iraq study group

Actually, the 'war' was over when Iraq surrendered.
So what are the objectives of a military presence now?

Sure, can't win against guerilla and ideological warfare with a conventional army of minimal trained youngsters, at least not while you keep the spirit of the Geneva convention and refrain from slaughtering the people you aim to protect and liberate - my question how long the training is before they get sent out remains unanswered several months after I posed it, same as no American commented in the "democracy" thread I started, odd, that is.

Still, I am in 2 minds about it, there is the moral obligation, after destroying the Iraq that was there before, Bush/the US wouldn't want to leave a much larger mess than what they've taken on to improve?
I mean, if you take it upon yourself to meddle in others' affairs, it wouldn't be right to just fukc them and then leave them to it?

Or maybe this humiliation might be a lesson for America; unfortunately, at the expense of others suffering death, chaos and destruction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

there is the moral obligation, after destroying the Iraq that was there before, Bush/the US wouldn't want to leave a much larger mess than what they've taken on to improve?

---

Precisely.
It's not fair on the Iraqi people if:-

a) US starts bringing troops home. The result will be an increase in sectarian violence.

b) To continue with present strategy and troop strength. The result will be an increase in sectarian violence.

The only way forward from a moral and strategic viewpoint is to increase troop strength and pressure the Iraqi government to conduct negotiations with all sides to try and minimize the violence.

Surprisingly, I'm with GWB on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

It's not fair on the Iraqi people

---

:laughing: :(:mad:

someone should have asked them what would be 'fair' back in feb. 2003 when they were about to be 'liberated'.

iraqis are going to die in an upsurge of violence whenever the US cuts and runs....whether it be now or in 1, 2, 5, or ten years.

Increasing the numbers of troops will also simply encourage more killing, thus, none of the aforementioned situations are going to result in less killing right away.

The sensible solution is to withdraw and let them sort out the mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Actually, the 'war' was over when Iraq surrendered.

---

IMO this is a misconception.

the iraqi army never intended to fight back. saddam knew (just like GWB's dad did) that an insurgency would rise up against the americans and they would eventually prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Or maybe this humiliation might be a lesson for America; unfortunately, at the expense of others suffering death, chaos and destruction?

---

unfortunately this is where we are. hopefully in 30 short years the US won't forget about the failure in iraq in the way they forgot about the failure in vietnam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The sensible solution is to withdraw and let them sort out the mess.

---

our mess.

* our, meaning the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The sensible solution is to withdraw and let them sort out the mess.

---

No it's not. The USA has a moral obligation to try and quell the violence. They opened this can of worms and the US military casualties are a drop in a bucket compared to Iraqi casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

The USA has a moral obligation to try and quell the violence.

---

for how long? 1, 2, 5, or ten years? 20? forever?

US presence is never going to improve life in iraq...remaining and surging is only prolonging the agony of the inevitable cut and run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

They opened this can of worms and the US military casualties are a drop in a bucket compared to Iraqi casualties.

---

true.

as for punishment, the US has already been humiliated on the grandest of stages...but there should also be war crimes trials in the hague. first up, rummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

for how long? 1, 2, 5, or ten years? 20? forever?

---

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

for how long? 1, 2, 5, or ten years? 20? forever?

---

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

---

:iagree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

but there should also be war crimes trials in the hague. first up, rummy.

---

Nah, Den Haag is run by bleeding-heart liberals and Euro-weenies, they'd only be pissing tax-payers money in the wind. :p
Hand 'em over to Iraq for justice to be served. ;)

There's no point in apportioning blame and retribution until the agony of US involvement in Iraq has been concluded, however that may be.

Yeah, you're right, maybe it would have to wait, even if it was an option. :p

I wonder what is happening about the other avenues, dividing Iraq into a Republic of souvereign states, involving neighbouring countries in the nation-building?
I guess neighbours getting officially involved would really hurt Bush's pride and the aims of the lobbies he's representing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

for how long? 1, 2, 5, or ten years? 20? forever?

---

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

---

:iagree:

---

i, for one, would like to thank sir burr and rdn for all the sacrfices that they're making in this 'attempt' that must be made.

their sense of service is a reminder to us all.

keep up the good work fellas! :1st:




ummmmmm.........remind me again what you guys are doing in this attempt that must be made?

are either of you under 42? do you have kids under 42? grandkids? nieces or nephews? here's a link....

GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > How to Join

i wonder if the bush twins could find a spot somewhere amongst those 20,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

for how long? 1, 2, 5, or ten years? 20? forever?

