iraq study group

**man with no head** · 13-11-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

^
Your graph still shows about 33% in favour of unilaterally invading, are there so many "hard-core nutcases" in the US?
And let's not forget that Bush got re-elected after his lies and deceptions.

The responsibility does morally lie with the US as a nation.

Finish what you started.

33% is hardly overwhelming support. And, yes, that group largely is largely evangelical Christian conservatives who would support the war no matter how badly it goes (which goes back to my point about this being a religious war more than a war on 'terorrists.')

Bush was re-elected because at that time more people were willing to give the benefit of the doubt (and mostly because Kerry was such a poor candidate). Now they are not and the recent election reflects this. The Democrats have not had a coherent platform/candidate since Clinton. So, Bush winning the election in 2004 really was more about the Democrats losing in failing to provide a suitable choice.

Are we morally obligated to continue funding and putting our troops in harm's way? No. It's time for the government of Iraq to step up to the plate and start assuming responsiblity if they wish to continue to govern (which hasn't happened a single day since the election...which is why the election was a hosejob to begin with).

There are no easy solutions. Pouring more American money and soldiers on the fire isn't going to put it out. I would argue that the chances of the situation improving are at this point likely better with us out of there than with us in there. As long as we stay and fund the mess the Iraqi government has no reason to assume any responsibility. And as long as we keep troops there we give good cause to the insurgents to keep fighting (not to mention being a great recruitment tool for more terrorists elsewhere).

**stroller** · 13-11-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by stroller

Finish what you started.

finish, how?

seriously. how does this all end?

Who knows how it will end - Iraq may split into different nation states - finish means to put your money where your mouth is and stay there until the situation will be stabilised to a comparable degree as it was before the US dismantled the place.

Withdraw now, and do you believe there is any chance of it getting 'better' than under Saddam?
Ironically, the US may become instrumental in bringing about the very thing they wanted to prevent - an Islamic Iraq under the administrative and ideological influence of its neighbours.

That will probably happen anyway. The quagrime is that the US are basically neither welcome nor in any way compatible in culture, religion or political aims to any Iraqi.

Staying on may prevent the worst from happening, leaving will most certainly result in civil war and even more bloodshed.

Edit:

33% is hardly overwhelming support.

It is a large portion, well, about 1/3. Governments get elected with little more support than that, Lady Thatcher springs to mind (2nd term).
The Nazis came to power with 1/3 of the votes and an appointment to do their bidding. Has Germany as a nation been held responsible for the government of that time- of course!

**raycarey** · 13-11-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

stay there until the situation will be stabilised to a comparable degree as it was before the US dismantled the place.

i admire your optimism, but IMO that is never going to happen. the days of stability in the geographic region once known as iraq are long gone.

Originally Posted by stroller

Withdraw now, and do you believe there is any chance of it getting 'better' than under Saddam?

of course not. this is a case of pay me now or pay me later....and later is bound to be more 'expensive' for everyone involved. (and i hope everyone realizes i'm not making reference to $)

when the US pulls out in a state of shame and embarrassment, perhaps it will stop them from doing it again...well, in the near future anyway.

US citizens forgot how badly they lost in vietnam, and they need a hard slap in the face to remind them not to believe politicians and their short sighted imperial hubris next time around.

additionally, that is why these criminals (cheney, rummy, wolfowitz, hadley, bolton, rice) belong in the hague. future 'leaders' need to have an example of what will happen if they forget that there are real world consequences to their actions.

**Butterfly** · 13-11-2006, 06:36 PM

Well, there is an easy solution to a stable Iraq: bring back Saddam

But that would be as embarrassing as leaving in a cut and run manner

Either way, the US is fucked. And so are the Iraqis. Well they were fucked since day 1 anyway.

**Butterfly** · 13-11-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Those familiar with the panel's work predict that the ultimate recommendations will not appear novel and that there are few, if any, good options left facing the country. Many of the ideas reportedly being considered -- more aggressive regional diplomacy with Syria and Iran, greater emphasis on training Iraqi troops, or focusing on a new political deal between warring Shiites and Sunni -- have either been tried or have limited chances of success, in the view of many experts on Iraq. Baker is also exploring whether a broader U.S. initiative in tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed to help stabilize the region.

well actually they could break a deal with Syria and Iran. Letting them get away with their nuke program for Iran, and for Syria, their insurgency in South Lebanon against Israel, in exchange they would stabilize Iraq.

GW Bush did good. He actually reshaped the Middle East into a better one against Israel.

**Sir Burr** · 13-11-2006, 07:23 PM

The violence at the moment is overwhelmingly Iraqi against Iraqi, though the US can't stop it, they are limiting it, especially in Bahgdad.
If the US can't stop the violence, how on earth can the Iraqi government?
The Iraqi police are not trusted as they seem to be part of the problem, taking sides. The Iraqi army is better and far less partisan, yet, the army is still too small to take on the responsibility. The US must stay and try and convince Syria and Iran to help.

I'm surprised that the US military didn't take the lessons of Somalia onboard.

**barbaro** · 13-11-2006, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If the US can't stop the violence, how on earth can the Iraqi government?
The Iraqi police are not trusted as they seem to be part of the problem, taking sides.

Also, Al-Maliki and Al-Sadr may by queitly condoning the Shiite militias and death squad to rid them of the 'Sunni problem.'

I'm surprised that the US military didn't take the lessons of Somalia onboard.

A few months before the Americans invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein ordered several Arabic editions of the book "Blackhawk Down" and distributed it to his Army officers and others in government.

