How can we extract ourselves from iraq?

[oldman420]

Here is the situation in Iraq as I see it.

1, more than a year after the victory speech by GWB we are losing more troops to attacks than we did during the invasion.

2, There are large areas of the country we do not control and cannot control without massive civilian casualties.

3, the citizens of Iraq are not happy with our presence there and the quality of life there is dismal with the constant terrorist activity lack of infrastructure, jobs and services.

4, infrastructure repairs are almost a non issue due to terrorist activity, not much work is accomplished and when it is often it gets destroyed.

5, The united Nations has once again not chosen to give support to us for the war, many countries are taking a "We told you so? approach with us now.

6, So far we have spent over 174 billion dollars on this effort.

7, Because of the shameful conduct of the guards at the prison in Baghdad we are seen locally there and around the world as cruel and vicious.

Hmm
IMHO that situation is best described as FUBAR,

What can we do?

Who can we turn to?

Why in the heck didn't we see this coming?

It?s not like we weren?t warned.

I have in my head tried to think of a way to extract ourselves from this situation and I cant think of anything, mind you I am no Henry Kissinger but I am intelligent.
It seems were damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Has anybody got any ideas?

 

[oldman420]

feedback?
how can we

 

[Darkhawk28]

Well, the definition of success is up for debate. Personally, with my specific definition, we cannot leave Iraq successfully. Plus, you can't just throw democracy on a culture that has no clue what to do with it. Sometimes it takes decades even centuries.

 

[oldman420]

History has shown that the middle east and democracy do not mix.

 

[rudder]

The only kind of government most Iraqis understand and respect is one that is very brutal and repressive. Maybe we should just let Saddam run for president over there. I am sure the prospect of that will have the Iraqis shaking in their sandals. Maybe then they will realize what was handed to them.

 

[Red Dawn]

If the Iraqis themselves aren't willing to fight for Democracy why should we fight and die for them?

 

[b0mbrman]

Like it or not, the US has to fulfill three goals before they can leave regardless of the sacrifices we have to make to get there (to a certain extent of course):

(1) America must ensure that power is centralized and that Iraqi civic institutions are strengthened so that Iraqis can obtain such essentials of life as water, food and electricity.

(2) America must help create economic conditions by which a stable middle class can form so that Iraqis can build upon this pre-requisite of democracy, which will also enable American soldiers to exit an Iraq that is intact and not shattered.

(3) America must seek to establish its "exceptional" ideals such as minority, women's and property rights alongside individual liberties so that all Iraqis can determine their life destinies.

From here - Link

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Like it or not, the US has to fulfill three goals before they can leave regardless of the sacrifices we have to make to get there (to a certain extent of course):

(1) America must ensure that power is centralized and that Iraqi civic institutions are strengthened so that Iraqis can obtain such essentials of life as water, food and electricity.

(2) America must help create economic conditions by which a stable middle class can form so that Iraqis can build upon this pre-requisite of democracy, which will also enable American soldiers to exit an Iraq that is intact and not shattered.

(3) America must seek to establish its "exceptional" ideals such as minority, women's and property rights alongside individual liberties so that all Iraqis can determine their life destinies.

From here - Link

We are going to be there for a long time if we don't leave until those goals are met.

 

[Carbo]

The biggest problem is that the US is fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. We are so damn preoccupied with doing battle in a way that is politically correct, that we have lost sight of our objectives. This is a war we are in. You win wars by killing either all of your enemies, or until they surrender. In war, might makes right. The US has the might to end this war, convincingly and without question, in a matter of a few months. But, we fear the backlash and criticism of other Middle East countries and our European "allies".
The US military is prepared and capable to do battle to the max. For example, we let that phony punkass holy man Muqtada Al-Sadr call the shots while he and his boys were holed up at that "holy" shrine in Najaf.
I ask you, what would have been the result had the Marines decided to end that nonsense in, say, a 48 hour seige? Al-Sadr and about 300 of his followers would have been granted their wish of dying for their cause. And the rest of the terrorists would have taken notice that we mean business.

