The Iraq War

[freebird]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands.

Also we need to put more pressure on the Arabs to step up and do something.
Marc you are correct that our military forces over there are winning on the battle field the problem is that for every battle won another 100 possible enemies rise up.

It is kind of like a vicious circle or we take one step foward and 2 steps back.

I don't think it was a good idea to get US soldiers involved with a Muslim factional fight. Chris, I think part of the problem was that the US government was too open about "staying until the job is done" or "it's too important we cannot leave", because that tells the Iraqi Gov't that no matter how much they screw up, the US is staying. An interesting point, after the democrats & some Republicans came close to passing the pull-out bill, the Saudi's said that if the US left they would send in troops to support the Sunni's.

Originally Posted by Erich

we've had that saying let God sort em out since suvivalist times here in southern Oregon since the late 60's. There will never be peace in the mid-east we have to take this as fact, if any it will be too short termed. Adler and I and others know full well the simple possibilities of tribal war that has been going on for centuries even while we were over there and are still over there, once one leaves as a protecting force, another will surely move in, it is almost one of logistics, the place is volitile and this is what happens even with an overwhelming presence. The Iraqis do not want us there.

Erich I think you are right about that, I don't see the idea of a stable, democratic Iraq as obtainable, given the mindset of the Muslim leaders.

About 2 months ago the "Federal" plan was passed in the US congress by about 75 - 25, but without much publicity. What do you think of that idea?

Basically the plan was something like this: The US pulls back from populated areas, establishes 3 or 4 bases near the borders, and the troops concentrate on going after Al Quaida bases, and stopping weapons from crossing the Iranian border. The 3 sects of Muslims will each be in local control in their own "province", just like it is now in the Kurd area.

The advntage is that it will give the US troops more of a regular mission, instead of supervising a religious civil war, and less chance of civilian "incedents". I think each "Imam" or warlord in charge of his own territory will be more inclined to keep the peace with his own militia, nor do I think a national army is attainable anytime soon.

I think the advantage would shift, instead of the US begging the Iraqi's to get their act together, they could use some "hard diplomacy" on the warlords. For example the US representative goes to conference with the Sunni (or Shite) leader, and says something like this:

"We are not inclined to support your side, because you are associated with Sunni Al Quaida (or Shite Iran). However we are willing to give you a chance, if you manage your provincial government reasonably well, stop insurgents from operating in your territory, and provide for the needs of the people, we will support you with money, supplies & weapons. If you screw up - we won't stop sending the money & weapons, we'll just send them to your opponent"

Kind of a stick and carrot approach. meanwhile, the US troops instead of patrolling the cities are free to seal off the Iranian border.

[freebird]

About your previous post Chris...

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Problem is that {Biden's "Federal plan"} wont work. When I was in Iraq we brought the idea up. My Division covered everything north of Baghdad up to Turkey. Kirkuk and up was in "Kurdistan" which was pretty much run by the Kurds. We trained the Kurds to protect there own region.

The problem is this the Kurdish area is a very oil rich area. The Shiites and the Sunni's dont want the Kurds to have all the "power".

There were several time I flew Generals up to the Kurdish Headquarters in Irbil (northern Iraq) and we would have lunch with the Kurdish political leaders (on invite from then and the Generals). We would not really speak or open our mouths because well that is not the place of the "normal soldier". Anyhow we listened to what was being said and that was a main concern.

Frankly it would never work...

About the oil - the Kurds (or anyone else) cannot make any money from their oil unless they export it, if the US sealed off the border they can't do anything with the oil. The US would just have to "lay down the law", all oil revenue would have to be equally split on a per capita or whatever basis. The Kurds also have to realize that without US "goodwill", there is a good chance that Turket will come in and destroy the Kurd area.

[evangilder]

This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either.

The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.

Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by evangilder

This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either.

Yes, it's complicated for sure, but the whole thing is a mess already. It's kind of like the program in Canada "equalization" where the rich provinces (B.C., Alberta, Ontario) subsidise the resource poor ones (Atlantic provinces etc) I'm sure there is something similar in the US.

