Our 3 Military Options in Iraq...

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
All roads lead to the same place.

Bingo. Just what I said.

Ditto!

The basic premise of this thread is that there's a 'military' option. There isn't. Never was. The military should have been a tool. Used appropriately it is a devastatingly effective tool . . . end a regime, destroy a military, etc.

In the context of a larger PLAN for keeping Iraq out of the crapper, the military component is by definition going to be limited:

1) The military 'might' be useful for securing the border but truth is that requires intimate coordination with neighboring countries. Last I checked, relations with Iran and Syria aren't exactly rosey. Jordan's king doesn't want to be seen in public with anything associated with America. In fact, the $20mil in intelligence support and $200mil+ annually in military/economic support is the only reason he's still king.

2) IF you had a large, well-trained international military POLICE force (with light infantry support and heavy as needed), it might be possible to clear out insurgents and militias going house by house, block by block. As areas were secured you would have to leave behind military police and at least three times that number of Iraqi police. We will likely enter another decade before Iraq is even close to having enough reliable police/internal security for such an operation.

3) . . . there is no #3 . . . which summarizes what's been wrong since the beginning of Operation Dump Young Lives and Taxpayer Money in the Desert. Civilian leadership took a problem (oil-rich dictatorship with unfavorable relations with the USA) and created an intractable problem. It baffles the mind why anyone would consider . . . hmm let's just do MORE of what hasn't worked . . . a solution!

To be graphic, current US policy is akin to having sex with young virgins in an attempt to cure AIDS. The solution was prevention.

Now what Czar mentioned with #3 is important to do for the ultimate 'success' of Iraq but it is unlikely to work as long as the security situation is a mess.

Here's my plan for the next President since the current one is a miserable failure:

1) Beg Iraqis for forgiveness for messing up their messed up country.
2) Beg Syria and Iran for help securing the border.
3) Deploy US troops to coordinate border patrol operations with neighboring countries.
4) Beg the UN and Arab League for enough police/troops to assist US military police clean up and secure Iraq's cities.
5) Initiate a draft of all eligible US men AND women . . . after a whirlwind boot camp most will be deployed with UN/Arab League troops in areas that have been 'pacified'.
6) Dramatically reduce payments to US reconstruction contractors unless they formulate plans to have no less than 90% of all funds REMAIN in Iraq . . . preferably Iraqi workers instead of the mob, militia leaders, politicians, etc.
7) Buy the willing. There's what 10-12mil Iraqi adults? Create a PWA, WPA, and CCC. Sure some people would get paid a lot to build infrastructure while others got paid less but that's a decent lesson in capitalism . . . embedded in a wholly socialist program. This part alone will likely run $6B+/mo.
8) Fire Rumsfeld and tell Tenet and Bremer they need to return those medals . . .
9) Let simmer for $100B per annum for 5-10 years

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Our troops are not being allowed to do their job. On the Savage show the other night a marine calls up and tells this story. They use to monitor an area where the terrorsts use to plant IED's and then when the terrorists would show up and start digging a hole they would swoop down and just kill them all. Their commanders thought this was too harsh and told them to quit doing that.

In Iraq they dont even have a curfew at night. The way we are fighting this war is just stupid. First thing I would do is enforce a Curfew and force everyone off the street at night. This worked great in South Korea. From Midnight to 6:00 AM people were not allowed on the street for years.

It is hard to do evil deads in the sunshine.

My suggestion for a possible additional options is, in addition to the OPs, adjust/change our operational tactics. Quoted above are examples of this.

Several authors have also suggested a tactic called the "Oil Spot" etc. Whether we kept the troops at current levels or increased them, a change in tacticts should be considered.

Fern

 

[maluckey]

I hate to semi-agree with BabyBaliDoc on this, but one thing stated above was right on the head.

The Military is best used to do military things, like destroy nations, remove regimes and other such mayhem. Military troops cannot solve the Iraqi issues. One billion troops will not stop the hate.

The only solution is to train Iraqi troops and as they come on-line and gain experience, remove the same number of Coalition forces. Eventually the Coalition will be out of that mess and they can kill themselves until they are content.

 

[Craig234]

One thing missing from this set of options is how to fix the problem that the Bush regime was so able to make a phony war in the first place and get us in it. If we don't fix that problem, we'll just see this happen again.

Unfortunately, seeing this policy really, unequivically blow up in their faces has a benefit, like Viet Nam, of making similar acts politically impossible for a while and allowing for corrective measures to be taken to prevent the same thing.

Measures which allow face-saving are quickly turned into "see, Bush was right all along, and the democrats were wrong for criticizing." And then they do the next one.