**Boon Mee** · 13-11-2006, 10:54 PM

Democrats have decided to start pulling troops out of Iraq starting in March/April and that flushing sound you hear is the fledging Iraqi democracy going down the toilet next summer...

**Butterfly** · 13-11-2006, 11:59 PM

I think this is the solution

Dear Republican staffer,

As you know, the last election cycle has left many of you looking for employment.

We are hiring.

We know many of you are patriotic Americans who long to serve their country, and take great pride in the country and it's ideals.

I'll be honest, we need more Marines. We need the kind of men and women who want to serve this country, and often face danger.

Having served the Congress, you know the peril we face. Without your help, all of our work and effort in the war on terror may come to naught.

We need you to join the fight. Anyone between 17-35 can enlist in the Marines, although we prefer enlistees by 27 or 28. We will consider older candidates.

Those interested can get more information at U.S. Marine Corps | Official Recruiting Site for the U.S. Marine Corps

We have information on becoming a commissioned officer for college graduates. The Marines need new, dedicated officers like you.

We hope you consider joining the Marine Corps as your next career option.

Semper Fi,

Col. D. Michael Clayburn
Recruiting, USMC

**stroller** · 14-11-2006, 12:11 AM

^
Age shouldn't be a hinderance for a bit of patriotic peacekeeping, winning minds & hearts by giving sweets to the kids, helping old ladies across the street and contribute experience to the rebuilding and education over there to enable the contageous spirit of freedom and democracy to spread even faster...

**raycarey** · 14-11-2006, 12:36 AM

^^

and just in case the cyber-warriors who are happy to have other people's kids die in iraq missed it....

U.S. Marine Corps | Official Recruiting Site for the U.S. Marine Corps

**LesBonsTemps** · 14-11-2006, 12:37 AM

As unremitting a liberal Democrat as I am, I have to agree with Sir Burr --in invading, occupying under Rumsfeld's bad decisions, and thus creating the current situation, we have a moral imperative to the Iraqis that we not leave without some form of stabilization.

Now, that being said, if the panel can help create a solution that would do so and allow drastically reduced forces within 12 months, that would be a more than wonderful thing.

(BTW, withdrawal in less than 6 months would be impossible due simply to logistics requirements.)

The U.S. retains a military presence still in...Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia. I seriously doubt that the U.S. will pull all troops.

**Boon Mee** · 14-11-2006, 05:59 AM

Of course, now that Democrats control the House and Senate, Chimpy McHaliburton is hamstrung, and we’re going to have a shiny happy Department of Peace soon, there’s really no need to be concerned about stories like this…Right?

Al Qaeda seeking nuclear kit for attacks: UK official

**raycarey** · 14-11-2006, 08:51 AM

hey boonie.....this thread is about the iraq study group.

i know it's hard for you to keep up, but please try harder.

Originally Posted by gulfcoast

As unremitting a liberal Democrat as I am, I have to agree with Sir Burr --in invading, occupying under Rumsfeld's bad decisions, and thus creating the current situation, we have a moral imperative to the Iraqis that we not leave without some form of stabilization.

in theory, i agree with both you and sir burr....but at some point the US needs to determine whether or not its presence is the main obstacle to stabilization.

the US viewed as an occuping force by the average iraqi ....and as targets by those that have taken up arms.

by the way, has anyone else noticed that the 'goal' for iraq is on a very slippery sliding scale...

"But the ultimate goal still has to be an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself.

whatever happened to it being the beacon of democracy?

White House rebuffs call for troop withdrawal in Iraq - CNN.com

**Butterfly** · 14-11-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

by the way, has anyone else noticed that the 'goal' for iraq is on a very slippery sliding scale...

It changed, like the reasons for going to war

Can't trust those pathological liars at the White House

**man with no head** · 14-11-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by gulfcoast

As unremitting a liberal Democrat as I am, I have to agree with Sir Burr --in invading, occupying under Rumsfeld's bad decisions, and thus creating the current situation, we have a moral imperative to the Iraqis that we not leave without some form of stabilization.

Now, that being said, if the panel can help create a solution that would do so and allow drastically reduced forces within 12 months, that would be a more than wonderful thing.

(BTW, withdrawal in less than 6 months would be impossible due simply to logistics requirements.)

The U.S. retains a military presence still in...Japan, Germany, Italy, Korea, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia. I seriously doubt that the U.S. will pull all troops.

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.

**raycarey** · 14-11-2006, 05:02 PM

^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.

**Butterfly** · 14-11-2006, 05:18 PM

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.

**stroller** · 14-11-2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

...and a UN force (primarily comprised of muslims) should be brought in so the US military can get out ASAP.

That sounds sensible, I can agree with this.
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.

**man with no head** · 14-11-2006, 05:39 PM

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.

**Sir Burr** · 14-11-2006, 05:39 PM

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.

**barbaro** · 14-11-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

^agreed.
if the solution was a military one, the neocons would have been right...but clearly 'shock and awe' was a pipe dream.

Agreed. There was never really a military solution. They were 200,000 short of the necesarry troops, anyway.

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).

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.

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.

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.

UN forces are usually ineffective, IMO.

**stroller** · 14-11-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

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.

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?

**Sir Burr** · 14-11-2006, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

2. Disbanding the Iraqi Army.

After the initial war, there was no Iraqi army to disband. They had all deserted by then according to Iraqi army generals.

**LesBonsTemps** · 14-11-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by surasak

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.

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.

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.

Thread: iraq study group

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions