US plans last big push in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[LSSpam]

That's kinda what they are all banking on. We slowly bankrupt oursleves and 50 years from now we will be out of their hair, just like the Brits before us. Osama believes this.

Yep. Remember Osama's frame of reference is Afghanistan, the defeat of the Soviets there and the subsequent collapse of the USSR.

 

[gumbeau]

I'm not talking about whether or not we withdraw from Iraq.

I'm talking about how we do it (because we are gonna do it)

If we do it by forcing a withdrawal by turning off the funding it would be disastrous.

It would embolden those who already think we never finish the job.

But the democrats HAVE tied themselves to forcing George Bush to withdraw from Iraq before he leaves office so it will be ugly.

We have let our internal politics override our international interests and the results will not be enjoyable in the long term.

But I seem to be in a very small group looking past the next presidential election.

 

[blackadder]

I'm not talking about whether or not we withdraw from Iraq.

I'm talking about how we do it (because we are gonna do it)

If we do it by forcing a withdrawal by turning off the funding it would be disastrous.

It would embolden those who already think we never finish the job.

But the democrats HAVE tied themselves to forcing George Bush to withdraw from Iraq before he leaves office so it will be ugly.

We have let our internal politics override our international interests and the results will not be enjoyable in the long term.

But I seem to be in a very small group looking past the next presidential election.

Did we build all those"enduring" bases just to abandon them within a few years? Baghdad has the largest US Embassy anywhere on the planet...

Imean, we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea after 60 years.

I'm not sure that we are ever leaving freely. The number of troops might be drawn down, but it is clear that somewhere there was an initial plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely in some military capacity.

The insurgency has made that a little more difficult to acheive but I am thinking they will try to keep that idea alive. Iraq is the new staging area that replaces Saudi Arabia, since we were asked to leave.

 

[varanook]

I think we shold set up a Kurdish state, fund them with weps and money and in turn they give us oil.
Let the shiites and Sunnis battle it out for the rest of the area.

Issue with that is that the Kurds will want part of Turkey as well and be really well funded for terrorism.

In any event the outcome does not look to bright in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

 

[varanook]

Yep. Remember Osama's frame of reference is Afghanistan, the defeat of the Soviets there and the subsequent collapse of the USSR.

Yeah forgot he believes he did that.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I was against the war in the beginning, but don't have any delusions that the situation is only going to get worse when we pull out. But the question is could the U.S. change things even if it put more troops on the ground. I would have liked to believe that the coalition could have 'won' had they put say, 500,000 troops on the ground. The problem with Iraq is that it is an artificial entity that was carved out of the post WWII Britishg empire. It was only held together by a strong military dictatorship, and I have doubts whether democracy could ever work in the country as it stands. I suspect that people think of themselves as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds before they think of themselves as Iraqis. I think peace would only come unless it returns to a strong military dictatorship or it is partititned into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish countries. But the Turks are not going to wanta Kurdish state on their border and since they have been a close ally of ours we aren't going to support any plan that creates a Kurdish state.

 

[blackadder]

I was against the war in the beginning, but don't have any delusions that the situation is only going to get worse when we pull out. But the question is could the U.S. change things even if it put more troops on the ground. I would have liked to believe that the coalition could have 'won' had they put say, 500,000 troops on the ground. The problem with Iraq is that it is an artificial entity that was carved out of the post WWII Britishg empire. It was only held together by a strong military dictatorship, and I have doubts whether democracy could ever work in the country as it stands. I suspect that people think of themselves as Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds before they think of themselves as Iraqis. I think peace would only come unless it returns to a strong military dictatorship or it is partititned into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish countries. But the Turks are not going to wanta Kurdish state on their border and since they have been a close ally of ours we aren't going to support any plan that creates a Kurdish state.

I agree with you mostly.

"Iraq" is a fiction. The only thing that ever held it together was an authoritarian government funded by oil money.

Letting it sort itself out naturally should be seriously considered, which means conflict between the contending parties.

You can try to hold the fiction together and have permanent instability with endless expenditures in blood and treasure, or you can let the partition happen. It will be bloody in the short term, but probably no bloodier overall than the status quo.

