[Westy]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_21

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options — injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out. The Washington Post quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives "Go big, go long and go home."


The secret military study was commissioned by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and comes as political and military leaders struggle with how to conduct a war that is increasingly unpopular, both in the United States and in occupied Iraq.

Pace has said that all options for the Iraq war are on the table. Those would range from significantly boosting the number of troops to withdrawing a substantial portion of those now there.

Meanwhile, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said Monday that the United States should push for available and trained Iraqi security forces to be sent to the front lines of the fight to stabilize the wartorn country, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter said Monday.

"We need to saddle those up and deploy them to the fight" in dangerous areas, primarily in Baghdad, Hunter, a California Republican who is interested in his party's 2008 presidential nomination, told The Associated Press in an interview. He took a different tack from Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a front-running 2008 hopeful who has urged that additional U.S. troops be sent there.

Monday's statements continued an Iraq war policy debate that has been intensifying before and since midterm elections that saw Democrats grab back control of the House and Senate from the GOP.

Also on Monday, Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, pushed again on his argument that the military draft should be reinstated.

Rangel, incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, had said Sunday that "there's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft."

In a speech Monday at Baruch College, he said he wants to hold hearings into current troop levels and future plans for Iraq and other potential conflict regions..............................

 

[golgiaparatus]

I voted add troops for now... but at some point their govt needs to take some of the heat. They need to get the iraqi troops to carry more load. Seriously.

Where is the time machine option? Go back and leave iraq alone.

 

[Changleen]

1) Add more troops to make the problem worse.
2) Withdraw slowly in the vain hope that it doesn't look as bad or cost more lives as withdrawing straight away, which it does /will.
3) Withdraw now, let the dust settle and figure out the best thing to do.

 

[kidwoo]

Those three options are pertinent to the modern porn environment as well.

 

[Westy]

I voted add troops for now... but at some point their govt needs to take some of the heat. They need to get the iraqi troops to carry more load. Seriously.

Where is the time machine option? Go back and leave iraq alone.

The thing has been half assed from the get-go. We need to make a serious effort to fix things. If more manpower doesn't help GTFO ASAP. If you ask me slowing backing out is just giving up without having the balls to admit that you have given up.

 

[LordOpie]

I voted add troops for now... but at some point their govt needs to take some of the heat. They need to get the iraqi troops to carry more load. Seriously.

Where is the time machine option? Go back and leave iraq alone.

x2


I think it's obvious that Iraq doesn't have enough troops, whether allied or domestic.

Besides, the main point of invading was to establish a presence, like we did in Japan. We can't do that if we withdraw.

 

[LordOpie]

I just voted and see that most want to withdraw.

Are you really ok with sending that country into a worse situation than it is now?

 

[H8R]

Where's the choice for "Charred, glass-lined crater 1000 miles in diameter"?

 

[Westy]

Where's the choice for "Charred, glass-lined crater 1000 miles in diameter"?

I'd hope we'd leave before doing that.

 

[Changleen]

I'd hope we'd leave before doing that.

It'd cut down on vet benefits costs...

 

[Changleen]

I just voted and see that most want to withdraw.

Are you really ok with sending that country into a worse situation than it is now?

IMO adding troops will make it worse too, unless you could pretty much have a unit on every street corner in every town and village in the country.

You know what'll happen if more troops are decided to be sent is not enough will be committed, they'll aggravate the situation without having the coverage to keep proper order, and then you'll simply be in the same situation.

You're almost definitely right that withdrawal will make things worse, but really all you're doing by adding troops is making it worse later on...

 

[I Are Baboon]

I guess I am in the minority that doesn't have the slightest clue how to fix that ****job of a situation.

 

[H8R]

I guess I am in the minority that doesn't have the slightest clue how to fix that ****job of a situation.

There are many like you, they just don't have the balls to admit it.

Unfortunately they are calling the shots on this whole clown-car-cluster-fvck.

 

[SteezyWeezy]

The thing has been half assed from the get-go. We need to make a serious effort to fix things. If more manpower doesn't help GTFO ASAP. If you ask me slowing backing out is just giving up without having the balls to admit that you have given up.

this isnt about your oversized ego, the fact is that we ****ed up their country once more, and if we just picked up and left, the country would break into chaos, like taking the support beams out of a building. i think we should stay, until the government has a stronger hold. i dont think the war was a good idea in the first place, but now that we are there, we cant just leave

 

[Changleen]

I'd love to hope that staying longer would help the Iraqi government get a better hold, but it's been a long time now, and things are getting worse not better - every month the death toll is higher than the last.

