Iraq General Thread

[Balta1701]

Surge: 50% More Troops in Iraq

60% Less Nuke Posts

What's Not To Like?

Actually it's about 20% more, but who's counting.

[Texsox]

Actually it's about 20% more, but who's counting.

In numbers, but Nuke counts for like 100,000 regular soldiers . . .

[Balta1701]

That image was from Mr. Bush's visit to Iraq last week.

 

The guy shaking Bush's hand is now dead.

[Balta1701]

And meanwhile...negotiations on a compromise for a key oil law which is constantly cited as an important benchmark that must be met by the Iraqi government appears to have collapsed.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just watched the address, and some of the garbage after the fact. A few thoughts...

 

--Main theme not a surprise: Bush wants to take the small military gains in Iraq and leverage them with some limited troop withdrawals to make it seem like things are good.

--Bush said the word "Patreus" so many times you'd think the general and the President had switched jobs. If things don't go a lot better, I think the general is out of a job, since Bush has basically made this his war now.

--MSNBC's post-coverage was some of the most biased stuff I have seen from a major news network. What the f*** happened to objective journalism? I mean, I expect the interviewed folks to take a side - Huckabee and Biden, for example. But to have the hosts (Olbermann and Matthews) just make such an obvious liberal forum out of it was insulting. Last time I watch MSNBC for political coverage. They should be embarrassed.

--Bush did add a couple spooky things in the speech. One, the way he described it, he basically said we'd have no less than 130k troops there from now until the next Prez takes office. And further, he basically said he expects the next Prez to take his Iraq potato and run with it. Is he on crack?

--Edwards had that weird 2 minute ad/speech. It was mostly imploring Congress and the people to push Congress to cut off funding for the war if a timeline isn't given. I don't think that's going anywhere.

 

So basically, Bush is Bush - the boy who cried wolf, telling us yet again things are getting better when they clearly are not. Patreus is on the hook for the current strategy. Edwards is trying the populist route to try to get enough support in Congress to cut off funding. MSNBC wouldn't know objective coverage if it hit it upside the head. And we are apparently going to be deep into this civil war police thing in Iraq until at least January of '09. The next President will be left with a mess and some tough decisions to make. Oh, and we will see some very small troop withdrawals (5700) this year.

 

[kapkomet]

So what are we supposed to do, Mr. NSS? It seems like you have all the answers as to why GWB is so wrong, so what is it that is so right now?

 

BTW, I don't expect a serious answer to that, because I'm not sure there is one, in all seriousness. It's a god-awful mess over there but from some blogs that you can read (including our very own NUKE) there are things that can be done to make this more "winable" then is happening now.

 

The real question is, how do we make the Iraqi's care enough to want to take control of their own country?

 

Had an interesting conversation with my grandfather in law about the war - he is a WWII vet and had some interesting things to say. You know the zero plane in the Smithsonian? The picture with the GI in the cockpit in that exhibit? That's my grandfather-in-law. I love listening to his stories... it gives you a real sense of perspective on things in these current times.

 

Anyway, I'm tired after thet trip. Hopefully I'm not too buried and can play with ya'll tomorrow.

 

[Rex Kickass]

What I love about the administration's "new" plan is that it's actually the old plan. These 5 brigades to be sent home? Always were going to be sent home. There's nobody to replace them in the rotation.

 

Actually, I rather like Obama's plan as I understand it. Phase out combat troops over the next 16 months, bringing home 1 or 2 brigades a month starting now, and keep a reduced residual force in Iraq to help rebuild a state apparatus capable of national reconciliation. Using the flag of the UN to internationalize the situation and actually help make matters better.

 

Sounds like a better plan to me.

[KipWellsFan]

The real question is, how do we make the Iraqi's care enough to want to take control of their own country?

 

You think Iraqis don't care enough? How bout they care a ton but there's just a million different agendas operating at once. It's almost impossible to find compromise between Democrats and Republicans in the States. Multiply that a couple times...

[NorthSideSox72]

So what are we supposed to do, Mr. NSS? It seems like you have all the answers as to why GWB is so wrong, so what is it that is so right now?

 

BTW, I don't expect a serious answer to that, because I'm not sure there is one, in all seriousness. It's a god-awful mess over there but from some blogs that you can read (including our very own NUKE) there are things that can be done to make this more "winable" then is happening now.

