I don't believe, however, that the solution to Iraq now is a military one. I believe the solution has to be a political one at this point. Keeping our military there as it is now is not part of that solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by gulfcoast
Printable View
I don't believe, however, that the solution to Iraq now is a military one. I believe the solution has to be a political one at this point. Keeping our military there as it is now is not part of that solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by gulfcoast
^agreed.
if the solution was a military one, the neocons would have been right...but clearly 'shock and awe' was a pipe dream.
there's an interesting piece in the current time magazine which makes the argument that the only way 'forward' is to officially partition the country. 'officially', because for all intents and purposes it is already partitioned...the kurds have their own govt. and military, and in the last election over 90% of the votes cast were along sectarian lines.
it seems clear to me that the geographic region once known as iraq should be divided into thirds, and a UN force (primarily comprised of muslims) should be brought in so the US military can get out ASAP.
well, this is going to be the balkanization of the ME. Not sure if it's going to be any good.
At this point any desperate solution could do, even if it means bringing back Saddam.
That sounds sensible, I can agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
The obvious 'hindrance' created by having outspoken Christians (Bush/Blair contingent)to be in charge has been going on for too long.
Time for the US to cough up their overdue UN membership fees, so the UN can proceed to deal with the mess the US has created.
Has the UN paid for the cost of keeping U.S. troops in other nations? I would argue that if the UN expect dues from us then they need to pay us for the cost of keeping our troops overseas to keep the peace.
The question is: which neutral secular Muslim nation has a strong enough force to keep the peace in a country divided by deep religious lines? I think that invites a worse mess than it is now.
An article from the Economist magazine from the 28th October edition.
WHEN a great democracy such as the United States holds elections at a time of war, voters are torn between two instincts. One is to show grit and solidarity by rallying around the flag and the president. The other is to treat the election as a referendum on the war. Ever since September 11th 2001 George Bush has milked the first instinct for all it is worth. But having gained so much from presenting himself as a war president, Mr Bush can hardly complain now that the voters are moving in the other direction. Many seem intent on using November's mid-terms to give their verdict on his handling of the war in Iraq. That is bad news for the Republicans. According to a Gallup poll this week, only 19% of Americans still think that America is winning. In Britain, America's chief ally in Iraq, the disenchantment is deeper. An ICM poll this week found that 45% of Britons wanted their troops to leave at once, and a further 16% wanted them out by the end of the year.
Patience and its limits
This loss of faith among the people of Britain and America is easy to understand. They have already shown a lot of patience. More than three years after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq has become progressively more violent . Some 2,200 American soldiers and 120 British ones have been killed, and the death toll among Iraqis may stretch into the hundreds of thousands. Voters in the West would be steadier if they believed Iraq to be heading, however fitfully, in broadly the right direction. But that is not certain. Free elections have been held, but these have not yet brought effective government. A constitution has been written, but this has not resolved the big differences between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. Especially since the bombing of the Shias' Askariyah mosque in February, the violence has mutated from a low-level insurgency into a sectarian civil war, with ethnic cleansing already under way in some areas. George Casey, America's top general in Iraq, did his best this week to express some cautious optimism. Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad, insisted that success was still possible. But plenty of other diplomats and generals (including the head of Britain's army) have taken a more sombre view. Iraq may have bottomed out, or the worst may be yet to come. The truth is that nobody knows for sure.
In recent weeks the combination of an election campaign in America with the lack of progress in Iraq has for the first time produced a vigorous, open debate about strategic alternatives. Yet the benefits of this debate may turn out to be more apparent than real. For none of the alternative ideas mooted so far, such as partition, installing a strongman or withdrawing American forces “over the horizon”, looks more promising than the existing three-part strategy. This, broadly, is to damp down the violence as much as possible while continuing to train Iraq's own soldiers and policemen and pressing Iraq's elected politicians to make a power- (and oil-) sharing deal that could end the civil war. The real choice facing America and its allies in Iraq is whether to persevere with this strategy in the hope of eventual success, or admit failure now and start to head for the exit.
