Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Getting Out of Iraq Soon May Be the Best Choice...

  1. #1

    Getting Out of Iraq Soon May Be the Best Choice...

    A little pre-ramble disclaimer.....

    1. I was 100% against the Invasion of Iraq. At the time, I felt Afganistan should be finished off first before any other action taken, and I felt that long-term Iran (with it's work on Nukes) would prove to be the bigger threat.

    2. However, once involved in Iraq, and Saddam Hussain deposed, I felt we had no other choice at that time but to stay in and make it work. Devide the country up ethnicly, mandate that all three share oil rights (regardless of physical location), and work via a East/West Germany kind of Occupation and Education process while limiting access to each other, hence limiting violence.

    With those two points stated (and any enterprising doubter can use the search feature to peruse my long-past posts if they wish to confirm the above)......my point for today.

    The United States should, in my opinion, get out (withdraw the majority of millitary presence) within as short a timeframe as is possible.

    Why?

    The why is very simple. The United States (the people and the govt.) lack the will to fight, do what it takes, and "win" this conflict. We are unwilling to try any real new tactics. We are unwilling to commit vast numbers of additional troops. We are unwilling to sacrifice at home. We are unwilling to unify in support of the objective. In a nutshell, the Govt, and the People, are so divided over this conflict, it's purpose, it's validity, it's gains (or potential problems down the road) for us all, that we simply do not have the unity of will to fight a War and win. We can fight on, in this half-assed, PC-friendly, pacify-style warfare, with 70% of the people and 50% of our leadership wanting out today (or sooner)....or we can withdraw, regroup, try to find comon ground and some unity of purpose.

    And worse yet, we have a President and Admin just strong and willful enough to keep us there.....but far too weak-kneed to tell the left to "stuff it" and fight the War as it needs to be fought.

    I don't really like it, but the second option seems to now be the best one for our nation as a whole. Lets get the single biggest divisive factor OUT of the way, and see where we stand then, and redouble our efforts on other, equallity important issues at home.

    How?

    The how is also as simple as it can be. We task the Iraqi Govt. with protecting itself over the course of the next year or so (absolutely NO "timetables" as they only help our enemy wait us out.)

    The Iraqi Govt gets a timetable (a flexable one) that mandates they must be capable of prtecting the peace, and themselves, within 1 year.

    U.S. Forces would then begin a phased move OUT of the city areas, and towards US Bases outside population Centers....available to come in and help when needed/asked, but OUT of the day to day killing and fighting. The Iraqi people MUST perform that duty, and serve that sacrifice, themselves.

    In all honesty, the Iraqi's have been milking off our forces for far too long, knowing Bush will not change course even in the face of their stalling and milking of our support. Even if it's in private only, the law must be laid down...this is YORU nation, and YOU must protect it and make it safe for ALL of your people. Period. And then, once said, LIVE UP to those threats and start moving out of hot zones into safe areas unless really needed....and even then, only go back for short short periods and only under very limited circumstances.

    Once out of the combat zones, and beginning out withdrawal, the UN and International community must be challenged to help keep Iraq free, stable, and free from takeover by Iran. And in no uncertain terms, Iran should be warned....step one foot over the border into Iraq, and it will mean your utter and complete destruction. It won;t stop influence....but it will stop invasion, and that is all we can hope for at this point as I see it.

    The UN and Internation community must help fund Iraq's regrowth. Refusal means economic sanctions from the US, period. Help, or don't....but if you refuse to help, do not expect any help from us. Not economic help. Not Millitary help. Nothing whatsoever, and better yet, new tarrifs on trade. We swing a huge economic hammer...and in a cause to get us out and the world in, it's perfectly rightious to swing it.

    Get the troops home. Fund lifetime Medical Insurance for all combat Vets. End of story. If you served in combat, you're covered for life......our soldiers are about the only folks in America I would/could support universal health care for.

    Then, we have two issues that must take front, middle and back stage until fixed. One is Border and incoming Trade (Container Ship/Railroad/Air) security. The second is Immigration. These two issues are vastly more important to American safety than Iraq is. Sorry, but it's true. The possible danger of leaving Iraq too early won't face us for years. Border and Immigration are killing us now.

    We are at a Historical crossroads here. A Nation divided cannot stand....and we are a nation deeply, stringly and visciously divided. And right now the biggest division is the War in Iraq. A War that serves minimal real world purpose, and while the costs are (sorry lefties) perfectly acceptable for such a purpose, we do not live in a time or a nation that is willing to pay that cost for this purpose.

