Let's settle it: Stance concerning the current occupation of Iraq (1 Viewer)

[DavidM]

Not everyone who votes for #1 is necessarily strictly concerned with just "leaving it better than we found it".

No doubt.

The inevitable is that we'll prop-up an eventual dictator who will be "friendly" to the U.S. for a while and we'll provide the weaponry, support, and backing to make it viable. So let's do it already and move on. Surely there's some willing charismatic son-of-a-gun to be found who is ready to rule with an iron-fist and quell dissent.

 

[dapperdan]

Interesting quote by Asst. Sec of Defense Mike Vickers on the subject:
“Insurgencies have to be won by local capacity,” Mike Vickers, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities, told a group of defense reporters in Washington on Feb. 6.

Because “it typically takes a decade or more” to achieve victory in a counterinsurgency, Vickers said, “a key measure of success” for the “supporting country” - in this case, the U.S. - is whether domestic political support for the mission can be sustained for such an extended period.

“Over the longer haul, I still believe that the indirect approach … irrespective of force levels, is the way we will ultimately succeed [in Iraq],” he said, in answer to a question on reports that he had initially counseled against last year’s “surge” of U.S. forces into Iraq."

http://www.westhawk.blogspot.com/

 

[Saintshizzle]

You have to be kidding me...?

People actually voted for open-ended OCCUPATION as it is written. We are working feverishly over here to get the Iraqis to change that mindset. The last thing we need is Americans putting us out there like that. These guys are just now realizing that they have to get off of thier azzez and do something for themselves (money, work etc).

I train/mentor an Iraq BN executive Officer, and he still says things like, "Well, the coalition can do that for us, they aren't going anywhere!" That stuff burns me up. I quickly tell him that he is mistaken and that this endless pot of money and manpower will be gone soon...get ready.

This cease-fire has been great for us kinetically, especially where I am. But, logistically, the Iraqis have sat on thier fat butts and squandered the silence we gave them. We are still giving them money for everything (paperclips to fuel...hummers, you name it). As an Iraqi BN XO advisor (on a MiTT team), I am working with XOs on MiTTs at the BDE, DIV and MOD level to fix this in a hurry. Bottom Line: The Iraqis could not have asked for a better oprotunity than this war gave them, HONESTLY. They sat on their butts during Saddam's reign, complaining about his dictatorial leadership, now they are sitting on their butts complaining that we broke it so we should fix it (Thanks Colin, you are my mentor, but I wished you had bitten your tongue on this one). Oh, and 10 times better than it was before it was broken. These guys are very lazy, not be cynical, it is the truth. they really want us to do everything for them, like the women do everything for them at home. that way they can continue to sit-around, drink chia, laugh, joke and request more service.

It's time to wake up.

 

[LSSpam]

People actually voted for open-ended OCCUPATION as it is written. We are working feverishly over here to get the Iraqis to change that mindset. The last thing we need is Americans putting us out there like that.

Holy smokes! Mods, someone, delete this thread before the Iraqi's see it!

 

[SWJJ]

ten years or more huh?

I honestly do not have much of an opinion on the issue. I have at some point felt very strongly both ways.

But I do not think 2 is even an option I think its an all or nothing kinda choice...

option 2 is simply option 3 comprimised to make the people that support option one happy.

I think the best is choice 1 or 3....

I just dont know which one.

 

[Saintshizzle]

Holy smokes! Mods, someone, delete this thread before the Iraqi's see it!

LS, you know me. I don't joke about these things that much, because it is real (not a message board thread that i just chime-in on). That is why I haven't been participating on many military threads over the past couple of years (also, because deployments are literally back-to-back for me).

You are 25 years old, and I bet you have not even visited your local recruiting office just to say hello. there are many on this board 18-35, that have very strong opinions about this war effort (either way) but they will not step forward and give their brothers some relief.

Anyhow, that is why I cannot believe someone would vote for number 1. Hopefully it was DD, Cavalier, Bulldawg and others...

Shiz

 

[LSSpam]

You are 25 years old, and I bet you have not even visited your local recruiting office just to say hello.

I'm fairly certain you haven't the faintest idea about anything about me

 

[Taurus]

I think, if their own press is to be believed, that the Iraqi Parliament has already voted for us to leave posthaste. What if we just did what the nice people ask?

 

[MLU]

You set a date and the violence will die down... until the day after we leave.

Then what good did we do? We did nothing but create more animosity in a region that already hates us.

