What really happens with Iraq with a Democrat Election victory?

The republicans like to say that the democrats want to 'cut and run'.

Thats more or less rhetoric. The democrats, if they gained control of congress and the executive, wouldn't leave iraq like the US left Vietnam. There wouldn't be a pull out.

There'd be a redistribution of troops to 'over the horizon', to bases in arabia mostly. The Democratic arguement is that this will motivate the Iraqis to crack down on the insurgency. And the 'over the horizon' US troops will be able to jump into the country to help out when needed, to, say, raid falluja, offer military observers in support of Iraqi national operations, etc. And, of course, if the central government is in threat of complete defeat, to step back in en force and prop it back up.

So lets all be clear about this, with the Democrats in power, very little changes. I am not saying that the republicans are doing a good job, but I am trying to realistically assess the situation.

With the US pulled out to the periphery, there is another serious problem, besides just continued violence and chaos.

What happens if, say, al-Sadr comes to power, but without a violent revolution that the US would move in from the periphery to block? What if, say, Maliki tries to broaden his power base by siding with al-Sadr and legitimatizing him (indeed, Maliki's bizzare reaction to the US action in Sadr City seems to indicate that he might be setting the stage for just such an event).

So what happens when/if there is a radical theocratic regime sitting in power in Baghdad?

Are they going to be isolationist?

Are they going to be freindly to the US?

Are they going to be sympathetic to organizations like al-Qaida?

Will international terrorist organizations be more distracted, or more able to focus on the US as a target? Or will they say 'yippie, we won in iraq, now the war is over'?

[edit on 1-11-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan
So lets all be clear about this, with the Democrats in power, very little changes. I am not saying that the republicans are doing a good job, but I am trying to realistically assess the situation.

That is probably true although we could see Iraq partitioned into tribal regions.

So what happens when/if there is a radical theocratic regime sitting in power in Baghdad?

Iraq would be another Iran the only question would be if its the same brand of wack
jobs in charge.

Are they going to be isolationist?

Diffcult to say on the one hand I think that the regime in charge would play there cards in a smart manner in order to stay in the US governments favour. Mind you blind hatred of Israel and western culture may lead them to a differnt course of action.

Are they going to be sympathetic to organizations like al-Qaida?

Quite possible the regime could use al-Qaida to fight a war by proxy while they try and stay on side with the US government.

Will international terrorist organizations be more distracted, or more able to focus on the US as a target? Or will they say 'yippie, we won in iraq, now the war is over'?

Nither the argument that by fighting terrorists in Iraq the US isnt fighting them at home simply dosnt add up. Despite the war in Iraq terrorist plots against the US mainland have still been foiled. This exposes your logic IMO. It suits the insurgents to fight in an urban environment but thats another topic.

I expect that there would be key Democrat leaders who would step up and initiate some laws that would specifically tell Bush how to lead more effective control within Iraq. With more effective control, we could actually turn the government over to the new Iraqi government and get out within the next 2 years.

Unfortunately, Bush would get some of the credit for that. Fortunately, we would have our young men and women home again where they belong. That's a fair trade.

If the Democrats took control why would they even leave Iraq?

What about all the money we invested into the bases being built? There are more than 100.

What about the new World's Largest Embassy in Iraq ?

Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

The Republicans have done a fine job! There is going to be no cut and run! We are never going to leave Iraq and Iran is breathing in our neck. Hmm, I wonder what will happen next?

Originally posted by Techsnow

Scheduled to open in 2007, the sprawling complex near the Tigris River will equal Vatican City in size.

What can I say it have to be a fortress to protect the private oil investors that will be owning all that Iraqi oil.

They need all the protection tax payer money can by. American tax money I mean.

We have been suck into it.

Democrats serve the same master as the Republican so it will be not pull out at all. Business will be as usual.

It's interesting y'all mention that Ambassadors Fortress in Iraq. It is interestingly located near to or right on top of where 200 of the angels that made babies with the women prior to the flood have been entombed. Some of the ancient texts describe them as having been buried alive there. This is also one of the centers of some of the ancient empires like the Babylonian Empire and the Medes and Persians that followed. Alexander the Great conquered that area from the west and so did the Roman Empire.

People I've mentioned to before have scoffed at me when I suggest that the Antichrist may very well rise out of the Middle East. Christians are always looking at Europe and I think they are mistaken.