Any solution, I'd like to see the bigger issues addressed with - how much of an empire should the US be running? How should we be dealing with the desire to spread democracy in the face of tyrannies like China becoming more powerful, and how can we regain the world's approval so we can spread democracy?

Putting Bush in jail would make for a *fine* option #4.

 

[tommywishbone]

Sorry, but here's the answer to what is going to happen, regardless of anyone's opinions:

null

 

[Lemon law]

To Craig234----putting GWB&co. in jail---or at a minimum totally getting them out of the decision making process IS THE PRECURSOR to making progress.--not #4.

GWB&co. got us into this mess---GWB&co. can't get us out of this mess as the problems get worse not better in Iraq----------CAN ANYONE MISTAKE THE CLEAR COMMON CAUSE
OPPERATING HERE.-------the implications are then unmistakable.---------get rid of GWB&co. first---its just job one---eliminate the cause.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Sorry, but here's the answer to what is going to happen, regardless of anyone's opinions:

null

So much for Soviet Socialism failing due to Marx. It failed b/c they were friggin' stupid! What person in their right mind would look at that map and say, "let's just invade . . . how hard could it be . . . a few dirt merchants and their rocks?"

 

[sandorski]

There is no clear solution. There isn't even a clear consequence in trying any of the OP's 3 solutions. Iran, for example, may not take over and I highly doubt Turkey or Saudi Arabia would allow that. This whole mess is made much worse by isolating Iran and, to a lesser extent,, Syria. Both those Nations have added reason to muck around in Iraq due to the pathetic positions/statements taken by the Bush Admin. I don't think there is any option available to this Administration that can lead to "victory" for the US or the Iraqi's.

The next Administration will have an opportunity though, but only if it chooses to distance itself from the Bush Admin. Like Bali mentioned, groveling will be necessary. Many will have a hard time accepting that in the US, but only the Iraqis can fix this problem and only then if they decide to do it peacefully. Won't be easy, as the Iraqi's have decades worth of pent up anger and desire for vengeance against other factions within Iraq, but a more humble US Admin might be able to appeal to the various factions through Reason.

Not only with Iraq though, the next US Admin must appeal to both Iran and Syria, to try and repair relations. Ensuring them that US Military action is off the table(Bush admin never publicly stated Military action would be taken, but they certainly allowed and likey encouraged innuendo to flourish about it) and desiring to work with them concerning improving the Iraq situation. That probably has no chance of working as long as President Whatshisname is in Iran, but perhaps, if you're lucky, Iranians will replace him with a Moderate if the US offers conciliation. Bush kinda tried that at his UN address recently, but his goose is cooked and no one is going to be convinced of anything he says. OTOH, if Bush made a wholesale change of his Admin(Cheney(even possible?) on down) he might be able to do something,, but I might win the Lotto!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Sorry, but here's the answer to what is going to happen, regardless of anyone's opinions:

null

I have stated that same fact in many other threads. I'm glad someone else shares my opinion.

 

[Drift3r]

#3 sounds like....."Well I've stepped in this quicksand now let me struggle even more so I can sink deeper and deeper into it." The insurgency would thrive and grow larger with more US troops on the ground. Most Iraqis already distrust and even hate our presence in Iraq. Putting more boots on the ground would only further this resentment and hatred and work to boost the numbers of insurgents in Iraq.

Sorry but the first step in solving a problem like Iraq was to never of gotten invovled in this war in the first place. The second alternative step is to either put another strong man in place. The third is to divide the country into 3 smaller nations and the Fourth is to just get the hell out. If the solution was as simple as putting in more soldiers on the ground they've would of done it a long time ago. Iraq is like quicksand in that the more you struggle the more you sink in deeper and deeper.

P.S. You know what is funny to me ? When people say "Only the Iraqis can fix this problem" but they leave out the fact that we Americans created this problem for them to solve in the first place.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Craig234
One thing missing from this set of options is how to fix the problem that the Bush regime was so able to make a phony war in the first place and get us in it. If we don't fix that problem, we'll just see this happen again.

Unfortunately, seeing this policy really, unequivically blow up in their faces has a benefit, like Viet Nam, of making similar acts politically impossible for a while and allowing for corrective measures to be taken to prevent the same thing.

Measures which allow face-saving are quickly turned into "see, Bush was right all along, and the democrats were wrong for criticizing." And then they do the next one.

Any solution, I'd like to see the bigger issues addressed with - how much of an empire should the US be running? How should we be dealing with the desire to spread democracy in the face of tyrannies like China becoming more powerful, and how can we regain the world's approval so we can spread democracy?