 

[TravisT]

I agree with Carbo. Some of you guys may say we are being to hard on the Iraqi's.... I say we need to get a little tougher and a little thicker skin.

Here is a famous quote: "You can not win a war unless you are willing to annihilate the enemy."

With our current stance, we are not willing to annihilate anyone. We have specific places we can't go because it would be politically incorrect. This is similar to how it was done in Vietnam. The 'No shoot zones' and such are ridiculous. If we want to destroy the enemy, we have to be willing to go takeover the areas that the enemy is harboring in, including Mosques. Of course, Iraq would suffer more civilian losses with my stance on the war, but, in the end, I believe it is the only way to win this war.

In regards to democracy in Iraq. It is way to early to tell whether it will be a success or not. The leader has only been established for a couple of months. The first elections for them will be in January. We are still in the process of training police officers and Soldiers to help further fight against Terrorism in their country. Which mind you, Iraqi governemnt has already taken control of atleast 2 Mosques since they've been in leadership. They have made personable arrests. And to me, it seems like things are going in the right track. But it is still way to early to tell. We probably won't find out until years from now whether it was successful.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
I agree with Carbo. Some of you guys may say we are being to hard on the Iraqi's.... I say we need to get a little tougher and a little thicker skin.

Here is a famous quote: "You can not win a war unless you are willing to annihilate the enemy."

With our current stance, we are not willing to annihilate anyone. We have specific places we can't go because it would be politically incorrect. This is similar to how it was done in Vietnam. The 'No shoot zones' and such are ridiculous. If we want to destroy the enemy, we have to be willing to go takeover the areas that the enemy is harboring in, including Mosques. Of course, Iraq would suffer more civilian losses with my stance on the war, but, in the end, I believe it is the only way to win this war.

The trouble with that, though, is that the "enemy" is increasing in size the longer we occupy Iraq. Read the articles from soldiers over in Iraq who see the changing tide in sentiment. Unemployment is incredibly high. Reconstruction projects are using highly-paid contractors. Why not use Iraqis? An Iraqi with a job is far less likely to take up a gun against the people who gave him that job.

We need to increase the size of our forces over there, preferably by bringing in other countries' help. Without a secure Iraq, the reconstruction process cannot fully begin, much less be completed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks to the Neocons the United States will rapidly decline as a power capable of exerting international force. We will become like England and China will dominate the world. The moneyed class will profit even from our fall and move to places that have a standard of living. Maybe we can export Appalachian home made straw brooms. The difference, of course, will not be so noticible in the red states. There will just be 48 of them. China will have bought Alaska and the Japanese, Hawaii, to pay off some of our debt.

 

[Moonbeam]

We could pull out and try the Neocons in the Hague for perpetrating an illegal war and vote out every politician who voted to give Bush the power to send our troops. By flushing the sh!t down the drain we can begin again to regain our lost prestige.

 

[TravisT]

conjur, i agree. And I believe we are headed in that direction. I think Iraq in the future will be used as a home base in the middle east with a very strong alliance between us and the Iraqi leadership. I believe that was one of the purposes for going over there, even though Bush has not said that.

I also agree that we need to see Iraq take more of a stance against terrorists themselves. I believe with police officers being trained, training an army for Iraq, and the such, we will begin to see more jobs be created. We have more women and children being educated now than they had previous to the war.

I don't believe we will get to see immediate results, but I believe that the work that has been done in the last year in Iraq, will return 5-6 years from now and we'll see educated Men and Women with full-time working jobs, less starving people, and people with better lives in general.

I don't think that we can accomplish that in all of Iraq right now though unless we're willing to present ourselves as someone who is willing to annihilate our enemies.

Also, we are beginning to get help from the Iraqi's, it is just a slow process. Iraqi officials have already began taking control. And until they are stable, we won't be able to pull out.

As for increasing the size of forces there, I would love to see us recieve help from other countries. But the thing is, is that there are to many France's in the world. So many countries have said they don't want anything to do with Iraq. I don't really see how we could convince other countries to get involved wtihout either bribing with millions of dollars or putting more of our own troops over there, which I am not gun-ho about either of those options. Not trying to be a smarta** with this question, but how do you believe we could get other countries involved that have expressed so much disgust with us occupying Iraq already?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i agree. And I believe we are headed in that direction.