I think that all that is happening in the Middle East right now is preparation for the New World Order to be ruled by one that the Christians call the Antichrist. Bush, whether he knows it or not, is working to prepare the way for his appearance.

Christians ought to be very afraid of what is going on right now. But no...they follow Bush like the Pied Piper. Jesus did say that in the last days, that even the very elect would be deceived if it were possible.

posted by Nygden

What happens with Iraq with a Democrat victory? The Republicans like to say the Democrats want to 'cut and run'. That’s rhetoric. The Democrats, if they gained control of Congress [in 2006] and the Executive [in 2008], wouldn't leave Iraq like the US left Vietnam. There wouldn't be a pull out. [Edited by Don W]

Part I. Under Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III, plenipotentiary head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, there were some sweetheart oil contracts made which need to be un-made. Every crooked lawyer in Philadelphia worked day and night to write what ExxonMobil and BP think will be unbreakable contracts. Say hello Tony Blair. We’ll see what “sovereign” really means.

Our next concern is how to prevent Iran from establishing its hegemony over the Middle East. Iraq was the only counter veiling force, but we destroyed that with our regime change scheme. Like Humpty Dumpty we are not able to put Iraq back together again in our image. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. This Neo-con experiment in nation building failed miserably. And at $600+ billion, rather expensively.

Turkey will not let the Kurds “go free” and we cannot prevent Iran from exercising covert influence if not overt control over the Shia area bordering Iran. The Sunni are not possessed with any oil, so that 20% of Iraq’s population is going to be a liability on someone. I did hear one person say he believed there was oil in the Baghdad region, which if true, could mitigate the Sunni.

The best idea (among many bad ideas) I have heard was this: station about 30,000 US forces in the far eastern area of the Kurd’s territory (to block Iran) and about 15,000 US forces around the multi-billion dollar Imperial Embassy Grounds. We’d leave the rest of Iraq to the Iraqis. This would get us down to January 20, 2009, when we can attempt a “final solution” to the Iraqi problem with what we’d hope would be a stable government.

The better alternative would be a region-wide peace conference which would include Syria and Iran as well as Turkey, and all the other Arab powers in the region. Of course, we won’t talk to Syria, Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas. Perhaps our representative could wear duct tape? And this begs the Arab-Israeli Question, which I contend is one of the 4 causes of the Nine Eleven Event. Getting complicated, isn’t it? There will be no peace in the Middle East until this matter is settled fairly. You can bank on this!

Part II. How to compare Vietnam and Iraq? The successors to Ho Chi Minh knew the answer to the question overheard at a recent OAS meeting, “Why are there no coups in the United States?” To which the response was, “Because there are no American embassies in Washington!” I don’t like the allegation the US “cut and ran” from Vietnam. We had 550,000 men in the country and could not subdue the populace. Simply put, we lost. Being over-endowed with hubris, it took us 6 years to admit that obvious fact. Under Nixon-Kissinger we sustained over 20,000 KIA and killed maybe 1,000,000 Vietnamese while we gradually accepted the facts on the ground. Time has shown that no harm has come to the United States because of that defeat. Anyone who says we could have won the war or that Jane Fonda lost the war, is smoking hi-grade weed or is self-deluding. As they say, da nile is not just a river in Egypt.


[edit on 11/2/2006 by donwhite]

One difference is that I don't ever think anyone has thought of Vietnamese here in the US are feared for a terrorist attack.

I personally have no fear of Vietnamese terrorists; I can't say the same thing about Islamic residents here...

There would be no difference. The only thing Congress could do would be to cutoff funding to the military to force a retreat due to lack of funds. That will definitely not happen over the next two years as it would ruin their chances in '08. Plus they like the Iraq issue too much and have convinced themselves it's unwinable so why would they shut it down, when they can still point the finger at Bush?

Originally posted by xpert11
Iraq would be another Iran the only question would be if its the same brand of wack jobs in charge.

I think that al-Sadr is going to be the head honcho over there, with his Mahdi Army as the core of a new iraqi military. al-Sadr is a loyal shiite, appparently, and the Ayatollah in Iran is the head of the shiite community. Its not as cut and dry as that, and clearly al-Sadr would become a leader amoung the shiites at least nearly on par with the office of the ayatollah, but his position would be slightly subservient to it, sort of like having a bishop and a catholic militia becomming the state, and then how they relate to the Papacy.

