Seeing how President Bush is not going to make public his policy re: Iraq until after the new year, I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought the "way forward" should be. Should pull back and let the sectarian conflict resolve itself? Should we pour more troops into Baghdad while stepping up the training of Iraqi military and the police? Should we promote (I don't mean coup) a change in the Iraqi leadership? Break the country into three parts? "Stay the course?" Etc....

What say you?

I thought about this for awhile and I honestly have no idea. Then I though a little bit longer about it and realized that, y'know what, I'm just a working slob, putting in my 40 hrs a week, paying my bills, etc. etc., and it doesn't really matter what my ideas on what the best course of action in Iraq is at this point. However, we have elected officials in this country whose sole responsibility it is to have solid plans and ideas in place when undertaking any course of action that involves the use of the resources and manpower of our great nation. So my suggestion for the best course of action would be for our country's leadership to remove its head from its ass and find a solution to what has devolved into a pretty significant clusterfuck.

1.) apologize for poor post-invasion planning and publicly ask UN for assistance. They will do nothing but complain about how it's all the US's fault, but try anyway.
2.) Pull troops into Saudi Arabia and Kuridsh territories, allow civil war, assist the Arab states (not ness. in a leadership role) in a rebuilding effort.
3.) federal fund oil shale extraction plants to power cars existing cars, all new cars must be electric
4.) convert US power grid to distributed solar/wind/nuclear generation
5.) gradually halt all oil imports from Arab states and Chavezland. Forcing them to go bankrupt or massively increase prices to China, which would cripple our main competitors production advantage.
6.) enjoy life for the next 75-100 years until Russia sells off it's scalar weapon technology and the whole world is fucked.

The end.

actually not that bad

get out, as fast as possible. tell iraq to draw up one hell of a loose confederation and split the oil revenue up proportionally based on population, and let them know they have america's best wishes and prayers to the one true god to guide them.

I like it.

I Vote Broken Iris for Secretary of State.

Dick Cheney, earlier today:

"Donald Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense this country has ever had."

Bush is looking more like a fucking arrogant moron every day.

depsite the fact that I never liked him all that much I used to at least respect his relative intelligence. no more.

IMO let's go. its like we're scratching an infected scab.

I like all of them except #6

You have some good ideas here, but not getting our energy sources from the Middle East is both a long-term solution (20 years or so from now) and, in my opinion, not the biggest issue. What the ISG brought up that is a very important issue is the ongoing dispute regarding Israel/Palestine. Where I disagree with the ISG is the weight it puts on President Bush to get the process going. You need willing participants, and past Presidents have been unable to broker deals. What's needed is a united concensus in the region that recognizes Israel's right to exist and thus lays the foundation for a Palestinean state. I think it's going to take more than what a U.S. President is capable of. In the meantime, our ongoing support for Israel will foster hated from countries/groups in the region. Hopefully sooner rather than later everyone in the Middle East will realize that Israel is not going anywhere.
In regards to Iraq, I don't agree with pulling back and watching a civil war take place. I think we need to realize that the Saudis would aid the Sunnis and Iran would aid the Shi'ites. Also, Turkey might get into a conflict with the Kurds. The ISG was correct in recommending a regional conference to see how the neighboring countries could help end the violence...they have a vested interest in avoiding Iraq becoming a failed state. Also, we need to set clear and firm benchmarks that the Iraqi government needs to meet. Maliki needs to be told that we aren't hanging around for decades and that our time there is coming to an end. Therefore, he needs to take whatever strong measures are needed to get rid of the death squads and militias (with our support, if necessary). What's important is that it comes from him and he is seen as taking control and providing security for the Iraqi people. If he doesn't step up in a big way, then the people will continue to put their faith in the militias and the tit-for-tat killing will just go on and on.
What if this isn't successful? Then I think we need to look into partition as a second measure (a federalized system with shared oil revenue). Our troops have served above and beyond the call....it's time to put the foot down and basically tell the Iraqi government that they are going to make the hard decisions necessary or we will go to the U.N. and present a resolution that calls for partition. I don't think the U.N. will be of any help with the current situation, but it could help down the road.
Reading that Maliki has extended an olive branch of sorts to the former Baathists leaves hope that things are already in motion. It's their country...they can choose to live in peace or kill each other off. Perhaps fear of Saddam had something to do with it, but the Iraqis fought as a nation against Iran years ago, so there's gotta be some sense of nationalism there that the people of Iraq can embrace.

LeninFlux,

If you've read some of my previous posts on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I think you see my opinion of it is different from most people. I don't see "solving the Palestinian problem" as solving anything. IMNSHO, the conflict is really about removing "western" culture from the middle east.

