Where Now For Iraq??

With the "Bush Doctrine" now a busted flush, where do people think Iraq goes from here??
=================================================================

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6215636.stm

Iraq Study Group's harsh verdict
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington


President Bush's dreams of a stable, democratic Iraq have been ailing for a long time.

On Wednesday, James Baker and the Iraq Study Group presided over their demise. Even the report's title, "The Way Forward - A New Approach", implied the failure of America's project in Iraq.

Its opening words have an air of despondency: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." Mr Baker's evaluation is harsh, and he offers no hope of radical renewal. His report appears geared to averting catastrophe, but even then he says no path can guarantee success.

The report has three main thrusts: a "new diplomatic offensive", which would draw Iraq's neighbours, including Iran and Syria, in to the search for stability in Iraq; a rethinking of America's military priorities; and the renewal of a sense of political purpose among Americans.

The two recommendations out of 79 which will attract most attention in America are these: the diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria - despite the obvious difficulties in doing so - and the handing over of responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi forces by the end of next year. US combat forces, the report says, could start to withdraw in early 2008.

Yet the recommendations appear at times to be vague.
They speak of building "international consensus" and "engaging Iran and Syria constructively" but provide few specifics as to how other countries might be induced to co-operate on Iraq.

The text speaks airily of considering "incentives and disincentives" to gain commitment from Syria and Iran.

For Iraq itself, a threat hangs in the air.

If the government of Nouri Maliki fails to reach demanding milestones in politics and security, the United States, says the report, should reduce economic and security assistance.

Yet there is little discussion of the ramifications that might follow such a move. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in early reaction, was scathing.

"Simply calling for a weak and divided Iraqi government to act in the face of all the forces tearing Iraq apart is almost feckless," he wrote.

"The Study Group is threatening to weaken a weak government."

Much of the report's content echoes the discussion among American strategists and military thinkers that has been taking place for the past year.

Few of its ideas - such as increasing the number of US military advisers in the Iraqi armed forces - are original. But their articulation in such a high-profile, feverishly anticipated fashion places great pressure on the Bush administration to rethink Iraq policy.

For his part, the president, sources close to the administration say, does not want to be captive to the recommendations laid out by Mr Baker and his cohort. The Iraq Study Group is a creation of Congress, not of the president himself.
So the president will point to his own policy review, which is being carried out by the National Security Council, and to another in the Pentagon as alternative sources of advice.

The role of the new secretary of defence, Robert Gates, will also be crucial in forming Mr Bush's thinking on any change of direction in Iraq. In all, the report will be central to the creation of a new political atmosphere in America - helping to define the debate and speeding up the process of finding a new future for Iraq policy.

But what impact its recommendations might have on the ground in Iraq is much less certain. One intelligence official said recently: "Whichever way they turn now in Iraq, policy doesn't come out right."

Thee is a scene in Apocalypse Now Redux, where Kurtz reads a Time magazine article to Willard. Everytime I read some govt statement on iraq, I am reminded of "how does it smell to you soldier?" dialogue Anyone who has not watched the Redux version, do watch it whenver you get a chance.

Had the politicians and the powers in Washington allowed the military to fight a war the way a war is supposed to be fought, from the very beginning, we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in right now, wondering if we should surrender and quit to cut our losses. Politicians should NEVER make Battlefield decisions and instead they should allow the Generals and the Commanders to make them.

So now if we do as what's being suggested, and basically cut and run, then all those who died will have done so for nothing.

Who was it that said "America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight." Who said that?


I realize that we cannot go on continually losing young men and woman in a war where those we are trying to help refuse to take control of their own country and military. But I just cannot buy this cut and run surrender mentality. It is not the answer.

Send more troops in there and let them do the job correctly. No more of this politically correct war bullshit. The enemy fires upon us from within a Mosque, too bad, blow it to smithereens. Perhaps a National Curfew needs to be implimented in Iraq, and all citizens MUST be indoors by a certain time of the day. And anyone who is not indoors after that Curfew should be shot on sight.

The Iraq Study Group report is bullshit. It is political fodder. It is meaningless as far as I am concerned. Just another platform for political rhetoric.

The negative remarks by those in power who've done nothing but blast this war from the first day that our troops stepped foot in Iraq combined with the demand for our fighting the enemy with political correctness, have put our troops in the situation that they are in right now.

When we fought the first Gulf war, we sent in almost a half a million troops and we had a minimal amount of casualties.

Iraq is about 167,000 square miles. We sent in about 150,000 troops.

Kuwait is about 6800 square miles. We sent in about 500,000 troops.

You do the math.



