What to do about Iraq

A

Ausinus

Guest
#1
Alright, now we all (well, most of us) know that if the military leaves Iraq, its going to turn to crap. The "democratic" Iraqi government would never be able to support itself. We need a more effective strategy. Any suggestions?

I propose that Iraq be split into three regions, one for Shia, one for Kurd, and one for Sunni. Then a system is instituted whereby the income from oil is evenly distributed. The US, and other nations, would still have to keep a close eye upon them, but it may alleiviate the tension somewhat.
 
A

Abraxas

Guest
#2
Solutions to Iraq? What a tricky question. Here is some:

I think we should open a dialogue with the Iranian Parliment and the Syrian leadership. Neither country wants total chaos in Iraq, which means they may be more inclined to a discussion then we give them credit for. Hell, we could at least TRY and avoid another war, couldn't we?

According to the ISG Report, 4,000 US troops are training Iraqi guard troops. This is unnaceptable. Completely unnaceptable. If our mission is to let these people stand up, let's give them the legs to do it. I say we quadruple the number of US personel assigned to this task and start equipping Iraqi guard members with equipment that they ask for.

We need to concentrate on their infustructure. In all honesty, we need to do what Hezbolah does in Lebanon. If Israel knocks down a building we rebuild it. We need to earn the Iraqis respect... and to do that we need to look like we are concentrating on REBUILDING Iraq. Our efforts to "stop" terrorism has only ballooned the problem... so let's stop that aspect of it. A good way to stop people from becoming radical toward the US is to look like we care about them. We need a dedicated approach to rebuilding Iraq... not what we are doing now.

We need to STOP escalating US involvement because all it does is drive the wedge deeper between Shiite and Sunni populations. We also need to put A LOT of pressure on Al Maliki to a) rewrite the constitution to make it more accepting of women and the Sunni population and b) stop his own Shiite sympathizers from their sectarian violence.

So far Bush has taken EVERY single proposal (aside from more troops) and said "no" without an excuse or without a reason. He says he is looking for ideas, yet he does nothing more than persue his own miopic agenda. The ISG Report had a 41 (?) point plan... and he just ignores it. Republicans have accused Democrats of not having a plan. An absolute lie and partisan politics to the extreme.

There is more than one answer to this problem... they just have to listen.
 
D

dls

Guest
#3
Republicans have accused Democrats of not having a plan. An absolute lie and partisan politics to the extreme.

There is more than one answer to this problem... they just have to listen.
I'm still waiting to hear the Democrats plan. The shenanigans congress is working on right now is the wedge. They are scared to death that Bush's plan will work and they will meet their short lived demise in 08. It's always about politics (both sides) a sad commentary but true.
It would be foolhardy to work on infrastructure before the country in stablized. It would just be blown up by bad guys.
 
J

Jet

Guest
#4
Alright, now we all (well, most of us) know that if the military leaves Iraq, its going to turn to crap. The "democratic" Iraqi government would never be able to support itself. We need a more effective strategy. Any suggestions?

I propose that Iraq be split into three regions, one for Shia, one for Kurd, and one for Sunni. Then a system is instituted whereby the income from oil is evenly distributed. The US, and other nations, would still have to keep a close eye upon them, but it may alleiviate the tension somewhat.
Here's my idea. Change who you support for President in 2008. If you realize that Iraq will go to hell if we pull out, then Clinton is probably the worse choice for President in 2008. If we pull out, Iraq will go to hell, terrorist cells will take control of Iraq, and I bet anyone here that we would be attacked again just like 9/11.

I'm still waiting to hear the Democrats plan. The shenanigans congress is working on right now is the wedge. They are scared to death that Bush's plan will work and they will meet their short lived demise in 08. It's always about politics (both sides) a sad commentary but true.
It would be foolhardy to work on infrastructure before the country in stablized. It would just be blown up by bad guys.
Ha...pull up a chair then because you're going to be waiting a long time to here the Democrats plan, mostly because they don't have one. Got to love it...all they do is bitch and offer no solutions to the problem.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#5
Firstly, Bush has no valid plan. The original estimate by the generals of 300,000+ troops for the invasion is paltry compared to what would be needed after three years of civil war. That, and having no feasible goals, makes the overall plant completely worthless.

The President of Iraq said the problem isn't miliant, it's political. Sunnis will never accept a Shi'ite majority government, and that's never going to change. The only plan that will work is to divide Iraq into three seperate states. The Kurds have already distanced themselves from the rest of Iraq (they should, they're far more peaceful and successful), all that remains is to construct a Shi'te state in the south and a Sunni state in the west. Instruction based US forces will help train security forces that will be federalized, and deals with Syria and Iran to help stabalize the border regions must be reached.

