War in Iraq - What should we do?

Draginol's master plan...

from JoeUser Forums

One of the many reasons I'm not a fan of Bush is that he continually allows his opponents to re-define his own objectives. 

How many times has the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op been thrown back in his face? And yet, what was the mission that was accomplished? Deposing Saddam Hussein.  That was the mission. That was precisely what the war was about - to remove a dictator in a critical part of the world that was an open enemy of the United States. Period.

But now, "success" is being measured as whether we can turn Iraq into some idealized democracy like...um...Germany or Japan or maybe South Korea?  It's worth noting that we still have troops in those countries. We had more troops in Germany 20 years after the end of World War II than we have in Iraq today.

The problem is, there is no way that Iraq will be a "success" by the definitions being generated by Bush's opponents.  If utter placity and a compliant government are the measurments of success, then we lost World War II.

So what should we do in Iraq?

1) AFTER the election we should set up a time table for Iraqi responsibility. This time table would not be connected to US withdrawal (Because I don't expect the US to leave Iraq in the next 40 years). But the time table would indicate that certain domestic security responsibilities would be turned over at that time. The time table would be roughly 18 months.

2) Once the time table was over, the US would start to draw down forces. However, a significant contingent (a couple of divisions) would remain in Iraq but well away from urban areas (preferably in in areas controlled by the Kurds). This troop level would probably be around 35,000 to 50,000 troops in total that would be permanently based there to provide support and as an insurance policy to prevent any terrorist group from being able to set up shop in Iraq.

3) We would make clear what US national interests are. Namely, a peaceful Democratic Iraq is something we'd hope for but is not required. If the Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other, that's really none of our concern. If Iraq is in a state of quasi-civil war, that is, again, really not our concern as long as we have enough force in place to prevent any terrorist groups from setting up a permanent base of operations (ala the training camps that once existed in Afghanistan as well as a sanctuary for terrorist leaders).

By defining these 3 things, it would also send a clear message to other nations in the region and Europe. Those countries, not the United States, suffer if Iraq is in a civil war. Very little of our oil comes from Iraq (contrary to the "no blood for OIILLL" crowd). We don't need a stable Iraq.  We want a stable Iraq.  Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, if they want to help out, they are certainly welcome to. But as long as we are defining success based on the stability of Iraq, they have no incentive to help us. That needs to be changed.

It's worth noting that toppling Saddam's regime was done with fewer than 500 combat deaths. The thousands of American casualties in Iraq since then have been in the name of this new, previously unannounced "mission" of creating a stable and democratic Iraq. 

16,929 views 42 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you think that any "time table" should be made available to the public, or something that should be kept "behind" closed doors? I think that some strategies should be made and pushed to the public, but some (more military types) should remain more private.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think at some point after the election if the Iraqi government is failing to live up to the time table that the administration should make it public so that it can be prepared for the contigency that we're throwing up our hands in exasperation.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's really the problem. We're being judged not for what we did, but for what people we have no control over are doing. Worse, if we exert control, it just validates the whole 'puppet regime' talk and gives the 'resistance' and excuse to resist.

The Bush didn't make this situation by invading Iraq. They dug this grave when they made PREDICTIONS about what was going to happen in Iraq. They should have pursued this with the worst case scenario in mind, no the best.

I wonder what would have happened in the US if the international community had decided it was just too skeery for us to have a civil war. How would all the mediation have shortchanged our democracy and imposed standards that weren't ours? Is there a time when things just have to be settle amongst ourselves, regardless of the enevitable violence?

Maybe if civil war is what they want, maybe we should be more in the business of shielding innocent third parties like the Kurds, and dealing with a refugee crisis. Right now instead of dealing with a coming bloodbath, we're pretending that a bloodbath isn't going to happen. I'm afraid that's making the same mistake all over again.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Do you think that any "time table" should be made available to the public, or something that should be kept "behind" closed doors?

