• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War

BBond

Diamond Member
Foreign Affairs:

Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War

Summary: By losing the trust of the Iraqi people, the Bush administration has already lost the war in Iraq. Moderate Iraqis can still win it, but only if they wean themselves from Washington and get support from elsewhere. To help them, the United States should pull out its troops as soon as it can without jeopardizing the elections, train Iraqis to beat the insurgency on their own, and rally Iran and European allies to the cause.

James Dobbins is Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at Rand. He was a U.S. Special Envoy in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Afghanistan.


 
Well composed, and certainly written by someone likely to know what he's talking about. But it's also still just one person's opinion.
To help them, the United States should pull out its troops as soon as it can without jeopardizing the elections, train Iraqis to beat the insurgency on their own, and rally Iran and European allies to the cause.
That would be great - isn't this the plan anyways?
 
This is like the Vietnam Wars, you either win or you lose. If lose then they get to come back come safely and happily LOL...
We want their oil.
We want their oil.
We want their oil.

Could careless another anything else including civilian lives.

 
Originally posted by: yllus
Well composed, and certainly written by someone likely to know what he's talking about. But it's also still just one person's opinion.
To help them, the United States should pull out its troops as soon as it can without jeopardizing the elections, train Iraqis to beat the insurgency on their own, and rally Iran and European allies to the cause.
That would be great - isn't this the plan anyways?

No. The plan is to build about 15 permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. Not pulling out all U.S. troops and letting Iraqis rule Iraq.



 
Just in on CNN...

Marine suicide rate highest in over 5 years, but no evidence that Iraq tours had anything to do with that (so says the DOD)
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Foreign Affairs:

Iraq: Winning the Unwinnable War

Summary: By losing the trust of the Iraqi people, the Bush administration has already lost the war in Iraq. Moderate Iraqis can still win it, but only if they wean themselves from Washington and get support from elsewhere. To help them, the United States should pull out its troops as soon as it can without jeopardizing the elections, train Iraqis to beat the insurgency on their own, and rally Iran and European allies to the cause.

James Dobbins is Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at Rand. He was a U.S. Special Envoy in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

"In Iraq, the United States is facing its most challenging nation-building project since the 1940s. The authors draw lessons from seven case studies?Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?then apply these to the Iraq case. The results suggest that nation-building will be difficult but possible. Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time."





[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time
[*] Success will, however, require investing sufficient financial, military, and political resources?and time

James Dobbins, John G. McGinn, Keith Crane, Seth G. Jones, Rollie Lal, Andrew Rathmell, Rachel Swanger, and Anga Timilsina





Wish Dobbins would either sh!t or get off the pot.. Heh heh..





 
There isn't even consensus on what winning means in Iraq. That is a problem when justification shifts. The nature of victory becomes more elusive. What is winning? When everyone becomes like us? When the people stop fighting among themselves? When there is an election? Defining success in Iraq may be harder than defining pornography.
 
I don't want to invest in Iraq financially, militarily or with OUR time. Give the their elections....and get the fvck out.
 
I believe Dobbins is referring to a true coalition military presence supported with sufficient financial and political resources along with the military presence intended to protect the civilian population as well as prevent civil war.

"The Bush administration should name a special Iraq envoy, whose task would be to launch several simultaneous sets of consultations on the issue, as the United States did for the Balkans in the mid-1990s and for Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of September 11. One such set should center on major U.S. allies, in particular the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, and be expanded to include other governments and organizations in a position to help stabilize Iraq, such as Japan and the EU. Another set of discussions should involve all of Iraq's neighbors and other regional states. Expanded roles for the UN, NATO, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 56 states promoting Muslim solidarity, should also emerge from these consultations."

In other words a true coalition, like we should have had before rushing in unprovoked and blowing up the place.

 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Just in on CNN...

Marine suicide rate highest in over 5 years, but no evidence that Iraq tours had anything to do with that (so says the DOD)




The Command Fart ?