 

The real question is, how do we make the Iraqi's care enough to want to take control of their own country?

 

Had an interesting conversation with my grandfather in law about the war - he is a WWII vet and had some interesting things to say. You know the zero plane in the Smithsonian? The picture with the GI in the cockpit in that exhibit? That's my grandfather-in-law. I love listening to his stories... it gives you a real sense of perspective on things in these current times.

 

Anyway, I'm tired after thet trip. Hopefully I'm not too buried and can play with ya'll tomorrow.

I'm glad you asked, Kap. I am probably many things to people here, not all good, but I think I can say I usually make an effort to suggest a different path if I disagree with the current one. I'll reiterate my preferred paths for Iraq, as of this point (ignoring that being there at all was illegal and irresponsible), in order of preference...

 

1. Ideally, I think something like the Biden plan is what should be done. A very thin national Iraqi government with only a few basic tasks - revenue sharing, economic structure, endorsement and protection of basic personal freedoms, things of that nature. Then seperately, allow the three ethnic groups to do what they want with their own terrain, which they are headed towards anyway (just, more violently, right now). The three states (Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, we'll call them for now) would handle many things individually. This is painful in the short run, as it would inevitably cause displacement and refugee problems, but again - already happening. This just puts some control and safety around the processm so that maybe a few less people are killed, injured, made homeless, etc. Once these states begin to stabilize a bit, start to draw down our troops. The desire of the states to protect themselves from each other would have a new side benefit - security increases in each state.

 

2. Since the Biden plan has received no significant backing, and is never going to be adopted, my current second choice is Obama's plan. The gradual drawdown of troops over about a year period, each combat brigade handing over duties to Iraqi police and military, in order of who is most ready. This forces those Iraqi units to get their asses in gear. In the end, leave a residual force to assist with advisement, border control, and the occasional terror cell hit. I am OK with a long term presence of those few thousand troops in those specialized positions, if in return we get back the bulk of the combat brigades.

 

I do not agree with Richardson on this - I do not think it is realistic to draw down to zero anytime soon, nor is it smart. But the plan I agree with least, because it will result in the most death and destruction for Iraqis and Americans alike, in both the short AND long runs, is the Bush/Patraeus let's just keep going and maybe they'll wear down strategy. Its really the worst possible way to go about it.

 

[kapkomet]

I'm glad you asked, Kap. I am probably many things to people here, not all good, but I think I can say I usually make an effort to suggest a different path if I disagree with the current one. I'll reiterate my preferred paths for Iraq, as of this point (ignoring that being there at all was illegal and irresponsible), in order of preference...

 

1. Ideally, I think something like the Biden plan is what should be done. A very thin national Iraqi government with only a few basic tasks - revenue sharing, economic structure, endorsement and protection of basic personal freedoms, things of that nature. Then seperately, allow the three ethnic groups to do what they want with their own terrain, which they are headed towards anyway (just, more violently, right now). The three states (Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, we'll call them for now) would handle many things individually. This is painful in the short run, as it would inevitably cause displacement and refugee problems, but again - already happening. This just puts some control and safety around the processm so that maybe a few less people are killed, injured, made homeless, etc. Once these states begin to stabilize a bit, start to draw down our troops. The desire of the states to protect themselves from each other would have a new side benefit - security increases in each state.

 

2. Since the Biden plan has received no significant backing, and is never going to be adopted, my current second choice is Obama's plan. The gradual drawdown of troops over about a year period, each combat brigade handing over duties to Iraqi police and military, in order of who is most ready. This forces those Iraqi units to get their asses in gear. In the end, leave a residual force to assist with advisement, border control, and the occasional terror cell hit. I am OK with a long term presence of those few thousand troops in those specialized positions, if in return we get back the bulk of the combat brigades.

 

I do not agree with Richardson on this - I do not think it is realistic to draw down to zero anytime soon, nor is it smart. But the plan I agree with least, because it will result in the most death and destruction for Iraqis and Americans alike, in both the short AND long runs, is the Bush/Patraeus let's just keep going and maybe they'll wear down strategy. Its really the worst possible way to go about it.

And for the most part, despite all the hyperbole I tend to throw out there, I agree with this. And I think that BushCo should not sit there and say "they'll just wear down"... yes, they will, only "wearing down" means "sitting there until we leave so that we can raise havoc in the vacuum that's left".