If we're going to stay we HAVE to have a BIG reinvestment in making it work, not just 50,000 troops, but double or triple plus money and engineers to make the construction work. Otherwise just GTFU.

 

[Reactor]

As far as I see it this was a fools errand all along. Bush 41 had the right idea, and competent advisers who told him not to go all the way. Clinton had the right idea, contain them. And it worked no WMD's no terrorists. Bush 43 reversed both those policies and both those results, and got a hell of a lot of people killed.

Our presence there is just aggravating a bad situation. If we stay, it will be like duct taping the lid on a boiling pot. And the insurgents will keep turning up the heat. As long as we keep adding duct tape the pot will keep boiling harder and harder. As soon as we leave it will explode. The question is do we want to have the lid blow a hole in the ceiling or go into orbit? The longer we stay, creating more terrorists and more insurgents, radicallizing more people, the worse it will be when we withdrawl.

We need to fully equip the iraqi security forces and Kurds, bring in every trainer we have, and start turning over the country to the iraqi security forces. Tell them they have six months to get on the stick and stop the civil war, or forge meaningful political compromises, but either way we are out by June.

 

[Westy]

As far as I see it this was a fools errand all along. Bush 41 had the right idea, and competent advisers who told him not to go all the way. Clinton had the right idea, contain them. And it worked no WMD's no terrorists. Bush 43 reversed both those policies and both those results, and got a hell of a lot of people killed.

Our presence there is just aggravating a bad situation. If we stay, it will be like duct taping the lid on a boiling pot. And the insurgents will keep turning up the heat. As long as we keep adding duct tape the pot will keep boiling harder and harder. As soon as we leave it will explode. The question is do we want to have the lid blow a hole in the ceiling or go into orbit? The longer we stay, creating more terrorists and more insurgents, radicallizing more people, the worse it will be when we withdrawl.

We need to fully equip the iraqi security forces and Kurds, bring in every trainer we have, and start turning over the country to the iraqi security forces. Tell them they have six months to get on the stick and stop the civil war, or forge meaningful political compromises, but either way we are out by June.

One of the big mistakes in the firstplace was not planning on a very likely and realistic "what if". What if after we leave the country turns into a full blown civil war with some quality mass raping murdering and pillaging, genocide etc? Do we go back in?

 

[Westy]

this isnt about your oversized ego, the fact is that we ****ed up their country once more, and if we just picked up and left, the country would break into chaos, like taking the support beams out of a building. i think we should stay, until the government has a stronger hold. i dont think the war was a good idea in the first place, but now that we are there, we cant just leave

My oversized ego? 'Splain yourself.

 

[LordOpie]

One of the big mistakes in the firstplace was not planning on a very likely and realistic "what if". What if after we leave the country turns into a full blown civil war with some quality mass raping murdering and pillaging, genocide etc? Do we go back in?

You're not paying attention!

We will never leave. There will never be another invasion since we'll always have a significant presence.

 

[Reactor]

One of the big mistakes in the firstplace was not planning on a very likely and realistic "what if". What if after we leave the country turns into a full blown civil war with some quality mass raping murdering and pillaging, genocide etc? Do we go back in?

First, there are no good options. All the options are bad. Staying in is the worse of three bad ones. I've hated this war from the start, and always thought it was the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

There are several lines of reasoning and possible alterantives for what will happen in Iraq. But one likely version is that the civil war is likely to be short, and somewhat bloody. But the government (with it's hands untied) will be forced to finally confront the militias, and insurgents, if they want to survive as a unified Iraq, and keep their heads. A good deal of the support for the militias and insurgents will dry up once we are gone, and it's arabs killing arabs. With much of their support gone militias and insurgents will have to come to the bargining table.

And no we don't go back in, at least not with soldiers.

 

[jimmydean]

We need to back out slowly. Adding more troops will only lose more troops. If we take the guys who they have ready now and put them to work, then slowly back out over the next 18 months.

We should also do what we have done in ANA. Ship a handful of Iraqi troops to Germany or somewhere outside of car bomb range and train them there for 6 months. That way they will be trained without added stress of outside influence. Then slowly integrate them into the existing force.

This allows US troops to go and train other troops in a neutral environment (with a reduced chance of being killed) and make things happen.

