Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Iraq War: The What Would YOU Do as President Thread

  1. #1

    Iraq War: The What Would YOU Do as President Thread

    [U]Simple concept here:[/U] YOU are the President of the United States. You sit today, as Bush sits today, with the War where it is, and the situation as we all know it (in our own ways) to be.

    The question posed is "So what do you do now?"

    Please, if you're going to choose to answer, please refrain from off-topic infighting, and worse, loose and unspecific generalities (i.e. "Get Out" or "Stay the Course" are not legitimate answers). In addition, your plan should not require 46 paragraphs to lay out either. Be specific, but be concise.

    Tell us what you would do, and what your goal in doing that would be, and any after effect we would potentially have to deal with due to your plan.

    Lets get it right out in the open and on record what we all think should be done now.

  2. #2
    We must sit down with the Iraqi leadership and frankly tell them if they want our continued support they must do the following:
    1) Get Al Sadr under control (Radical Cleric)
    2) Stop Changing Tactics at a moments notice
    3)Fight this as a war of survival not a war of appeasement
    4) If they don't get these done we will pull our forces out and the blood will be on their hands. I am frankly full of their bull****!

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    My initial goal would be to identify the fundamental flaws that have led to our current failure in Iraq and try to correct them to the best of my ability.

    My belief is that the most fundamental flaw of this war at the current time is the notion that victory can only be achieved militarily. We have taken this path for the last 4 years and it has failed miserably. There is no reason to believe that continuing the current military strategy will help the situation. My plan to correct this failure would involve three steps.

    1. Engage in diplomatic discussions with Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria. As we all know, most of the governments in the region are controlled by Shiites, and I see no reasonable chance of success unless all parties can unify under a single solution. I acknowledge that this will be a difficult task to accomplish, but it is necessary to set unified goals to achieve success.

    2. Begin a steady redeployment of our troops in Iraq. Our presence in the worst areas of Iraq is not stopping attacks, but rather encouraging them by giving the enemy targets. The enemy's number one goal at the moment is to cause chaos, and our presence fuels that chaos. We will NOT withdraw out of Iraq. We will redeploy into an "over the horizon" force, which can act quickly if needed. This will force the Iraqi government to take on more responsibilities in securing the peace, while having our support and potential assistance around the corner.

    3. Remove external contractors from Iraq and disperse the workload to Iraqi citizens. Provide funding to the Iraqi government to help support such a change in workforce. Giving Iraqis the opportunity to rebuild their own country will spark the local economy as well as give current rebels and fighters a viable alternative.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=parafly]My initial goal would be to identify the fundamental flaws that have led to our current failure in Iraq and try to correct them to the best of my ability.

    My belief is that the most fundamental flaw of this war at the current time is the notion that victory can only be achieved militarily. We have taken this path for the last 4 years and it has failed miserably. There is no reason to believe that continuing the current military strategy will help the situation. My plan to correct this failure would involve three steps.

    1. Engage in diplomatic discussions with Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran and Syria. As we all know, most of the governments in the region are controlled by Shiites, and I see no reasonable chance of success unless all parties can unify under a single solution. I acknowledge that this will be a difficult task to accomplish, but it is necessary to set unified goals to achieve success.

    2. Begin a steady redeployment of our troops in Iraq. Our presence in the worst areas of Iraq is not stopping attacks, but rather encouraging them by giving the enemy targets. The enemy's number one goal at the moment is to cause chaos, and our presence fuels that chaos. We will NOT withdraw out of Iraq. We will redeploy into an "over the horizon" force, which can act quickly if needed. This will force the Iraqi government to take on more responsibilities in securing the peace, while having our support and potential assistance around the corner.

    3. Remove external contractors from Iraq and disperse the workload to Iraqi citizens. Provide funding to the Iraqi government to help support such a change in workforce. Giving Iraqis the opportunity to rebuild their own country will spark the local economy as well as give current rebels and fighters a viable alternative.[/QUOTE]


    Actually Syria is a mostly Sunni Country. Iran and Iraq are mostly Shia.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    I would go on a massive PR campaign throughout the whole world, starting at/in the UN and then going to key countries and sending SoS, SoD and the new Secretary of Peace around as well. This would be an attempt to get as much assistance ($$$ and troops and other bargaining chips) from the other countries that share our planet.

