Iraq to dig trenches around Baghdad

[CaptnKirk]

Iraq to dig trenches around Baghdad

Sounds reasonable. First we hire the Illegal Immigrants, and pay them to put up the 'CaliNewZonia-Texas Hispanic Wall of VooDoo' to secure our Southern border so the Conservative Paranoids can safely quiver in fear from under their beds, with the lights on . .

. . . and when they complete that work, we can export them under contractor outsourcing labor regulations and continue to pay them to do that job too.

Kinda like our problem meets their problem . . resolves two problems.

Hey - didn't Saddam already do that ? . . Weren't they filled with gas and oil to be used to burn our advancing troops . . or was that another FAUX News Exclusive ?

 

[Narmer]

Here's a military solution: How about we LEAVE Iraq NOW? Why delay the inevitable? Why wait until an absolute Shiite-dominated government aligned with Iran asks us to leave? That will save far more AMERICAN lives. As for Iraqi lives, they can do as they please cause NOBODY can stop this madness. It was meant to be. If Bush didn't kill them, Saddam would've. End of story.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Pens1566
So our exit strategy revolves around moats?????

Filled with sharks with laser beams on their heads!

Actually, they couldn't get haliburton to provide sharks, so they ended up with sea-bass. And yes, they are very ill tempered.

Or stingrays, one shot one kill.

That was sooo unclassy and tasteless. :laugh:

 

[5to1baby1in5]

If you've been reading about the sad situation in another Bush Hunta Corporate Empire warzone, Afghanistan, ...then you are up to date on the situation with the Taliban's morphing. Basicly, they are learning how to fight the USA and defeat high tech using basic stealth and rush tactics. Combined with upgrades in weapons and various stealth-op explosives.

You sir have been playing too much Starcraft!

 

[piasabird]

What about those underground tunnels and stuff?

I imagine they will come in through the sewers or swim thru the river.

 

[ntdz]

Except the difference is that IRAQ is building the walls, not the occupying country.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The Soviets did the same thing with Kabul in Afghanistan, effectively conceding the rest of the country to the rebels. It also is the same tactic the US used in Viet Nam. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the population hole up in secure areas. Until you can't afford the lives or treasure anymore and then leave. It looks like a shift in US tactics. And an admission of failure.

Different dynamic at play here.

The insurgents are being successful because they have infiltrated urban areas, such as Bagdad, and are free to engage in IED and other such bombings on innocent civilians.

Establishing controlled zones for entry will hopefully reduce the mobility of insurgents.

Unlike Vietnam and even Afghanistan for the Soviets, this war is being fought in urban areas...and will be won if America and Iraqi security forces can find a way to secure said urban areas.

If America is able to isolate the ability of insurgents to use hit and run tactics in urban areas, it will neutralize their combat effectiveness.

I don't think the problem is that they hit us then flee Baghdad, they hit us and then go to areas areas we don't patrol, like Sadr city, we aren't welcome there and don't do much. These are the guys we need to shut down, the militias. They are the ones dumping 100 bodies a week around the city with screw holes drilled in their heads.

Hey ayabe, finally something we agree on. We should have taken Al Sadr out two years ago, taken the political heat and moved on from there. The longer we leave him the more powerful he grows, sort of like Osama in Afghanistan.

There is a chance this strategy could work. Once we secure the perimeter we can start in one area and move across the city herding all the bad guys and their guns into one area where we can crush them, in theory.

Of course it sure sounds bad when we have to resort to building ditches, but at least they are trying SOMETHING right? Let's see what happens.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Except the difference is that IRAQ is building the walls, not the occupying country.

Funny the Soviets said that it was AFGHANISTAN building the walls, too.

 

[conjur]

MEHLMAN: Look, the fact is our mission in the war in Iraq is critical. We agree on that, we agree that it's wrong to cut and run. But look we're not coming in and saying stay the course. The choice in this election is not between stay the course and cut and run. It's between win by adapting and cut and run. Let me tell you what we're doing. The fact is before the successful Iraqi elections, the number of troops went up from 137,000 to 160,000. That's adapting to win. Recently we increased troops in Baghdad, adapting to win. We changed how the training of Iraqi forces occurred to involve more Iraqis. That's adapting to win. We've involved the international community more, the EU, the UN.

GREGORY: But, do you acknowledge these faults?

MEHLMAN: I acknowledge that when you're facing any war, the enemy is smart, the enemy thinks, and particularly in this kind of war it requires you to adapt to win. What we want to do is adapt to win. What you heard from Chairman Dean and when you hear from the Democratic leaders, if they have their way, it's too tough, we'll cut and run, and that's not the answer.