Putting Bush in jail would make for a *fine* option #4.

No one spreads democracy, especially via the barrel of a M1A1. Democracy is a outcome that either springs forth naturally within a nation or group of people or it doesn't. It's a enternal very fragile process that cannot be forced onto people or nation.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Damn, hindsight is 20/20, ain't it?

Oh well, we were all told that America would be blown up if we didn't go into Iraq, so at least we're safer! Thanks George!

(Fvck you PNAC.)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
#3 sounds like....."Well I've stepped in this quicksand now let me struggle even more so I can sink deeper and deeper into it." The insurgency would thrive and grow larger with more US troops on the ground. Most Iraqis already distrust and even hate our presence in Iraq. Putting more boots on the ground would only further this resentment and hatred and work to boost the numbers of insurgents in Iraq.

Sorry but the first step in solving a problem like Iraq was to never of gotten invovled in this war in the first place. The second alternative step is to either put another strong man in place. The third is to divide the country into 3 smaller nations and the Fourth is to just get the hell out. If the solution was as simple as putting in more soldiers on the ground they've would of done it a long time ago. Iraq is like quicksand in that the more you struggle the more you sink in deeper and deeper.

P.S. You know what is funny to me ? When people say "Only the Iraqis can fix this problem" but they leave out the fact that we Americans created this problem for them to solve in the first place.

Ya, I said that, but I think it's true. Doesn't matter who broke it, only they can fix it. Agree 100%, the US had no business breaking it in the first place.

 

[Zebo]

Until we learn how to fight again we'll never win a war of occupation. The West doesn't have the stomach for scorched earth anymore and has not won a war since WWII because of it. Even Bush for all his tough talk is a wimp spining his wheels in front of a more determined enemy who never forgot how to fight. Instead he waxes on about "hearts and minds" "everyone wants freedom" "Religion of peace" etc etc We would have never won WWII with such sentimentalism for the enemy.

Anyway we already won from a strategic standpoint. We scoured the country for major weapons which could hurt us. We removed Saddam. So why are we still there thinking the IRaqi will act like Oklahomans one day? If only we give them enough welfare, rebuild enough etc etc ...Bush and many neo-cons are totally infected with Cultural Relativism and have no understanding of Islam's tenets, cutural practices, and beliefs which will never allow the infidel in Dar Islam nor adopt western way of life.

There are 140,000 American soldiers in Iraq now trying to prevent sectarian and ethnic fissures that work in the favor of Infidels. Every act, every expenditure, of men or money or materiel, should be considered in one light: does it weaken Islam? Exploiting those age old sectarian and ethnic divisions are not to be suppressed but encouraged!!

Get out. Before it totally destroys and chews up our military and relations with the freindly countries we have left.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Anything but Option #2.

 

[Craig234]

LemonLaw, making Bush in jail option #4 didn't mean you do 1 to 3 first. It was another choice.

No one spreads democracy, especially via the barrel of a M1A1. Democracy is a outcome that either springs forth naturally within a nation or group of people or it doesn't. It's a enternal very fragile process that cannot be forced onto people or nation.

Of course you spread democracy. Your post is actually an indication of how bad a name Bush has given to the issue - making him a major enemy of democracy.

Thomas Paine spread democracy when he wrote about it and people were inspired. John Kennedy spread democracy when he refused to continue with putting dictators in place in some nations and instead set up elections.

Hugo Chavez spread democracy when he made changes such as adding a recall provision to the constitution of Venezuela.

Greg Palast spread democracy when he exposed activities which were being done to deny the vote to hundreds of thousands of Americans.

The United States can spread democracy by spreading the information about it globally, and by our choices in foreign policy not to support undemocratic regimes. And by setting a better example the world would want to emulate, rather than making democracy look like the way to ruin your country.

You're viewing the phrase 'spread democracy' as the way Bush says he's doing it, and that's not the right way to do it.

To be fair, Bush *could have* had a reasonable chance for spreading democracy even at the point of a gun in Iraq, had he not been so corrupt, driven by policies with oil and power, allowing radical right-wing policies that did everything from planning to put Chalabi in charge, sell of their assets to US companies, implement right-wing economic policies like a flat tax, put right-wing young adults in their 20's who were selected only by theirhaving applied to a right-wing think tank, not let private companies make billions...

But that's not who we elected. We elected the selected puppet for powerful and evil interests, and we're reaping what was sown.

 

[maluckey]

Anyway we already won from a strategic standpoint. We scoured the country for major weapons which could hurt us. We removed Saddam. So why are we still there thinking the IRaqi will act like Oklahomans one day? If only we give them enough welfare, rebuild enough etc etc ...Bush and many neo-cons are totally infected with Cultural Relativism and have no understanding of Islam's tenets, cutural practices, and beliefs which will never allow the infidel in Dar Islam nor adopt western way of life.