Don Cardi

My friend, DC, with all due respect have you read the Iraq Study Group report which you call "bullshit?" I have, and it isnt bullshit, it is the truth.

Many of us have, from the beginning, said this adventure into Iraq was a mistake, that there was no exit strategy, and that it would become a quagmire. When we said those things we were called "unpatriotic" "not supporting the troops," and even "treasonous." Now that everything I and others said before this ill conceived war has come true, your idea is "send in more troops." This is risky business. Where will we get these troops? What if something breaks out in Korea? Afghanistan and Pakistan are giving away huge areas of land to the Taliban. And most important what do we do if more troops doesn't work? They tried the "more troops" strategy in Vietnam and it failed there. Why would it not fail in Iraq also?

Furthermore, it has been well known since the beginning of this war that Rumsfeld and the neocons ignored the advice of the field commanders and many of the Generals in their conduct of this war. The Powell Doctrine....overwhelming force plus realistic objectives... was pushed aside. I did not hear any criticism of Rumsfeld from the right until now. Why not?

If you want to read a great account of the way this Iraq thing has been botched from the beginning read the book "Fiasco." It explains how the mismanagement of the initial invation by Franks and the subsequent actions of Bremer planted the seeds for the insurgency, which now has left Al Quaeda an opening in Iraq.

Will another 100,000 or 200,000 U.S. make the Sunnis and Shias start having a love fest or will it just unify the opposition to the occupation? Such a commitment would also further weaken the United States, which plays into the hands of all sorts of bad actors ranging from Bin Laden to Putin, to Iran, to Syria, all of whom want to see the US lose strength.

If we do a half assed withdrawal and embed a few "advisors" they will become hostages, and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands. So IMO that option is a non starter.

What I say we need to do is tell Iraq we're leaving, and set time frame. If they want to have their civil war, let them have it without us being in the middle. Like the guy in GF I said, "Thay're animals anyway let thjem lose their souls!" If Iran, Syria and Turkey want to meddle, then let them. Its their region and their problem. Sooner or later they should come to their senses and make some kind of peace, and when that happens we can re-engage.

What we HAVE to do then is redeploy to Afghanistan and kick some serious ass. We need to eradicate the Taliban and we also need to do some nation building with the help of other countries as was done in Bosnia. This is necessary because if we bail completely the bad guys will continue to believe that the US does not have the stomach for protracted warfare, and that would be devastating to us down the road. It is also necessary because the cradle of terrorism is in Afghanistan and the Mountains of Pakistan (and the banks of Saudi Arabia, but thats for another day), and we have to defeat them there.

It's been a long time since I've been in a government class, but that doesn't exactly sound like a democratic government to me.

Buffer, you've lost me here. What does our being a democratic government have to do with anything that I suggested? We are trying to help the people of Iraq to live in a democracy with a democratic government in charge. However the terrorists have been doing all that they could to stop any kind of democracy from coming into being in Iraq. We are at war. No one is suggesting to lock up innocent Iraqi people. Things are getting out of control and too many soldiers are dying everyday because there is no law and order in Iraq. Something needs to be done to restore some kind of law and order. Impelenting a curfew and sending more troops in to secure the boarders and to make these raids is not a threat to democracy. If anything it is a step towards establishing a legitimate democracy.

There are many cases within free democratic countries where riots may occur or civil disobedience acts are done where Law Enforcement has no choice but to implement a curfew in order to restore some type of order.

Think about the L.A. Riots years ago, that were a result of the Rodney King incident. It was totally out of control. The Government of California implemented a curfew and anyone who was out after that curfew was arrested on the spot. That curfew proved to be very instrumental in helping to restore some kind of order. And the arrests made of those who violated that curfew turned out to be a major factor in removing those riotors from the streets and helping to bring calm back to the city of Los Angeles. No ones democratic rights were violated. If anything, those curfews and arrests helped protect the democratic rights of the buisness owners and the citizens of Los Angeles.

The situation in Iraq is 10,000 times magnified than what took place in L.A. And these terrorists have bombs, booby traps, shoulder to air missles, you name it. They aren't using shotguns, crowbars or throwing rocks and breaking windows.

They are blowing up innocent Iraqi people and soldiers by the dozens.

My idea of implementing a nationwide curfew and to send in more troops is one that I think would help in accomplishing the goal of a free Iraq, winning this war, and getting our military out of there asap. The way that this war is currently being fought will only guarentee that more of our soldiers will evenutally come home in body bags. A change MUST be made in order for us to complete this mission, help the Iraqis live in a democracy, and get our troops home without anymore major losses.

Any Ideas Jimmy? Any suggestions?