It would not remain secret long.  The NY Times would publish it within a short period of time.

But I like your plan Brad.  I hope they move to, or are moving to implement it.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It would not remain secret long. The NY Times would publish it within a short period of time.
Yeah, I have no doubt about that.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the Mission was to depose Saddam, we should have removed our troops in mid 2003. The issue of also establishing a Stable Democracy is a Bush/Cheney concept that was to set the example for other Moslem countries that are unstable and a potential source of problems.

It is NOT the Presidents opponents that added this second mission (Creating a Stable Democracy). Bush was warned by Powell and others that this was not a likely objective that could be accomplished. Bush is doing just what he and the GOP condemned in the 2000 election-- nation Building.

It is time to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi Government and station our troops in such a way as to prevent any civil war in Iraq from spilling into other Moslem countries with whom we have a working relationship like Saudi Arabia or the other small oil producing states in the region. We can not end the sectarian violence and no matter how long we stay there will be a period of Civil War after we leave Iraq>
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is time to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi Government and station our troops in such a way as to prevent any civil war in Iraq from spilling into other Moslem countries with whom we have a working relationship like Saudi Arabia or the other small oil producing states in the region. We can not end the sectarian violence and no matter how long we stay there will be a period of Civil War after we leave Iraq>


Sort of like how we can't get you to shut-up no matter how hard we try?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler


The question of this Blog is what should be done about Iraq. I was answering that question. Your problem is all you want to do is Stay the Course just like Bush. Now his SPIN Doctors have changed the words but the end result is the same.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is, there is no way that Iraq will be a "success" by the definitions being generated by Bush's opponents. If utter placity and a compliant government are the measurments of success, then we lost World War II.


I really don't know what you're talking about, unless Condoleezza Rice has sold you on the boogeyman of German "Werewolf." (h ttp://www.slate.com/id/2087768/) "Utter placity and a compliant government" is pretty much exactly how I imagine postwar Germany and Japan, although links to the contrary would be interesting.

If the Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other, that's really none of our concern.


If you made this statement about, say, the Hutus and the Tutsis, I wouldn't have a problem with it. That's their quarrel and no one is obligated to try to solve everyone else's problems. But this is _our_ problem; we destroyed the government and institutions that let them live in peace, and bad as they were, failed to replace them with anything better.

For you not to be concerned about this is like a prison warden opening all the cell doors and going away, saying, "If the Crips and the Bloods want to kill each other, that's really none of my concern." I feel a lot more moral responsibility for Iraq than that.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
we destroyed the government and institutions that let them live in peace, and bad as they were, failed to replace them with anything better


We removed the man that forced them to live in peace, not the institutions. How long until that would have occurred once Saddam died. The Iraqi government would not have survived a weak leader. My perception is that we only sped up the inevitable.

Someday these opposing sides would have faced off. I don't see how breaking the levee made these groups oppose each other enough to want to kill. It may have been temporarily quelled by the strongman's thumb, but that opposition was never dealt with.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

If the Mission was to depose Saddam, we should have removed our troops in mid 2003. The issue of also establishing a Stable Democracy is a Bush/Cheney concept that was to set the example for other Moslem countries that are unstable and a potential source of problems.

Sorry, but that's incredibly dumb.

If the mission was to defeat Nazisim and Hitler, we should have removed our troops in mid 1945...

If the mission was to defeat Imperial Japan, we should have removed our troops in late 1945...

 

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

I really don't know what you're talking about, unless Condoleezza Rice has sold you on the boogeyman of German "Werewolf." (h ttp://www.slate.com/id/2087768/) "Utter placity and a compliant government" is pretty much exactly how I imagine postwar Germany and Japan, although links to the contrary would be interesting.

You call Japan and Germany compliant? What's your definition of compliant?

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you made this statement about, say, the Hutus and the Tutsis, I wouldn't have a problem with it. That's their quarrel and no one is obligated to try to solve everyone else's problems. But this is _our_ problem; we destroyed the government and institutions that let them live in peace, and bad as they were, failed to replace them with anything better.