Mind you blind hatred of Israel and western culture may lead them to a differnt course of action.

Especially with an encouraged Iran being able to influence them. Sans hussein's iraq, Iran becomes the "Regional Superpower", so to speak, in the mid-east. Whoever manages to fight their way to the top in iraq, or iraq minus kurdistan or whatever, is going to need to be able to work with the iranians, to prevent them from destablizing their rule. Heck, whoever starts working with the iranians first is probably going to be the person in power anway.

Quite possible the regime could use al-Qaida to fight a war by proxy while they try and stay on side with the US government.

Of course, al-qaida is something of a hot potato. They might, at the very least, work with Hezbollah to set off a revolution in Lebanon. Heck, egypt and jordan might start having to worrying about islamic revolutionaries internally too.

Will international terrorist organizations be more distracted, or more able to focus on the US as a target? Or will they say 'yippie, we won in iraq, now the war is over'?

Nither the argument that by fighting terrorists in Iraq the US isnt fighting them at home simply dosnt add up. Despite the war in Iraq terrorist plots against the US mainland have still been foiled.
Yes but, consider it. When the afghan's were invaded by the soviets, there was internal resistance, but there was also a call for mujahideeners from across the world, and people went from the periphery of the islamic world, over to afghanistan. Now the same has happened in Iraq. True enough, its not that large of a component of the iraqi resistance, the foreign fighters/jihadis. BUT, how many of these foreign fighters would've gone to the US, if not for iraq? Certainly, it must be having some effect.
And, of course, we also have to consider, the bringing together of the mujahideeners in Afghanistan is, argueably, what lead to the formation of al-qaida in the first place, so we could equally have turned iraq into a similar 'incubator' for new international jihadi groups.

davenman
Democrat leaders who would step up and initiate some laws that would specifically tell Bush how to lead more effective control within Iraq

?

Thats not possible. The president is the Commander-in-Cheif and the executive office is in charge of the military. Congress can't pass laws dictating military strategy. Congress can control the military, but it doesn't involve itself in strategy, outside of 'go to war, stop war, continue war', etc.

techsnow
If the Democrats took control why would they even leave Iraq?

It appears that its basically their platform. That, minimally, they're going ot do things differently than bush. That means pulling back to the 'horizon' orincreasing the number of troops. Having democrats in congress or the whitehouse doesn't translate into a change in the military's ability. Theoretically, they could remove all the generals that are there now and replace them, if they have the whitehouse, but still, whats that going to amount to? Either troop increases and/or pulling back to the periphery.

donwhite
there were some sweetheart oil contracts made which need to be un-made.

Interesting, but I do get the feeling that thats not what people are voting over. It'd be a good move, but it seems, relatively speaking, minor.

Iraq was the only counter veiling force, but we destroyed that with our regime change scheme.

Astroundingly, I actually heard people on the news, in a discussion over what our serious alternatives in iraq are, list 'staging a coup by the military' as one of them.
Its a tricky situation. ON the one hand, the basic justification by the jihadis for war against the west is that the west, especially america, is constantly lying and cheating and interfereing in the muslim world. We back dictators, when we talk about democracy. Now that it looks like we're not going to stick around to create a democracy, we're again turning to the idea that 'these people just need a strong man to rule them and keep them quite.'
I mean, we backed Hussein in the first place as a counter to Iran, and now we've screwed up so badly that we almost can't even consider creating a democracy or supporting civil society and security in iraq, we're scared of not countering IRan.
Hell, if we're going to do that, lets be blatant about it and put sadaam back in charge.

The Sunni are not possessed with any oil, so that 20% of Iraq’s population is going to be a liability on someone

But, of course, that was the situation when the baathists came to power too.

Turkey will not let the Kurds “go free”

Indeed. Turkey will probably support any option other than having an Independent Kurdistan. What if, perhaps, they decide that their best option is to annex that part of iraq, or at least annex kurdistan after it goes independent?
Restoration of the Ottoman Empire perhaps?
Maybe that's the solution, bring back the Sultan!

