Thread: iraq study group

Originally Posted by surasak

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

our mess.

* our, meaning the US.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by raycarey

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

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by raycarey

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

Who knows, but, the attempt must be made.

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.
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.

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

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.

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

^Well put.

Originally Posted by stroller

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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