    We can leave behind observers, spies, informants, etc. The Govt of Iraq must know....allow terrorism against the US or it's Allies inside your borders, and we'll be back.....not as friends, not as helpers, liberators or anything of the kind. But as KILLERS, destroyers. The hand of Vengeance.

    But not pre-emptively. Pre-Emptive warfare, while a great theory if your intel is spotless....doesn't work. Not in the real world. I know, it sucks, and I don;t want to be hit first anymore than any of you.......but in this world, with out people, and the people that populate (and have their own interests) it is the only way. Anything more....and you put yourself in the Opressors role, the Occupiers role, the Empires role. Sucks, I know. But it is the way it is.

    I want out. Call me what you like, but I want us out. We cannot win, not because the fight is unwinnable, but because our people simply don't have the will, desire or belief in the cause to win. And we have far too many other issues, equally important, at HOME that need to be fixed, and fixed quick. Staying in Iraq does nothing but keep us divided (not that leaving will instantly unify us lol).

    But leaving, and refoccusing on ourselves and our needs and our protection at home......is worth the potential risk as I see it.

    Flame Suit on, feel free to flame away.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,026
    [QUOTE=Warfish]The United States (the people and the govt.) lack the will to fight, do what it takes, and "win" this conflict. We are unwilling to try any real new tactics. We are unwilling to commit vast numbers of additional troops. [/QUOTE]

    It is true..the US population lacks the will for a long drawn out fight. But as far as "new tactics" go...I really haven't seen Bush offer up any, and he IS the C-in-C. He had made it readily clear that he does mot give a f*ck what the congress or the people think of the way he wages the war. For a couple years it was HIM who was saying over and over again to "Stay the Course". It was the republicans that had control of the entire govt for 3+ years of the war that failed to offer up any alternatives. And all they would chime back is "Well, I don't see any good suggestions from the Dem's. What's the Dem's plan for the war?"

    It's not up to the freaking Dem's what happens. Mr. President, Sir, you have the reigns as far as the execution of the war goes. DO SOMETHING!! Stop with the asinine political pandering and draw up a comprehensive battle plan. Do what it freaking takes. But all we hear is empty rhetoric. No real solutions. From both sides. It's sickening.

    The problem is that they DID have a war plan. And it was flat out undeniably wrong. And once they were caught with their panties between their ankles, they refused to be man enough and own up to the fact that they f*cked up. They didn't want to admit that a lot of what the doubters of the war were saying before the invasion came true. Instead, we get Capt. Dumba*s standing up at a press conference saying "I can't remember any mistakes I have made." Are you freaking kidding me?

    Many people were doubtful of the war before it started because they thought it wouldn't be in our best interests to get caught up in a insurgent type urban guerrilla war. But we were told over and over again about how easy it would be. About how the Iraqis were gonna give us flowers, bake us cookies and hump our legs. About how it would pay for itself...it would hardly cost America nothing. About how it would take 6 days, 6 weeks maybe 6 months.

    But none of that transpired. And now they just sit there looking at us stupid saying "Well, war isn't easy...it's a hard hard fight. We must be in for the long haul". That's not what the idiots said at the beginning. Maybe if they were more upfront with the American public from the get-go, people would have an easier time dealing with what it has become now....

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,975
    I agree for the most part, Warfish. I also see this war as a major factor and contributor to the weakening this great nation. Division has and always will be a major element in the weakening of a world superpower. We must pull together and rally around a common goal, and it has become very clear over the last couple of years that Iraq and its battle for security and democracy are simply not the answer.

    The War on Terror is a very serious issue that will dominate the policy of this nation for the foreseeable future. The main obstacle in tackling this global problem is that it an ideology imbedded into the minds of radicals. It cannot be eliminated through military force because such actions amplify hatred for the most part. The solution lies within an isolationist mindset. In addition to securing the borders, drastically improving container importation, and tackling the immigration issue, our country must take serious steps toward energy independence. Forget about Global Warming, pollution, etc. This is a matter of economically damaging the sources of terrorism and ridding our dependence on an area of the globe that harbors the ideological threats against us. I don't care what it takes (i.e. drilling in Alaska, dipping into our reserves, gas prices at triple the current rate, etc.). We must cut off our dependence on that region as this action will have much more of a negative impact on the terrorist cycle than military action.