We’d leave the rest of Iraq to the Iraqis. This would get us down to January 20, 2009, when we can attempt a “final solution” to the Iraqi problem with what we’d hope would be a stable government.

I am unclear, how is that all that different from now? Would be not be, for example, sending troops out to places like falluja or other 'hotspots' as they flare up? But what is the sense of staying at all then?

There will be no peace in the Middle East until this matter is settled fairly.

Short of the US invading Israel and overthrowing the government there, I don't see there being any kind of resolution. And, of course, that'd just exchange muslim terrorists plotting against the US with jewish ones.

. Anyone who says we could have won the war or that Jane Fonda lost the war, is smoking hi-grade weed or is self-deluding

It seems like the big problem in vietnam is the same as in iraq, the US military simply cannot deal with guerilla warfare. The US army in vietnam didn't loose any conventional confrontation in vietnam, but the guerilla warfare was another story.
I suppose now we know how the redcoats felt.
We responded to guerilla warfare in vietnam by....increasing our troop numbers nad their firepower. Thats never worked against guerillas. You don't send a roman legion after bandits, you use the auxilliaries and native levies. So perhaps the best we can hope for in iraq is to reduce the number of troops, embed them more with the native units, and just have enough people there to prevent one of the non-governmental militias from taking baghdad or establishing their own state.

zhengyi
One difference is that I don't ever think anyone has thought of Vietnamese here in the US are feared for a terrorist attack.

Yes, but the point of vietnam was to oppose the soviets and their world devouring internationalist communist empire. People must've thought 'if we loose in vietnam, we'll have commies popping up in texas'.

I can't say the same thing about Islamic residents here...

You mean american muslims??? If american muslims were ever going to rise up against the US, they'd've done so now. Its pretty clear that they're not interested in that, no more than vietnamese americans, or japanese americans in wwii. Or german and italian americans in wwii for that matter.

djohnsto77
Plus they like the Iraq issue too much and have convinced themselves it's unwinable so why would they shut it down, when they can still point the finger at Bush?

Yes, this is a good point, these are only, after all, midterm elections. They're almost irrelevant, even in this polarized and charged context.

Nygdan your argument still dosnt hold any weight even thou you raised some interesting
points concerning the mujahideeners in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a before and after 9-11 a manget and haven for terrorists. So there was already a manget in place and the terrorist had/have direct access via the Pakistan/Aggan border. While it is true that the al-qaida members in Iraq arent on US soil they could still be planning attacks on US soil there is another major flaw or problem.

Thanks in part to the appox 11 other insurgent groups in Iraq al-qaida only needs to maintain a minimal presence in Iraq in order to help tie down large numbers of US forces that could be used elsewhere. It is a classic hallmark of insurgent/guerilla warfare. In fact while the focus is on Iraq coalition attention is on Iraq al-qaida and other terrorists groups will be casting there eyes elsewhere.

But another thing to consider is that it'll be easier to police them in iraq, than to be policing them in america. IN iraq, we can just send the army into a town, toss the houses, and shoot down anyone thats working with them. Here, obviously, we can't do that.

And, again, I can't help but think that the people that are ready to cross the globe for the cause of jihad are going preferentially to iraq, and that without iraq, they'd be focusing on the US no?

Originally posted by Nygdan
But another thing to consider is that it'll be easier to police them in iraq, than to be policing them in america. IN iraq, we can just send the army into a town, toss the houses, and shoot down anyone thats working with them. Here, obviously, we can't do that.

To a degree your right although it is still questionable that it is easier to fight al-qaida in Iraq. In Iraq it is just has diffcult to tell who the enemy is as it would be in any other part of the world.

And, again, I can't help but think that the people that are ready to cross the globe for the cause of jihad are going preferentially to iraq, and that without iraq, they'd be focusing on the US no?

That still dosnt entirely add up. While the al-qaida members in Iraq are focused on that country the leaders of al-qaida are still focused on the US as well as the Iraq theater.
The best comparison I can think of is this. When a foot soldier is deployed to a theater of operations he/she focus is on that theater . However the generals that command that soldier may focus and plan to use resources elsewhere.

Iraq has very much played into the hands of al-qaida.
Nygdan your comments do make interesting reading even if I dont agree with them.

your comments do make interesting reading even if I dont agree with them.