We can't afford this for 10 more years:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-iraq-costs_x.htm

 

[crosswatt]

shizzle, do you have a public opinion on what should be our course of action; more troops to suposedly end the conflict, or get out and let them take care of it?

 

[Saintshizzle]

I think what Gen. Abizaid said was spot-on. We need to focus more on MITT teams (sucky duty!!!) helping the Iaqi Army than sending 100s of 1000s more troops in there. Face it, if we did that and stabilized the region...they will simply wait until we left and start it up again. We have to train the Iraqis to fight this insurgency, because it is a battle that will rage for a while....in a region that has been fighting for thousands of years. We do not need more troops to do that, just refocus the ones we are already rotating.

 

[dapperdan]

The country, whatever it may be, belongs to Iraqis (or should).QUOTE]

I would agree, it should belong to the Iraqis, and shouldn't be a Shiite surrogate of the Iranian Mullahs.

Yes, we're fighting Sunni, mostly Fedayeen and obviously al Qaeda, insurgents. But that threat should diminsh after Saddam is executed. The Fedayeen will have lost their leader and al Qaeda, while still a threat, is a shell of its former self.

The big threat is al Sadr, and we've bungled handling al Sadr by not taking him out two years ago. I've said many times on this board, the road to peace leads through al Sadr. Taking out al Sadr is by no means the only precondition to peace, but taking him out is a necessary precondition to peace. He must be eliminated.

 

[KCBagHead]

There really aren't large numbers of troops left anyhwhere to send into Iraq -- it seems like the whole Army is either getting ready to go to Iraq, in Iraq, or just getting back from Iraq.

If we ramp up the MITT teams, I'll probably get tabbed to go.

 

[Dave]

Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit

The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort will feed into the White House review, but military officials have made it clear they are operating independently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html

 

[Saintshizzle]

BLUF: If Gen. Abizaid plan is enforced, all of us will be on MITT teams (soon).

KC, if I remember correctly, you are an 05. Unfortunately, 03-05/E5-E8 are the biggest push for the MITT teams right now. A buddy of mine just arrived in country on one and he told me to get ready. Right now, HRC is shutting off the valves to peripheral jobs for guys who are operational. Personal example: There is a Military Science 03-04 position open here at Tarleton State University(Killeen). My name is in the hat, the PMS is trying to get me, but will the Army let me off of the ops track? There is a good chance I may get it, but our branch manager told me to also BPT go on a MITT team. He also said that those that chose functional areas other than operational are about to be free game. The planning that officers prior to us had with their careers is almost null. This is a small glimpse of what many 03-05s are going through right now (for those that care to know). Also, did you know that you are not locked-in for retirement 1 year out anymore? It is 90 days now! Just found this out since I have been home. The squeeze is on us and it is becoming harder for career soldiers to want to stay. Nuff' about my stuff though...hope it helps someone out there in their decision-making.

You are right - we do not have the troops. The question is: If we beef-up to 20-30,000 who will be tagged? I can give you the Fort Hood status right now:

1st Cav (replacing 4ID)...One full BDE left back for emergencies-they just returned
4ID (see above)...On ground now
13 SCE (Just deployed in Sep)...BDEs flow in-and-out relentlessly
III Corps (Deploying this month)...Leaving a skeleton rear-d

The only units left here at Hood are the rear-detachments of the units deployed. Those are the people who are resting before going back, hurt, sick pregnant or getting out...etc.

Where are we going to pull these soldiers from....the draft?

 

[ArmoredNOSaint]

Speaking of Iraq, Charles Krauthammer puts the onus on the Iraqi government:

A republic, if you can keep it

 

[Dave]

Obama calls for troop withdrawal in 6 months

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, called this afternoon for troop withdrawal from Iraq starting next year and negotiations with Iran and Syria over the war-torn country's future.

In a speech sure to draw political fire, the Democrat told attendees of a Chicago Council on Global Affairs event downtown that withdrawal should begin in the next four to six months and that those soldiers should be moved to Afghanistan to focus on terrorist groups again gaining strength in that country.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story.asp?id=252128