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.
Month after month, and then year after year, I’ve watched with a heavy heart as my deepest suspicions about this war’s conception have been confirmed and exacerbated in its disastrous implementation. No matter how bad it gets, we are told to wait, and not ask questions. We have been assured that the insurgency is in its last throes. We have been told that progress is just around the corner, and that when the Iraqis stand up, we will be able to stand down. Last week, without a trace of irony, the President even chose Vietnam as the backdrop for remarks counseling “patience” with his policies in Iraq. ......
When I came here and gave a speech on this war a year ago (Nov 2005), I suggested that we begin to move towards a phased redeployment of American troops from Iraqi soil. At that point, seventy-five U.S. Senators, Republican and Democrat, including myself, had also voted in favor of a resolution demanding that 2006 be a year of significant transition in Iraq.
....But it will not be easy. For the fact is that there are no good options left in this war. There are no options that do not carry significant risks. And so the question is not whether there is some magic formula for success, or guarantee against failure, in Iraq. Rather, the question is what strategies, imperfect though they may be, are most likely to achieve the best outcome in Iraq, one that will ultimately put us on a more effective course to deal with international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and other critical threats to our security.
There is no reason to believe that more of the same will achieve these objectives in Iraq. And, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. It’s not clear that these troop levels are sustainable for a significant period of time, and according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover, without a coherent strategy or better cooperation from the Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the crossfire of a civil war.
The first part of this strategy begins by exerting the greatest leverage we have on the Iraqi government – a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq on a timetable that would begin in four to six months.
The second part of our strategy should be to couple this phased redeployment with a more effective plan that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead, intensifies and focuses our efforts to train those forces, and expands the numbers of our personnel – especially special forces – who are deployed with Iraqi as units advisers.....
The third part of our strategy should be to link continued economic aid in Iraq with the existence of tangible progress toward a political settlement....
Finally, we have to realize that the entire Middle East has an enormous stake in the outcome of Iraq, and we must engage neighboring countries in finding a solution.....
This includes opening dialogue with both Syria and Iran, an idea supported by both James Baker and Robert Gates. We know these countries want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region – and within their own countries.
there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. It’s not clear that these troop levels are sustainable for a significant period of time, and according to our commanders on the ground, adding American forces will only relieve the Iraqis from doing more on their own. Moreover, without a coherent strategy or better cooperation from the Iraqis, we would only be putting more of our soldiers in the crossfire of a civil war.
Originally posted by redled
Well, a few five years on, we have not trained an army or police force. In fact we dismantled both..... at the same time!!!! Praise the G W Bush for that one.
s of March 2008, the 180,000 soldiers of the Iraqi Army are organised into 105 battalions split into 13 divisions (1st-14th, the designation 13 not being used).[39] The 13 divisions are split into four commands. The Baghdad Operational Command falls under the direct command of the prime minister in the National Operations Center, while the other three commands fall under the command of the Iraqi Ground Forces Command. Each Iraqi army division has four line brigades, an engineering regiment, and a support regiment. In 2009, a field artillery regiment will be added to each division, with an artillery battalion added to each brigade.[40]
2008 Iraqi Army Events:
* March 25 – The Iraqi Army launches its first solely planned and executed high-profile division-level operation, Operation Charge of the Knights in Basra. The IA receives Coalition support only in air support, logistics and via embedded advisors. Also, a British infantry brigade stationed in Basra were ready in a tactical overwatch role but did not need to intervene.
* April-June – Two brigades of the Iraqi Army 11th Division, supported by US forces, move into the southern third of Sadr City in an attempt to stop rocket and mortar attacks on US bases and the Green Zone. Following a month of heavy fighting, the Mahdi Army agrees to let Iraqi forces into the remaining portion of the city. On May 20, troops from the Iraqi Army 3rd Brigade of the 1st QRF division and a brigade from the 9th Division move into the northern districts of Sadr City and begin clearing operations.
* May – Iraqi army forces launch Operation Lion's Roar (later renamed to Operation Mother of Two Springs) in Mosul and surrounding areas of Nineva province.
* June – The Iraqi Army moves troops to the southern Maysan province. Following a 4 day amnesty for insurgents to turn over weapons, the Iraqi Army moved into the provincial capital Amarah.
* September – Iraq seeks 36 F-16’s, the most sophisticated weapons system Iraq has attempted to purchase so far. The Pentagon recently notified Congress that it had approved the sale of 24 American attack helicopters to Iraq, valued at as much as $2.4 billion. Including the helicopters, Iraq has announced plans this year to purchase at least $10 billion in U.S. tanks and armored vehicles, transport planes and other battlefield equipment and services. Over the summer, the Defense Department announced that the Iraqi government wanted to order more than 400 armored vehicles and other equipment worth up to $3 billion, and six C-130J transport planes, worth up to $1.5 billion.
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Bunch
If we had started to unilaterally withdraw troops in 2005 or 2006 would the simmering hostilities between the Shia and Sunni erupted with further bloodshed or would they have reached common ground, in your opinion?
Remember, this was the time of mass killings of Shia and Sunni by the other sides death squads.
Originally posted by Bunch
It was a civil war, and we got caught in the middle of it, that was unexcusable.
Originally posted by pavil
Obama's plan would have had us packing up while the killings escalated.
Originally posted by marg6043
Does it matter anymore the policies in Iraq?
Originally posted by Bunch
Originally posted by pavil
Obama's plan would have had us packing up while the killings escalated.
Please do tell me, what right do we have to be in the middle of a civil war, while taking bullets from the 2 sides and an agitator!?
.......
Do you really think that Saudi Arabia and all the arab states would have sat idle and watch Iran a persian nation take charge of Iraq?
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Originally posted by Bunch
It seems to me that you have open this thread just to smear Sen.Obama but without discussing the obvious, which is the people that got us here in the first place. To me is a disingenous attempt to try incite debate or exchange of ideas.