I believe we are headed in the OPPOSITE direction! Look at Bush diverted billions from the reconstruction funds and not attempting to garner additional support from other nations. In fact, Bush rebuked international support last year when it was offered!!

I think Iraq in the future will be used as a home base in the middle east with a very strong alliance between us and the Iraqi leadership. I believe that was one of the purposes for going over there, even though Bush has not said that.

I don't think Bush needs to explicitly state that. That's a rather obvious conclusion from his plans for 14 military bases in Iraq.

I also agree that we need to see Iraq take more of a stance against terrorists themselves. I believe with police officers being trained, training an army for Iraq, and the such, we will begin to see more jobs be created. We have more women and children being educated now than they had previous to the war.

Trouble is, the training is a complete failure. Not ONE Iraqi has completed the full 6-week training program and only 5,000 have undergone decent training, not the 200,000 spouted by Cheney.

I don't believe we will get to see immediate results, but I believe that the work that has been done in the last year in Iraq, will return 5-6 years from now and we'll see educated Men and Women with full-time working jobs, less starving people, and people with better lives in general.

I don't think that we can accomplish that in all of Iraq right now though unless we're willing to present ourselves as someone who is willing to annihilate our enemies.

Again, the trouble with that is we are continuing to see the insurgency grow as average Iraqis grow more and more frustrated with the occupation and lack of progress.

Also, we are beginning to get help from the Iraqi's, it is just a slow process. Iraqi officials have already began taking control. And until they are stable, we won't be able to pull out.

Where? There are many no-go zones. Look at the constant attacks on convoys on the airport road. Look at the lack of control in Fallulja, Najaf, Ramadi, etc.

As for increasing the size of forces there, I would love to see us recieve help from other countries. But the thing is, is that there are to many France's in the world. So many countries have said they don't want anything to do with Iraq. I don't really see how we could convince other countries to get involved wtihout either bribing with millions of dollars or putting more of our own troops over there, which I am not gun-ho about either of those options. Not trying to be a smarta** with this question, but how do you believe we could get other countries involved that have expressed so much disgust with us occupying Iraq already?

We had an offer from the U.N. last year but Bush turned it down. Bush has squandered our chances with the work, imo. Look at the cold reception he received yesterday at the U.N. where he gave a completely feckless speech.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Carbo
The biggest problem is that the US is fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. We are so damn preoccupied with doing battle in a way that is politically correct, that we have lost sight of our objectives. This is a war we are in. You win wars by killing either all of your enemies, or until they surrender. In war, might makes right. The US has the might to end this war, convincingly and without question, in a matter of a few months. But, we fear the backlash and criticism of other Middle East countries and our European "allies".
The US military is prepared and capable to do battle to the max. For example, we let that phony punkass holy man Muqtada Al-Sadr call the shots while he and his boys were holed up at that "holy" shrine in Najaf.
I ask you, what would have been the result had the Marines decided to end that nonsense in, say, a 48 hour seige? Al-Sadr and about 300 of his followers would have been granted their wish of dying for their cause. And the rest of the terrorists would have taken notice that we mean business.

:thumbsup:

Fighting a war while abiding by the rules of war is a fool's errand when your enemy doesn't follow suit. You're basically giving him a free pass to do as he sees fit, killing men from within mosques where you won't return fire. That is the single greatest factor that is holding us back. Our troops are more than capable of killing everyone that stands against them.. However, they're handicapped and unable to because of a set of rules that only applies to one side. As someone mentioned previously, this is like playing a football game where one side abides by no rules and is not penalized, yet the other continues to try the high road, despite getting slapped around by repeated infractions.

I'm all for conjur's idea of putting Iraqis to work over US contractors. Problem is, it's likely that many of them don't know how to do the job that the contractors are doing. You can't just up and learn how to operate a refinery in a day or a year even.