If you think about it, we are taking kids off the street, sending them to boot and AIT, then straight to Iraq. If US kids can be trained in 6 months, then Iraqi men should be able to di the same.

 

[valve bouncer]

There is a 4th option. It involves swallowing your pride and getting some proper coalition building going, even if it means involving countries that you don't like such as Iran, Syria and France. God forbid you might even hand over responsibility to the UN.
I think however the f*cktards truck is gonna continue hurtling down the road out of control, belching smoke and mowing down bystanders.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There is a 4th option. It involves swallowing your pride and getting some proper coalition building going, even if it means involving countries that you don't like such as Iran, Syria and France. God forbid you might even hand over responsibility to the UN.
I think however the f*cktards truck is gonna continue hurtling down the road out of control, belching smoke and mowing down bystanders.

This is what Ive been saying for a while now. Just freaking plead for help. Get UN guys all over the place. Get troops from the whole world. Say "we're sorry" forgive some debt, whatever...just get the job done.

 

[Westy]

First, there are no good options. All the options are bad. Staying in is the worse of three bad ones. I've hated this war from the start, and always thought it was the wrong place for the wrong reasons.

There are several lines of reasoning and possible alterantives for what will happen in Iraq. But one likely version is that the civil war is likely to be short, and somewhat bloody. But the government (with it's hands untied) will be forced to finally confront the militias, and insurgents, if they want to survive as a unified Iraq, and keep their heads. A good deal of the support for the militias and insurgents will dry up once we are gone, and it's arabs killing arabs. With much of their support gone militias and insurgents will have to come to the bargining table.

And no we don't go back in, at least not with soldiers.

What if #2,

Civil war breaks out, Kurds declare their own state. Ethnic Kurds in Turkey rise up to join Kurdish state. Iran invades Eastern Iraq in support of Shia.

This is the worst case scenario that was proposed before the war started. Although the timeline has been dragged out, so far the sequence of events leading up to this has become reality.

 

[Westy]

You're not paying attention!

We will never leave. There will never be another invasion since we'll always have a significant presence.

So we make them the 51st state? Screw you Puerto Rico!

 

[LordOpie]

So we make them the 51st state? Screw you Puerto Rico!

not another state, just a convenient, effective staging ground for other military operations in the region.

 

[ohio]

Meh, not my problem. I'm gonna make some nachos.

 

[Reactor]

What if #2,

Civil war breaks out, Kurds declare their own state. Ethnic Kurds in Turkey rise up to join Kurdish state. Iran invades Eastern Iraq in support of Shia.

This is the worst case scenario that was proposed before the war started. Although the timeline has been dragged out, so far the sequence of events leading up to this has become reality.

It's possible, but the speed of withdrawl won't make it any better. I don't think it's likely.

First the Kurds are already a defacto country and the more savvy kurds know that declaring themselves fully independent might involve Turkey. And anything involvong Turkey will involve the EU and NATO. On the other hand the Kurds really do want a their own country and Iraq was a country founded on artificial borders anyway.

Iran really isn't in a position to invade iraq. The iraqi and iranian shia might respect each other, but the iraqi's really don't to become part of Iran. Iran and syria are already making diplomatic gestures to iraq.

I'll say it again, there aren't any good options. No matter when we leave the Iraqi government is going to have a hella aof a time. Many peoppel think of them as american puppets. They've got heavily armed militias and insurgents to deal with, and an army that is just there for a paycheck and identify with their religious leaders more strongly than their country. Their security forces are heavily infiltrated by the very militias and insurgents they are fighting.

difficult to see, Always in motion the future is.

 

[SeaPig]

Wow! I read everyone of these posts. I don't want to sound like a dick head, but everyone of these solutions are versions of what the talking heads on TV and the radio have brought up. Where is the independent thinking?

Here's a thought! Before we went into Iraq there was a very evil dictator that was contained if not almost broken. Now we not only have the makings of a cival war, but a war that will draw everyone into 3rd world war. That being said, I believe the problem and the solution then sits with us at home. We have to fix are attitude here before we can come up the right solution.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Wow! I read everyone of these posts. I don't want to sound like a dick head, but everyone of these solutions are versions of what the talking heads on TV and the radio have brought up. Where is the independent thinking?

