|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More troops, less troops, re-deployment, phased reduction?
Is there an answer? Can we win; depends on your definition of winning, how long we are willing to wait, how much money and how many lives we are willing to invest.
I think at this point in the war, we need to increase our troop count to speed the training process of Iraqi forces and to stabilize the country. That being said, I think we have to force the Iraqi forces to take on the responsibility of protecting themselves. After training, we need to start withdrawing our troops.
Should a full-blown civil war break out in Iraq, we need to get 'the hell out of Dodge'. We should not pick a side. We should not help a side. We can only do so much to help people. At some point people must help themselves.
Should a full-blown civil war break out in Iraq, we need to get 'the hell out of Dodge'. We should not pick a side. We should not help a side. We can only do so much to help people. At some point people must help themselves.
I was watching CSPAN last night, and they aired a House Armed Forces Committee briefing from Wednesday. At the meeting was David Satterfield, a senior state department official coordinating policy in Iraq.
A Congressman from Mississippi asked Satterfield about some approval statistics from polls taken in Iraq. Satterfield acknowledged that approval ratings were well below 50% among both Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. Then, when the Congressman asked what the US was doing to improve that image, Satterfield said that it was not our job to change that. He said that we could do nothing to affect that image, and it rested on the actions of the Iraqi government. If you've got some free time, the video should be up on the CSPAN website still. The exchange is about an hour into the video feed.
I think this should give us a lot of insight into what needs to be done. We do not want to cut and run immediately, because that would probably destabilize the country. However, the American presence is currently viewed extremely unfavorably and more troops will probably create more violence.
The solution, I think, is to commit to a phased withdrawal. This will combat ideas that the US is a colonizing power looking to control the country. Other actions also need to be taken to combat the negative perception of our troops. There needs to be a crackdown on homicides and abuse committed by our troops (i.e. Abu Ghraib and other stories of murder/rape that have come to light). We need to openly renounce any intention to create permanent military bases in Iraq. We need to commit to participating in the multilateral community and renounce the unilateral action that led to the Iraq war. A first step here would be to sign the treaty creating the International Criminal Court and acknowledge that Americans truly guilty of war crimes will be prosecuted.
The state department, though, appears to have no plan. Satterfield said so himself. To me, that is a recipe for disaster. If we're not going to improve our image, we might as well get out now because the situation is only going to get worse.
- Walkere
A Congressman from Mississippi asked Satterfield about some approval statistics from polls taken in Iraq. Satterfield acknowledged that approval ratings were well below 50% among both Sunnis and Shi'as in Iraq. Then, when the Congressman asked what the US was doing to improve that image, Satterfield said that it was not our job to change that. He said that we could do nothing to affect that image, and it rested on the actions of the Iraqi government. If you've got some free time, the video should be up on the CSPAN website still. The exchange is about an hour into the video feed.
I think this should give us a lot of insight into what needs to be done. We do not want to cut and run immediately, because that would probably destabilize the country. However, the American presence is currently viewed extremely unfavorably and more troops will probably create more violence.
The solution, I think, is to commit to a phased withdrawal. This will combat ideas that the US is a colonizing power looking to control the country. Other actions also need to be taken to combat the negative perception of our troops. There needs to be a crackdown on homicides and abuse committed by our troops (i.e. Abu Ghraib and other stories of murder/rape that have come to light). We need to openly renounce any intention to create permanent military bases in Iraq. We need to commit to participating in the multilateral community and renounce the unilateral action that led to the Iraq war. A first step here would be to sign the treaty creating the International Criminal Court and acknowledge that Americans truly guilty of war crimes will be prosecuted.
The state department, though, appears to have no plan. Satterfield said so himself. To me, that is a recipe for disaster. If we're not going to improve our image, we might as well get out now because the situation is only going to get worse.
- Walkere
you talk about winning but can you tell me what you are winning?
only way to get this to stop sadly is that some force takes full controll, right now its total caos in iraq, I think they should split iraq in three parts one for sunnis one for shias and one for kurds so that the people in these regions can unite. then the only "enemy" is the us army but they can at that point slowly withdraw troops once things settled down.
ive been in northen iraq (the kurdish region) and there are no terroririst there none nada, because the kurds has fought for freedom for so many years that noone wants to ruin it now and attack their own the people has united and the infra structrue is starting to form.i think they should do the same with sunnis and shia then atleast they dont have eachother to fight.
but a problem in iraq is that some terrorists are just blowing themselves up in pieces to create caos total caos, that is what they want, and in bagdad they are the ones who has controll not the us my relatives told me about it that if you go to the streets of bagdad and maby look a bit diffrence or something they kill you, they wana make complete caos and thats why some force as i told you before needs total control untill they have calmed down... if they ever will...
another thing just heard something once its a joke but you can take it the way u want
how come the us know that iraq had nuclear weapons?
because they have the reciept.