    I would begin by being very honest about how Bush phucked up and should never have invaded Iraq and how it has caused so many problems. Admitting how wrong we/he was to invade Iraq without valid pretext is the first step. I would also make the case that these problems are not just America's anymore, as it has global impact.

    I would try and put together a REAL coalition, one more similar to Desert Storm than the "coalition of the willing". And the more internation uniforms and faces the better to show the Iraqis everyone wants them to come together and stop killing each other.

    The goal would be to get 3-500k international (including US) troops, and would require lots of IOUs to get people to help save our ass from the failed mission that is the illegal invasion of Iraq. This should stop or calm the violence enough to figure out how best to proceed, and I wouldn't make that decision alone, I would include all the allies who are now helping us and any option would be on the table (including splitting country into 3).

    I would offer up Bush's & Cheny's heads (figuratively) for international war crimes trials and punishment for illegally invading a sovereign nation. This would also help get the rest of the world back on our side like they were post 9/11 but pre-illegal invasion of Iraq and help them send troops, $$$, aid to Iraq.

  6. #6
    Leave today.

  7. #7
    TMahoney
    Guest
    Institute a draft for an additional 200,000 troops.

    Pull out of the interior of the country and secure the entire border with Tanks, Choppers, Soldiers and Anti-Aircraft weapons. No US Soldiers in Baghdad. All of our troops are protecting the integrity of the Iraqi border.

    Use our Special Forces as hit and run, guerrilla type warfare on radical elements within the center. Their job is to kill or capture known terrorist cell leaders at 3 AM in the morning and be gone by 3:04 AM.

    Air force has the job of destroying training camps and big stockpiles of weapons. Fly over and use guided bombs to get to places too hot for Special Forces.

    Let the Sunni/Shiite fight in the center until we train enough Iraqi Soldiers to keep the peace in their own country.

    Leave the ground in Iraq when Iraqi Army and Police have enough strength to quell the violence in their country. Keep our Navy close to defend them from invasion from a neighbor for another 10 years.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]Institute a draft for an additional 200,000 troops.

    Pull out of the interior of the country and secure the entire border with Tanks, Choppers, Soldiers and Anti-Aircraft weapons. No US Soldiers in Baghdad. All of our troops are protecting the integrity of the Iraqi border.

    Use our Special Forces as hit and run, guerrilla type warfare on radical elements within the center. Their job is to kill or capture known terrorist cell leaders at 3 AM in the morning and be gone by 3:04 AM.

    Air force has the job of destroying training camps and big stockpiles of weapons. Fly over and use guided bombs to get to places too hot for Special Forces.

    Let the Sunni/Shiite fight in the center until we train enough Iraqi Soldiers to keep the peace in their own country.

    Leave the ground in Iraq when Iraqi Army and Police have enough strength to quell the violence in their country. Keep our Navy close to defend them from invasion from a neighbor for another 10 years.[/QUOTE]

    I would not be surprised if a draft was setup pretty soon. I wouldn't get Syria or Iran involved in talks they have their own agendas.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]I would not be surprised if a draft was setup pretty soon. I wouldn't get Syria or Iran involved in talks they have their own agendas.[/QUOTE]

    A draft will not happen anytime soon. There is almost no support for it in Congress, and unless there is an earth shattering sequence of events, I just can't see it happening.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]I would not be surprised if a draft was setup pretty soon. [B]I wouldn't get Syria or Iran involved in talks they have their own agendas[/B].[/QUOTE]

    Everyone has their own agenda.
    It doesnt mean we cannot reach some common ground where everyone benefits.
    You cant limit negotiations only to people who are friends and have the same agenda as us.Thats ridiculous

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Everyone has their own agenda.
    It doesnt mean we cannot reach some common ground where everyone benefits.
    You cant limit negotiations only to people who are friends and have the same agenda as us.Thats ridiculous[/QUOTE]

    So, what common ground do you believe we can find with, say, Iran?

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish]So, what common ground do you believe we can find with, say, Iran?[/QUOTE]

    we allow a limited amount of their nuclear program to go forward with UN inspections and releasing the embargo in exchange for help with Iraq. They get milestones. With increased compliance , they are allowed more of their program to go foreward.

