Whether we stay or leave, it's pretty clear what we're doing now isn't working.

If we leave, we'll expedite the creation of a spawning ground for a new generation of terrorists. If we stay, we'll delay this event at the cost of soldiers' lives. For either scenario, we need a new plan.

My idea is to break the country up along cultural lines. This goes against American ideals of freedom and equality (ha, ha, yeah I know), but I think it'll buy us some short-term stability to create a more focused diplomatic plan.

What do you all think?

6/17/2007 1:26:41 AM

I think it sucks that the shi'ites and kurds have all the oil and the sunnis hardly have any

6/17/2007 1:31:04 AM

Quote :

"If we leave, we'll expedite the creation of a spawning ground for a new generation of terrorists"

how do you know? everybody keeps on saying that IF we leave, so and so will happen (country will go to bits and pieces).

but there is no way of knowing that, unless it is tried out. but then of course, you can't just come back in. so it is one of those things you can never know.

what we DO know is that whatever is being done in iraq right now is not working.

shiites and sunnis are killing each other and exploding each other's mosques, even though US soldiers are there. obviously, nothing that's currently being done is working.

what's the answer? there is no answer.

6/17/2007 1:41:47 AM

Quote :

"how do you know? everybody keeps on saying that IF we leave, so and so will happen (country will go to bits and pieces). "

Obviously we don't know, but I haven't read an informed opinion that says things will generally look up if we leave. Most people who have been there seem to think an all out civil war will break out. This seems likely to me too, for the reason you outlined, in that they are fighting each other and blowing up mosques. Our absence will allow them to focus their efforts on each other, and also give al-qaeda (who is supposedly interfering now as well, along with Iran) a new clean canvas to devise their plans.

Quote :

"what's the answer? there is no answer. "

That seems to be the case, actually, but I don't accept that. Assuming things go as bad as people expect, Iraq is going to be an increasing problems for decades to come. A pull out seems eminent (on the timescale of 1-3 years I think), but we have to do something in addition to that.

If we do nothing, the US's standing in the world stage will plummet to new lows, which will mean more, angrier terrorists to deal with. If we do something, even if it fails, I think it will stave off at least some terrorists. If we do something, and it succeeds then we're all better off.

6/17/2007 1:48:03 AM

Quote :

"Iraq: you break it, you own it. -- Colin Powell, 2002 "

6/17/2007 2:12:16 AM

going in was a retarded idea to start, i totally predicted this shit like 4 years ago

6/17/2007 2:35:15 AM

^ True, but blaming Bush at this point does nothing to protect us from the problems that will arise.

6/17/2007 2:38:13 AM

isnt there some addage about not forgetting the past or you will relive it?


well the more we criticize bush, the more people wont make this mistake again

6/17/2007 2:39:36 AM

nothing will work

and it's been hard for me to come to grips with that because i really thought that dividing it into 3 states would work

but if you think about it, all that does is just nationalize the civil war. instead of a civil war it becomes a war between 3 nations, not to mention iran meddling in it

i can only imagine the stress the policy makers are under trying to manage this thing

6/17/2007 2:46:27 AM

thats the part that sucks, is there is no way out. we have dug a hole and cant get out of it. all options suck

6/17/2007 2:51:41 AM

Quote :

"people wont make this mistake again"

[Edited on June 17, 2007 at 3:03 AM. Reason : i didnt want to post under you but you ar eprobably right\/]

6/17/2007 2:55:59 AM

yes they will

6/17/2007 2:59:17 AM

^^ foo me once, shame on you, foo me twice ... won't get fooled again.

Quote :

"moron: True, but blaming Bush at this point does nothing to protect us from the problems that will arise."

what? i dont want people to blame him. I want the fucker to get prosecuted for war crimes. along with his chicken-hawk war profiteers who hatched the plan




[Edited on June 17, 2007 at 3:05 AM. Reason : ]

6/17/2007 3:02:59 AM

joe schmoe i have a question for you if you dont mind

today me and my parents had a political talk convo and my stepdad was like i'd vote for a republican that wasnt such a war hawk...do you think giving republicans a "war hawk" stereotype is fair?

6/17/2007 3:08:20 AM

Quote :

"nothing will work"

I have been saying that on TWW for at least 10 months now, and I have always been ridiculed for it. But now, a lot of people are starting to realize that.