  4. #4
    This is exactly what happens when you have Politicians running the war! They are like friggin kids in a candy shop!

  5. #5
    Fish,

    your answer to this war seems to always be the same. More troops, more aggressiveness, and "doing what it takes to win".....whatever that means.

    But tell me , what is your political plan for Iraq? After all that is ultimately the only solution. You say :

    [QUOTE]Devide the country up ethnicly, mandate that all three share oil rights (regardless of physical location)[/QUOTE]

    If the location of the oil is in the Shia areas, how can you divide the oil rights while maintaining ethnic boundaries? What specifically is your plan to get the Shia , Sunni, and Kurds to agree to this division?

    Also, how can you ensure that:

    1. The Shia dont become an extension of Iran(as they appear to be now).
    2. The Sunnis dont side with the Islamic fundamentalists.
    3. The Kurds dont piss off our only muslim allie in the ME , Turkey by causing the Turkish Kurds to want to secede (sp?)

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Somerset, NJ
    Posts
    1,573
    Get out
    Build a wall
    Wait for the Shiia and Sunnis to kill each other
    In 10 years we'll be
    building casinos instead of restoring plumbing and electricy

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Fish,

    your answer to this war seems to always be the same. More troops, more aggressiveness, and "doing what it takes to win".....whatever that means.[/quote]

    It means exactly what it says. Doing whatever it takes to win the conflict. If the conflict is (as it is now) primarily made up of 1. Ethnic/Religios Conflict and 2. Terrorists, you devide the nation Ethnicly (stops A) and kill every single person found acting in a manner consistent with #2.

    I am well aware that you disagree with that idea my friend.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7]But tell me , what is your political plan for Iraq? After all that is ultimately the only solution. You say :

    [quote=Warfish]Devide the country up ethnicly, mandate that all three share oil rights (regardless of physical location)[/quote]

    The creation of a UN=Monitored Tri-National Oil Company that will control, operate and manage all Oil-Based assets inside the three ethnic "zones" of Iraq.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7]What specifically is your plan to get the Shia , Sunni, and Kurds to agree to this division?[/quote]

    What makes you think they have a choice? A Nation who harbored and Supported a Tyrant (Hussain) and is now utterly defeated Millitarily, simply does not get a choice (in the short term) as to how their nation is handled. See Germany and Japan Post-WWII for a pair of examples. With an appropriate number of Soldiers on the ground, you can control any population.


    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Also, how can you ensure that:

    1. The Shia dont become an extension of Iran(as they appear to be now).
    2. The Sunnis dont side with the Islamic fundamentalists.
    3. The Kurds dont piss off our only muslim allie in the ME , Turkey by causing the Turkish Kurds to want to secede (sp?)[/QUOTE]

    While we're there, it's easy. Overwhelming Force on the Ground.

    Once we leave, it's also easy: Not. Our. Problem.

    If the Shia choose to side with Iran, fine....as long as they perform no hostile acts against us or our interests. If they do, if's back to overwhelming force and destruction.

    If the Sunni decide to join AQ, same as above.

    If the Kurds want independance from Turkey, that is an issue for Turkey, the Kurds, and perhaps the U.N. Not our problem.

    And by all means Ken, if you have an alternate detailed plan, feel free to post it. My main point here is that getting out may be the best choice in the very near future.

  8. #8
    great post warfish

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish]It means exactly what it says. Doing whatever it takes to win the conflict. If the conflict is (as it is now) primarily made up of 1. Ethnic/Religios Conflict and 2. Terrorists, you devide the nation Ethnicly (stops A) and kill every single person found acting in a manner consistent with #2.

    I am well aware that you disagree with that idea my friend.

    [QUOTE][B]Its not me that disagrees with the post, its the facts on the ground. The most recent estimates by the USA have foreign fighters making up only 6-10% of the insurgency. Dividing the nation ethnically will not stop religious/ethnic conflict if the sides are not in agreement with the division. You may not care if they agree or not, but the truth is, if they dont agree then the fighting will continue.[/[/B]QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=kennyo7]But tell me , what is your political plan for Iraq? After all that is ultimately the only solution. You say :



    The creation of a UN=Monitored Tri-National Oil Company that will control, operate and manage all Oil-Based assets inside the three ethnic "zones" of Iraq.