Think Meelyman was trying to get something across?


BTW, where are those UN/EU troops?


What a clusterfvck and a money pit

 

[trenchfoot]

Think Meelyman was trying to get something across?

yep, he's saying we shouldn't listen to bush who preaches "stay the course" (don't change tactics), as opposed to "win by adapting" (change the course)".

edit - content

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


There is a chance this strategy could work. Once we secure the perimeter we can start in one area and move across the city herding all the bad guys and their guns into one area where we can crush them, in theory.


Hey...Bad Guys...keep moving! Oh, you aren't a bad guy?...sorry I thought that was a bad guy uniform you were wearing.

 

[trenchfoot]

the question that should be asked, if what the bush administration says is true of our intentions is: do the majority of iraqi's really and truly want us there to help them find their national identity?

if the answer is no, then the next question is: is it possible to change their minds somehow? if yes, then what must we do and for just how long must we stay there to convince them otherwise? if no, then what other means are available to force them into submission? and, do we want to subjugate them that way?

it would help explain a lot of things if what bush and crew are saying about helping the iraqi's help themselves is a lie. then, alot of what bush has had to say would make sense in a contorted and ironic way.

to say that "staying the course" is enough of an answer when the answers are not known is plainly deflective and dismissive and does nothing toward remediating the problem that bush and co. have created in iraq.

then again, what they wrongly predicted and to this day still insist is the right course of action (which they won't or can't tell us in detail) actually prevents them from seeking a way out of this apparently hopeless mess that they got us into. i'm certain that a huge roadblock that prevents bush from finding a way out of this nightmare, is his unwillingness to admit that he and his advisors were totally wrong in their pre-war assessment, and upon realizing it, that they had no contingency plan to fall back on and that they cannot find a way to get out of this situation looking like the heros they so desperately want to be seen as and not the incompetent bumblers that they seem to be.

the french learned in vietnam, the russians learned in afghanistan, and i thought we learned in vietnam and elsewhere that if you can't win the hearts and minds of the people you defeat in classic warfare, then an insurgency with an unpredictable outcome is sure to follow.

if you rely on attrition to crush an insurgency, then imho you should expect a long, costly and uncertain struggle. problem is, bush and cohorts never expected for things to go this way.

as bush has plainly shown, the reasons he gave for attacking iraq changed as more and more of what he insisted was true was discredited by those he refused to listen to before the invasion began. his persona and the agenda that is infused with his persona got in the way of being realistic about the whole idea.

he cannot get past his own ego to do the right thing. that's absolutely horrific when you consider how many american lives are continuously being sacrificed because of it.

so here we are...circling the wagons around baghdad in an act of desperation to buy time so that bush can somehow come to grips with his place in history as the guy that only did one thing wrong in his life.

 

[tommywishbone]

"... We'll dig trenches to protect the country we invaded...":laugh:


Mission accomplished.

 

[Tom]

Who is payng for these trenches ?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
the question that should be asked, if what the bush administration says is true of our intentions is: do the majority of iraqi's really and truly want us there to help them find their national identity?

if the answer is no, then the next question is: is it possible to change their minds somehow? if yes, then what must we do and for just how long must we stay there to convince them otherwise? if no, then what other means are available to force them into submission? and, do we want to subjugate them that way?

it would help explain a lot of things if what bush and crew are saying about helping the iraqi's help themselves is a lie. then, alot of what bush has had to say would make sense in a contorted and ironic way.

to say that "staying the course" is enough of an answer when the answers are not known is plainly deflective and dismissive and does nothing toward remediating the problem that bush and co. have created in iraq.

then again, what they wrongly predicted and to this day still insist is the right course of action (which they won't or can't tell us in detail) actually prevents them from seeking a way out of this apparently hopeless mess that they got us into. i'm certain that a huge roadblock that prevents bush from finding a way out of this nightmare, is his unwillingness to admit that he and his advisors were totally wrong in their pre-war assessment, and upon realizing it, that they had no contingency plan to fall back on and that they cannot find a way to get out of this situation looking like the heros they so desperately want to be seen as and not the incompetent bumblers that they seem to be.

the french learned in vietnam, the russians learned in afghanistan, and i thought we learned in vietnam and elsewhere that if you can't win the hearts and minds of the people you defeat in classic warfare, then an insurgency with an unpredictable outcome is sure to follow.

if you rely on attrition to crush an insurgency, then imho you should expect a long, costly and uncertain struggle. problem is, bush and cohorts never expected for things to go this way.

as bush has plainly shown, the reasons he gave for attacking iraq changed as more and more of what he insisted was true was discredited by those he refused to listen to before the invasion began. his persona and the agenda that is infused with his persona got in the way of being realistic about the whole idea.

he cannot get past his own ego to do the right thing. that's absolutely horrific when you consider how many american lives are continuously being sacrificed because of it.

so here we are...circling the wagons around baghdad in an act of desperation to buy time so that bush can somehow come to grips with his place in history as the guy that only did one thing wrong in his life.