The current situation is unwinnable, the only peaceful solution is to break the country up. Com'n, look at Yugoslavia circa 1991-2006.
 
J

Jet

Guest
#6
Dividing it is not going to solve anything. It would only be a matter of time before one man goes in there and conquers all three, weak states. We need more troops in Iraq if we want anything solved.

How is Bush's plan not valid? Even if that is not what you believe, the fact is that atleast he HAS a plan. What is unbelievable that people want to throw out the presidents plan when it is the only one we have. And the fact is that the top-ranking U.S General in front of the Senate confirmed that this plan would help the situation in Baghdad. I don't know who else you want to hear it from but I personally think that his opinion is fairly valid and should be listened to, but apparantly Democrats don't think so.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#7
It would only be a matter of time before one man goes in there and conquers all three, weak states. We need more troops in Iraq if we want anything solved.
Multipolar power alignment. No section has a majority, and the Arab League would oppose Iranian aggression and vice versa. Stability would be rapid, especially as the Kurds gain more rights with Turkeys accession to the EU.

We need more troops in Iraq if we want anything solved.
Alright, let's talk numbers. Fourteen hundred and seventy-four. It's how many years it's been since Abu Bakr became the first caliph, and its the reason more troops is a silly waste of American life. What would more troops solve?

What is unbelievable that people want to throw out the presidents plan when it is the only one we have.
The chair of the Foreign Relations committee wants to divide Iraq, many others want a phased withdrawl or a fast one. Other military leaders and Democrats like the notion of increasing training units while withdrawing the bulk of the "getting shot at a lot" forces. All are valid, all are feasible, all are better than the civil war we've decided to play ref in. I suggest you read of "the Democrats" plans and analyze your own before you decide to slander a politcal party and its constituentes.

"The U.S. military has never set itself the goal of establishing and maintaining security. It has always prioritized training Iraqi forces and allowing them to undertake such operations on their own. This strategy might have had some merit when the principal problem in Iraq was the Sunni Arab insurgency (although it was dubious even then). It has little or no merit today, when sectarian violence is the most important challenge."
Kagan on the troop surge. There's no enemy anymore, the Shiites have bypassed it and started their own militia. Both sides will maintain signifigant military presences and fight against each other until they both are given sovereignty and a government run by their own.
 
J

Jet

Guest
#8
Withdrawel isn't a plan, it's a retreat. That's not an option. More troops will reinforce Baghdad, that's what is needed right now. We have to form some kind of order over there before we can even think of handing power over to the Iraqies. It doesn't matter if you support the war or not anymore, we can not pull out for the safety of this country before we insure some form of stability over in Iraq.
 
A

Abraxas

Guest
#9
dls said:
I'm still waiting to hear the Democrats plan.


"What plan? I see no plan? There is no plan."

This report has 79 reccomedations and Bush has chosen to completely ignore every single one. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Don't you dare accuse Democrats of NOT having ideas or plans simply because our President chooses not to endorse or even LOOK INTO any of them. If he chooses to ignore the recomendations of a bipartisan group then so be it... but don't turn around and accuse people of not thinking of anything better.

Party rhetoric will get you nowhere.

dls said:
The shenanigans congress is working on right now is the wedge. They are scared to death that Bush's plan will work and they will meet their short lived demise in 08.
Democrats are scared to death that this plan will continue to spiral Iraq into chaos so that when they DO take the White House they don't have a losing war on their hands. This war is falling apart. Multiple surges have already been sent. They have not worked. Why is this any different? Seriously? What is going to make this succeed where others have failed?

Increasing troops has so far proven innefective. We still only have 4,000 troops training Iraqis. We still don't adequetly equip the Iraqis. We have yet to pressure Al Maliki. Britain is leaving. Sectarian fighters are becoming even MORE deadly. Sectarian violence is only getting worse.

dls said:
It's always about politics (both sides) a sad commentary but true.
It would be foolhardy to work on infrastructure before the country in stablized. It would just be blown up by bad guys.
And if we continuely increase the number of bad guys... then exactly what the HELL are we doing?

Infastructure should be our responcibility and security should be the responcibility of the Iraqis.
 

Kazmarov

For a Free Scotland
#10
Infastructure in Shi'te areas will be destroyed by the Sunnis and vice-versa. If they have their own borders via largely homogeneous states, they can have the stability to rebuild.

The idea that Iraq can survive with a highly centralized government is a crock. The most succesful area of Iraq in terms of stability, health, and infastructure is Iraqi Kurdistan, which is self-governing and autonomous from Iraq. They created their own state, and thrived. There's more of a track record in partitioning Iraq succesfully than there is in troop surges bringing any actual stability.