DonT - My calling the report bullshit was not meant to address it's content, but more so in saying that like many of these other reports over the years, nothing is really ever done except to turn these reports into political fodder for those running for office.

You talk about our failure when we sent more troops into Vietnam. That may be so. But by the same token we sent a half a million troops into Kuwait, and we succeeded in what we set out to do with probably the least amount of casualties in any war or conflict that we've ever been in. Now we go into Iraq which is 10 times the size of Kuwait, and we do so with a little more than 1/4 of the amount of troops that we used in Kuwait. It just doesn't make sense. As for Rumsfeld, well to tell you the truth, now that he is retired, I'm starting to think that HE was not happy with the way this President has handled this war. I'm starting to think that Rumsfeld and Bush may have been bucking heads because Rumsfeld wanted to do this thing the right way, with an exit strategy, and may have been given a hard time by the Presisdent. I always said that Colin Powell did not like the way that this war was being handled, so he stepped out of government gracefully. And I still stand by that claim. Both he and Rumsfeld are two experienced military people, and both were fairly successful in running wars in the past.

At least you present some ideas as to what you think should be done. Agree with them or not, at least you present them.



Don Cardi

DC the problem with your argument is that it is not just "the terrorists" who are making trouble for us in Iraq. The faction of the Sunni insurgency which is the remnants of Saddam's army is loosely affiliated with other Sunnis who fear Shiite control. The Shiites who make up the majority of the police and the army are terrorizing the Sunnis, and both sides are playing us aginst the other. The Shiites are also factionalized, but stay united as long as we are there.

There are only about 1500 Al queada in Iraq, and they are responsible for the Mosque bombing and for the killing of 60 people today who were standing in the city at a place where they were looking for work (I thought when we killed that No. 2 Al Queda guy in Iraq this would end). They are also resopnsible for other atrocities, and they are keeping the Sunni-Shiite pot stirred more than it needs to be. But "the terrorists" are not the problem. If we wiped them all out there would still be a civil war, so stop fooling yourself into thinking there is an identifiable "enemy" in Iraq.

We are an occupying army that will not be able to impose democracy on Iraq. There is already pressure on Bush to "pick a winner" and get out, and there are rumors that Bush, who today is meeting with a leading Shiite may well abandon Maliki for a Shiite strongman who will be installed as a dictator. This would give Bush cover to withddraw. Sound familiar?

If it works maybe he could have another aircraft carrier landing with one of those "Mission Accomplished" banners.

If you remove the insitigating terrorists, then maybe you can address the civil war issues, because as you said yourself, they keep stiring the pot more than it needs to be stirred. They, the terrorists are the ones that are responsible for most of the atrocities that are taking place. So I think that if you remove them, then we will be able to concentrate on dealing with the civil war.

As for the banner remark, well I don't see that it applies to what we are hoping to accomplish at this point. Those kinds of remarks only provoke the other side into raising some issues against things that have been said and done by the opposing political party faction. And we all know that no matter how much finger pointing or blaming that we do, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It does not solve the problem, but only flames it.

Don't let this topic turn into another pissing match between us and them, or dems vs. repubs. Let's keep it going as one that provokes intelligent discussion and legitimate ideas from all sides.


Don Cardi

One of the first lines of this thread discussed Bush's dream of a democratic Iraqi government. I was merely stating that killing anyone walking the street after a government mandated curfew doesn't sound like democracy to me. If one of the reasons for going over there to set up a stable, democratic government, I don't see how the death penalty for curfew violations accomplishes this.

As far as a lack of suggestion, I have no idea how to win the war. I never said I did. I've never had any military training, so I don't know much about fighting wars. I just don't see how killing at random will accomplish this either, but as I said, I've never served in the military, so I very well could be wrong. Maybe it would accomplish our goals. I've never been one to claim I am always 100% right. I didn't mean to call you out personally, but rather your idea. Please don't take it personal next time.

No need to apologize Jimmy. I didn't take it personal. But if my response made it appear to you that I did take it personal, than I am the one who should apologize to you.






Don Cardi

Accidentally deleted a paragraph, I see. As far as your comparison between LA and Iraq, DC, I can see if your idea was to arrest people who broke curfew, give them a chance to explain themselves, ala innocent until proven guilty, then I would have no problem with your idea. This is what happened in LA and it did help to eliminate the ones who were causing the problems, but also spared any people who may have innocently been breaking curfew.

Your idea to shoot anyone on the street is a lot different than what happened in LA, so the comparison is a pretty weak one. How would you like it if a family member of yours was out after curfew and turned up dead? What if there had been a car accident in the family and one of your family members felt such a strong urge to get to a church and pray for the individual who was hurt, only to get shot to death on the front steps by a rogue cop?