Like they say in that ancient revered song, "Now the world don't move/to the beat of just one drum/ what might be right for you/ may not be right for some"

Well, if you believe the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the now majority and minority parties...the white flag is destined to be raised shortly over Iraq.

I would say that a reassessment is overdue. But a "cut and run" isn't very likely (busily knocking on wood), because we can't. We started this, and short of a cataclysmicfailure in the Iraqi gov't., we have to see this through. National honor, not to mention political capital, demands nothing less. We've cut and run before... and the resulting bloodbaths amongst our supporters is a blot on our honor that must not be repeated.

The Dems control Congress, now. The GOP the White House. Both will make noise's about working together to make Iraq work. given past history...it's all lnoise and not substance...meanwhile our young men and women and Iraqi man, women and children will continue to die.

I suspect that things will remain much the same...the Democrats know a winning issue when they see one. Pessimistic? Yes. But nothing I've seen lately gives me cause for optimism where Washington DC is concerned.

In Iraq? More and more, I feel if the Iraqi's are given half a chance, they will make it work. Despite all the blood, young Iraqi's keep stepping up...eventually it'll work, but to do so, they need our help. We can't do it for them, but we can, and should, keep lending them a hand.

posted by Nygdan

The big problem in Vietnam was the same as in Iraq, the US military cannot deal with guerilla warfare. The US army in Vietnam didn't loose any conventional confrontations in Vietnam, but the guerilla warfare was another story. I suppose now we know how the Red Coats felt. [Edited by Don W]

Jimmy Carter’s excellent historical novel, “The Hornet’s Nest” is based on the colonial's campaign in the south led by General Nathaniel Green for our side. We also know that after his initial defeats, Gen. Washington realized it was not necessary for him to defeat the Red Coats in a set battle, but merely for him to avoid being defeated. Perhaps the first rule of a successful guerilla war?

Q. Why can’t we win a guerilla war? A. Because you have to be utterly ruthless. You have to do a dozen Mi Lia villages every day. You have to destroy it to save it. You have to impose a reign of terror, to borrow a phrase from our French compatriots. As in WW2 Yugoslavia and on the Eastern Front of which we know very little, outsiders may only be safe in the daylight and around the major cities. Say hello Afghan.

Recall from history the tactic invented by the British to bring an end to the Boer Wars? Concentration camps. Unlikely in today’s world. Our own sensibilities would oppose that measure. And, today’s population is 6X that of 1900, making the task all the more expensive and unlikely.

We responded to guerilla warfare in Vietnam by . . increasing our troop numbers and their firepower. That has never worked against guerillas. You don't send a Roman legion after highway bandits, you use the auxiliaries and native levies [as in India]. So the best we can hope for in Iraq is to reduce the number of troops and have just enough people there to prevent one of the non-governmental militias from taking Baghdad or establishing their own state. [Edited by Don W]

Yes. And should we not have known all that before March 18, 2003? I really hate to use the terms “military” and “armed forces” in conjunction with a failed political policy. Vietnam deja vu. I am 100% satisfied America’s uniformed personnel did not hatch this scheme nor were they allowed to plan it as they knew it would require. When we use “Pentagon” despairingly, as we are compelled to do by the circumstances on the ground, we need to keep in mind it was the civilian appointees and not the generals who mucked up the ill conceived and wrongly sold Operation Iraqi Freedom.

posted by seagull

Well, if you believe the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of the now majority and minority parties . . the white flag is destined to be raised shortly over Iraq. I would say that a reassessment is overdue. But a "cut and run" isn't very likely, because we can't. We started this, we have to see this through. [Edited by Don W]

Well, Seagull, what’s your idea of a “reassessment” anyway? I mean, how deep into a quagmire to you have to go before you realize you are in a trap, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. This real question we need to answer is this: What can we realistically accomplish by staying? And not with more pie in the sky propaganda.

National honor, not to mention political capital, demands nothing less. We've cut and run before . . and the resulting bloodbaths amongst our supporters is a blot on our honor that must not be repeated.

Crapola! On the assumption you are referring to the debacle we call the Vietnam War, there was no bloodbath afterwards. As for national honor, lets not confuse honor with hubris. Or, how much coffee can you buy with national honor? Pride goeth before a fall! And you know I’m no fan of the Holy Writ, though I do not hesitate to quote it appropriately.