For you not to be concerned about this is like a prison warden opening all the cell doors and going away, saying, "If the Crips and the Bloods want to kill each other, that's really none of my concern." I feel a lot more moral responsibility for Iraq than that.

You are working from a moral premise I don't accept.  Our job in Iraq isn't some nebulous "moral" crusade. Our job is to enforce our interests in the region.

To use your warden analogy, if I'm the warden of a prison, the moment that letting the crips and bloods wipe each other is more to my best interest than keeping them locked up I'd not hesitate for a second. I don't look at Iraqi's as children or victims. I look at them as fully thinking, rational adults capable of determing what is in their best interests as well.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
We should place troops in the Kurdish part of Iraq, then more troops in Kuwait let them kill each other till there are so few left the will be compliant.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
After Bush made the first mistake by invading Iraq he compounded the problem by not allowing our military leaders to run the war including the occupation. What Bush did is took the lid of the pot by deposing Saddam but did not send anything like the troop levels to prevent both the sectarian violence and the foreign terrorists from setting up shop in Iraq. Now we have the worst of all worlds-- We have an elected government that is moving closer to Iran. We have enabled the factions within Iraq to destabilize the country and finally have provided al Qaeda another country in which they can operate. To assert this has made America Safer is a joke.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The really odd part of the whole situation to me is that we didn't go in with more troops.

I mean, why not? I think a large part of it was the desire of the Neocons to fight the war 'on the cheap' and their deep-seated belief that we weren't going to be there very long anyways.

Many of you may recall that the original plan for Iraq didn't have much to do with 'democracy' at all. The Bush team had intended to set up a sort of benevolent despot/tribal system of government to act as a transition government while they went to go kick the crap out of some other country. That didn't go over too well with the Iraqis, however.

A question to the original poster:
1) AFTER the election we should set up a time table for Iraqi responsibility. This time table would not be connected to US withdrawal (Because I don't expect the US to leave Iraq in the next 40 years). But the time table would indicate that certain domestic security responsibilities would be turned over at that time. The time table would be roughly 18 months.


So, what happens when the Iraqis don't meet the timetable, or even come close? They are light years away from being able to conduct their own security operations.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

The really odd part of the whole situation to me is that we didn't go in with more troops.

I mean, why not? I think a large part of it was the desire of the Neocons to fight the war 'on the cheap' and their deep-seated belief that we weren't going to be there very long anyways.
Reply By: Cycloptichorn(Anonymous User)

 

this statement wins the award for the dumbest thing the left has ever expounded.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why don't you go ahead and explain why you think that was the dumbest thing the left has ever expounded, please; if you can.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think this Post is significant for proposing a solution to the problem of Iraq rather than brow-beating the obvious - that mistakes in tactics and even strategy have taken place. Some of my own proposals such as involvement of surrounding moderate Arab nations and retention of US military presence confined in the stable areas (Kurdistan) in fact overlap with your ideas. For the rest of my other proposals, I would first have to wrestle as to how to post it safely in a venue as public as JU's.
The moral aspect of our Iraq involvement of course follows Powell's broken pottery dictum (we break it-we own it), but the reality of deep-seated ethnic-cultural differences between the warring Iraqi parties and the US limited resources dictate against this. I say let the civil war play itself out (even if we helped expedite it), and let the main victorious Iraqi players come out in the open. No amount of US conventional intervention will prevent this anyway. The way to Democracy and even relative stability for emerging nations has always been stormy and seemingly open-ended in its various periods of progress . As some veterans of insurgent wars used to say, "You don't pick a fruit that isn't ripe".
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
By defining these 3 things, it would also send a clear message to other nations in the region and Europe. Those countries, not the United States, suffer if Iraq is in a civil war. Very little of our oil comes from Iraq (contrary to the "no blood for OIILLL" crowd). We don't need a stable Iraq. We want a stable Iraq. Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, if they want to help out, they are certainly welcome to. But as long as we are defining success based on the stability of Iraq, they have no incentive to help us. That needs to be changed.