I also don't think the power/water situation is nearly as bad as people repeatedly claim it is.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i agree. And I believe we are headed in that direction.

I believe we are headed in the OPPOSITE direction! Look at Bush diverted billions from the reconstruction funds and not attempting to garner additional support from other nations. In fact, Bush rebuked international support last year when it was offered!!

I think Iraq in the future will be used as a home base in the middle east with a very strong alliance between us and the Iraqi leadership. I believe that was one of the purposes for going over there, even though Bush has not said that.

I don't think Bush needs to explicitly state that. That's a rather obvious conclusion from his plans for 14 military bases in Iraq.

I also agree that we need to see Iraq take more of a stance against terrorists themselves. I believe with police officers being trained, training an army for Iraq, and the such, we will begin to see more jobs be created. We have more women and children being educated now than they had previous to the war.

Trouble is, the training is a complete failure. Not ONE Iraqi has completed the full 6-week training program and only 5,000 have undergone decent training, not the 200,000 spouted by Cheney.

I don't believe we will get to see immediate results, but I believe that the work that has been done in the last year in Iraq, will return 5-6 years from now and we'll see educated Men and Women with full-time working jobs, less starving people, and people with better lives in general.

I don't think that we can accomplish that in all of Iraq right now though unless we're willing to present ourselves as someone who is willing to annihilate our enemies.

Again, the trouble with that is we are continuing to see the insurgency grow as average Iraqis grow more and more frustrated with the occupation and lack of progress.

We are progressing. We are just now getting training areas done over in Iraq to effectively train Iraqi soldiers. Such as LTC Chris Hoffman had to say just 10 days ago... (9/12)


"Everything is going well in the Squadron this week. We continue operations against the former Iraqi regime and conduct security operations in our zone. It was 102 today. I know that sounds hot, but it was actually pleasant compared to a month ago. Fox troop has returned to Camp Marlboro after conducting their security missions during the construction of a training area we will use in the upcoming months. We have started training the Iraqi civil defense corps here at Camp Marlboro. They receive basic military training and will start to work with us in our zone. Most units in Baghdad are doing this and it is the beginning of the Iraqi's taking some of the responsibility for securing themselves. It is a great deal of hard work for the TCB's now, but it will pay off in the end.

Quality of life continues to improve, the new barracks for the troops that were living in the cigarette factory have now been modified and partitioned. It is amazing what these troopers are doing to make life more like home. We received more weights for our outdoor gym this week as well as a foosball table for the dining facility. We will continue working to improve the camp until the day we leave.

Chaplain S held a prayer breakfast yesterday, September 11th to honor those lost during the terror attacks two years ago. We also had a Wall Street Journal reporter here this week so you can look to see if it comes out on line.

Please write your trooper and keep in touch."

conjur, i agree, the results are going slower than what we would like, and the insurgents are still fighting hard. But as we continue to occupy Iraq, train their soldiers, the more we successfully train, the better off we'll be and the more troops we will have there. It will also help their economy as they begin to help fight.

Also, we are beginning to get help from the Iraqi's, it is just a slow process. Iraqi officials have already began taking control. And until they are stable, we won't be able to pull out.

Where? There are many no-go zones. Look at the constant attacks on convoys on the airport road. Look at the lack of control in Fallulja, Najaf, Ramadi, etc.

I didn't deny the fact that there is still a long ways to go. But in the stand-off at the Najaf mosque, Iraqi officials were standing with our US Troops. That is a start.

As for increasing the size of forces there, I would love to see us recieve help from other countries. But the thing is, is that there are to many France's in the world. So many countries have said they don't want anything to do with Iraq. I don't really see how we could convince other countries to get involved wtihout either bribing with millions of dollars or putting more of our own troops over there, which I am not gun-ho about either of those options. Not trying to be a smarta** with this question, but how do you believe we could get other countries involved that have expressed so much disgust with us occupying Iraq already?

We had an offer from the U.N. last year but Bush turned it down. Bush has squandered our chances with the work, imo. Look at the cold reception he received yesterday at the U.N. where he gave a completely feckless speech.