If you think I held that back until just now, no. It was actually on headline news as I was reading this.....so I guess one slipped out from CNN at the right moment (as if there really is a right moment for saddening news like this.)

 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Engineer
Just in on CNN...

Marine suicide rate highest in over 5 years, but no evidence that Iraq tours had anything to do with that (so says the DOD)




The Command Fart ?

If you think I held that back until just now, no. It was actually on headline news as I was reading this.....so I guess one slipped out from CNN at the right moment (as if there really is a right moment for saddening news like this.)
Wonder why CNN would comment on only 3 suicides in Marines (to date: in operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi freedom) as "Marine suicide rate highest in over 5 years"

And not comment on the 33 that occurred in the Army?

Odd that..
 
I think puljling out would invite disaster, because to think Iraq's neighbors will sit by and twiddle their fingers is ridiculous. American troops shouldn't involve itself with internal Iraqi affairs. Instead they would be much more effective if they were on the borders of the country, protecting it from the influence of its neighbors. That, and I doubt ANYONE would disagree with tighter border security.
 
This craps been repeated many times thoughout history and exactly why we should follow the words of real statemen like president Adams who understood the folly and we are doomed to wase lots of treasure and blood for politcal grandstanding that can only end in failure: America was never meant to galavant around the world freeing people. The American military was never intended to engage in wars except in self-defense. By it's nature offesive wars will be unpopular both here and there.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will America's heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

Here's whole speech

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Guys a frecken genious compared to the nuts we have today. And yes I disagreed with Clintons wars too.
 
One can only imagine the kind of hellish middleeast unrest that pulling out of Iraq would cause right now. It could also have major global implications as the middleeast security quickly disintegrates. There is no way that we can pull out any time soon, especially as the attacks and deaths escalate, and the undesirables claim more and more power and influence.
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
The US has already lost the war.
Remember the Balkans.

We pull out before Iraqi becomes stable and the same will happen. Plus you can toss Iran into the mix.

How long did it take to rebuild Europe?

And people expect that Iraq to stablize and setup a control government iside 1 year.
If took longer than that for the US to recover after the War Between the States.

 
europoe and Iraq are not comparable in so many ways it's not's funny. When's the last Iraqi scientist to win a nobel prize? How about an Iraqi Mercesdes benz or rocket factories. totally different cultre to work with. Next europe's war and rebuild was overwhelmingily popular here and even by the germans by the time war ended (acutally about 43' but we could'nt interview them then). Iraqis will never accept us nor will this excellent adventure grow more popular at home, in fact it's dropping like a rock because poeple are beginning to understand what a waste of time, money, lives this elective and offensive war is.
 
Before the rest of you foreign policy experts spout off again about why "its stupid for the US to stay" or "lets just pull out" I suggest you go read Turbulent Peace published by the USIP.

Most of you have NO idea of the complexities of what you are talking about.....hell I have a Master's Degree in policy analysis, specializing in conflict resolution/security policy and I dont even understand most of the complexities.

Lot of black and white opinions here....and politics is neither black nor white, especially when it comes to international politics.

Sure....lets pull out. Let them have a civil war. Let terrorists have another safe haven like Afghanistan.


.....oh, and as for the original quote of "we've lost the trust of the Iraqis".....ya i'm sure he polled every iraqi to find out. Most likely it was a poll of Sunnis...of course they oppose the elections and the US...they stand to lose their powerbase that they had under Saddam to the Shiite majority.
 
That's your and everyone of these neocrazies problem to much analysis and action in order to justify these fluff degrees. They were wrong on everything they predicted so far.

Everything you need to know about "policy analysis" is kindergardens "put yourself into thier shoes" cupled with a long standing principle of this country don't attack usless you're attacked. "Speak softly carry a big stick."

 
We screwed the pooch we we invaded so like it or not we need to hang around and see if we can fix this mess we made. To do anything else would be a grave mistake.
 
Back
Top