This current dilemma would be interesting to me but for the fact I’ve been there and seen that! As have all Americans who were adults by the 1960s. As I have reminded before, there was no discernable harm to America because of the whipping administered to us by the NVA and VC.

In fact, the world felt sorry for us. I urged we make a treaty with Vietnam post 1975, because they had demonstrated themselves to be the most resilient most dedicated most determined force in Southeast Asia.

The Dems control Congress . . the GOP the White House. Both will make noise's about working together to make Iraq work . . it's all lnoise and not substance . . meanwhile our young men and women and Iraqi man, women and children will continue to die. [Hey, it’s a volunteer army] I suspect that things will remain much the same . . the Democrats know a winning issue when they see one. Pessimistic? Yes. But nothing I've seen lately gives me cause for optimism where Washington DC is concerned.

And that is doubly tragic. Those in our society who are anti-government are in a win-win situation today. Every time they muck up the world, we blame in O.T. “the” government but we are also convincing observes that “government” cannot be employed to assist us in achieving a better life for more people. The New Deal showed what we can do working together. Ronnie Reagan and those following on see only a dark side of America and the world. That is the tragedy which will afflict us in every phase of our national life.

In Iraq? More and more, I feel if the Iraqi's are given half a chance, they will make it work. Despite all the blood, young Iraqi's keep stepping up . . eventually it'll work, but to do so, they need our help. We can't do it for them, but we can, and should, keep lending them a hand.

“Need our help?” One Pew poll says 80% of Iraqis want us OUT. You say “eventually” it will work, but that sounds more like resignation, less like confidence. What you really mean, do you not, is you don’t know (nor do I) whether anything we do will work or not. We’re too embarrassed to do what anyone with only - well I won’t say that - what ought to be obvious to everyone.

A Regional Peace Conference. Participants: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the other Persian Gulf states, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Israel, the Occupied Territories (Hamas), Jordan, Egypt, Japan and the UK. France, Germany, China and Russia would be invited as “contributing observers.”

BUT, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq would be designated the "Gordian Knot" powers. The final outcome would be theirs to make. That is the rational way out of one big miscalculation. And the gross misapprehension of what it is to be a superpower. We know now it means that you can make super mistakes. Unfortunately for our men and women in Iraq, our own leader will remain in office until January 20, 2009, and he can’t spell Hezbollah.


[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

Yes it is a volunteer army...does that mean that I shouldn't be concerned that while the politicians in Washington fiddle, those volunteers and the Iraqis are being killed? My brother is headed that way come the spring, I have valid reasons for concern.

Quagmire? Yes, it is. However, with a little thought and lots of effort it can be done. That's optimism, not blind optimism, but optimism nonetheless.

I was refering, not to Vietnam specifically, but Cambodia; You do recall the Killing Fields? Vietnam had more than its fair share of bloodbaths after we left, remember the Montengards (sp)? I am no expert on the Vietnam era, but even I remember those. Not to mention the "reeducation" camps. I know a couple of people who remember those vividly, they were there. Scars and nightmares to remember them by.

My "reassessment" of Iraq would be something along the lines of...you can not defeat an insurgency by utilizing firepower. As you said, and Nygdan, native levies are the only way. In that I agree with you. I think that the military is coming to that conclusion as well, I hope. Now if the politicians will just stop attempting to micromanage, and let the men and women on the ground, who know what will work...not the generals, the captains and majors who are at the sharp end of the stick, do thier jobs things may improve. Yes I did say may, no guarenteed results in a war of attrition. It comes down to a will to win, not firepower or technology...will.

One Pew poll, I've seen others that say the oppisite...I expect it comes down to how the question is asked. You know that as well as I.

National honor...that has a lot to do with how we view ourselves. Hubris, that too can be constuctive in the aftermath. Would you say that leaving Iraq to its own devices would be a good thing? If it were just going to be the Iraqi's, I would say yes, you? But it won't be just the Iraqi's, it'll be Syrians, Iranians, etc...maybe for the better, maybe for the worse...it's in our own best interest to be involved. It would have been preferable to do it peacefully, no argument there; but it's not, it's a war, and a nasty brutish one at that. Winning it is our only real option, we need to rethink our means to that end.