as we all know they didnt have nuclear weapons but still just wanted to say that
only way to get this to stop sadly is that some force takes full controll, right now its total caos in iraq, I think they should split iraq in three parts one for sunnis one for shias and one for kurds so that the people in these regions can unite. then the only "enemy" is the us army but they can at that point slowly withdraw troops once things settled down.
ive been in northen iraq (the kurdish region) and there are no terroririst there none nada, because the kurds has fought for freedom for so many years that noone wants to ruin it now and attack their own the people has united and the infra structrue is starting to form.i think they should do the same with sunnis and shia then atleast they dont have eachother to fight.
but a problem in iraq is that some terrorists are just blowing themselves up in pieces to create caos total caos, that is what they want, and in bagdad they are the ones who has controll not the us my relatives told me about it that if you go to the streets of bagdad and maby look a bit diffrence or something they kill you, they wana make complete caos and thats why some force as i told you before needs total control untill they have calmed down... if they ever will...
another thing just heard something once its a joke but you can take it the way u want
how come the us know that iraq had nuclear weapons?
because they have the reciept.
as we all know they didnt have nuclear weapons but still just wanted to say that
| Alankurd wrote: |
| you talk about winning but can you tell me what you are winning? |
Winning means Iraqi government remains democratic after the Americans retreat. Yes it won't be a complete victory but still a VICTORY. This was the stated objective of the invasion: a democratic government for Iraq.
The bulk of the forces should go home gradually and the present Iraqi government should receive money, logistics, advisers, etc to fight terrorists.
I notice there's no option for keeping on with whats going on now...
Really, what needs to be done is exactly what's going on; the US military keeps the peace (more or less) while the Iraqi government accumulates enough power to do the same. Once that is finished, the US military can retreat. It's that simple, its just that in this day of instant messaging, fast-food, and pay-at-the-pump, the people have lost what patience that they had. This lack of patience (together with a decidedly anti-war media) has turned the public away from the idea of a solution that takes a long time to bring about. They want everything to be fixed now, because they've forgotten how to wait more than 5 minutes for anything.
Really, what needs to be done is exactly what's going on; the US military keeps the peace (more or less) while the Iraqi government accumulates enough power to do the same. Once that is finished, the US military can retreat. It's that simple, its just that in this day of instant messaging, fast-food, and pay-at-the-pump, the people have lost what patience that they had. This lack of patience (together with a decidedly anti-war media) has turned the public away from the idea of a solution that takes a long time to bring about. They want everything to be fixed now, because they've forgotten how to wait more than 5 minutes for anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html
Me thinks that even Homor Simpson could have come up with these three choices - Go Big, Go long, Go Home. This even sings like a MSM theme song.
Hell, we now have 3 choices when before we only had Bushes choice.
Are you all as tired of this new direction as I am? And guess what? They're picking 'Go Long' which sounds EXACTLY like the status quo.
The only difference this time is that now with liberals in power they need to come up with a way to win. We have three new choices, I'm so relieved.
| Quote: |
|
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials. Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said. -"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review. -"Go Long" -- calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal. - "Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war. |
Me thinks that even Homor Simpson could have come up with these three choices - Go Big, Go long, Go Home. This even sings like a MSM theme song.
Hell, we now have 3 choices when before we only had Bushes choice.
Are you all as tired of this new direction as I am? And guess what? They're picking 'Go Long' which sounds EXACTLY like the status quo.
The only difference this time is that now with liberals in power they need to come up with a way to win. We have three new choices, I'm so relieved.
We can't leave now, that's for sure. If we leave, then all the work we've completed will become undone. The terrorists, the insurgents - they will win. It will show that America can be defeated by said terrorist(s) and who knows what will come next?
I think we do need at least a timetable - some sort of rough estimate, but we can't leave the job unfinished, it'll land us in more trouble than we're already in.
We're in it to win it.
By the way, my uncle is in Iraq - and the Iraqis are all very kind and thankful of America (mostly). The things you see on news are, although happening, mostly political jargon and Bush-bashing. The media portrays and glorifies the terrorists, while leaving common Iraqis out of the equation.
I think we do need at least a timetable - some sort of rough estimate, but we can't leave the job unfinished, it'll land us in more trouble than we're already in.
We're in it to win it.
By the way, my uncle is in Iraq - and the Iraqis are all very kind and thankful of America (mostly). The things you see on news are, although happening, mostly political jargon and Bush-bashing. The media portrays and glorifies the terrorists, while leaving common Iraqis out of the equation.
ocalhoun, yeah, and wrapped in bacon for $2.99.
S3nd K3ys, I like - ‘triple bacon stay the coarse with cheese,’ ‘stay the coarse,’ ‘sorry Iraq, it’s not you – it’s me’.
Here is my solution. Tell me what you think. I have assembled it from some good ideas I have heard.
Problems: Sectarian Azzholes, Insurgents (suiciders), corruption within Iraqi gov’t, infrastructure.