The Iraqi's will take over soon enough, but pushing people into a role they're not ready to fill is counter-productive. It takes more than a name plate on a desk and a title to create legitimate rule in a country. I just don't see how setting a timeline would work. Developing a representative government is a process, I think. Part of that process is a realization that this is a much better way than Islamic Rule or a Dictatorship. I don't feel that you can force this acceptance, thus you can't possibly set a timeline.

 

[MLU]

Anyhow, that is why I cannot believe someone would vote for number 1. Hopefully it was DD, Cavalier, Bulldawg and others...

Shiz

Being a hypocrite and being wrong are not exclusive to each other. You can be both. The world does not fit into such neat little packages.

 

[DavidM]

But I do not think 2 is even an option I think its an all or nothing kinda choice...

option 2 is simply option 3 comprimised to make the people that support option one happy.

Ah yes, consider it a compromise somewhere between "sixty days" and "100 years."

In all seriousness, I voted #2. As much as I wish this could come to a quick end, I don't believe it would be wise to immediately pull the plug. But I don't think it's a situation we can afford to be mired in long-term, either. So how does that translate? Heck, specific amounts of time? I don't know, but what I'd like to see is some committed time table and plan, with a foreseeable end in sight to hand over control so that the Iraqi people know that the clock is ticking and can take the steps to be prepared. Open-ended doesn't work because it removes all sense of urgency. An immediate withdrawal likely leaves a power vacuum.

 

[xpuma20x]

Ah yes, consider it a compromise somewhere between "sixty days" and "100 years."

In all seriousness, I voted #2. As much as I wish this could come to a quick end, I don't believe it would be wise to immediately pull the plug. But I don't think it's a situation we can afford to be mired in long-term, either. So how does that translate? Heck, specific amounts of time? I don't know, but what I'd like to see is some committed time table and plan, with a foreseeable end in sight to hand over control so that the Iraqi people know that the clock is ticking and can take the steps to be prepared. Open-ended doesn't work because it removes all sense of urgency. An immediate withdrawal likely leaves a power vacuum.

+1

DavidM, you basically stated my view on things as well. #2, to me, is the only logical method. With #1, we could be there for a hundred years as many are actually wanting. The mindset of "if we pull out, we're surrendering to terrorists" needs to be cleared away. Macho attitudes will not help us or the Iraqis better ourselves.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Anyhow, that is why I cannot believe someone would vote for number 1. Hopefully it was DD, Cavalier, Bulldawg and others...

Shiz

I was one of the #1 voters and as you know I served in GW1.

For me the problem is there is no way to leave it and not have the result be chaos at this point. Not in the short term anyway. It would become an area for a proxy war between regional Shi'ite and Sunni factions. It would become a safe haven for terrorists, would be under constant assault from it's neighbors and, eventually, would fall into the hands of someone that would make Saddam look like Ghandi. On the other hand as I've stated before there was no way for us to leave the region with Saddam in power. Too many people had helped us in GW1 and Saddam had a history of extracting vengeance.

So it was a catch-22. Leave and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the folks living above and below the no fly zones were toast. Stay and we get, well, what we have. Leave now and we turn the region into Hell on Earth.

When King Bush the First decided to put troops in Saudia Arabia in 91 he committed us to the region for decades. He was warned that would be the result and here we are 16 years later with 160,000 boots on the ground and no easy out.

 

[SWJJ]

Ah yes, consider it a compromise somewhere between "sixty days" and "100 years."

In all seriousness, I voted #2. As much as I wish this could come to a quick end, I don't believe it would be wise to immediately pull the plug. But I don't think it's a situation we can afford to be mired in long-term, either. So how does that translate? Heck, specific amounts of time? I don't know, but what I'd like to see is some committed time table and plan, with a foreseeable end in sight to hand over control so that the Iraqi people know that the clock is ticking and can take the steps to be prepared. Open-ended doesn't work because it removes all sense of urgency. An immediate withdrawal likely leaves a power vacuum.

Any pull out before a strong iraqi government is set up and they have the trained troops to support the government against any kind of uprising creates a power vaccum, 60 days or 6 months will make no difference.

Stragecially I dont get the difference between an immediate pull out and a one year timed pull out, unless the government is ready in that timeline, the date does not matter and simply a delayed immediate withdawal.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

You have to be kidding me...?

People actually voted for open-ended OCCUPATION as it is written.

Appearently its not exactly as written....

I guess the question to ask would be if the situation started to deteriorate would you be in favor of sending troops back in (even after pulling some out)?

The word 'occupation' being used can be a good example for question bias in polls.