Eventually, yes; given half a chance, with our help, the Iraqis will make it work. If we leave, maybe they make it work anyway...IMHO that is a bit more problamatic.

posted by seagull

Yes it is a volunteer army...does that mean that I shouldn't be concerned that while the politicians in Washington fiddle, those volunteers and the Iraqis are being killed? My brother is headed that way come the spring, I have valid reasons for concern. [Edited by Don W]

No. You should be concerned. I was an eager volunteer back in 1952. I never felt entitled to any special consideration. I knew war was risky. A nation cannot base policy on sympathy. Harry Truman said it, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Quagmire? Yes, it is. However, with a little thought and lots of effort it can be done. That's optimism, not blind optimism, but optimism nonetheless.

There is an appropriate time to be optimistic. But we also run the risk of being pollyannaish if we turn a blind eye to reality. We have rejected the “stay the course” plan of Bush43. What we implement in its place will be done soon, after the Baker-Hamilton Plan is revealed. I hope it has more realism and less hubris.

I was referring, not to Vietnam specifically, but Cambodia; You do recall the Killing Fields? Vietnam had more than its fair share of bloodbaths after we left, remember the Montengards. I am no expert on the Vietnam era, but even I remember those. Not to mention the "reeducation" camps. I know a couple of people who remember those vividly, they were there. Scars and nightmares to remember them by.

It will serve no good purpose to say “he did, she did” but I do not recall the Vietnamese “bloodbaths.” As for the Montengards, I believe they were armed by the US and were counter-guerillas working day and night to stop the use of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Payback time. It is no reason for us to base our own policy on those events. The people who fled Vietnam to come here were our “friends” who knew what propaganda to repeat to be welcome here by the Gov’t. I have no confidence in what tales of woe they relate, as I’ve also stated in regard to the Cubans who fled here. You have to look carefully at your sources. Being there does not mean what you say is necessarily true. I thought "killing fields" referred to Cambodia and Pol Pot?

My "reassessment" of Iraq would be along the lines of “. . you can not defeat an insurgency by utilizing firepower.” As Nygdan said, native levies are the only way. In that I agree.

I think we have already accepted this state of affairs. I do think the Iraqis are showing heroism every hour of every day, both the police and army types. And every Iraqi who has voted. The problem is the “militias” are too strong for even our 140,000 men to contain. Rank amateurs cannot possibly to that job. Faced with the impossible what do you do?

Which means we must undercut the motivation for the guerrilla movement. Which means doing the re-construction of Iraq. Turn on the electricity . But not to throw billions to the Halliburtons of America, but to hire HONEST locals of which there are millions. None are named Ahmad Chalabi, but then, those are the only guys we know there. So who is stealing from whom? Tragedy heaped on tragedy.

I think that the military is coming to that conclusion as well, I hope. Now if the politicians will just stop attempting to micro manage, and let the men and women on the ground, who know what will work...not the generals, the captains and majors who are at the sharp end of the stick, do their jobs things may improve.

Being an EM in the AF does not make me an authority on the military command structure. But captains and majors are not able to make the decisions that generals must make. Our army officer corp is as good as any in the world. Given the liberty to make the best of a bad scene, I’d trust the Armed Forces over the civilians every day! But the Founding Fathers put civilians in charge. Sometimes, a really dumb one.

National honor . . that has a lot to do with how we view ourselves. Hubris, that too can be constructive in the aftermath. Would you say that leaving Iraq to its own devices would be a good thing?

No matter how we paint it, that is ultimately what we will do. " . . leaving Iraq to its own devices . . " I always regret to hear us invoke “national honor.” That sounds like the last excuse we can thing of. Who said “Patriotism is the last refuge of fools?”

But it won't be just the Iraqi's, it'll be Syrians, Iranians, etc...maybe for the better, maybe for the worse...it's in our own best interest to be involved. It would have been preferable to do it peacefully . . yes given half a chance, with our help, the Iraqis will make it work. If we leave, maybe they make it work anyway . . IMHO that is a bit more problematic.

Syria is a weak country. Barely able to stay afloat. Iran is not much better off because it has a very large population of people under age 21. 38%. 24 million. Equal to Iraq’s total population. They are looking for jobs and a better life. Iran has enough oil to make it work if they can figure how to do it. They also suffer from national honor or hubris. Let us not endow our adversaries with more clout than they have.