The Arabs don't care about the Palestinians. Sure they send them money, but what the give with one hand they take away with the other. For example, in Lebanon (arguably the most pro-Palestine state in the area) has a law that bans Palestinians from 73 types of jobs. Should Israel ever pass such a law, it would be decried as a crime against humanity and evidence of Zionist oppression in the world press. Palestinians are bused into and out of Saudi Arabia and used like our own Mexican slaves as day laborers to reduce construction costs. Again we see the same hypocrisy from the Saudis when they condemn Israel for mistreatment of the Palestinians. Remember the fence Israel is building to keep out the Palestinians? Horrible oppression? Hardly, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have the same thing and SA is building one to keep out Iraqis as well.

And really, what would giving the Palestinians everything ask for, expect "right of return" to Israel, actually accomplish? Would they be better off? Would they suddenly have access to grazing land and fresh water sources? Would their infrastructure appear overnight? Why aren’t these oil-rich Arab nations in their supplying and rebuilding Palestine? Because they don’t really care. They only want the western culture of Israel removed from their neighborhood because it could show their citizens the benefits of freedom, democracy, and capitalism, and undermine the existing oppressive regimes in the Middle East. They are using the Palestinian’s strife to distract their own citizens from the oppression they live under every day and thus have no motivation to help the peaceful farmers in anyway other than feigning solidarity on the international stage.

So I didn’t include anything on Israel/Palestine in my Iraq solutions posts, because I don’t think it would help. It matters like the winner of the World Cup matters.

As for the Kurds, Turkey has been bombing them since the first Gulf war. Having 10,000’s of US troops in the area, having been pulled north from Iraq, could bring a stop to that. It wouldn’t stop the Kurdish uprisings within Turkey, but it may give more exposure in the American and EU media to the seriousness of the situation.

Enough arm-chair politicking for a Monday morning.

the whole thing is brain numbing.

i've been thinking about this "surge" strategy that has just come up these past few days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... al/Africa/

sending in 40,000 more troops to tie up loose ends and then get the fuck out seems reasonable...say 3-6 months, then get out no matter what.

but others are saying that we need to have a "sustained surge"...for 18-24 months, and that just sounds like gov't double talk. that is not a surge, that is a reinforcement. then there is the fact that the Iraqi PM has already said, "no thanks" to a surge in US troops.

all the while, the taliban is growing again in afganistan, and there is talk that we may "lose" pakistan?

one thing is very clear to me though: the people in charge have got to stop thinking in terms of "winning" and "losing" this war and start thinking in terms of minimizing destruction of life and property.

Former CENTCOM commander General Anthony Zinni :

"When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number. "


We can't get "350,000 to 380,000" troops. There is viable no military solution to Iraq. Only staged US withdrawl and civil war.

This is going to sound over-simplistic, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for it, but I think it still holds true; Since as far back as I can remember having even the most basic understanding of geo-politics, probably around the time I was 13 or 14 yrs old, I have held pretty closely to the idea that there are essentially two options when dealing with the Middle East. (1) Nuke the ever loving shit out of the entire region or (2) stay the fuck away and keep them at bay through political means. There is no other option. And for god's sake, the absolute worst thing to do is commit large scale land forces to the area. I think our crazy old uncle Dubya has proven the latter point in spectacular fashion.

P.S. I do realize this is Arm Chair Quarterbacking at its worst and offers no viable plan for exit strategy. I just though I would take an opportunity to reiterate the fact that our gov't is currently operated by mouth breathing simpletons.

Hey, what's wrong with mouth breathing? Some of us have sinus problems, asshole.

An additional 40,000 troops is both a surge, as well as a reinforcement at the same time. How long they are needed on the ground should hinge upon how successful these additional troops are and for how long. Hopefully it is enough though. I would imagine they will be on the ground for no more than six months. That's three month extension to orders for those just getting mobilized and for those already on the ground. Remember, we have very minimal presence in 14 of 18 provinces in Iraq. The Army is struggling to maintain security in Baghdad, and as General Mattis said two weeks ago, the Marines are fighting with an "economy of force" in Al Anbar province. Basically, we only have on the ground what maintains the status quo in the two most vital regions.

We, America, are not losing Afghanistan. We've drawn back from Afghanistan and it is now a NATO run operation. Gee, I wonder where in history books Islamist Fighters waited for the US to draw down and for international peacekeepers to run the show before throwing waves of violence at the given area.

Lastly, I don't see how you couldn't think in terms of victory or defeat. You say we need to concentrate on minimizing destruction and loss of life. Well, defeat would mean an increase in loss of life and more destruction. I don't think defeat is an option...

this is not meant as a smart ass question at all:

what do we win if we "win", and what do we lose if we "lose"?

Interesting thread

A quick question: what in the name of god is "scalar weapon technology"? Never head of it before

They are cold war weapons that defectors from the USSR described. The nutjobs have taken that to be the truth and ascribed all sorts of weird occurances to them, but there is enough similarity in the Russian's stories that there may be an element of truth to it. Google it.