    As for the expected response, that we are 'allowing' them to create a nuclear bomb, that pure BS. Their Nuclear Program is about economics, not creating a bomb.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]we allow a limited amount of their nuclear program to go forward with UN inspections and releasing the embargo in exchange for help with Iraq. They get milestones. With increased compliance , they are allowed more of their program to go foreward.

    As for the expected response, that we are 'allowing' them to create a nuclear bomb, that pure BS. Their Nuclear Program is about economics, not creating a bomb.[/QUOTE]

    A few responses:

    --What benifit does Iran get from "helping us" with Iraq? They are already working on what they claim is domestic enegry Nuclear technology. And they are doing so without our, or the U.N.'s permission or inspectors. They have willing trade partners is former Soviet States and China. So what gain would they get by helping in Iraq that they do not already have, and would actively be seeking?

    --How can you say so surely that Iran would not attempt to use Nuclear technology for weapons? You seem all but 100% assured, and I am interested in what factual basis this opinion is drawn from. Do you believe that the Iranian leadership truly has no interest at all in joining the "Nuclear Club"?

    --Why, above all else, would Iran want to help the USA at all? Iraq is exactly as they would want it, tactically speaking. Our occupation is falling appart, asis any remaining support of it in the US. Soon, we will be out, and Iran is the most likely ally for a post-US Iraq. Very soon, Iran will be a semi-Super power in the Middle East, barring some major change going forward. What could we offer than that would trump that?

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish]A few responses:

    --What benifit does Iran get from "helping us" with Iraq? They are already working on what they claim is domestic enegry Nuclear technology. And they are doing so without our, or the U.N.'s permission or inspectors. They have willing trade partners is former Soviet States and China. So what gain would they get by helping in Iraq that they do not already have, and would actively be seeking?

    --How can you say so surely that Iran would not attempt to use Nuclear technology for weapons? You seem all but 100% assured, and I am interested in what factual basis this opinion is drawn from. Do you believe that the Iranian leadership truly has no interest at all in joining the "Nuclear Club"?

    --Why, above all else, would Iran want to help the USA at all? Iraq is exactly as they would want it, tactically speaking. Our occupation is falling appart, asis any remaining support of it in the US. Soon, we will be out, and Iran is the most likely ally for a post-US Iraq. Very soon, Iran will be a semi-Super power in the Middle East, barring some major change going forward. What could we offer than that would trump that?[/QUOTE]

    Some good responses here.

    I don't think that Iran wants the US to perm park in Iraq. So the interest from them would be to engage us in dialog also. I think that they like us on this side of the earth more. I agree with you about China and Russia.

    I think Iran wants to use the energy for power also. I think if we engage in dialog with them we will become more certain of that. Until then there is a lot of suspect behavior.

    That is a major issue. Iran will be a true superpower in the MENA. Dialog is necessary. I don't see a military solution in the near future. Any military intervention at this point or soon hereafter will be dangerous to everyone.
    This is a real mess and it requires some real skill in negotiating

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,572
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]I would go on a massive PR campaign throughout the whole world, starting at/in the UN and then going to key countries and sending SoS, SoD and the new Secretary of Peace around as well. This would be an attempt to get as much assistance ($$$ and troops and other bargaining chips) from the other countries that share our planet.

    I would begin by being very honest about how Bush phucked up and should never have invaded Iraq and how it has caused so many problems. Admitting how wrong we/he was to invade Iraq without valid pretext is the first step. I would also make the case that these problems are not just America's anymore, as it has global impact.

    I would try and put together a REAL coalition, one more similar to Desert Storm than the "coalition of the willing". And the more internation uniforms and faces the better to show the Iraqis everyone wants them to come together and stop killing each other.

    The goal would be to get 3-500k international (including US) troops, and would require lots of IOUs to get people to help save our ass from the failed mission that is the illegal invasion of Iraq. This should stop or calm the violence enough to figure out how best to proceed, and I wouldn't make that decision alone, I would include all the allies who are now helping us and any option would be on the table (including splitting country into 3).