Originally Posted by evangilder

The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.

Would be nice, I have my doubts that it can be done though. There are too many factions that have no interest in a peaceful Iraq.

Originally Posted by evangilder

Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.

I couldn't agree more. One thing I don't like though, is some media comments that "The US has to stay in Iraq until we win", to my mind the US is not going to get a "win" over there (ie a stable, democratic US ally) so the idea of a "successful outcome" would be more realistic, like you say, find some way to leave without the whole place going down the crapper.

It seems to me that the current situation is almost a "lose" for the US, a huge drain on the US treasury, public opinion shifting against foreign deployments, and 150,000+ troops tied up in Iraq.

Looking at it from the point of view of Iran or N. Korea, the current situation is pretty good, the US government & public are distracted by Iraq, and the public mood is turning against military action, if it was needed in the future (like in Korea or Iran)

I don't like the idea that because of the Iraq situation there won't be public support for future action to keep the A-bomb away from these B*****ds!

[plan_D]

There's no quick solution to a problem like Iraq, a steady hand-over of power to the Iraq government is the best option for success. The only alteration to the plan for me would be when the Iraqi government believes its time to run the country safely then pull the troops out of cities and into bases like the "Federal" plan but have a whole Iraqi nation, instead of trying to split it up.

In Al-Amarah the British forces knew where the HQ of the OMS was but because of politics it was impossible for them to raid the building [it was not a mosque]. This is where the problem lies, the insurgency [in Afghanistan and Iraq] need to be rid of any areas where they feel safe. The military commanders know this and it was this feeling that sent British forces into the Helmand province in Afghanistan. The Coalition (in both nations) need to constantly apply pressure to the enemy and make them constantly look over their shoulder.

I know a Para who served in Afghanistan and he informed me that the easiest way to stop the mortar attacks on their compound was to constantly patrol and harass the enemy. Even as a Para he admitted that the Royal Marines that took over their position did a better job of applying pressure and thus received less mortar attacks, the Royal Regiment (those in Sniper One) apparently sat tight in their compound and received a hammering.
I'm not saying that we should be gung-ho but I am saying that Coalition presence needs to be there all the time, making the insurgency worry.

[wilbur1]

too true pland

[ccheese]

This morning John Edwards was interviewed for Good Morning America. He said, almost in words of one syllable, that if he is elected as President of the US, within his first year he will have ALL U.S. troops OUT of Iraq, and there will be NO permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I didn't think the GOP was thinking in this direction !

Charles

[Matt308]

That's because he's a Demo, Charles.

[ccheese]

Originally Posted by Matt308

That's because he's a Demo, Charles.

Charles

[renrich]

John Edwards is not only a democrat but he has no chance of being president of the US

[Matt308]

Ambulance chasing lawyer POS.

[wilbur1]

To hell with it all...flatten the damn continent and let mother nature take over....i.e. The U.S. Marines. End this stupid "war" and lets get back to football

[freebird]

Originally Posted by plan_D

There's no quick solution to a problem like Iraq, a steady hand-over of power to the Iraq government is the best option for success. The only alteration to the plan for me would be when the Iraqi government believes its time to run the country safely then pull the troops out of cities and into bases like the "Federal" plan but have a whole Iraqi nation, instead of trying to split it up.

If we could have any confidence in their "Government".....

[plan_D]

As long as a presence is maintained outside of the cities any possible uproar could be dealt with. The course of action now should be a quick development of Iraq and leaving with a minimal amount of backlash. The problems are numerous and the civilians are not helping, to be honest. In Afghanistan, the REMEs attached to the Para Battle Group wanted to plumb in a washing machine given to a hospital by the Americans but they were not allowed because they were a military outfit. The Afghans would have thought more of the troops if they saw them helping [we hope] but the civilians were stopping them, and after several months to washing machine was still not plumbed in.