Sorry, but what exactly was the offer? Maybe i missed this? The only offer I heard the UN give was the one that stated they wanted more time (another 8 years?).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, i agree. And I believe we are headed in that direction.

I believe we are headed in the OPPOSITE direction! Look at Bush diverted billions from the reconstruction funds and not attempting to garner additional support from other nations. In fact, Bush rebuked international support last year when it was offered!!

I think Iraq in the future will be used as a home base in the middle east with a very strong alliance between us and the Iraqi leadership. I believe that was one of the purposes for going over there, even though Bush has not said that.

I don't think Bush needs to explicitly state that. That's a rather obvious conclusion from his plans for 14 military bases in Iraq.

I also agree that we need to see Iraq take more of a stance against terrorists themselves. I believe with police officers being trained, training an army for Iraq, and the such, we will begin to see more jobs be created. We have more women and children being educated now than they had previous to the war.

Trouble is, the training is a complete failure. Not ONE Iraqi has completed the full 6-week training program and only 5,000 have undergone decent training, not the 200,000 spouted by Cheney.

I don't believe we will get to see immediate results, but I believe that the work that has been done in the last year in Iraq, will return 5-6 years from now and we'll see educated Men and Women with full-time working jobs, less starving people, and people with better lives in general.

I don't think that we can accomplish that in all of Iraq right now though unless we're willing to present ourselves as someone who is willing to annihilate our enemies.

Again, the trouble with that is we are continuing to see the insurgency grow as average Iraqis grow more and more frustrated with the occupation and lack of progress.

We are progressing. We are just now getting training areas done over in Iraq to effectively train Iraqi soldiers. Such as LTC Chris Hoffman had to say just 10 days ago...

"verything is going well in the Squadron this week. We continue operations against the former Iraqi regime and conduct security operations in our zone. It was 102 today. I know that sounds hot, but it was actually pleasant compared to a month ago. Fox troop has returned to Camp Marlboro after conducting their security missions during the construction of a training area we will use in the upcoming months. We have started training the Iraqi civil defense corps here at Camp Marlboro. They receive basic military training and will start to work with us in our zone. Most units in Baghdad are doing this and it is the beginning of the Iraqi's taking some of the responsibility for securing themselves. It is a great deal of hard work for the TCB's now, but it will pay off in the end.

Quality of life continues to improve, the new barracks for the troops that were living in the cigarette factory have now been modified and partitioned. It is amazing what these troopers are doing to make life more like home. We received more weights for our outdoor gym this week as well as a foosball table for the dining facility. We will continue working to improve the camp until the day we leave.

Chaplain S held a prayer breakfast yesterday, September 11th to honor those lost during the terror attacks two years ago. We also had a Wall Street Journal reporter here this week so you can look to see if it comes out on line.

Please write your trooper and keep in touch."

conjur, i agree, the results are going slower than what we would like, and the insurgents are still fighting hard. But as we continue to occupy Iraq, train their soldiers, the more we successfully train, the better off we'll be and the more troops we will have there. It will also help their economy as they begin to help fight.

That doesn't say anything about the training progressing. Sounds like they're just improving their living conditions. Where's the meat of the training program?

Also, we are beginning to get help from the Iraqi's, it is just a slow process. Iraqi officials have already began taking control. And until they are stable, we won't be able to pull out.

Where? There are many no-go zones. Look at the constant attacks on convoys on the airport road. Look at the lack of control in Fallulja, Najaf, Ramadi, etc.

I didn't deny the fact that there is still a long ways to go. But in the stand-off at the Najaf mosque, Iraqi officials were standing with our US Troops. That is a start.

Look at what happened in Fallujah, though. Many Iraqi security forces cut and ran and even joined the other side to fight against us!

As for increasing the size of forces there, I would love to see us recieve help from other countries. But the thing is, is that there are to many France's in the world. So many countries have said they don't want anything to do with Iraq. I don't really see how we could convince other countries to get involved wtihout either bribing with millions of dollars or putting more of our own troops over there, which I am not gun-ho about either of those options. Not trying to be a smarta** with this question, but how do you believe we could get other countries involved that have expressed so much disgust with us occupying Iraq already?

