It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America to pull out of Iraq sooner rather than later...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Yesterday's attack on Iraq's 'insurgents' was the largest since the war began.

The point is that this mimics what happened prior to the end of the Vietnam war, where they started many new operations and then pulled out, leaving the Vietnamese to sort out the mess.

The problem is that unlike Vietnam, Iraq has different factions within the country all trying to take control. The Sunni prime minister, supported by America, is not supported by his people. The major personnel in the country, placed by the US, where trained in Iran, hence the Iraqi call for talks between Iran and America.

The increased attacks on US personel are a result of them feeling it is there duty, for their country, to remove their occupiers. The true casualty rate of Iraqi civilians will never be known as the Americans classify all people killed through their bombing raids as insurgents or potential insurgents, which is only fuelling the Iraqi peoples resent for their occupiers.



CONDOLEEZZA RICE, US SECRETARY OF STATE: That demonstrates that Iraqi forces are indeed taking on more of the security fight.


The Iraqi forces are no more than religious militia. America will leave and the country will be left in civil war. A haven for terrorism.

What do you think?




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I think you are partially right, but for reasons not readily obvious.

Any early pullout of troops from Iraq would only be in preparation for war elsewhere. This slightly contradicts my previous theories on what will happen with Iran.

I think the speedy readyment of the ISF and surge in activity has less to do with an American pull out and more to do with an upcoming troop consolidation. What am I talking about?

The USA cannot afford to leave Iraq alone while it stages an attack on Iran. But at the same time the USA cannot occupy Iraq in the current fashion either while starting action against Iran.

I foresee the coalition leaving basic security left entirely up to the ISF and consolidate most of its forces to the Iran/Syria borders for blocking operations. Iraq would keep its cities secure and stable while the coalition took on a national security role. The last thing the USA wants is for Iranian security forces and operatives breaching into Iraq in some sort of opportunity maneuver in response to an attack on its nuclear/military infrastructure.

So: Hand off all local security to the ISF, consolidate the majority of coalition forces to the borders, then massive air strikes on Iranian offensive military assets.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
This may be of interest.


WASHINGTON - The U.S. military's goal is to have Iraqi security forces in control of 75 percent of the country's territory by this summer, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Baghdad said Friday.

That is more ambitious than President George W. Bush's statement on Monday that his aim was to have Iraqis control more territory than the U.S.-led coalition by the end of 2006 - a process that Bush said would free up more American troops to focus on training the Iraqi forces and hunting down the chief terrorists inside Iraq.

link

My concern is that the focus is on sheer numbers of Iraqi security forces rather then much needed quality. I also think that if coalition forces leave the area known as Iraq within the next 10 years millons of people fate will be sealed.
Nation building dosnt take 3 or 10 years it takes closer to 30 years.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
Yesterday's attack on Iraq's 'insurgents' was the largest since the war began.

The point is that this mimics what happened prior to the end of the Vietnam war, where they started many new operations and then pulled out, leaving the Vietnamese to sort out the mess.

The problem is that unlike Vietnam, Iraq has different factions within the country all trying to take control. The Sunni prime minister, supported by America, is not supported by his people. The major personnel in the country, placed by the US, where trained in Iran, hence the Iraqi call for talks between Iran and America.

The increased attacks on US personel are a result of them feeling it is there duty, for their country, to remove their occupiers. The true casualty rate of Iraqi civilians will never be known as the Americans classify all people killed through their bombing raids as insurgents or potential insurgents, which is only fuelling the Iraqi peoples resent for their occupiers.



CONDOLEEZZA RICE, US SECRETARY OF STATE: That demonstrates that Iraqi forces are indeed taking on more of the security fight.


The Iraqi forces are no more than religious militia. America will leave and the country will be left in civil war. A haven for terrorism.

What do you think?




I think you may be right about this. That's a good review of the Vietnam story. It is possible that the latest Al-qaeda warning of two attacks may play into this as well. Sequence:

1. They execute the first attack. Probably worse than 9/11 if any notice will be taken of it. It has to be an attack that demonstrates a serious capability of destruction on a larger scale that we cannot stop in order for it to be effective.

2. They demand certain things like the US out of Iraq, release of guantanimo prisoners, etc. We may agree to get out of Iraq, but may or may not concede on the prisoners or other stuff. That brings the soldiers home to control panic in the US public in case the second attack is launched and/or the first attack was biological or other WMD. It's possible that the cover story is being implemented (see they are making progress!) so that we don't lose as much face in the pullout.

3. Al-qaeda decides whether or not to launch the second attack.

That's my take on what could happen.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Any early pullout of troops from Iraq would only be in preparation for war elsewhere.


God help us. Local soldiers on their third rotation are being killed. This revolving door of war has to stop! Have a draft as happened for VietNam, and then see how many Americans would be willing to nation build.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
managerie -
the flaw with your theory is that the US does not and will not negotiate with terrorists...there will be no "agreement to leave" because of a terrorist attack. Most likely, if anything were to change, it would be more support from allies to free up US troops to go elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
With a well trained and honest military regime in Iraq it will be hard for Iraq to harvest terrorists again. But I think Bush's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq has something to do with Iran. I have a very eerie feeling about this. It will still be at least two years minimum for the U.S. to completely leave Iraq (which I don't think they ever will). I think its 2500 U.S> casualties over there right now (soldiers). Iran just makes things more interesting but unforteunately not a good sign at all.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The only thing that ever made logical sense to me about invading Iraq is that we would never leave. In additon, I believe we never really wanted to split the spoils of war with any other nation, hence the go-it-alone-with-a-few-partners attitude. Unfortunately we broke it, as Powell cautioned, and the glue to put it together is the blood of mostly our soldiers.




top topics



 
0

log in

join