---

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

---

:iagree:

---

i, for one, would like to thank sir burr and rdn for all the sacrfices that they're making in this 'attempt' that must be made.

their sense of service is a reminder to us all.

keep up the good work fellas! :1st:




ummmmmm.........remind me again what you guys are doing in this attempt that must be made?

are either of you under 42? do you have kids under 42? grandkids? nieces or nephews? here's a link....

GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > How to Join

---

What am I doing? Nothing.
Why do you think I should do something?
You are the severest critic of the war, never at a loss for words when it comes to a solution. WTF are you doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

What am I doing? Nothing.

---

that's why i included the recruitment link....just in case! GWB has to find those 20,000 liberators somewhere. you should contact admin about doing a blog from iraq for teakdoor. i promise to green you.

perhaps i am overreacting. but tired, jingoistic war cries like " the attempt must be made" are infuriating at this point. particulary so when the people who make them, brazenly admit to contributing NOTHING to the effort.

real american kids (just because they're not relatives or friends, doesn't mean they're expendable) are dying on the streets of baghdad.

it's not a video game, it's not '24'.

feel free to pass along that link to your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews, your friends' kids. in fact, the next time you're at a neighborhood barbeque, why not recommend signing up to your neighbor's kids and explain to them how 'the attempt must be made'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

GWB has to find those 20,000 liberators somewhere.

---

Well, you (US) started this thing.

The Bush admin went ahead with the invasion, with Bliar pulling along, against good advice and evidence that it was unnecessary, and the American (and Brit) public even reelected the same gov!

You cooked the soup, now eat it!
Every single able-bodied Republican voter, regardless of age, should be made to go on a tour of duty for peacekeeping in Iraq over the next few years.

As long as there are no personal consequences, nothing will be learned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The sensible solution is to withdraw and let them sort out the mess.

---

No it's not. The USA has a moral obligation to try and quell the violence. They opened this can of worms and the US military casualties are a drop in a bucket compared to Iraqi casualties.

---

The longer the U.S. stays there the longer the violence will go on.

The only solution is to remove the problem (the U.S. occupation).

There is no moral issue here; it's like blaming the police because a bunch of drug dealers slag it out in the projects night after night.

If Iraq is a mess that's the way it will be until the Iraqis decide enough is enough on their own. No amount of increase of U.S. presence in troops or spending will suddenly make it better overnight or even within 5-10 years. The U.S. military simply doesn't have the manpower.

Quote:

---

BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 — The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush’s new war strategy it might take another “two or three years” for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/wo...st/08iraq.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The only solution is to remove the problem (the U.S. occupation).

---

At this stage, the US occupation is not the problem, whether it can contribute to the solution is the question.
What will happen after an immediate or short-term phased withdrawal is clear, the result of a maintained or increased presence is not.

The military alone will achieve nothing, I agree with this, so what are the political options re. structuring Iraq and its relation to its neighbours?

^Well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The only solution is to remove the problem (the U.S. occupation).

---

At this stage, the US occupation is not the problem, whether it can contribute to the solution is the question.
What will happen after an immediate or short-term phased withdrawal is clear, the result of a maintained or increased presence is not.

The military alone will achieve nothing, I agree with this, so what are the political options re. structuring Iraq and its relation to its neighbours?

---

That has been my point since day one on this forum: the current problems in Iraq are not solvable by military means. Iraq has never been a military problem and that's why the U.S. occupation is a total and complete failure.

On the issue of morality, where was the world's morals under the UN santions that bankrupted the Iraqi people and allowed Saddam to keep power while allowing certain nations to continue business as usual with lucrative oil deals? The nations of the world love to talk about what should be done but rarely ever act to stop madness as it occurs (Darfur anyone?) It smacks of hypocrisy to blame the U.S. and UK solely for the situation in Iraq as it stands now and to accuse us of moral bankruptcy. The world had a chance to stop Saddam for good in the 1990s but did nothing.

The problems of Iraq today were not born in 2003.

A political solution, whatever that may be, is the only way forward.

Surasak (I realise you have a clip from one of my favourite movies as your avatar), it seems you are suggesting that someone (not sure who) should have done something about Saddam. Not sure how you can argue in favour of interference in foreign domestic affairs unless people are in imminent danger of extinction (Darfur, Rwanda, etc.). And only then you can justify it on moral grounds. The Iraqi people might not have been entirely wise to go along with Saddam Hussein most of the time, but the invasion of Kuwait was a local dispute and the resulting interference just a way of protecting oil supplies and revenues. The more recent invasion is nothing more than an illegal act of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

A political solution, whatever that may be, is the only way forward.