For the politicians (and newspapers, like ours) who argued strongly for the invasion of Iraq, it is no longer enough to accuse those who want to head for the exit of “cutting and running”, as if using a pejorative phrase settled the argument either way. Cutting your losses is sometimes the sensible thing to do, even for a superpower, and even after paying a heavy price in lost lives and wasted money. If you genuinely believe, as many people now do, that the likeliest long-term outcome in Iraq is that America will end up cutting and running anyway, with no improvement to be expected even three or four years hence, why simply postpone the inevitable?
Because failure may not be inevitable. It is true that Iraq is not poised to become the exemplary democracy the American neocons dreamed of carving out in the heart of the Arab world. But that definition of success was always a peculiar one to apply to a war the United States launched primarily to secure its own interests. A failure to turn Iraq into Switzerland means neither that Iraq is fated to collapse altogether nor that its people are doomed to perpetual fratricidal war. The question Americans need to ask is what impact their own staying or going is likely to have on the balance of probable outcomes. And in answering this question, the case for staying becomes a good deal stronger. By persevering, America stands at least some chance of putting Iraq on a more stable trajectory. By leaving, it is almost certain to make things worse.
What you can't do once you've gone
At a minimum, America's continuing presence in Iraq prevents the neighbours from joining in a civil war, as Lebanon's neighbours did in the 1970s with much less at stake. The Americans can still move into and establish some order in areas where the violence surges out of control. They can protect the elected government and put pressure on its members to make a political settlement. They can continue to train Iraq's own security forces and, if necessary, attack or dismantle some of the militias. Once they leave they can do none of these things. Senator John Warner spoke for many when he worried recently that the situation was “drifting sideways”. But there are worse directions than sideways. Leaving now stands a fair chance of plunging Iraq into an enlarged war and a far bigger bloodbath than anything seen so far.
For Mr Bush, the Iraq war has in one sense already been lost, whatever result the mid-terms bring. This president's legacy will forever be tainted by what he overpromised and how much he underperformed. The voters of America are entitled to judge and punish his party as they see fit. But Americans would be wrong to extend this punishment to the people of Iraq, who have suffered so much already. Even if it was a mistake to blunder into Iraq, it would be a bigger mistake, bordering on a crime, for a nation that aspires to greatness to blunder out now, without first having exhausted every possible effort to put Iraq back together and avert a wider war.
Agreed. There was never really a military solution. They were 200,000 short of the necesarry troops, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Three critical mistake were made:
1. disbanding the Baath party (civil servants, bureaucrats like mailmen, and cops).
2. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.
These people were experienced in running things. They had the organizational set-up and the knowledge.
After being disbanded, they were unemployed with families to feed. No job, no money. No, not happy.
3. Ignoring the Iraqi National Council (INC).
True, but there will be a bloody war if there is a partition. The Sunnis have 0 oil. Nothing at all. Al-Anbar has not even been explored.Quote:
there's an interesting piece in the current time magazine which makes the argument that the only way 'forward' is to officially partition the country. 'officially', because for all intents and purposes it is already partitioned...the kurds have their own govt. and military, and in the last election over 90% of the votes cast were along sectarian lines.
UN forces are usually ineffective, IMO.Quote:
it seems clear to me that the geographic region once known as iraq should be divided into thirds, and a UN force (primarily comprised of muslims) should be brought in so the US military can get out ASAP.
As far as I remember, the US is a member of the UN and has agreed on the membership conditions, including the fees, not the other way round? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by surasak
After the initial war, there was no Iraqi army to disband. They had all deserted by then according to Iraqi army generals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
I absolutely agree with you, Surasak, that a political solution is required. And ideally any military presence would be predominantly UN and not US/UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Two countries that regularly "show up" for UN military service are Pakistan and India -- both had contingents in Somalia. They are at odds with each other, but their military is well-trained, funded and competent.
It's all such a bloody conundrum...so frustrating.
Should not have invaded in the first place.
Yeah, well, 20/20 hindsight is great, ain't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
That's par for the course though in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age.:rolleyes:
We are witnessing a clash of civilizations which has been brewing for 30+ years and was inevitable.
The big player which has yet to be dealt with is Iran. Iran is due for a spanking.
And you think the USA is big enough to do it? Don't make me laugh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Do you remember part of the reason Patton was fired ? He saw no reason not to leave the Nazis in similar positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
Iraqis killing Iraqis is a frustrating thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gulfcoast
my guess is that you don't realize it, but you've just admitted that you agree the invasion was a mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon MeeYeah, well, 20/20 hindsight is great, ain't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
and for some of us, there's no 'hindsight' about it. we knew all along it was wrong headed....both in a moral and pragmatic sense.
and as far as earl puffing his chest up about iran....why can't he learn from his short sighted war mongering on iraq....or is that he doesn't have to learn because he has no direct connection to anyone who might be killed...iranian or israeli civilian or US military personnel?
I take comfort in knowing though that you at least support assassination teams (which are illegal) ... and you probably wouldn't have really minded if we would have just bombed the fuck out of them without putting any troops on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Alas, I still believe it was the right thing to do. But I will admit the after invasion planning could have been much better.
If the USA invaded Iraq because of WMD, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Pakistan, or, India? A much better case could be made for invading them.
If the USA invaded Iraq because of a nasty dictator, why Iraq, why not Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Sudan or Myanmar?
If the USA invaded Iraq to impose democracy, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Myanmar, or, most of the Central Asian countries?
Why? Oil. American soldiers are losing their lives so that other Americans can still drive those big gas-guzzling SUVs. That's the reality.
And it was a 'strategic' move above all, as a stepping stone to further US dominance in the ME.
The Nazis are a different story than the Baath party, as is WWII and the holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by StorekeeperDo you remember part of the reason Patton was fired ? He saw no reason not to leave the Nazis in similar positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
The original recommendation and plan was to remove the top echelons of the Baath party in the bureaucracy and military (keep everyone at the rank of Colonel and below).
Instead, Bremer disbanded everybody from the top to the very bottom.
This is what many Generals believe was the big mistake.
sk just doesn't 'understand' the true threat of terrorism and still has a pre 9/11 mentality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
:laughing:
steady on Sir Bur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
I didn't realise that flawless logic was allowed in here.
:)
And also because Saddam tried to kill his daddyQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
and also because the US was kicked out of SA, they needed a new base in the ME
That's why I don't believe a minute the US will leave Iraq anytime soon.
Given the choice of two evils it should be clear which one would be the one chosen: a full scale invasion with little to no hope of success, or, a carefully selected assassination of bin Laden (don't think you're going to shoehorn me here on the assassination/torture issue). I don't think there is any justification whatsoever for what we've done in Iraq (especially since the mess is completely our fault). There was no threat. I supported the original Gulf War with no precondition; I supported this one initially with reservations due to the fact that every other agency involved with weapons inspections told the truth: there were no banned weapons, there was no threat, Saddam was not in possession of nuclear weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by StorekeeperI take comfort in knowing though that you at least support assassination teams (which are illegal) ... and you probably wouldn't have really minded if we would have just bombed the fuck out of them without putting any troops on the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
Assassination of bin Laden? Or a full scale war? A no brainer which is the lesser of two evils (and in reality putting bin Laden on trial would show the world that we are indeed civilized people).
Someone else who gets it. Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
As usual, our illustrious Headmaster sums up the argument with perfect logic and reason.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
Thank you.
And I am sure you've come across the plan outlined by the PNAC before
WESTERN dominance ...Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
AMERICAN dominance.Quote:
Originally Posted by StorekeeperWESTERN dominance ...Quote:
Originally Posted by stroller
Surasak ... it's starting to appear to me that it's the method you have a problem with ... not really the goal. I think you and I ae actually closer to being in agreement than we might realize.
Sir Burr ... that's just plain kindergarten logic pal.
Oh no ... we're perfectly willing to share the spoils with the Aussies, Britards, JNs and others ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
I think you're letting yourself get fooled by the limey rhetoric.
^ Unilateralism.
Sorry SK, which post of mine are you refering to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
If it's the one which asks the reason why Iraq was invaded, then, I don't see why you think the logic is faulty?
N. Korea, as has been shown by their nuclear test has nuclear capability. They must have been working on this for many years. They also have cheated, why no invasion? Because the casualties would have been too high and the US knew that China would not tolerate an invasion, even though Dear Leader is clearly nuttier than Saddam ever was.
Admittedly, India was never a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation pact, but when they went nuclear, they got a pat on the back from GWB. This is why countries like Iran think the US is hypocritical and has double standards.
Pakistan, a nation that could in the forseeable future have a fundamentalist muslim theocracy as a government has nuclear weapons too and has consistently lied about their nuclear efforts and has exported nuclear technology to pariah states such as Libya just got a slap on the wrist ie. they didn't get the F-16s they ordered.
The perceived double standards in US foreign policy is one of the root causes of problems in the ME.
If the US had spent half the time and money it has used in Iraq to resolve the Israeli - Palestinian problem, knocked heads together and be seen as a fair and impartial mediator, this would have done far more to reduce terrorism than anything else.
The Israeli - Palestinian problem is the root cause of most of the problems in the ME today.
Western? :lmao:
Definately American dominance.
I can't imagine how many times I have stated this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
The problem with opposing the war is that those who do support the war automatically label those who don't as being soft on terrorists. I think that's a mistaken assumption. I don't recall anyone in power saying "I oppose the war and we should leave the terrorists alone as well." But in the classic smear campaign the right wing of the Republican Party labels those who oppose the war as soft on terrorism.
I think people all agree that the terrorists need to be dealt with. It's the method that is the problem.
If we want to deal with terrorists then let's capture them, bring them to justice, and put them on trial and execute them if found guilty. Don't cheat, however, just to give the appearance that something is being done (such as taking away Constitutional rights of legal permanent U.S. residents, for one).
baker and co. can just pack it in, GWB is on the case....
White House conducting its own Iraq review - Politics - MSNBC.comQuote:
White House officials confirm that President Bush has ordered his aides to do their own review of the administration's Iraq policy.The White House denies the effort is aimed at doing an end run around the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel set up by Congress.
quick joke....
what's the difference between iraq and the vietnam war?
george bush had a plan to get out of the vietnam war.
no kidding. and the frustration is that is so obvious and was obvious 100 years ago....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
Sounds good in theory ... but obviously you and I are going to disagree on how to go about accomplishing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by surasak
You sometimes give me the impression with your statements that you apparently think we can just land a helicopter on the ground and scoop a bushel full ... without any shots being fired or people being killed.
I also think that when you tell me it would be better or easier to just go in and assassinate terrorists that your thought process becomes incongruent in the next breath when you want to now put them on trial.
Terrorists don't have any Constitutional rights under the US constitution.
Instead of capturing the bastards we should just stop taking them prisoner and just shoot them all on the battlefield. Take no prisoners. If you get caught in a battle zone and you're not from Iraq or Afghanistan ... screw them ... especially if they have UK passports.
Lesser of two evils: plunge a country and a region into chaos and civil war (with the associated tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides) or take out a few innocent bystanders during the apprehension of terrorists?
If we don't have the intelligent gathering capabilities to find terrorists we certainly have no business invading countries now, do we?
Why are we in Iraq when the mastermind of 9-11 is still free?
Gee whiz, Germany managed to put terrorists on trial and find them guilty.
Any person caught breaking U.S. Federal laws has Constitutional rights whether you like it or not. If you don't accept that then you are breaking your oath of service to this nation because you are failing to uphold the Constitution as you are required to do (and part of that Constitution is the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments the last time I checked).