Source: Sectarians – unemployed young men, Insurgents – Iran and them, corruption – lack of effective policing-punishment, infrastructure – really stupid crap like some bird brain punching holes in a transformer with his AK-death-blossom stick.
1. Start moving US forces away from civilian areas into military facilities.
This will allow the US forces to be called in for large troubles that the Iraqi forces can’t handle, US forces can concentrate on protecting Iraqi borders, the training of Iraqi forces like police and soldiers could then be held in these facilities.
Training the Iraq forces there would allow them to be isolated from the outside. This would allow the men to be well feed and properly indoctrinated. By indoctrinated I simply mean convinced that a peaceful Iraq where their daughters will be allowed on day to walk to school is more worth dedicating your life to than blowing yourself up – killing people you don’t know – in the name of your god or tribe or what other arbitrary thing. It would also make it more difficult for the terror recruiters to do their own indoctrinating.
2. A special investigation force, made up of multi-nationals, for investigating international crimes.
I think if we look at the corruption and sectarian crimes as international crimes, this would allow the international force to hold Iraqi officials accountable, outside of any corruptible Iraqi system. The main task of this force, however, would be to end this sectarian kidnap and torture crap. The trouble is that much of these things are being perpetrated by Iraqi police and military men. A well organized investigation force; separate from any Iraqi group and void of any Shia, Suni, or Curd, but still utilizing domestic intelligence; could crack down hard on these idiots and their power drills.
If it where effective, it could hold these indigents up for what they are, depraved cowards destructors of Iraq, and not soldiers for God.
I don’t know, what do you think?
S3nd K3ys, I like - ‘triple bacon stay the coarse with cheese,’ ‘stay the coarse,’ ‘sorry Iraq, it’s not you – it’s me’.
Here is my solution. Tell me what you think. I have assembled it from some good ideas I have heard.
Problems: Sectarian Azzholes, Insurgents (suiciders), corruption within Iraqi gov’t, infrastructure.
Source: Sectarians – unemployed young men, Insurgents – Iran and them, corruption – lack of effective policing-punishment, infrastructure – really stupid crap like some bird brain punching holes in a transformer with his AK-death-blossom stick.
1. Start moving US forces away from civilian areas into military facilities.
This will allow the US forces to be called in for large troubles that the Iraqi forces can’t handle, US forces can concentrate on protecting Iraqi borders, the training of Iraqi forces like police and soldiers could then be held in these facilities.
Training the Iraq forces there would allow them to be isolated from the outside. This would allow the men to be well feed and properly indoctrinated. By indoctrinated I simply mean convinced that a peaceful Iraq where their daughters will be allowed on day to walk to school is more worth dedicating your life to than blowing yourself up – killing people you don’t know – in the name of your god or tribe or what other arbitrary thing. It would also make it more difficult for the terror recruiters to do their own indoctrinating.
2. A special investigation force, made up of multi-nationals, for investigating international crimes.
I think if we look at the corruption and sectarian crimes as international crimes, this would allow the international force to hold Iraqi officials accountable, outside of any corruptible Iraqi system. The main task of this force, however, would be to end this sectarian kidnap and torture crap. The trouble is that much of these things are being perpetrated by Iraqi police and military men. A well organized investigation force; separate from any Iraqi group and void of any Shia, Suni, or Curd, but still utilizing domestic intelligence; could crack down hard on these idiots and their power drills.
If it where effective, it could hold these indigents up for what they are, depraved cowards destructors of Iraq, and not soldiers for God.
I don’t know, what do you think?
| Soulfire wrote: |
|
By the way, my uncle is in Iraq - and the Iraqis are all very kind and thankful of America (mostly). The things you see on news are, although happening, mostly political jargon and Bush-bashing. The media portrays and glorifies the terrorists, while leaving common Iraqis out of the equation. |
i think the reason the media is doing this is because they want more support for the iraq war like: "they hate us and they wana blow our country up to pieces, so lets kill em all" or something like that
| Alankurd wrote: |
|
i think the reason the media is doing this is because they want more support for the iraq war like: "they " or something like that |
As far as I can tell, from what I've heard from Westerners (because most Muslims won't say it), there's only a percentage of all Muslims that "hate us and they wana blow our country up to pieces, so lets kill em all".
Of course, you can't get the larger (MUCH larger (so I've heard)) percentage of peaceful Muslims to denounce the bad ones and to take BACK their "Religion of Peace" which is very quickly being turned into the "Religion of Convert or Die"
It's up to Muslims now to show Westerners where they stand.
We've been trying to believe they're really peaceful, but we're just not getting many signs from them.
The longer it takes, the harder it's going to be for the Westerners to beleive them.
-moved-
For now I feel that an increase in troops would do good. Eradicate the extremists and train their own armies and police then phase out in large numbers (50% each time).
For now I feel that an increase in troops would do good. Eradicate the extremists and train their own armies and police then phase out in large numbers (50% each time).
 |