    I would offer up Bush's & Cheny's heads (figuratively) for international war crimes trials and punishment for illegally invading a sovereign nation. This would also help get the rest of the world back on our side like they were post 9/11 but pre-illegal invasion of Iraq and help them send troops, $$$, aid to Iraq.[/QUOTE]tangenius gets my vote. that's the only way out right now, every component (PR, develop a true int'l coalition, admit that the US was wrong to be there in the first place, and have those most responsible answer for it). i think that allowing the country to find it's own natural borders (and by that i mean potentially splitting the country) is key - why defend the 'integrity' of their border? why force factions that cannot live together under one roof to do so? unless i misunderstood, i think that's what CarlSpackler meant, to guard the outside and allow some sort of 'royal rumble' to occur inside, until either the 'iraqi police' can take control or, more likely, one faction wins out. but why? what do borders really mean to those that do not want to co-exist behind one, especially in the digital age? and what business is it of ours if they do or do not? i think that we are starting to see that the only way that country can be maintained as a unit is with the kind of brutal rule that we're not likely to allow back in there (and rightfully so, now that what's done is done).

    PS - quality topic, warfish. good job.

  16. #16
    Almost exactly Bush's current plan (you have no idea how strange it feels to say that) except I would not have wasted political capital and opened myself up to easy attack by sending in more troops not currently in Iraq; instead I would suggest an internal redeployment to Baghdad. I have no problem taking a step back in Anbar province to get control of Baghdad.

    I would also make clear to prime minister al-Maliki, [b]behind closed doors[/b], that if this fails because of impediments put up by the Iraqi government (read political protection of al-Sadr), we're packing up and going. Not if we get full cooperation and the strategy just doesn't work - we broke Iraq, so we owe them more than that - but if the Iraqi's are the cause of the failure then the debt is paid.

    I happen to believe it's very likely that Bush has said something very much along those lines to al-Maliki already, because it will only work if it was done behind closed doors.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,928
    Warfish, you started the thread. What is your plan?

  18. #18
    First I would sit down with Sistani and discuss common goals for the future of Iraq. I have no faith in Maliki and believe him to be a major player with al Sadr in perpetuating this civil war.

    I would open serious diplomatic discussions with the surrounding countries and listen to their concerns and then voice our concerns. I would let it be known that we will be here to help clean up this situation as long as we have their cooperation. If we don't see true cooperation then Saudi Arabia can have at it with Iran and destabilize the whole area which no one will want.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Almost exactly Bush's current plan (you have no idea how strange it feels to say that) except I would not have wasted political capital and opened myself up to easy attack by sending in more troops not currently in Iraq; instead I would suggest an internal redeployment to Baghdad. I have no problem taking a step back in Anbar province to get control of Baghdad.

    I would also make clear to prime minister al-Maliki, [b]behind closed doors[/b], that if this fails because of impediments put up by the Iraqi government (read political protection of al-Sadr), we're packing up and going. Not if we get full cooperation and the strategy just doesn't work - we broke Iraq, so we owe them more than that - but if the Iraqi's are the cause of the failure then the debt is paid.

    I happen to believe it's very likely that Bush has said something very much along those lines to al-Maliki already, because it will only work if it was done behind closed doors.[/QUOTE]

    The problem with this plan for me is the entire plan hinges on a foreign leader, Maliki actually acting on our behalf and having the actual power even if he does act on our behalf to get the Iraq part of the plan done. We are effectively not just adding troops but adding troops and pulling troops out of the Green Zone into and extremely dangerous situation with the entire plan predicated on a foreign leaders action and ability. This seems to me not only high risk, but wishful thinking at best.

    Personally I would prefer to take the country over and declare Marshall law restore order and than have elections and turn the country over to civilian government. Short of that we should get out today.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-25-2007 at 10:00 AM.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]The problem with this plan for me is the entire plan hinges on a foreign leader, Maliki actually acting on our behalf and having the actual power even if he does act on our behalf to get the Iraq part of the plan done. We are effectively not just adding troops but adding troops and pulling troops out of the Green Zone into and extremely dangerous situation with the entire plan predicated on a foreign leaders action and ability. This seems to me not only high risk, but wishful thinking at best.

    Personally I would prefer to take the country over and declare Marshall law restore order and than have elections and turn the country over to civilian government. Short of that we should get out today.[/QUOTE]

    This whole game is called risk. I think that removing Maliki would cause more problems. He has to stay for now to create a climate of "stability"(?).

    Adding troops is not the answer, I think we should withdraw to the perimeter of the country and let them define their own borders as someone suggested.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us