Here's a thought! Before we went into Iraq there was a very evil dictator that was contained if not almost broken. Now we not only have the makings of a cival war, but a war that will draw everyone into 3rd world war. That being said, I believe the problem and the solution then sits with us at home. We have to fix are attitude here before we can come up the right solution.

Is that independent thinking?

 

[LordOpie]

Here's a thought! Before we went into Iraq there was a very evil dictator that was contained if not almost broken.

Here's the flaw in yours and the typical persons thinking...

You think we invaded Iraq because our govt thought it was lead by an evil dictator that posed a threat to US.

Not true in even the slightest way.

 

[Changleen]

Wow! I read everyone of these posts. I don't want to sound like a dick head, but everyone of these solutions are versions of what the talking heads on TV and the radio have brought up. Where is the independent thinking?

These options are being discussed precisely because they are the current mainsteam options. If you read other PAWNed threads, you will also find discussion of lots of other options, some ridiculous, some more sensible. This thread is really just about the recent mainstream proposals, because they are exactly that.

I personally think dividing up Iraq into Kurdistan, and a Sunni and a Sh'ite portion (Iran would take over one) followed by a swift withdrawal might be the 'least bloodshed' way out, but it doesn't suit western (Euro or US) interests one bit in the medium or long term, so it almost definitely won't happen, so there is little point in discussing it.

 

[H8R]

Here's a thought! Before we went into Iraq there was a very evil dictator that was contained if not almost broken. Now we not only have the makings of a cival war, but a war that will draw everyone into 3rd world war. That being said, I believe the problem and the solution then sits with us at home. We have to fix are attitude here before we can come up the right solution.

Here's a thought! Before we post about not having original thinking, let's have an original thought! Also, spell checkers and a quick review to make sure your post isn't pure speculation mixed with the ultra-obvious would help as well.

You are encouraged to try again.

Go!

 

[H8R]

I personally think dividing up Iraq into Kurdistan, and a Sunni and a Sh'ite portion (Iran would take over one) followed by a swift withdrawal might be the 'least bloodshed' way out,

I dunno, I think chopping up and relocating entire communities will throw gasoline on the fire. (the Sunni and Sh'ites).

Won't a sovereign Kurdish nation throw Turkey into a blind rage as well?

 

[LordOpie]

I dunno, I think chopping up and relocating entire communities will throw gasoline on the fire. (the Sunni and Sh'ites).

Won't a sovereign Kurdish nation throw Turkey into a blind rage as well?

Don't be such a Negative Nancy... dividing up a region into religious states worked well for Israel and Jordan.

 

[H8R]

Don't be such a Negative Nancy... dividing up a region into religious states worked well for Israel and Jordan.

Ah yes.

Ok, back to my option #4 as stated earlier. Glass factory.

 

[Changleen]

I dunno, I think chopping up and relocating entire communities will throw gasoline on the fire. (the Sunni and Sh'ites).

Because of the violence, this process is already well underway with refugees running to 'friendly territory'.

Won't a sovereign Kurdish nation throw Turkey into a blind rage as well?

Yes, but the EU would try and stop them getting involved by threatening them with no membership. They probably want EU$$ > a bunch of marsh Arabs who don't like them anyway. That'd have to be the gamble.

 

[Changleen]

Don't be such a Negative Nancy... dividing up a region into religious states worked well for Israel and Jordan.

There is a subtle difference that in this case one of the groups wasn't an entirely different race and shipped in from overseas. For the most part (with the exception of Baghdad mainly) we are talking about people staying where they are.

Secondly one of the groups won't be massively more armed and financed than the others, and be protected from international condemnation.

Small differences though...

 

[urbaindk]

Ah yes.

Ok, back to my option #4 as stated earlier. Glass factory.

Uranium oxide does make some stunning ceramics glazes. Perhaps they could go into the arts and crafts business.

http://www.handspiral.com/Treasure From France.htm

 

[LordOpie]

There is a subtle difference that in this case one of the groups wasn't an entirely different race and shipped in from overseas. For the most part (with the exception of Baghdad mainly) we are talking about people staying where they are.

Secondly one of the groups won't be massively more armed and financed than the others, and be protected from international condemnation.

Small differences though...

while some jews were shipped in, there were also a LOT of Arab-Jews who were already in the jacked up remains of the Ottoman Empire.

It's essentially the same thing and will have the same results if done in the same way. Cuz you know Kurds, and Sunnis and Sh'ites love killing each other as much as Arab-Jews and Arab-Muslims.