an effort to hold off this inevitable outcome. IMO I would rather it be less than more, and end sooner then later.
This is not a leftist view, this is a realistic view. Our problem is not that damage will be done if we leave too early. That damage already has been done. The way this war has progressed has ALREADY caused us gave harm, and emboldened our enemies. Will we look worse to the outside world if we pullback after 3 years or 10, only to have civil-war break out?
The only solution I see is to get the vast majority of our combat troops the hell out of the country as soon as possible (not more then 2 years, and hopefully much less), and still give military assistance and monetary support to the Shiite majority run government. We should have the US SF groups help them out and train them, but not fight their fight for them. Thats as much as win as were ever going to get out of this mess.
well. im confused. very confused. I fully supported Bush’s plan to stay the corse. But our President isn’t a skitzo. And last time I looked he had access to a hell of alot better intel than i do. so i guess i better just wait till the ‘official’ announcement and see what i see. Don’t think theres anyother way to play it.
I am not a person who votes or pays attention to politics but there is no way we should be pulled out of iraq at this crutial time. We are finally winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, we are finally making headwaqy into geographic safety, and we are finally at a good pace of training and implimenting a social technique in to the Iraqi military. If we leave now then all the time and lives that have been put into this war will be a waste and everyone who has died there will have been a marter rather than an ultimate sacrafice towads the developement of a better life for war torn civillians.
God Bless,
Kurt Prigl
I sereously doubt Bush is going to do anything different than what he has been saying since the begining “we will stand down as the Iraqi’s stand up and the We will stay the course” but if you are right Noah and Bush cowers down to the peace-love-&-happiness crowd I will fully agree that Bush has lost it.
The problem I see here is that the Dems have politisied a active war effort, wether you agree or not with the Iraq battlefront Bush is the pres he chose Iraq as phase 2 and it must be won and the Dems should have simply after the choice was made stepped up and supported the war and worked for a win not slowly chipped away at the moral until it was weak enough to put up Murtha’s crap along with bringing up old issues like intellegence and re-living the choice to make Iraq phase 2 and then claim ohhh the debate is nessecary. No it isnt Victory is nessecary and whatever it takes to achieve that period. In WW2 I am sure not eveyone in gov was thrilled about Roosevelts choice of Germany as the primary front or hell for that matter spending our resources in N. Africa against a mainly Italian front backed by some german forces and even worse making landings in Vichey France territory a nation that was nuetral, after all it was the Japs that attacked us right. But they got over the loss of that disicion and moved on to make the path chosen successfull becuase it was more important for the US to win than for the small amount of personal Kudo’s they would have gotten by seeing the European front fail and proving thier point as Right that is imature at best and out right treasonist putting ones personal gain over the good of the country.
Beside all of these facts what scares the hell out of me is that this nation has become so broken that even in a war were short the most radical partisans can clearly see that we are in a war for the way of our lives yet we have tunrned onto eachother and are wringing and screaming in pain at just 2200 military casualties that I would remind everyone we lost 3000 civilians in one day on 9–11, and are looking desperate to the outside world for escape. This scares the hell out of me because the War is not over by a long shot Iraq was only one phase of the war it isnt over. Syria everyday is looking more and more like they are going to implode imagine for a minute a coup in Syria and the whole nation goes civil war with the AQ boys taking over a swath of Syria do we go in could we stomach it could we get the polititians to put personal agendas aside??? look over to Iran their new pres is a freekin nutbag I saw this today hat tip LGF now he thinks he is the Mahdi
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/184cb9fb-887c-4696-8f54-0799df747a4a.html
but to the point Iran is a huge phase if nothing else Iraq was a good training ground if we have to go into thier. Iran like any other nation we fight will be a short invasion then conquest however just like Iraq, Iran will be the occupation they have prepared thier martyrs in the thousands trained and supplied them for the invasion they are preparing for, while we over here cry about minor BS. Iran is not going to give in on the Nuke issue and our weakness over here is just encouraging thier propoganda that we are a paper tiger. When we go thier 2200 men wont get us half way into the first year of occupation if we even get through conquest on that. And if you think you can wait for the “Mahdi” to get their nuke insurance before addressing the problem imagine a situation were the Iranians are openly supplying and sending a steady flow of Jihadi Martyrs to punish the infedels and the Joooos how the hell in that situation could the pres send 200,000+ soldgiers to Irans borders to prepare for invasion knowing full well one nuke and we would lose over half our total military sure we could retaliate but would the “mahdi” really care after all he is protected by the light of Allah on a mission would he care??? This is a time in history where we need to at least make the impression of solidarity and unwavering will to do whatever it takes to win. Our politicians should be on TV bragging on how our losses are so low not politically begging for mercy and escape. The weaker we look the more likley that bloody phase called Iran becomes a absolute non avoidable.