 

It's nuts to think that we can stay there forever and maintain status quo. But I also think that we need to show a strength of force to the insurgents that they haven't seen. I also think that the US is actually getting decent at "counter insurgency", which is something that is not being discussed as a part of the "surge". At the end of the day, that's what the "surge" really is.

[kapkomet]

You think Iraqis don't care enough? How bout they care a ton but there's just a million different agendas operating at once. It's almost impossible to find compromise between Democrats and Republicans in the States. Multiply that a couple times...

Agree... but I also think that they don't care because it's not in their interests to care at this point (in their own minds).

 

[StrangeSox]

The "new" Bush plan is just the exact same plan from before the surge. You know, the "stay the course" plan that hadn't worked for 4 years.

 

"What to do with Iraq" is a very difficult question to answer; that doesn't mean we should go with the answer we already know is wrong.

[kapkomet]

The "new" Bush plan is just the exact same plan from before the surge. You know, the "stay the course" plan that hadn't worked for 4 years.

 

"What to do with Iraq" is a very difficult question to answer; that doesn't mean we should go with the answer we already know is wrong.

I guess it's hard to say if there is a difference - meaning - if control is kept in the areas rather then letting them go to garbage, then the "plan" will be working where it wasn't the last time. That is the part that remains to be seen. However, if we are just going to turn things over and it goes to hell in a handbasket right away, then there's a major problem and it is something that can't be handled by this president.

 

Don't get me wrong here - more of the same is not acceptable.

[Rex Kickass]

What's irritating about this is that the new Bush plan is the original surge plan's completion and its being signaled a shift in strategy when in reality, its not a shift at all.

[kapkomet]

What's irritating about this is that the new Bush plan is the original surge plan's completion and its being signaled a shift in strategy when in reality, its not a shift at all.

No, on a high level, it's not... but it really depends on what they do after areas are cleared as to whether it's a real shift...

 

Honestly, I'm skeptical like the rest of you, but I always allow for the fact that they may have learned something.

 

[Texsox]

Here's a bone to pick over, another log for the fire.

 

Looking over the anarchy that is Iraq. Waring factions, groups who hate each other, lawlessness. What if a strong dictator is the best form of government?

[kapkomet]

Here's a bone to pick over, another log for the fire.

 

Looking over the anarchy that is Iraq. Waring factions, groups who hate each other, lawlessness. What if a strong dictator is the best form of government?

Well, it is, in a sense.

 

[Texsox]

Well, it is, in a sense.

 

Hammer Time '08

 

Seriously, a kindler, gentler, dictator filled with compassionate conservatism might be the ticket instead of a representative government of some kind.

[Balta1701]

Hammer Time '08

 

Seriously, a kindler, gentler, dictator filled with compassionate conservatism might be the ticket instead of a representative government of some kind.

That's actually the single most sensible idea I've heard about our middle east policies in the past 6 years. By a long shot. And this is not in green.

[Texsox]

That's actually the single most sensible idea I've heard about our middle east policies in the past 6 years. By a long shot. And this is not in green.

 

But does any dictator not go crazy and start killing people? And perhaps there is a better title. The best of the dictators I can think of would be Castro, and that isn't that high of a bar.

[Balta1701]

But does any dictator not go crazy and start killing people? And perhaps there is a better title. The best of the dictators I can think of would be Castro, and that isn't that high of a bar.

But you know what? It's not like an absolutely enormous f***ing amount of people aren't dying over there already. Unless you'd be putting Delay @ the Pol Pot level of insanity, he'd be better than what we've unleashed.

[Texsox]

I believe most Americans believe then only good way to govern is by an election process that most will not participate in anyway. The irony of democracy.

 

But perhaps, and I'd be interested in other opinions, a democracy in Iraq isn't the right place and time. Perhaps there is a time and place for an autocratic government. But with a sense of decency. Instead of "I hate your religion, you are dead" a "I hate your religion, you will never have a voice in this government, but you can live here without fear of reprisals". Still sucks to be them, but it sucks a little less.

[Mplssoxfan]

Problem is, for a strong dictator to manifest his strength, he has to crack some heads along the way. After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

[Balta1701]

16000 people have now been infected, and 10 have died, in a rapidly growing Cholera outbreak in northern Iraq.

[sox4lifeinPA]

16000 people have now been infected, and 10 have died, in a rapidly growing Cholera outbreak in northern Iraq.

 

I wonder if there's love in their time of Cholera?