EVEN THESE PEOPLE:

Quote :

"US cannot win: ex-commander Published: Monday, 4 June, 2007 SAN ANTONIO, Texas: The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war. “I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat,” retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview."

Quote :

"Iraq war 'cannot be won' LONDON: There is "no way" the war in Iraq can be won by the United States and its allies, a former British Army commander said yesterday as he called for the troops to be withdrawn. General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 1994 to 1995, said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation. "There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said."

6/17/2007 3:29:05 AM

lol wtf do people consider a defeat anyways?

imo, we have been defeated already...anything else is just insult to injury

6/17/2007 3:36:26 AM

well we won the war part, we just lost the occupation and reconstruction.

6/17/2007 5:25:12 AM

thats just something republicans say

6/17/2007 5:33:50 AM

militarily speaking its true

6/17/2007 5:36:55 AM

To see how bad it really is, read this:

The uniformed kidnappers of Baghdad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6756425.stm

TERRIBLE.

Basically shows how people in Iraqi police uniforms are behind a lot of the kidnappings and murders. Some of them really *are* policemen, but have loyalties with someone else, and some are just wearing the uniforms, because the uniforms give them access to any place.

See this:

Quote :

"One measure of how bad things have become is that Western diplomats will no longer visit the Iraqi Defence ministry, even though it is inside the Green Zone. In fact, militia infiltration is believed to be such that no-one walks anywhere in the Green Zone for fear of being snatched off the street. So, if the coalition cannot even guarantee its own safety in the heart of its power base, what hope for the rest of Baghdad? "

6/17/2007 8:58:31 AM

These are the headlines on http://www.antiwar.com:

US: 60% of Baghdad Not Controlled
Problems Deepen for Iraqi Prime Minister
Blair Knew US Had No Post-War Plan for Iraq
Maliki Asks US Troops to Resist Arming Iraqi Tribes
Saturday: 2 GIs, 1 British Soldier, 26 Iraqis Killed; 40 Iraqis Wounded

Here is the first one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070616/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

U.S.: 60 pct of Baghdad not controlled

Quote :

"BAGHDAD - Security forces in Baghdad have full control in only 40 percent of the city five months into the pacification campaign, a top American general said Saturday as U.S. troops began an offensive against two al-Qaida strongholds on the capital's southern outskirts. "

**************************************

THERE IS NO WAY TO FIX THIS SITUATION, EVEN IF ANOTHER 100,000 TROOPS ARE SENT IN.

6/17/2007 10:25:28 AM

The only reason it is unwinnable is because of restraints that we've placed on ourselves. If you want to eliminate the enemy, then that's what you do. You don't hamstring yourself with safe havens and political hand-wringing over collateral damage. Unfortunately, no one has the political sack to do so and Iraq continues to drag on in a half-assed manner.

6/17/2007 10:40:25 AM

I'm not convinced that there's any way to "fix" Iraq. We shouldn't have gone there in the first place imo, but that's a moot point. But I think that no matter what we do, we're going to wind up on the losing side. If we don't "finish the job" and leave before order and peace is fully cemented, we'll look like pricks and Iraq will be pissed at us for coming in, screwing everything up, and then just leaving. As others have said, it will just spawn more generations of anti-American terrorists. But if we stay, we'll continue to stir up the hornet's nest that is the Middle East, which does nothing to stop the anti-American sentiment. And we'll still look like pricks because we're obviously not trying to bring democracy to these people (as if they even asked for us to give them democracy and free them from an oppressive regime), we're just trying to install a puppet government that's pro-American and will sell us their oil.

I know I become master of the obvious by saying that there is no easy fix for Iraq, but there's no point in ignoring the facts. No matter what we do, we're just going to piss a whole lot of people off. A good place to start this country's redemption would be getting Dubya out of office, but even that's too little too late, considering that he was voted into office a second time despite how he handled things during his first term.

Bottom line: we've fucked ourselves in the ass, and no matter what happens we're going to fuck ourselves even harder.

6/17/2007 11:43:31 AM

No one outside of the US really gives a shit that Bush is in office. Him leaving means next to nothing in terms of "redemption." Don't be an idiot.

6/17/2007 12:05:56 PM

The middle east will always be a terrible place, unless some blows the entire area up.