There are 140,000 American soldiers in Iraq now trying to prevent sectarian and ethnic fissures that work in the favor of Infidels. Every act, every expenditure, of men or money or materiel, should be considered in one light: does it weaken Islam? Exploiting those age old sectarian and ethnic divisions are not to be suppressed but encouraged!!

Get out. Before it totally destroys and chews up our military and relations with the freindly countries we have left.

The only thing I would add is that Cultural Relativism is not a Republican or Democrat issue so much as a United States/Canada issue. partly because of the literal oceans separating the country from the rest of the world. Canada and the U.S. are similar culturally, though Mexico is not. Look at some of the issues with Mexico because of lack of understanding of the culture. The same is happening in Iraq, though multiplied by a hostile religion and ease of obtaining weapons.

 

[HamSupLo]

I think the long term problem is not the insurgents but the sectarian violence. We cannot destroy all the shite death squads without alienating the majority pop.

 

[trenchfoot]

option #4 : (or some modified version thereof)
a. we pull out of iraq and seal their borders.
b. let them do as they will with each other and task the UN to prevent any outside influence/interference.
b-1. give them an ultimatum that if they do not create a stable government(s) within three years we will return with a fresh and refurbished invasion/occupation force that is overwhelming in numbers, firepower, experience and resolve. this move will also let the current adminstration expire and provide the needed change in policy.
c. move all our troops and support personnel into afghanistan, get bin laden and stabilize that country like we should have done in the first place before taking on iraq.
d. bring all the troops home, lick wounds and let the UN take over baby-sitting duties.
e. refurbish and revitalize our armed forces up to at least 90% efficiency during their three year stand-down/build-up.
f. streamline logistics toward re-entering iraq as an invasion/occupation force.
g. pre-position all necessary combat/support materiel needed to get the job done right. this move would also signal to all interested parties that we mean deadly serious business.
h. sit and wait with itchy finger on trigger.

edit- content

 

[Zebo]

a. we pull out of iraq and seal their borders.
-------------
We can't seal our borders how can we seal thiers? Are we going to fire on a truck load of women and chidren who below the deck has mitiants and weapons?

b. let them do as they will with each other and task the UN to prevent any outside influence/interference
---------------
UN is too busy with Israel. No other problems to them exist. Not Darfur, not barbaric conditions in muslim countries, not slavery in UAE. ALL-ISRAEL-ALL-THE-TIME UN.


b-1. give them an ultimatum that if they do not create a stable government(s) within three years we will return with a fresh and refurbished invasion/occupation force that is overwhelming in numbers, firepower, experience and resolve. this move will also let the current adminstration expire and provide the needed change in policy.
__________
So this time they have time plant roadside bombs under pavement and under concrete and really perpare for insurgency? Three years is a alot of time. We aint going back.


c. move all our troops and support personnel into afghanistan, get bin laden and stabilize that country like we should have done in the first place before taking on iraq.
____________
He's in Pakistan with "our great ally" so I'm not sure what good that would do.


d. bring all the troops home, lick wounds and let the UN take over baby-sitting duties.
___________
Again, ALL-ISRAEL-ALL-THE-TIME UN has somthing like 58 or 53 muslim countries in the General Assembly combined with Eurabians which guide it's direction. As long as it weakens a Muslim brother and gets Europe thier oil not a peep will come out of UN. What's Israel up to?


e. refurbish and revitalize our armed forces up to at least 90% efficiency during their three year stand-down/build-up.
____________
Agreed. Need to practice up on bombing and chopper patrol techniques none of this house to house and driving around crap.

 

[trenchfoot]

We can't seal our borders how can we seal thiers? Are we going to fire on a truck load of women and chidren who below the deck has mitiants and weapons?

the current adminstration does not want to seal our borders. but if sealing iraq's borders gets them off the hook, they would certainly try to make it happen.

UN is too busy with Israel. No other problems to them exist. Not Darfur, not barbaric conditions in muslim countries, not slavery in UAE. ALL-ISRAEL-ALL-THE-TIME UN.

if given the right incentives/consessions who knows? worth it to give it a try.