I think the problem with comparing this with Vietnam and Afghanistan is that in both of those cases the insurgents were feed weapons and supplies by outside sources. Without those sources the insurgency can not go on forever.

We have a problem in Iraq now with weapons and fighters from outside the country coming in and helping to bolsters those already fighting there.

I think the idea behind this ditch is that they will be able to stop the outside influence in Baghdad and will then be able to defeat the terrorist that way. Who knows if it will really work.

And feralkid... some of the bad guys may slip through, their weapons won't which is a good thing. Perhaps you missed the stories about Iraq and American soldiers going into parts of the city and going from house to house and clearing out all the weapons. If they can manage to do this city wide then the insurgents inside the city will have nothing left to fight with. The plan makes sense on paper, the question is how will it work in practice.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the problem with comparing this with Vietnam and Afghanistan is that in both of those cases the insurgents were feed weapons and supplies by outside sources. Without those sources the insurgency can't not go on forever.

We have a problem in Iraq now with weapons and fighters from outside the country coming in and helping to bolsters those already fighting there.

Excuse my inability to read your butchering of the English language but it appears you are saying Vietnam and Afghanistan cannot be compared to Iraq because the former had insurgents supplied by outside forces. Then you state there is now a problem in Iraq with weapons and fighters from outside the country helping out.

Just how are those different, eh?

I think the idea behind this ditch is that they will be able to stop the outside influence in Baghdad and will then be able to defeat the terrorist that way. Who knows if it will really work.

Seems to bolster the comparisons again between Iraq and Vietnam/Afghanistan.

And feralkid... some of the bad guys may slip through, their weapons won't which is a good thing. Perhaps you missed the stories about Iraq and American soldiers going into parts of the city and going from house to house and clearing out all the weapons. If they can manage to do this city wide then the insurgents inside the city will have nothing left to fight with. The plan makes sense on paper, the question is how will it work in practice.

Perhaps you missed this story:

Iraq Stumbling in Bid to Purge Its Rogue Police
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/world...ba69fc9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Shiite militiamen and criminals entrenched throughout Iraq?s police and internal security forces are blocking recent efforts by some Iraqi leaders and the American military to root them out, a step critical to winning the trust of skeptical Sunni Arabs and quelling the sectarian conflict, Iraqi and Western officials say.

 

[ProfJohn]

Conjur, my point is that the ditch may be a way of stopping the inflow of outside weapons and people into Baghdad.

My point in saying this is not Vietnam or Afghanistan in the 80s is that the insurgency are not getting the kind of support the Vietcong and Mujahideen received. There are no countries openly supporting them like China and US did for the earlier insurgencies. Maybe I was not as clear in this point as I should have been.

And conjur, since everything that is tried by Bush is wrong would you please enlighten us with your solution to the Iraq problem.

 

[conjur]

Well, considering the US was funding the Mujahedeen in the 80s, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better benefactor. And, I'm not going to bore you with my thoughts on the solution to Iraq. You'd denounce them on their face anyway. But, feel free to use that search button above if you really want to know.

 

[tommywishbone]

Iraqi's will run out of weapons when Las Vegas runs out of hookers... in about a billion years.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, considering the US was funding the Mujahedeen in the 80s, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better benefactor. And, I'm not going to bore you with my thoughts on the solution to Iraq. You'd denounce them on their face anyway. But, feel free to use that search button above if you really want to know.

For such a blow hard you seem to have a hard time answering any questions.

Please bore me with your plan for Iraq.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Conjur, my point is that the ditch may be a way of stopping the inflow of outside weapons and people into Baghdad.

My point in saying this is not Vietnam or Afghanistan in the 80s is that the insurgency are not getting the kind of support the Vietcong and Mujahideen received. There are no countries openly supporting them like China and US did for the earlier insurgencies. Maybe I was not as clear in this point as I should have been.

And conjur, since everything that is tried by Bush is wrong would you please enlighten us with your solution to the Iraq problem.

Quit asking for everyone else's solution to Iraq. We didn't screw it up, king george did.