We had an offer from the U.N. last year but Bush turned it down. Bush has squandered our chances with the work, imo. Look at the cold reception he received yesterday at the U.N. where he gave a completely feckless speech.

Sorry, but what exactly was the offer? Maybe i missed this? The only offer I heard the UN give was the one that stated they wanted more time (another 8 years?).

Here's part of it:

http://cshink.com/barring_foes_of_war.htm

December 12, 2003
Washington Post
Robin Wright and Dana Milbank

President Bush yesterday fiercely defended his decision to bar France, Germany, Russia and Canada from Iraq reconstruction contracts, defying a furious outcry from allies and even objections from GOP and conservative leaders.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Here's a simple rule of war:

You don't turn your weapons on the citizens of a country and make them the target.

That is what we ended up doing in Viet Nam, and here we are doing that again.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TravisT
.. snip ...
We are progressing. We are just now getting training areas done over in Iraq to effectively train Iraqi soldiers. Such as LTC Chris Hoffman had to say just 10 days ago...

"Everything is going well in the Squadron this week. We continue operations against the former Iraqi regime and conduct security operations in our zone. It was 102 today. I know that sounds hot, but it was actually pleasant compared to a month ago. Fox troop has returned to Camp Marlboro after conducting their security missions during the construction of a training area we will use in the upcoming months. We have started training the Iraqi civil defense corps here at Camp Marlboro. They receive basic military training and will start to work with us in our zone. Most units in Baghdad are doing this and it is the beginning of the Iraqi's taking some of the responsibility for securing themselves. It is a great deal of hard work for the TCB's now, but it will pay off in the end.

Quality of life continues to improve, the new barracks for the troops that were living in the cigarette factory have now been modified and partitioned. It is amazing what these troopers are doing to make life more like home. We received more weights for our outdoor gym this week as well as a foosball table for the dining facility. We will continue working to improve the camp until the day we leave.

Chaplain S held a prayer breakfast yesterday, September 11th to honor those lost during the terror attacks two years ago. We also had a Wall Street Journal reporter here this week so you can look to see if it comes out on line.

Please write your trooper and keep in touch."

conjur, i agree, the results are going slower than what we would like, and the insurgents are still fighting hard. But as we continue to occupy Iraq, train their soldiers, the more we successfully train, the better off we'll be and the more troops we will have there. It will also help their economy as they begin to help fight.

That doesn't say anything about the training progressing. Sounds like they're just improving their living conditions. Where's the meat of the training program?

My point was with that was that they are just now starting training in a lot of areas. This was only 10 days ago so no Iraqi soldiers have had the chance to complete a 6 week course at that camp. And from the way it was worded it sounds as though the training has not been going on for very long in Baghdad.

With that said, we should begin seeing Iraq take a more aggressive approach. I'm not sure where Cheney gets his 200,000 troops trained, or where you get your 5,000... (Not saying you are lying)

..snip..
I didn't deny the fact that there is still a long ways to go. But in the stand-off at the Najaf mosque, Iraqi officials were standing with our US Troops. That is a start.

Look at what happened in Fallujah, though. Many Iraqi security forces cut and ran and even joined the other side to fight against us!

That is why we need to take a more aggresive stance. These no fight zones are ridiculous. With a little more aggression and if the enemy or anyone contemplating becoming an enemy knows that we'll kill them. It will be less likely that we will have people turn on us. Particularly if we know that we would be willing to kill them, their wifes, and their kids with no hesitation.

We can't stand around in Fallujah or run from the terrorists there and expect them to be annihilated. We need to retake it.

As for increasing the size of forces there, I would love to see us recieve help from other countries. But the thing is, is that there are to many France's in the world. So many countries have said they don't want anything to do with Iraq. I don't really see how we could convince other countries to get involved wtihout either bribing with millions of dollars or putting more of our own troops over there, which I am not gun-ho about either of those options. Not trying to be a smarta** with this question, but how do you believe we could get other countries involved that have expressed so much disgust with us occupying Iraq already?