6/17/2007 12:27:41 PM

Quote :

"No one outside of the US really gives a shit that Bush is in office. Him leaving means next to nothing in terms of "redemption." Don't be an idiot."

i just want him to gtfo before he starts WW3

6/17/2007 12:47:29 PM

Quote :

"If you want to eliminate the enemy, then that's what you do. You don't hamstring yourself with safe havens and political hand-wringing over collateral damage. Unfortunately, no one has the political sack to do so and Iraq continues to drag on in a half-assed manner."

Bingo. As much as no one wants to do it, the only way to win a war in which you are occupying another country is to completely destroy your enemy. WWI was won because germany was crushed. Same with WWII, germany and japan were crushed (japan less so but an atomic bomb has a different effect on folks than a conventional shell).

In any war where one side convinced themselves that there were rules to conducting warefare it was the side that broke the rules that won.

6/17/2007 2:36:07 PM

I haven't kept up as much with Arab opinion on this, but what does Arab opinion think is the best way to fix Iraq? I get the impression that the political elite are rather nervous about a sudden withdrawal: as much as they hate the US presence in Iraq, I think most are realizing that a sudden American withdrawal is going to leave a full fledged civil war that can easily spiral into a greater regional conflict. I think that even Iran understands that a continued American presence without some sort of political framework for stability is going to be bad for them in the long run, dragging then into a potential full scale war between Sh'ia and Sunni Iraqis. Yet at the same time, our continued presence there is obviously not doing the nation any good.

Just as bad is the potential for an independent Kurdish state. If they decide to go on their own, it's going to add a new ethnic factor that the Turks, Iranians, and Syrians do not want to deal with. Things are bad enough as is, but there's no reason to have their Kurdish minorities dreaming of joining up with greater Kurdistan.

6/17/2007 2:40:10 PM

Quote :

"If you want to eliminate the enemy, then that's what you do. You don't hamstring yourself with safe havens and political hand-wringing over collateral damage. Unfortunately, no one has the political sack to do so and Iraq continues to drag on in a half-assed manner.""

How you gonna do that here in Iraq? The enemy is not living in some camp in town or outiside of town. The enemy is living within the city, all scattered. And going all out is going to result in more collateral damage than enemy casualties. Someone who can do that, you call that as having "the political sack"? Are you Saddam's cousin? That's what he did on some occasions, didn't he? Gassing whole towns rather than capturing the men (or all men) he was after.

****************************

However, one *does* wonder about this:

Quote :

"Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said American troops launched the offensive in Baghdad's Arab Jabour and Salman Pac neighborhoods Friday night. It was the first time in three years that U.S. soldiers entered those areas, where al-Qaida militants build car bombs and launch Katyusha rockets at American bases and Shiite Muslim neighborhoods."

(from the yahoo link above)

What were they doing for 3 years, not entering neighbourhoods KNOWN for what it says they are known for???

Some of you people are talking about blowing up blocks of buildings randomly to eliminate terrorists... forget about that; there are areas where even door to door search and flush (standard technique so far) hasn't been done for 3 YEARS.

What could be the reason for that? The areas are too dangerous?

6/17/2007 4:26:59 PM

If it takes more collateral damage than enemy casualties, then that's what it takes. It's called war. Everyone has this misconception of war as a precision activity. It's not.

I'm not making a case for or against war. I'm simply saying that if you declare war, you should be prepared to bring overwhelming force and you should be prepared for it to get messy. If you're not prepared to do those things, then you're not ready for war. If you decide to go to war anyways, you're going to lose.

Notice that those who are winning in Iraq (the insurgents) are willing to do what it takes to win. Those who are losing spend their time complaining about how fucked up and unfair suicide bombers and IEDs are.

[Edited on June 17, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

6/17/2007 5:00:03 PM

Quote :

"Some of you people are talking about blowing up blocks of buildings randomly to eliminate terrorists... forget about that; there are areas where even door to door search and flush (standard technique so far) hasn't been done for 3 YEARS. What could be the reason for that? The areas are too dangerous?"

Political red tape of various sorts. Wars can not be fought by a democracy, that's why militaries are always dictatorships. But that's exactly how we're fighting this war, the same way almost all recent wars have been fought, with congress and other politicians with their fingers all over the place. If I had to guess at reasons why these neighborhoods had not been hit they would be as follows:

1) Not politically visible (after all, you need some spoil of war to parade before the cameras).
2) Not politically sound (mosques, hospitals, homeless one legged one eyed half kitten child centers whatever, if they are close by the target is more or less off limits, and remember, the enemy is more than happy to break the rules, so their car bomb plant is probably the basement of a hospital)

Number 1 is mostly perpetuated by the executive branch, number 2 mostly by the legislative branch, but either one is the result of too much politics and media in something that neither know anything about.

6/17/2007 6:02:45 PM

i always wondered this. say they hide shit like bomb factories and what not in hospitals. don't you think that if we started bombing them wherever they were that maybe their own population would stop supporting them?

6/17/2007 6:12:58 PM

on a side note, the terrorists are guaranteed a victory basically no matter what....just like the hezzbollah war with Israel a little while ago. all they have to do is outlast. they kill some soldiers here and there, blow up a few bombs and essentially they can get there asses kicked militarily...but if a few terrorists are left standing at the end of it, then they have won in their minds and in the minds of the middle east as a whole. "look at us brave fighters, we stood up to the infidel", and so on and so forth. how much harm they do to the other side is irrelevant so long as someone is left standing at the end to claim they are still alive.

the middle east is basically a case study on failed governments and self pity, but they are good at one thing....wars of nationalism

6/17/2007 6:27:35 PM

John Edwards on Iraq at the Council on Foreign Relations

The first 2 minutes are just on congressional bills that have already come to pass, but if you watch the last 1 min & 39 secs of the video you'll see some discussion of plans. Here are some of the highlights:

“We need to get out of Iraq on our time table, not when we are forced to by our enemies or by events.”

”As a recent council report put it, the US has already achieved what it’s likely to achieve in Iraq. And staying in Iraq can only drive up the price of those gains”

”In Congress and the Whitehouse the focus has been on when to get out, how to get out, and how quickly to get out. Too little consideration has been given to what happens after we get out.”

”I believe that once we’re out of Iraq the US must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, to detour a regional spillover of the civil war, and to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven.”

”We will most likely need to retain quick reaction troops in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We’ll also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the green zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personal.”

”Finally we’ll need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq’s future: including Middle Eastern nations & our allies in Europe.” On this point he’s said that may mean not being inflexibly closed to engaging with regional neighbors like Iran & Syria pointing out that they both have interests in a stable Iraq.

He’s also talked about combining a mission focused on training Iraqi’s with showing we’re actually going to leave by starting to withdrawal some troops.

6/17/2007 6:44:18 PM

Quote :

"i always wondered this. say they hide shit like bomb factories and what not in hospitals. don't you think that if we started bombing them wherever they were that maybe their own population would stop supporting them?"

Possibly, but it's also possible that instead they will join them in droves. A propaganda war is not something we can win in Iraq, and "The Great Satan™" blowing up hospitals will not win us any favors. Unfortunately, to win, we really have to just take that chance. Wars are won by crushing the opposition, not winning them over. You win them over after you crush them, because history is written by the winners.

6/17/2007 7:44:08 PM

^

6/17/2007 9:13:06 PM

i think what we're doing is working. we're making progress. bush never said it'd be a short war. we should just trust his judgement.

6/17/2007 11:10:36 PM

lol

6/18/2007 12:14:32 AM

^^ clearly. and i really hope that Bush II will stay in the office until this war is wrapped up. certainly there is some kind of executive war powers type act he can invoke. this war is far too important to allow it to be bungled by the diversionary influence of a presidential election.

anyhow, i mean look at the clowns that are lining up already -- on either side. do any of them have the slightest clue how to successfully prosecute a war of this complexity and historical import??

i think not.

GWB '08

6/18/2007 12:43:25 AM

More MOABs.

6/18/2007 12:51:21 AM

MOABs? why bother with self-restraint? its only those who break the rules who win. besides, didnt ya hear, the Geneva Conventions have been rendered irrelevant. a quaint, antiquated notion.

lets just get this thing done.



Iran too.

i mean, what the hell. this is a preventative war. anyhow, it'll make the bleeding heart liberals happy, so we dont have to drag all these Ragheads and Mahdij's back to be tortured for years on end.

Free up our Supreme Court so we can get about the real business of American values: outlawing abortions and fag-marriages.





[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2007 1:41:02 AM

Quote :

"drunknloaded : do you think giving republicans a "war hawk" stereotype is fair?"

a distinction should be drawn between "traditional republicans" and "neo-cons"

traditional republicans are really no more war hawk-y than democrats. historically, you've found each of the parties across the "dove-hawk" spectrum. some might say that traditional republicans, with their beliefs in a decentralized government with limited federal powers, would be less likely to support a rush to war especially one of a pre-emptive (or worse, "preventative") nature.

"neo-cons", as they call themselves, are an entirely different breed. they are the intellectual force behind much of this Administrations policies, including the failed Iraq war. Since GWB was elected, they have more or less controlled the direction of the Pentagon and the White House, and to an extent, the political strategy of the Republican Party.

check out the Project for the New American Century if you want to see where they are headed

http://www.google.com/search?q=PNAC





[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 2:11 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2007 2:08:39 AM

simple: one big ass bomb.

6/19/2007 6:48:41 PM

This is what's been in the news since yesterday:

US commander in Iraq says troops may be needed for decade

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=iraq+US+decade

6/19/2007 9:12:14 PM

more like "US Troops Needed until Democrat gets into office"

6/19/2007 9:18:51 PM

Quote :

"a distinction should be drawn between "traditional republicans" and "neo-cons""

I’m not sure how important that distinction is. As you pointed out it’s the neo cons who rule today, and who have led the party for years. Its the Grand Neo Party, its been that way for most of everyone on this boards adult life, and I don't see a lot of change coming.

One could also point out how the democratic party has changed over the last decade and while it’s a nice history lesson... the democrats shouldn’t garner extra votes today based off what the party used to but no longer represents from years ago.

The republican party isn’t one of small spending, small government, and avoiding foreign entanglements. Maybe that’s the libertarians now?

The democrats will still spend plenty, but it'll be on education & healthcare, rather than pre-emptive foreign war. They wont make government alot smaller, but hopefully they'd cut down on its interference with civil liberties, torture, and spying on americans.

6/19/2007 10:01:53 PM

Quote :

"I’m not sure how important that distinction is. As you pointed out it’s the neo cons who rule today, and who have led the party for years."

The paleo-cons went the way of the dinosaur after the civil rights movement. The right realized that it needed to be proactive in order to win votes. In truth, there is nothing "conservative" about the right's policy today save for backwards pandering to creationists.

Quote :

"The democrats will still spend plenty, but it'll be on education & healthcare, rather than pre-emptive foreign war. They wont make government alot smaller, but hopefully they'd cut down on its interference with civil liberties, torture, and spying on americans."

There is always the soft coercion of building dependency on the state, which is why I don't view the Democrats as much better than Republicans in the long run.

6/20/2007 10:26:12 AM

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=201671138&s=143441&i=16803852

That's the most recent podcast of This American Life (episode 335 titled "Big Wide World").

It is the story of an Iraqi that use to work for the Iraq Information Ministry under Saddam, and his personal perspective of the invasion during and a bit after.

It helps to provide a little more insight on to what could be done by the US, and what WAS done that might not have been the right thing to do.

I would encourage you all to listen to it, because the tone of the guy's voice says a lot...

But one thing that I thought was notable is that factions started forming immediately after the invasion. If the US could have capitalized on the relief that Saddam was gone very early on, they could have rode this momentum of stability. But, the damage inflicted by the initial attack (the "shock and awe") seems to have been very souring to the Iraqis in their view of the Americans. Basically, the people of Baghdad in the course of a day went from having electricity and water, to not having electricity and water, and this made them very irritable.

6/21/2007 6:34:44 AM

Quote :

"paleo-cons"

6/21/2007 1:33:22 PM

lose the war? to who? we defeated the Iraqi army, and Saddam is dead... that sounds like a 'win' in most books....

or is it a 'war' to defend against internal fighting and suicide bombers?

some of you have a very warped perspective of 'war'

Quote :

"Post-War Plan"

POST war....

I fully agree the rebuilding and reconstruction has not gone well at all. and overall will probably fail.

but what did you expect us to do? like with germany after wwII we didn't just leave immediately.... honestly if you didn't think we would just go in, topple saddam then leave?

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason : post]

6/21/2007 1:38:10 PM