Comments on: Endgame in Iraq

By: Chris Alemany

Chris Alemany — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 06:52:48 +0000

I don’t get it…
it one breath commenters here agree that there is irony with the US potentially backing up the Saudi state effectively protecting OBLs homeland.
Where in another the same old song and dance about Iraq, Iran and AQ all supporting one another in the global Terrorist cause when in REALITY, they have all been over the majority of the past decade sworn enemies over political, religious, tribal and purely practical lines.
It’s this kind of revisionist, black/white, unenlightened thinking that has created this mess in Iraq.

By: John

John — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:42:48 +0000

The ultimate irony here is that if the US withdraws from Iraq, and Shiite Iran becomes the dominant power in the region, Osama bin Laden will wish the US had a couple of divisions in Sunni Saudi Arabia to protect it.
Of course, US forces stationed in Saudi Arabia is why he attacked the US in the first place. Ah, the irony, to see Sunni Arab al-Queda rolled over by Persian Shiites…
I say the answer is to take all the money that would be spent on maintaining order in the area over the next 30 years, spend it on 200 new nuclear power plants and electric vehicle technology, and tell the entire region to go &^%$ itself once and for all.

By: The Cenobyte

The Cenobyte — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:21:32 +0000

It’s very odd to me that no one seems to ask, Are we making progress? Not quick progress, not how close are we to done but weather we are even moving in that direction. That information is really about the only think missing in making a choice as to what to do. If we are making progress it would be stupid to leave. If we are not and it’s getting worst not better than maybe it really is time to change up what we are doing.
My point here is that no one wants to see people die, but I like the idea even less of letting them die for something we give up on even though we are getting the job done. It would be like hiking half way up the mountain and then give up because it’s to hard not because you can’t go on.
I personally think we are making progress, although slower than I would like. But making progress is the point and if while this might be a 4 or 5 more year project. I kind of feel like it’s worth it.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:02:50 +0000

Yawn. There's a host of other options including "Cold War, the Sequel" within an entire spectrum of eventualities. I'm certainly in the "we're eventually going to have to bust a lot of heads and we'll need to expand the military to where it should have been all along" camp, but that is only because I study history. This piece is reminiscent of the author's 'Coming War With Japan': just another future history that isn't going to happen. I am of course suspicious about the timing as well, wondering who's policy wonks is the author trying to influence.

By: CarbineAtTheReady

CarbineAtTheReady — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:21:46 +0000

@joe
No, actually I wasn’t serious. I was just probing mentality by doing a completely and utterly insane statement.
I’m glad that you responded as you did.
And that there was a response.

By: joe

joe — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:44:14 +0000

CarbineAtTheReady, you are seriously praying for the death of thousands of people?

By: j house

j house — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:03:02 +0000

Saddam was a tough problem for the US for the past 2 decades, and Iraq will continue to be. I don’t necessarily argue ‘containment’ as practiced by the Clinton administration was the correct policy, nor can I blame the Bush administration for overreaching in going after Saddam post 9/11. Clearly, the status quo with Saddam supporting terrorist movements and attempted assassinations against our former presidents could not continue.People easily forget how much potential Saddam had to cause trouble for the U.S and the region.
That said, we were obviously not prepared for what was unleashed once he was removed and went in with typical shortsightnedness.
In terms of the global Islamist insurgency that the US govt continues to underestimate (both on the effect its foreign policies have on the strength of the movement and it’s reaction to eliminating it), I don’t have alot of faith in our leaders to come to grips with what is required to extinguish it. We are too sensitive in this day and age to domestic and foreign criticism and media pressure to do what is hard, and necessary. Syria and Iran have basically been given a pass since the Bush doctrine was announced.I doubt our next leader will have to fortitude to take on this challenge.
BTW, I currently live in an Islamic S.E. Asian country and even the moderates here sometimes echo Bin Ladin’s words re US foreign policy actions, such as unqualified political,financial and military support for Israel…we have a greater challenge than we can even imagine.

By: CarbineAtTheReady

CarbineAtTheReady — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:21:07 +0000

This is my prayer
Dear God. Please let there be another 9–11. Maybe even worse. So we don’t have to worry more about congress whining.
So we can go to war with Iran.
They need our freedom. And we are the liberators of the world.
For freedom and prosperity.
God bless the United States of America
AMEN!

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:13:31 +0000

Article makes sense on where to put forces, but a few comments.
1) Surge isn’t status quo and is working. Iranian Army is getting better and we have built combat outposts for them to operate from when we leave. Corruption/infiltration of Iraqi police still seems to be a problem. Biggest problem is the U.S.Army is going to burn itself, its Soldiers, and equipment out in the process if it continues as is…and Democrats won’t allow it anyway
2) Slow reduction…The Hillary and “Republican seeking reelection” option…draw down some but leave some there. Where you put them and what their role is, is the subject of this article
3)Sudden reduction…The unrealistic option. Massive civil war and genocide with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey filling the vacuum in perhaps a non-cordial manner
Put reduced forces in Kuwait and Southwestern Desert? Gotta get al-Maliki/successor to agree to split oil first. Kurds would probably be an easier sell than the Shiites. If they agree to split oil to get us to leave Shiite areas and protect Kurds, we still need a joint Arab peacekeeping force with strong Saudi participation to sit with us in the Southwest and to keep anti-Iraqi forces under control with Sunni tribe help.
I can see adopting or building an airfield out in the boonies and parking lots of M1, Bradley’s, helicopters, and fighters there with two brigades protecting it and supporting the Iraqi Army with air attacks/support there and from Kuwait. Then we can always fly ground Soldier back to link up with equipment when/if the “I told you so” moment comes from Iran aggression/export of nukes to terrorists.
Even if we could afford to stay the current improved course forever, it would be political suicide for Republicans or Democrats since unlike NATO…folks die, and you can’t send Soldiers and their families to Iraq for 3 years like we did in Germany. A draft would never fly. If we move Southwest and to Kuwait as the article suggests, we still deter, but Soldier deaths drop dramatically, and our deterrence becomes more politically acceptable.

By: campbell

campbell — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:40:21 +0000

whew. at least StratFor is “dispassionate” LOL!
okay, I’ll add mine in for free. (hope the Guv is listening in) ya wanna “contain” Iran? MAKE NICE WITH RUSSIA FIRST!
have a look at the map…consider, a JOINT action against Tehran, across the Caspian.
that would be a walk, and do-able if we could agree that Tehran is potential threat to BOTH U.S and Russian interests.