One question Brad, with respect: Why should nations such as those in Europe and the Middle East, who do indeed have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, be required to contribute that stability when, in most cases, they did not contribute to the instability in the first place, and many of them also opposed the invasion.

How much instability is required before they would in fact intervene? Given their lack of ability, proven lack of political will, and overwhelming lack of public support, I would think they would not intervene at all.

And, as pointed out, their economies are more reliant on Middle Eastern oil than the US, which begs the question: Since Europe's economy would be at risk, how much damage would or could Europe tolerate before that damage itself harms America's interests. Could America's interests be harmed more by this course of action?

I don't presume to know the way out of this mess, but the USA does not exist in a vacuum, and I'm not sure assuming other nations will take on the same responsibilities the US is itself seeking to abrogate is the wisest course of action.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
One question Brad, with respect: Why should nations such as those in Europe and the Middle East, who do indeed have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, be required to contribute that stability when, in most cases, they did not contribute to the instability in the first place, and many of them also opposed the invasion.


Be Required? I doubt that is possible. You make a good point. The sad fact is they are basically suicidal by inaction. In 100 years, our children will be asking "daddy, what is france?". To which we can answer, or just tell them it was a fairy tale.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Cycloptichorn(Anonymous User)Posted: Thursday, October 26, 2006
Why don't you go ahead and explain why you think that was the dumbest thing the left has ever expounded, please; if you can.

While I know this will get an arguement {see I too learn how to make pre-excuses}

The plain truth is, you go to war with what you have, just like we did in WW2, Seasoned ground commaners felt they could slash and run to Bagdad with what they had. The mistake was HOW shortsighted the DOD was and still is far as I am concerned.

To say any President or party was trying to fight a cheap war is dishonering the very first dead man, war is never cheap.

sincerly MM

 

Sgt. U.S.M.C. RETIRED

Vietnam vet just in case you do not know.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
What scares me most (and many things in the Middle East scare me) is the thought of a pan-Shiite state encompassing both Iran and Iraq...militant...and armed with nuclear weapons.

Turn your eyes to the East of Iraq.



Both Iraq and Iran are predominantly Shi'a. Iran has been accussed of sending men into Iraq. At the very least, Iran supports the insurgents.

By 2007, there will be enormous pressure on President Bush to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Pressure coming from within his party as well as from the Democrats. I sincerely doubt that the situation will have stabilized in Iraq. But even if it has, Iran has the wealth and resources to destabilize any but the strongest government.

Once US troops leave, they will not be coming back. And lets face it, the UN is useless as a peace-keeper. Does anyone really think that Iran will have been disamred by then? Iran has documented ties to terrorists in the Middle East, Hezbollah the most visible. Would other Arab countries oppose a pan-Shiite state? Would Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Syria send troops across their borders to oppose them? If Iran has nuclear weapons by 2007/2008 would the next President favor an invasion?

Think of the wealth of such a nation, with the combined oil reserves of both countries. Think of the power such a nation would wield. Let the Sunnis flee to Syria and let the Kurds destabilize Turkey.

We need a secure Iraq, for strategic reasons.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once the time table was over, the US would start to draw down forces. However, a significant contingent (a couple of divisions) would remain in Iraq but well away from urban areas (preferably in in areas controlled by the Kurds). This troop level would probably be around 35,000 to 50,000 troops in total that would be permanently based there to provide support and as an insurance policy to prevent any terrorist group from being able to set up shop in Iraq.
I doubt Turkey would like this idea unless we guaranteed that the Kurds would not violate the Turkish border but even then it could be messy. Better to deploy them to Kuwait. A rather nice, oblique apology to the left.   

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why should we care what Turkey thinks? They haven't been terribly helpful in Iraq.