---

Yes, but it may be necessary, in fact likely, that any political solution needs to be supported by a military presense, this is a result of 2003.
Bush is wrong in his paramount reliance on the military.
More emphasis needs to be placed on political solutions, including ones which are 'uncomfortable' for the Bush admin and the many interests in the region, for example Turkey.

I have supported military presence for a long time, but disapproved of the invasion itself - military intervention was neither necessary nor desirable IMO.

The problem in Iraq now is a result of dismantling the civil and political structure under the assumption that a military (police) presence would be enough to keep order.

As usual, another Western power interferes in that region of the world and the lack of political presence by a strong Iraqi government and the occupation by foreign troops (especially non-Arab or non-Muslim troops) has led to the insurgents having legitimate targets to attack.

The military is not designed for occupation. Militaries are designed to fight nation states on the battlefield. This is a useless mission for our military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

Surasak (I realise you have a clip from one of my favourite movies as your avatar), it seems you are suggesting that someone (not sure who) should have done something about Saddam. Not sure how you can argue in favour of interference in foreign domestic affairs unless people are in imminent danger of extinction (Darfur, Rwanda, etc.). And only then you can justify it on moral grounds. The Iraqi people might not have been entirely wise to go along with Saddam Hussein most of the time, but the invasion of Kuwait was a local dispute and the resulting interference just a way of protecting oil supplies and revenues. The more recent invasion is nothing more than an illegal act of war.

---

Saddam was weakened by the first war but due to the way the world handled the situation he was not punished for the invasion. The Iraqi people paid the price and they are still paying the price. The right thing at that point in 1990-1991 might have been to despose Saddam and occupy with a multi-national force until a rightful government could have been established. There was no need to invade in 2003.

For a world that cries 'never again' we still keep allowing things to happen. In reality every nation of the world is self-centered and has no moral high ground to criticize others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

The military is not designed for occupation. Militaries are designed to fight nation states on the battlefield. This is a useless mission for our military.

---

Yet Germany has been occupied for decades without it being regarded as a waste of resources. But then, that was a cosy inactive job, which was seen as being useful strategically. Perhaps the PNAC and its followers envisioned something similar in Iraq, inappropriate comparisons to Germany have been made frequently.

It's not occupation itself, but dealing with guerilla warfare in a hostile environment the military is ill-equipped for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

In reality every nation of the world is self-centered and has no moral high ground to criticize others.

---

This may well be so, but it doesn't reflect on individuals voicing their opinions based on their morality.

The differences though are these: Germany was bombed and burned to a crisp (along with Japan) by the end of the war. Germany was not so much occupied to keep Germany from rising a third time but more to stop the advance of Russian influence (along with the occupation of Japan) and that was the major reason for the Marshall Plan. It's been horrendously expensive to maintain troops there but it would have been more costly to lose more nations to the spread of communism.

If the USSR and communism weren't knocking on the eastern and western doors in 1945 I wonder if we really would have bothered rebuilding Germany or Japan? It would seem a totally defeated nation would be less likely to pose a threat than one that was rebuilt.

If anything the occupation and rebuilding of the Axis was an affront to the USSR and not so much out of any moral concern due to the war's effects.

The whole world catastrophically failed Iraq on a moral level and the invasion simply added more to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

but it would have been more costly to lose more nations to the spread of communism.

---

Lose ?
So you are saying that capitalism can not survive on it's own merits ? LOL

Bankruptcy. Death. Destruction.

If you spend your time fighting war you don't have time to develop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lom

So you are saying that capitalism can not survive on it's own merits

---

it doesn't and I would argue that the fall of communism was our prelude to the fall of capitalism. Another decade and it will be the 90s again for the west, but this time on the wrong side of the fence.

Not sure about your comment Surasak. Europe spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries in one war or another and has developed quite well out of it.
The United States has been constantly at war with someone more or less since the first settlers arrived there.

However, if you mean that when your own country suffers the effects of war, then I agree. If you get bombed every time you build something decent, it sort of puts you off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

If you get bombed every time you build something decent, it sort of puts you off.

---

The US fight their wars on others' territory, they have their military stationed around the globe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

....

---

What am I doing? Nothing.
Why do you think I should do something?
You are the severest critic of the war, never at a loss for words when it comes to a solution. WTF are you doing?

---

Ditto. Please answer the question Carey. WTF are you doing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wallace

Not sure about your comment Surasak. Europe spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries in one war or another and has developed quite well out of it.
The United States has been constantly at war with someone more or less since the first settlers arrived there.

However, if you mean that when your own country suffers the effects of war, then I agree. If you get bombed every time you build something decent, it sort of puts you off.