Ok, my turn. For the record, I’m Nam period Marine vet. I’m hawk as they go. But I’m pragmatic about it. The reason why we are in the mess we are in in the first place, is because we have legal prohibitions against political assasignation.
Remove them! Put individual potential targets up to Legistlators to vote on. Get a simply majority vote, and send in a Marine sniper squad. A few million dollars and the job is done; instead of the billions of dollars and thousands of “coalition” military lives and countless civilian lives destroyed.
As to “getting out” The question,always, is: strategy or tactics?
Tactics.…forget it, the “war” is lost, only because we cannot control a guerilla enemy that percieves death of its fighters as tantamount to a reward, rather than a cost; and there are literally hundreds of millions of potential such fighters.
Anyone and everyone who argues this, is in denial up the Mekong.……
Strategy.…..Concentrate on the bigger picture. Iran as a big time space technology owner and nuclear power is A BIG TIME WORRY.
Strategic thinking would pull our military personnel out of Iraq, let them have at their civil war to create three nations for Sunni, Shite and Kurd.….
whilst we go to neighboring countries…not only close by, but surrounding the entire mid East boiling pot.…and cultivate these with real economic helps for their peoples.….India, Kenya, Egypt, Kazekstan, Azerbijan, Turkey.…contain the jihadists to their own turf as much as possible. Yes, we still have to deal with suicide bombers, but Isreal has managed for five decades so far.……
to much to write. I close.
This administration is FUBAR, period.
I’m amazed no-one is yet talking about the non-existance of a true Iraqi national force yet, even on this site. There’s no plan to leave because without the US involvement Iraq could be invaded by two Syrian grandmas on pushbikes or three Iranian toddlers on trikes. Iceland is better armed. In real whole-world terms, the Iraqi military is a joke. No air force, no navy, only 77 old tanks. No plans to change that situation.
In the absence of some such component it isn’t an exit strategy. Its either a Soviet-style plan to create a satellite state or a true “cut and run”. Hawks and those who believe in America’s right to police the world on both left and right, such as Bush and Biden, want the former and are carefully concealing it as a “withdrawal”. Others would take the second option, leaving the Iraqis open to a new foreign invasion and unable to defeat al-Qaida even if the rest of the insurgency were to down arms. Both should at least have the gumption to call a spade a spade.
Anyone who thinks this administration intends any kind of meaningful withdrawal during the rest of its term in office should look at a comparison of forces — Iraq vs its two closest external threats, Iran and Syria — over the next five years.
There is no withdrawal plan, just a redistribution of forces and an Iraq dependency on the US for the forseeable future.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/11/satrapy-of-iraq.html
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog.
No, no NO!
The deck chairs look better like THIS!
C-Low, you still living in the cold war? There hasn’t been a WEST Germany for a while now.
All of the nations you name are capable of at least mounting some defense against an external threat — but even the tine UAE’s air force could destroy all Iraqi combat power in an afternoon.
I just want to know why no-one is asking this obvious question. You’ve given a definite reason that the neo-con Right isn’t, fer sure.
Still, nice to see a neo-con so proudly proclaim America as the custodian of the world. Quis custodiet ipses custodiens?
Regards, C
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.