    [QUOTE][B]Since when do you have so much faith in the UN??? Havent you continuously bashed them as incompetent and corrupt? Now you want to trust them with running a Trinational Iraqi Oil company[/B]?[/QUOTE]


    What makes you think they have a choice? A Nation who harbored and Supported a Tyrant (Hussain) and is now utterly defeated Millitarily, simply does not get a choice (in the short term) as to how their nation is handled. See Germany and Japan Post-WWII for a pair of examples. With an appropriate number of Soldiers on the ground, you can control any population.

    [QUOTE][B]They dont have a choice? Of course they do. They can continue to fight against each other. When did the Iraqis surrender to the USA?

    I have previously posted in another thread why this can not be compared to Japan/Germany post WWII.

    For starters
    - Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us the very next day.
    - Japan signed an agreement to surrender
    - Germany and Japan both had experience as working Democracies before WWII
    - Neither Germany nor Japan were in a civil war after WWII both were not killing each other because of centuries of hatred
    - Germany and Japan had homogeneous populations
    - prior to WWII Japan and Germany had a strong industry, functional working/middle class and strong economies[/B][/QUOTE]


    While we're there, it's easy. Overwhelming Force on the Ground.

    Once we leave, it's also easy: Not. Our. Problem.

    If the Shia choose to side with Iran, fine....as long as they perform no hostile acts against us or our interests. If they do, if's back to overwhelming force and destruction.

    If the Sunni decide to join AQ, same as above.

    If the Kurds want independance from Turkey, that is an issue for Turkey, the Kurds, and perhaps the U.N. Not our problem.

    [QUOTE][B]Your wrong, it IS our problem, because in each scenario we become weaker in this so called "WOT" and have less influence in the ME while our so called "enemies" become stronger.[/B][/QUOTE]

    And by all means Ken, if you have an alternate detailed plan, feel free to post it. My main point here is that getting out may be the best choice in the very near future.[/QUOTE]

    Truth is i dont have a good plan. Thats because there are no good ways out. In every scenario we loose.

  10. #10
    sounds like people are sobering up to reality which is a good thing

    here's the news it's bigger than just Iraq and Afghanistan - the Saudis will not support a withdrawal of US forces because it opens the door for Iran to run them over. Iran could take over the whole region and be on Israel's doorstep in a matter of years. Shia vs Sunni inside IRaq is compartamentalizing the problem, Iraq is the meeting ground between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Shia vs Sunni and the battle ground zero is the city the USA occuies Bagdhad.

    there was a reason why Bush's father didn't go to Saddam's house and tear it down in 1990's - it's taking on someone else's problem, not really the USA's problem. now it's our problem. i wasn't being dramatic calling Bush the worst 2 term Prez in US history, the problems created after his 8 years in office will make Clinton's aftermath seem like a walk in the park.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Truth is i dont have a good plan. Thats because there are no good ways out. In every scenario we loose.[/QUOTE]


    Fair enough, at the least you're honest that you don;t have a better idea as yet.

    Beyond that we'll just have to agree to disagree in some aspects, obviously.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]It is true..the US population lacks the will for a long drawn out fight. But as far as "new tactics" go...I really haven't seen Bush offer up any, and he IS the C-in-C. ....[/QUOTE]

    Yes, he's the CinC, but do you think he sits down and draws up war plans and then sends them to the field? How do military planners work? Do you think just one says this is it? No one's that stupid! No doubt many ideas are brought to the table and evaluated, but eventually one has to be chosen. Does that mean everyone agrees? Probably not, but its the plan chosen and is followed. ....[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE] What's the Dem's plan for the war?"[/QUOTE] Easy, give up!

    [QUOTE]Many people were doubtful of the war before it started because they thought it wouldn't be in our best interests to get caught up in a insurgent type urban guerrilla war. [/QUOTE]

    Who said we'd be in "a insurgent type urban guerrilla war"?

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,026
    [QUOTE=asuusa]Who said we'd be in "a insurgent type urban guerrilla war"?[/QUOTE]

    Ok...forget that and concentrate really hard on this.


    [QUOTE][B][SIZE=2]But we were told over and over again about how easy it would be. About how the Iraqis were gonna give us flowers, bake us cookies and hump our legs. About how it would pay for itself...it would hardly cost America nothing[/SIZE].[/B][/QUOTE]

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