“ . . no argument here; but it's a war, and a nasty brutish one at that. Winning it is our only real option, we need to rethink our means to that end.

If we can’t win in Iraq with our best 140,000 troops, what do you think it will take? We spend $2 billion a week in Iraq. What do we have to show for it?
Remember Kenny Rogers? “To know when to hold’em and to know when to fold’em” makes a great leader. Not to know, makes a very bad life experience for everyone. The American public says it’s time to “fold’em.’

Conclusion. Iraq has enough oil to make the country work, but don’t forget we - say L. Paul Bremmer of CPA - stole their oil which I am sure will be re-visited. That, by the way, is our true goal in Iraq, to get a government in power in Iraq that will let the ExxonMobil and BP contracts stand.

The R&Fs again. They get the money and the Poor and Poorer get to do the dying. So what's new?



[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

Forgive me if I read you wrong. If the only reason we went into Iraq was for oil (it was indeed one of them, granted.), wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention less expensive in lives as well as treasure, to broker a sweetheart deal with Saddam, and/or his sons? Just stands to reason that a dictator is easier to deal with in the backroom than a democratic gov't., if only because fewer people are involved.

The point I was making about the montengards was that they were our friends and we turned our backs on them when we left Vietnam. Payback's a bitch, but there shouldn't have been an oppourtunity for it. We owed them, and we renieged on our obligation to an ally and freind. Honor. The same applies in Iraq, we have people who are our friends, do we abandon them? For the sake of expediancy? Politics? The truism that nations have no allies only interests is to my mind bunk. If a nation has no honor, or doesn't honor its obligations, or at least try to, what does it have? I submit, not much.

What could happen if Moqtada al-Sadr comes to power is this and it very well could happen in the not to distant future. The revolt, even if it was non-violent, could lead the United States to invade Iraq again some years down the road after we get out of this current mess we are in over there. If Maliki does side with al-Sadr, the consequences could be catastrophicto the Iraqi people. This would again throw Iraq into a quagmire of violence that would be difficult to stop. That is, he could in fact purchase nublear weapons technology off of the black market from the Russians and threaten to use those weapons against Israel of maybe even Saudi Arabia. I'm afraid that with Maliki in power over there, it's just a matter of time until al-Sadr takes over the Iraqi Government.

We could have a problem again in Iraq if another radical government were to come to power over there. Al-Sadr is a #te Muslim, this could pose a problem for the Sunnis and the Kurds in the north of Iraq. What could happen is that al-Sadr could round up Death Squads and have those squads attack the Kurds and the Sunnis in the northern part of Iraq. This would further continue the bloodshed that is going on right now only without the involvement of the United States. If it were to happen, who knows how many more innocent civilians will be killed in the violence.

In my very humble opinion, I highly doubt that they will be friendly to the United States or any of our 'allies' in the Middle East. If those two do join together, it could also pose a problem to what peace there is in the Middle East. It could be very possible that they could amass an army to attack a country like Saudi Arabia with the proper funding and equipment. It would take millions to equip, fund, and supply an army it would take to amass even a small invasion of either Saudi Arabia or any one of the Emirates along the Persian Gulf. I mean, who knows, they could even try to invade Kuwait again even after Saddam failed to take the country back under Iraqi control years after they got their freedom.

To be honest with you, it could very well be possible that the new government over in Iraq, with a-Sadr and Maliki at the controls, could be sympathetic to Al-Qaida and Hezbollah. With all the hatred that most radical Muslims have shown toward the United States and our allies, it would not really surprise me if they did. Plus, Iraq could in fact be a base of operations for Al-Qaida after we leave the country. This could threaten the entire Middle East if this happens and it is very well possible that it can happen. Also, al-Sadr and Maliki could also fund Al-Qaida from the revenue that the oil production brings in over there.

I don't think that terrorist organizations across the world could be distracted by this. It could be possible though, terror organizations could be more able to focus on the United States as a target of interest. It would be a much larger threat after that since Al-Qaida would have more funding to go around. Not only would the threat of an attack increase here in the states, the risk of a major terrorist attack would go up ten fold across the world from what it is now. I honestly believe that they won't say that they have won because we backed out of Iraq. I think what will happen is that they will still fight us to the death.