So this time they have time plant roadside bombs under pavement and under concrete and really perpare for insurgency? Three years is a alot of time. We aint going back.

it very well may be that given their desired chance to resolve their problems amongst themselves that bush and co. created for them, they would seize the opportunity and maybe there would be no need for them to plant any more IED's. further, three years is alot of time on their own for the iraqi's to settle accounts amongst themselves and not be pre-occupied with killing americans; (think of all the american lives saved and put to better use in afghanistan) and if they do decide to form a government(s) that's not what we would entirely like, (with them knowing we will intervene to protect our interests) it would still be a whole lot better than the way things are now.

He's in Pakistan with "our great ally" so I'm not sure what good that would do

if we leaned on the pakistani's, other than the way bush is not leaning on them now, ie - moving troops and other resources from iraq into afghanistan and move those troops into staging areas right along the border with pakistan and other such persuasive gestures etc., maybe, just maybe the pakistani's would see things more our way.

Again, ALL-ISRAEL-ALL-THE-TIME UN has somthing like 58 or 53 muslim countries in the General Assembly combined with Eurabians which guide it's direction. As long as it weakens a Muslim brother and gets Europe thier oil not a peep will come out of UN. What's Israel up to?

giving us bin laden for consessions favorable to them seems plausible. as well, not monopolizing the iraqi oil fields and keeping it all to our greedy selves is doable.

the UN cannot deny us our right to seek justice against the perps of 9/11. how would that body look by denying us justice? the major beef is with what we're doing in iraq and all the diplomatic bridges we burned while getting in there. if we back off on iraq and let them decide their own future (with the aforementioned conditions in place, of course) we'd be buying back alot of the good will bush squandered by pursuing his pnac agenda for the new world order, and that would give us a whole lot more leverage at the UN than putting john bolton in there did.

Agreed. Need to practice up on bombing and chopper patrol techniques none of this house to house and driving around crap.

as if that's how our forces would be preparing to re-enter iraq. our military leaders know exactly how to win in iraq, if only our civilian leaders would just let them do their jobs without wrongly micromanaging them the way they are now.

 

[palehorse]

It's great to see folks from every side of the political spectrum seriously debate this topic without much flaming. I'm also suprised that none of the usual suspects made a big deal out of me deciding that Rummy is a waste... I thought for sure that you guys would think I'd gone looney! lol..

keep the conversation goin.. I'm very interested to hear more about the strategic redeployment of troops to the borders and such.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's great to see folks from every side of the political spectrum seriously debate this topic without much flaming. I'm also suprised that none of the usual suspects made a big deal out of me deciding that Rummy is a waste... I thought for sure that you guys would think I'd gone looney! lol..

keep the conversation goin.. I'm very interested to hear more about the strategic redeployment of troops to the borders and such.

Well, I believe that's among the most appropriate ways of using US troops. In the middle of Baghdad, it makes no sense whatsoever to have US troops that don't know the language or customs and don't have training to act as a civilian police force.

But on the Iraqi border . . . you shoot every MOFO that's going the wrong direction (into Iraq) without proper authorization.

Nobody (honest) believes we have enough forces to effectively occupy Iraq . . . so why keep pretending? We won't secure the border either but it will be better than the status quo.

 

[maluckey]

Soldiers make rotten cops. I for one hate when I am put into an unclear ROE (Rules of Engagement) situation. You want to give the civilian the benefit of a doubt, though at times you just shoot first.

It sucks when someones just drunk driving and too blind to see the laser or heed the warning shot. This guy shouldn't have been dinking and driving, but it doesn't make it any easier on the soldier pulling the trigger. It also sucks that when you do give the benefit of a doubt and that particular guy draws and shoots at you. You feel stupid for trusting him in the first place though the outcome is most always the same....the guy dies, and you have more confusion. Let the LOCALS figure out the cultural mores, while we secure the borders. If they cross...we shoot. Simple enough for the Infantry even!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Nobody (honest) believes we have enough forces to effectively occupy Iraq . . . so why keep pretending? We won't secure the border either but it will be better than the status quo.

Sure we do. Need to read up on Clausewitz instead of what passes for military education these days (just war theory). You destroy your enemy as quickly and brutally as possible and avoid a long protracted conflict. We havnt done that since WWII. In this war the Fallujah catastrophe stands out as a perfect example as we warned let the city drain itself of most hardend before action. Fallujah and every living thing in it should have been vaporized the same day they butchered those American contractors. Our invasion of Iraq was too "surgical", too low-casuality with no message other than guerilla warfare is successful because it carries no family renponsibility along with it. Basic Psychology here. Mujahideen soldiers sees death as profitable (72 virgins and the whole nine) so exploiting family responsiblity is the only weapon we have.


Anyway I'm sure I don't have to state the obvious, westerners haven't got the stomach anymore for such action...therefore I think we are wasting our time in any war hence anti-war. Get out while military has the illusion or respect.