---

What I meant was this: Europe for all practical purposes was destroyed during WWII. America was untouched due to isolation.

Now, we helped rebuild Europe...but I don't think it was out of kindness or generosity. It was more of a long-sighted notion that to keep Stalin in check we needed to get Europe up and running as quick as possible and to try to avoid the economic conditions which lead to the war in the first place. People who were working, rebuilding, etc. didn't have time to sympathize with communists and it was the influx of capital (and American troops) that kept Western Europe free from communism. If we had simply ignored Europe and pulled our troops back home all of Europe would have fallen to the Soviets. The same with Japan and Asia.

The mistake in Iraq is that we destroyed the government from the top down to the bottom, destroyed the infrastructure, and put most Iraqis out of work. We have done little to nothing to rebuild Iraq and get people working again. People who are pissed off and have no money are very likely to get angry at the occupation and the occupation-leaning government and instead sympathize with the insurgents.

The issue with Iraq is that it is a corporate war....a war to secure resources and a war to secure and loot the U.S. Treasury in order to feed the shareholders of the companies 'rebuilding' Iraq. Thus, the U.S. really doesn't give a shit about the plight of the Iraqis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RDN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

....

---

What am I doing? Nothing.
Why do you think I should do something?
You are the severest critic of the war, never at a loss for words when it comes to a solution. WTF are you doing?

---

Ditto. Please answer the question Carey. WTF are you doing?

---

i don't support the war, and never have. therefore, i have no moral obligation to do anything in support of it. how is that confusing?

however, for those who supported the invasion at any point, and who now agree that 'an attempt must be made' , it is only reasonable to assume that they are willing to contribute in that attempt....and btw, watching 24 is not really contributing.

so RDN....i've answered your question, i can only hope that you'll answer mine. i posted it earlier, but apparently you missed it, so here it is again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raycarey

i, for one, would like to thank sir burr and rdn for all the sacrfices that they're making in this 'attempt' that must be made.

their sense of service is a reminder to us all.

keep up the good work fellas! :1st:



ummmmmm.........remind me again what you guys are doing in this attempt that must be made? are either of you under 42? do you have kids under 42? grandkids? nieces or nephews? here's a link....

GoArmy.com > Contact the Army > How to Join

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Thus, the U.S. really doesn't give a shit about the plight of the Iraqis.

---

nor do they care about the additional 20,000 US kids whose lives they are gambling with in the so called, 'attempt that must be made'. but hey, who cares about 'poor' people?

it's over. the US lost....badly.
iraq is a mess and it's not going to get better until the US leaves...whether that be tomorrow or 2010.

Quote:

---

Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.

---

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Bush’s Iraq Troop Plan - New York Times

this thread is entitled 'the iraq study group'. let's take a look back.....

Quote:

---

The Iraq Study Group(ISG), also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission,[1] was a ten-person bipartisan panel appointed on March 15, 2006, by the United States Congress, that was charged with assessing the situation in Iraq and the US-led Iraq War and making policy recommendations. It was first proposed by Virginia Republican Representative Frank Wolf.[2]

---

Quote:

---

The ISG was led by co-chairs James Baker, a former Secretary of State (Republican), and Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. Representative (Democrat).

Republicans

In addition to Baker, the panel's Republican members were:

• Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court Justice
• Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State
• Edwin Meese III, former US Attorney General
• Alan K. Simpson, former U.S. Senator from Wyoming

Democrats

In addition to Hamilton, the panel's Democratic members were:

• Vernon Jordan, Jr., business executive
• Leon E. Panetta, former White House Chief of Staff
• William J. Perry, former US Secretary of Defense
• Charles S. Robb, former Governor and U.S. Senator from Virginia

Former Members

Two of the panel's original members (both Republicans) resigned before the group's final report was released:

• Robert Gates, current US Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence
• Rudy Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City

Gates resigned from the panel after he was nominated for Secretary of Defense on November 8. He was replaced by Lawrence Eagleburger. [3]
Giuliani resigned on May 24 because of a possible Presidential campaign. [4] He was replaced by Edwin Meese.[5]

---

the report advocated a drawdown of troops, but georgie and his neo-con friends know better....

Quote:

---

On January 5, 2007, a rival "hawkish" report was released, titled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq, by the so-called "Real Iraq Study Group" headed by neoconservative Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. Kagan was said to have won-over the ear of President George W. Bush. [1]

---

Iraq Study Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can't say i've read the entire ISG report, but i don't think there was anything about an additional 20,000 US kids.

here it is though....

Iraq Study Group: United States Institute of Peace