No apologies necessary. You've given me something to do on my boring storm day.

Intelligent discussion?

Fact is, we could have won this war. Ideological differences aside, we could have won this war. But now, we're fucked. There just isn't enough political capital to gain for a substantial serious push. Even those in Washington that are advocating an increase in troop numbers are only saying its for a limited time only.

If the Pentagon and Rumsfeld hadn't tried to pinch the number of troops to the bare minimum, along with no serious realistic planning for occupation.....we might have established a safe and secured pro-U.S. Government that, along with a secured Afghanistan, would have cornered Iran.

The failure in Iraq is a disaster for American national security in its foreign policy overseas. With U.S. military bogged down in a hailstone where both sides are nailing us while they're trying to exterminate each other, Iran is rising in its influence within the region. Tell me, would the Iranian government be openly pissing on us with the nuclear issue if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Without a credible military threat for America to use against that government, Iran has gained power, which is a bad turn of events for us over there, and probably nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Worse, the security situation with Afghanistan, where some NATO nation forces refusing to send their forces out to secure the countryside, is another migraine.

The Baker Commission report is good, but one key concept is flawed. Not because of the concept itself, but with the reality we're stuck in.

Dialogue with Syria and Iran is fine. Engage them. Hell, Nixon engaged the Chinese, and ended the Vietnam War(before Watergate blew up in his face, and the NVA finished the South off) with his realist diplomacy. Besides, it had torn a limb from the Communist World centered at Moscow.

The problem is, we have such a very weak hand, that Syria and Iran know that we aren't pulling the weight to threaten them at the moment.

I mean Don Cardi, the Iraqi Prime Minister left the President of the United States standing, jilted, at their would-be summit in Jordan. Anyone remember when the POTUS was openly jilted by a lesser foreign leader?

Fair point Jimmy. I understand. And as much as I would like to see something like that implimented without having to actually shoot someone, it would be a very hard thing to do in Iraq. How many stories have we heard where the Soldiers have approached a person or people, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were innocents, only to get blown up because those people turned out to be suicide bombing terrorists? That's a very tough call to make. A call that I really would not want to be in a position to make.

Ronnie, you make some really good points in your post also. Great stuff.


Don Cardi

[quote=Don Cardi
As for the banner remark, well I don't see that it applies to what we are hoping to accomplish at this point. Those kinds of remarks only provoke the other side into raising some issues against things that have been said and done by the opposing political party faction. And we all know that no matter how much finger pointing or blaming that we do, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It does not solve the problem, but only flames it.

Don Cardi [/quote]

Fair enough DC, and do not take it as a personal attack on you. It was frustrating for all these years to be howling at the moon about how this war was not handled right and watching our troops die for what may be nothing.

I wish I shared you optimism about our ability to identify and take out the terrorists who stir the pot over there, but they are only a part of the puzzle, and ovberall I dont think taking them out would solve the basic problems.

Your analysis of Rumsfeld and Bush is interesting, but I think Rumsfeld pushed Powell out, and I think he ignored the Generals who told him to go in with half a million troops.

In any case the guy ho really botched it was Bremer by dissolving the Iraqi Army. We shouold have never done the de Baathification thing. Those people would have been loyal to their paychecks, and we could have reformed a standing army from within instead of trying to reinvent one.

Plus, there was an incredibly insanely silly thing of how the Administration appointed politically-friendly and fiercely loyal, but absolutely ignorant, people to positions within the Iraqi interm government. Take for example a 23 year old that was given the task of running the Baghdad Stock Market, despite no experience in anything financial, save for maybe a 101 college course on economics.

I support the US using its political, diplomatic, economic, and military power to bring freedom and democracy to those nations of the world that don't have it. However, those powers must be used judiciously and wisely. In Iraq, they were not.

There are ways to win the conflict over there. Someone else posted above just how to do it. But warfare does not take place in a vacuum. There are consequences to the inappropriate exercise of power, some of which may have long-range negative effects. Those must be taken into account.

Remember: in America, anyone can grow up to be President. That's not always such a good thing.

Yes. Right before Election Day in Ohio. Bush showed up for a rally for the Republican candidates for, I believe, US Senate and Governor, but they stayed clear of him and didn't show up.

A few months ago at the U.N. when Hugo Chavez stood at the podium and blessed himself and said yesterday "The Devil stood here. I can still smell the sulphur." Chavez is a thug and an overall bad guy (worse than Saddam Hussein) but no one booed him.

DUST OFF THE CARPET BOMBS FOR CHRISTMAS

That's only because people like Al Sharpton were there representing your party.



Don Cardi