BTW, what is your solution? Stay the course?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: conjur

MEHLMAN: Look, the fact is our mission in the war in Iraq is critical. We agree on that, we agree that it's wrong to cut and run. But look we're not coming in and saying stay the course. The choice in this election is not between stay the course and cut and run. It's between win by adapting and cut and run. Let me tell you what we're doing. The fact is before the successful Iraqi elections, the number of troops went up from 137,000 to 160,000. That's adapting to win. Recently we increased troops in Baghdad, adapting to win. We changed how the training of Iraqi forces occurred to involve more Iraqis. That's adapting to win. We've involved the international community more, the EU, the UN.

GREGORY: But, do you acknowledge these faults?

MEHLMAN: I acknowledge that when you're facing any war, the enemy is smart, the enemy thinks, and particularly in this kind of war it requires you to adapt to win. What we want to do is adapt to win. What you heard from Chairman Dean and when you hear from the Democratic leaders, if they have their way, it's too tough, we'll cut and run, and that's not the answer.

Sweet, policy by ad agency

 

[tommywishbone]

The trench idea is working already. Victory!

Rise in Iraq violence kills more than 40 By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer,19 minutes ago, monday, Sept 18.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Bombers and gunmen killed more than 40 people and injured dozens across Iraq on Monday as the government prepared to further tighten security ahead of the holy month of Ramadan, when violence traditionally spikes in the country.

Meanwhile, tribes in one of Iraq's most volatile provinces have joined together to fight the insurgency in their region, calling on the government and the U.S.-led military coalition to give them weapons, a prominent tribal leader said.

Tribal leaders and clerics in Ramadi, the capital of violent Anbar province, met last week and have set up a force of about 20,000 men "ready to purge the city of these infidels," Sheik Fassal al-Guood, a prominent tribal leader from Ramadi, told The Associated Press.

"People are fed up with the acts of those criminals who take Islam as a cover for their crimes," he said. "The situation in the province is unbearable, the city is abandoned, most of the families have fled the city and all services are poor."

Two suicide car bombers attacked a police station in Ramadi on Monday, killing at least two police officers and injuring 26 people, the Interior Ministry said. U.S.-led coalition forces said they were looking into the report.

Elsewhere, a suicide bomber killed at least 20 people and wounded 17 others in an open-air market in the northwestern city of Tal Afar, police chief Brig. Sabah Hamidi said. There were no Iraqi or U.S.-led security forces in the area at the time, he said.

Three Iraqi army soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb that targeted their patrol in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital. A gunman on a motorcycle killed a woman and a group attacked a family in their home, killing two brothers.

Gunmen also attacked a Shiite family in Baqouba as they prepared to leave for Baghdad, killing four people, including a young girl.

In Muqdadiyah to the northeast, an armed group killed two civilians.

In other violence, four policemen were killed when their patrol was ambushed by unidentified gunmen in the northern city of Mosul, 230 miles northwest of Baghdad, police Maj. Ahmed Khalid said. Police also found the bodies of two women shot in the head and chest.

Two civilians were killed and seven others injured when a mortar round slammed into a street in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, police 1st Lt. Thair Mohamod said.

In Basra to the south, police found the body of Lt. Col. Fawzi Abdul Karim al-Mousawi, chief of the city's anti-terrorism department. Al-Mousawi had been kidnapped late Sunday in front of his house by a group of armed men in two cars. He had been handcuffed and shot seven times.

Gunmen also killed a former member of the defunct Baath Party in Hillah, south of Baghdad.

In the capital, police found the bodies of three men who had been bound, blindfolded and shot in the head.

The violence came as the government was preparing to announce new security measures for Baghdad ahead of Ramadan, which is expected to start on Sept. 24.

Mohammed al-Askari, a Defense Ministry spokesman, told the AP the measures would be adopted two or three days before the holy month begins to "protect citizens from terrorists attacks during this month."

Security measures could include a series of trenches and berms the government has said it plans to help secure Baghdad. As part of the plan, vehicle and pedestrian traffic would be restricted to just 28 entry points with manned checkpoints. The berms and trenches would funnel vehicle traffic to those 28 checkpoints.

In another development Monday, the Iraqi army's 4th division came under Iraqi control in central Salahuddin province, the government said.

It was the second of Iraq's 10 divisions to come under direct Iraqi control since Sept. 7, when coalition forces handed over control of Iraq's armed forces command to the government.

"Today, the operational responsibility was handed over to the Iraqi army's 4th division in Salahuddin province. And by the end of next October, about one-third of the Iraqi security forces will be under Iraqi control," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh said Iraqi forces will take over security responsibility for southern Dhi Qar province Thursday, making it the second of Iraq's 18 provinces to be handed over by the coalition.