We had an offer from the U.N. last year but Bush turned it down. Bush has squandered our chances with the work, imo. Look at the cold reception he received yesterday at the U.N. where he gave a completely feckless speech.

Sorry, but what exactly was the offer? Maybe i missed this? The only offer I heard the UN give was the one that stated they wanted more time (another 8 years?).

Here's part of it:

http://cshink.com/barring_foes_of_war.htm

December 12, 2003
Washington Post
Robin Wright and Dana Milbank

President Bush yesterday fiercely defended his decision to bar France, Germany, Russia and Canada from Iraq reconstruction contracts, defying a furious outcry from allies and even objections from GOP and conservative leaders.

I'll take a look at this a little more in depth and respond in a bit. Good post though, very interesting.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Joe Galloway wrote this article for the Ft. Worth Star back on July 19 about a possible way to do it.
<CLIP>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's a fine old mess they've gotten us into.

President Bush says he was right to invade Iraq even if none of the reasons for going turned out to be true - and what we need to do is "stay the course." Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld says, "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this (the war against terrorism)."

Our president says that the country is much safer today because of his decisions. Our secretary of homeland security says that we need to be on the alert for a big al-Qaeda terror attack inside the United States any day now.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken the lives of nearly 1,000 American soldiers and Marines to date. They threaten to break utterly our Army and Marine Corps, not to mention the misused and overworked Reserve and National Guard units.

Retired Navy Capt. John Byron, in the July issue of Proceedings of the Naval Institute, writes:

"The war in Iraq is wrecking the Army and the Marine Corps. Troop rotations are in shambles and the all-volunteer force is starting to crumble as we extend combat tours and struggle to get enough boots on the ground.

"We have broken our social contract with the members of the National Guard and the reserve forces, misusing them as substitutes for active forces in an open-ended operation in Iraq that is well short of national emergency. These backup forces are demoralized and headed for the door."

This administration cannot admit that mistakes have been made. Not even one mistake. If they do the whole house of cards might tumble. But if you won't admit a mistake, how do you go about correcting it? When you find you're in a hole, stop digging.

So here is a modest proposal to begin improving our situation in Iraq: We will withdraw our forces to desert enclaves along the Iraqi borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since the Iraqis don't want us patrolling their streets, we won't. We will hand that duty over to the newly sovereign Iraq government and its police, militia and army.

By building our camps in the vicinity of borders with friendly nations we will greatly shorten our supply lines and remove them from Iraq's roads. There will be no American trucks on the highways to be blown up, burned and looted.

We will guarantee Iraq's security from external threat. It will be up to the Iraqis whether they now build for themselves a new, peaceful country.

Our military camps should have a 20-mile clear field of fire all around and signs in eight languages warning that all who trespass face imminent death. This should allow us to begin reducing the 140,000 soldiers and Marines now tied down securing and policing Iraq and its cities and towns and highways.

A division each - 15,000 troops - in three enclaves, north, south and central, should be enough to maintain the presence. Two Army divisions, one Marine, all of them active duty. That will free the National Guard and Reserves, who now make up nearly half the force, to go home and resume their normal lives.

All matters of contracting for rebuilding and rehabilitating basic services in Iraq would then be handled by the Iraqi government, using their oil revenues. No American contract employees would remain in Iraq, except for those working for the American military inside the three American enclaves.

That would mean no Americans available for kidnapping or brutal televised execution.

There would then be two standard answers for almost any question about a problem in Iraq:

It's not our problem.

It's not our business.

How's that for a way out of the mess?

 

[TravisT]

conjur, after reading a little more into that proposal offered by France and Germany, I can certainly see why we didn't allow them in on the bidding.

Where was France, Germany, Russia, and Canada when we were asking for help there 1 year ago? Now, after our blood, sweat, and tears of the American people, they want to reap the contract benefits of rebuilding Iraq. Surely you see why it is not reasonable to go that route.

If they didn't want it to be an "all-American Show", as James Hodge put it, then where were those countries when we were nearly begging for help a year ago? Certainly we haven't turned down England or Poland due to their contributions.

