Thank god the surge is working....

What would you do to stabilize Iraq if you were King o' the world??

-z
 
rikzilla said:
What would you do to stabilize Iraq if you were King o' the world??

-z
Click to expand...

Charlie Monoxide might have had the perfect answer.

If for some reason when I am King o' the world a time machine is not available, getting rid of Bush and Cheney would be the first step.

The relentless, in your face approach to this mess has not worked. It is time to try talking to people without threatening to blow them up if they don't do what you want them to do.

The US needs to be talking to the regional players and the factions within Iraq. The US needs to let these various players know that one, the US does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq to threaten Iraq's neighbors from and two, that the US is not about to invade anybody else and three, the US will listen to and cooperate with regional powers to begin to deal with the huge humanitarian crisis that Iraq is.

Somehow, Iraq, before the US occupation managed to get along. They will get along after the US leaves. Right now there is every reason to believe that the presences of US troops in Iraq may be contributing to the instability. The US needs to start withdrawing by first getting out of the business of policing Iraq and move to providing limited security forces for identifiable areas like borders and government buildings and humanitarian aid where it is required.

Bushco can't even get out of their belligerent, partisan mode long enough to work out some kind of consensus with congress about how to proceed. Instead of discussing the situation with congress and explaining why Bushco wants to ignore the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, Bushco is accusing people of abandoning the troops because congress is beginning to constrain Bushco in the face of Bushco's unrelenting failures in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
rikzilla said:
What would you do to stabilize Iraq if you were King o' the world??

-z
Click to expand...

Fair question.

I don't know what I'd do...I've a pretty good idea what I wouldn't do.

I wouldn't give the strategic assertions of the people who created the mess much creedence.

I would listen to the generals...not just pay their advice lip service and say you are listenting to them. Everyone says that the situation can not be resolved militarilly...even surge designers. Yet, the administration only opts for the military aspect of the plan...there is no real diplomatic effort to match the Administration's push to more involvement.

What does that mean? It means engaging with Iran and Syria, among other things. Oh wait, we can't do that because it would make us look weak, and because we are in a weak position.

How did we get into a weak position? Well, the same Administration that wants to surge the troops to stabilize the situation, persued political, military and diplomatic strategies that left us issolated and caught between (predictable) waring factions.

So, we can't talk to Iran and Syria...because we are weak. We can't pull-out because our defeat would be a disater for Iraq, the middle east and the war against terrorism. We really can't stay...not only because our military is increasingly stretched to near breaking, but also because this President has choosen to follow his own counsel and to try and take poltical advantage of the war rather than build consensus.

You are right, Z, I don't have a solution. But neither does Bush...and like all of his plans, the surge is at best a chimira...we can not stay. We are not wanted. We have few if any allies. Our credibility as a superpower is being undermined not by Democrats but by this Administration's catastrophic persecution of its stupid plan and its inatiblity to have plan Bs of any kind.

The one thing that anyone ever says that makes sense is that the first thing you do when you are in a hole and want to get out, is to stop digging. The Administration is baring down, shovels in hand and their goinng to dig their way out of this hole come hell or high water.
 
davefoc said:
The US needs to let these various players know that one, the US does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq to threaten Iraq's neighbors from and two, that the US is not about to invade anybody else and three, the US will listen to and cooperate with regional powers to begin to deal with the huge humanitarian crisis that Iraq is.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your post, historically the US has left permanent military bases in almost every country it became militarily involved with. If the US were succesful in Iraq without leaving permanent bases, that would make a pretty unique situation over the last 60 years.

But the basic point is the US can't do everything alone - demonstrated by its faillure to stabilise Iraq - which means allies are needed, and that means they need to be given something in return.
 
egslim said:
While I agree with your post, historically the US has left permanent military bases in almost every country it became militarily involved with. If the US were succesful in Iraq without leaving permanent bases, that would make a pretty unique situation over the last 60 years.

But the basic point is the US can't do everything alone - demonstrated by its faillure to stabilise Iraq - which means allies are needed, and that means they need to be given something in return.
Click to expand...

Then the four "giant" bases we're building in Iraq are going to be just another waste of money? I don't think the Iraqis are going to let us keep a presence there.

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq


Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1490063,00.html
Click to expand...
 
Mephisto said:
Then the four "giant" bases we're building in Iraq are going to be just another waste of money? I don't think the Iraqis are going to let us keep a presence there.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question, is Iraq a mess only because the Iraqis are unable to appreciate democracy, or also because they are opposed to permanent US military presence and foreign financial ownership of many of their assets?
 
good answer HS4...

Listening to the generals is something Bush has been woefully bad at. Were I King o' the world I'd either flood the battlefield with troops and ordinance or I'd have just stayed home. Most likely the latter....

If the former then I'd have pushed for more incentives to join up and fight. Absent that I'd have gone ahead and pushed for a limited draft (at first) and found a way to sell this war to the American people. Without support at home (and of a mass scale) there's just not going to exist the will to produce tangible results.

Bush made a huge mistake in pushing the WMD aspect in Iraq. He could have mentioned the possibility along with Saddam's past use of them against the Kurds. He could have argued that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR 1331 (the Gulf War I ceasefire). He could have highlighted the plight of the Iraqi people under tyranny and sanctions. As it was he hung his case for war on completely bogus intel. As a hawk myself...well, I find it hard to forgive. He has led us into a political battle that we can only win on the battlefield...and yet we can only win on the battlefield with solid political support.

-z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom