Iraq endgame-how to proceed?

I was always against this war, I just want to make that clear before continuing any further. Nevertheless, I think the statistics are pretty clear evidence that the surge is working. However, I don't think anyone would advocate having non-Iraqi troops over there forever. It should be clear that it is time to bring Western involvement in Iraq to a close, how do we withdraw in a responsible and dignified fashion? Is there anything we can do now, in the endgame, to have reasonable assurance that there will be at least a modicum of stability once we're gone?

Excellent post I am more or less in the same boat as you when it comes to the Iraq war. Really the only viable option is partition Iraq along ethnic and have a lose confederation of states or a federal government whose only responsibility is to defend Iraq from the likes of Iran.

Coalition countries should also stop disgracing themselves and take there fair share of Iraqi refuges.

'partitioning' Iraq would require foreign troops forever to keep the sides apart, being attacked constantly, there are only 2 viable options:

1. Withdraw all US/colation troops and have a arab/muslim force take over and then they can do their thing to keep it together and to support the govt that US left them, then it will be their problem and America can move on before Iraq ruins America.

2. Just withdraw as quickll as possible and let it exist as a fractured country like Lebanon was from 1975-1990.

Originally posted by pkspeaker
'partitioning' Iraq would require foreign troops forever to keep the sides apart, being attacked constantly, there are only 2 viable options:

I disagree I think that once the ethnic groups were separated and the undesirables are weeded it would be possible to create effective local security forces over a specified time frame. The level of training , quality of troops and screening would have to improve but that is the case no matter with the local security forces no matter what happens in Iraq.

I think that any troops from neighbouring countries would just further what ever anti democracy agendas there leaders have and that saying the least rather the best of interests of Iraq at heart.

yea, whatever, that just goes back to keeping 130,000 troops there, spending 150B every 6 months, kia,wounded usm everyday..that cannot go on forever, come the next president and the gig is up..there is no 'weeding' out of 'undisirables' the Insurgents and militias are there to stay, the Americans are there to go.. the Iraqis will not stop the insurgency or maintain 'local control' until the Americans are out..how long can this line go on, "there needs to be some improvement" , "there has been some progress but there is still work to be done" what the F ever..the situation there is basically the exact situation in may 2003, just worse..5 years from now it would be the same sht and America will be bankrupt.

if it's a coalition of diferent countries it's possible that it will hobble along like Lebanon did but ultimatly the democracy this is a sham.

you seem to think that american imperialism is democracy but if some other country, contries are doing the same thing than they are persuing an anti-democratic agenda..there is nothing 'democratic' about the current situation, the US govt runs the country.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by pkspeaker]

And its a question you would like the US president and the UK prime minister has an answer for.

I agree we can not continue to keep forces in Iraq for the next 5, 10 20 years. The UK is looking to draw down its forces and I guess with the election of the next US president, there may be the mandate from the US people to reduce troops numbers.

I am not sure world opinion would allow us to just leave. We created the problems in the first place, and as leaders in the first world, we have to see the example and leave Iraq in a position to become its own country again.

If we accept that maintaining troops is not a viable option, we seem to be left with a even smaller number of choices.

1) Just leave - It's an option but would create a massive power vacuum, and Iraq would be plunged into an all out civil war, and can we as the west, and one of the biggest users on crude oil, afford for Iraq to decend into civil war, and the impact that would have on the supply and the price of crude oil. And then, thinks what happens, if the wrong side, (according to us), wins the power stuggle in Iraq and starts to use the supply of oil as a political weapon.

2) Continue to maintain a major military presence until the Iraqi Government, police and military is deemed capability. And the question here is what is the time frame. You would have to guess years and is there the political will of the people and Government to maintain troops, and then, will there be a time when we feel the Iraqis are ready.

3) A peace keeping force. The real question is who would want to front and send their troops to Iraq to act as peacekeepers. I think is very unlikely that any major western power would be accepted by the Iraqis so this then leads to an Arab fronted force. I could see some of the oil rich Gulf states funding this and it could be in the interests of Saudi to have a peace keeping force that could maintain a stable supply of oil and not plunge the whole region into a wider civil war. Could the UN led a peace keeping force? And would they want to accept the role with what is common knowledge and the rick of failure?

And funding is just one aspect of a peace keeping force. Who would provide peace keepers on the ground? Iran, China, India.

Originally posted by pkspeaker
yea, whatever, that just goes back to keeping 130,000 troops there, spending 150B every 6 months, kia,wounded usm everyday..that cannot go on forever, come the next president and the gig is up..there is no 'weeding' out of 'undisirables' the Insurgents and militias are there to stay

Your right it cant go on forever that why my idea needs to be implemented . With better intel many of the undesirables could be weeded out . No other option is viable peace keepers wouldn't stand a chance and maintaining a smaller force in Iraq would just undo any gains from the surge .

Excuse me this is not an idea, it's stale rhetorick that we have been hearing since 2003.. with better intel we can 'weed out' the 'bad' guys where do you get this 'intel'- does it grow on a tree somewhere..if there was any substance to this I think it woud have been done already after 5 years..
and even if you do get some 'intel' from a tribal collaborator or whoever, that only means they bust a few cells, a 1000 more will quickly pop up and still attack US forces everyday and pretty much the same rate as they have always done since 2003.

one more thing..The US is not fighting 'bad guys' in the first place, these are well organized insurgents and militias who have broad based support of the civilian population, they are intrenched in the population in a way that can never be overcome..someone who fights to liberate his country from foreign occupation is not necessarily a bad guy, just someone witha different political ideology.

Pkspeaker your above post doesn't seem to be very well thought out. You gather intel from the locals and cooperate with the ones that will turn against or just work with you in the fight against the enemy . Sure if you don't deploy enough troops the enemy will crop up elsewhere . But if the locals turn against the enemy his operations become increasingly more difficult. I never said that the insurgents are and militias in Iraq aren't well organised.

That is exactly what they're doing, what do you think they are doing now? But in any case, wheather Vietnam or this one, it only works to a certain extent, these locals are morally challenged, this 'enemy' might be ruthless but at the end of the DAY the 'enemy' is fighting for independence and against an occupier

Did the American locals cooperate with the British in the 1770s? well i gess some of them did..what was his name..Benidict Arnold.

Originally posted by pkspeaker


Did the American locals cooperate with the British in the 1770s? well i gess some of them did..what was his name..Benidict Arnold.

Some? Read the history books. You'd be surprised how many colonists in the 13 colonies were Tory and sided with the British. Like most of New York State, a little factoid they failed to teach me in school.

Originally posted by pkspeaker
these locals are morally challenged, this 'enemy' might be ruthless but at the end of the DAY the 'enemy' is fighting for independence and against an occupier

First of all you cant clump the population of Iraq into one group. Of course the enemy is ruthless they have no moral high ground to fall from.
The enemy is fighting for independence ?
You got to be joking ! The enemy primary target is there fellow Iraqis it just so happens that coalition forces are caught in the middle of a religious war that dates back thousands of years.

y dont thay withdrawl the troops and bring some building companys into iraq and make it into a country like dubai

also alot of aid groups and groups against war helpers and all we need all the peace peaople to gether to fix iraq