I'm not bashing you with this, but this is not a reasonable offer to help in the Iraq war. If they wanted to be eligible to reap the benefits of contracting there in their country, they should have supported the war with troops first.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Joe Galloway wrote this article for the Ft. Worth Star back on July 19 about a possible way to do it.
<CLIP>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's a fine old mess they've gotten us into.

President Bush says he was right to invade Iraq even if none of the reasons for going turned out to be true - and what we need to do is "stay the course." Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld says, "It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this (the war against terrorism)."

Our president says that the country is much safer today because of his decisions. Our secretary of homeland security says that we need to be on the alert for a big al-Qaeda terror attack inside the United States any day now.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken the lives of nearly 1,000 American soldiers and Marines to date. They threaten to break utterly our Army and Marine Corps, not to mention the misused and overworked Reserve and National Guard units.

Retired Navy Capt. John Byron, in the July issue of Proceedings of the Naval Institute, writes:

"The war in Iraq is wrecking the Army and the Marine Corps. Troop rotations are in shambles and the all-volunteer force is starting to crumble as we extend combat tours and struggle to get enough boots on the ground.

"We have broken our social contract with the members of the National Guard and the reserve forces, misusing them as substitutes for active forces in an open-ended operation in Iraq that is well short of national emergency. These backup forces are demoralized and headed for the door."

This administration cannot admit that mistakes have been made. Not even one mistake. If they do the whole house of cards might tumble. But if you won't admit a mistake, how do you go about correcting it? When you find you're in a hole, stop digging.

So here is a modest proposal to begin improving our situation in Iraq: We will withdraw our forces to desert enclaves along the Iraqi borders with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Since the Iraqis don't want us patrolling their streets, we won't. We will hand that duty over to the newly sovereign Iraq government and its police, militia and army.

By building our camps in the vicinity of borders with friendly nations we will greatly shorten our supply lines and remove them from Iraq's roads. There will be no American trucks on the highways to be blown up, burned and looted.

We will guarantee Iraq's security from external threat. It will be up to the Iraqis whether they now build for themselves a new, peaceful country.

Our military camps should have a 20-mile clear field of fire all around and signs in eight languages warning that all who trespass face imminent death. This should allow us to begin reducing the 140,000 soldiers and Marines now tied down securing and policing Iraq and its cities and towns and highways.

A division each - 15,000 troops - in three enclaves, north, south and central, should be enough to maintain the presence. Two Army divisions, one Marine, all of them active duty. That will free the National Guard and Reserves, who now make up nearly half the force, to go home and resume their normal lives.

All matters of contracting for rebuilding and rehabilitating basic services in Iraq would then be handled by the Iraqi government, using their oil revenues. No American contract employees would remain in Iraq, except for those working for the American military inside the three American enclaves.

That would mean no Americans available for kidnapping or brutal televised execution.

There would then be two standard answers for almost any question about a problem in Iraq:

It's not our problem.

It's not our business.

How's that for a way out of the mess?

Joe Galloway? Did he write that before or AFTER he was sent to the Tampa Bay Bucs?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TravisT
conjur, after reading a little more into that proposal offered by France and Germany, I can certainly see why we didn't allow them in on the bidding.

Where was France, Germany, Russia, and Canada when we were asking for help there 1 year ago? Now, after our blood, sweat, and tears of the American people, they want to reap the contract benefits of rebuilding Iraq. Surely you see why it is not reasonable to go that route.

If they didn't want it to be an "all-American Show", as James Hodge put it, then where were those countries when we were nearly begging for help a year ago? Certainly we haven't turned down England or Poland due to their contributions.

I'm not bashing you with this, but this is not a reasonable offer to help in the Iraq war. If they wanted to be eligible to reap the benefits of contracting there in their country, they should have supported the war with troops first.

SO what you are saying is that to get those countries assistance we more or less have to pay them off. Isn't that how we were able to get all those countries in our Coalition to participate?

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush punched the Tar Baby for all of us. We are only as good as the morons we elect. We make sure they reflect who we are. The wages of sin are death. We bought our own for billions.