[N8 v2.0]

Will this work?

1. Level with the American People...that the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous... and not sugar-coating what’s going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn’t help them for the a president to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not... even though everyone in the US KNOWS that this is gonna be a long hard process.

2. Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it and we should provide it... and we are increasing troop numbers in-country and keeping front line troops in the theater longer. When do we know we have enough troops though?

3. Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work. Support the plan outlined by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi. The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a UN mission with responsibility for the transition and elections (and force the UN back into Iraq). We need to get the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the Brahimi Plan. However, UN is not ready to take over control of Iraq

4. Establish An International Mission to Ensure Stability and Set up Elections. We need a plan for the period after June 30 when the interim government takes control. We should establish an international mission authorized by the UN to work with the interim government on governance issues, including elections and the reconstruction of Iraq and rebuilding the Iraqi economy. A respected non-American who has the confidence of the UN Security Council should then be asked to run the mission in order to decrease the perception of an American occupation. Of course this assumes that the UN will get back into Iraq ASAP.

5. Transform U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries. Is possible to transform the U.S. force into a NATO force, commanded by an American? We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk. The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq but how many countries are willing to shed blood to make it so?


So, will this plan work?

 

[brenth]

Originally posted by N8
Will this work?

1. Level with the American People...that the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous... and not sugar-coating what’s going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn’t help them for the a president to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not... even though everyone in the US KNOWS that this is gonna be a long hard process.

essential. nail on the head.

2. Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it and we should provide it... and we are increasing troop numbers in-country and keeping front line troops in the theater longer. When do we know we have enough troops though?

I agree if the commanders on the ground request more, they have to be sent. As to how do we know we have enough? I would hope since the commanders now we need more, that they would know we have enough. I don't really know the answer though.

3. Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work. Support the plan outlined by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi. The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a UN mission with responsibility for the transition and elections (and force the UN back into Iraq). We need to get the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the Brahimi Plan.

I think this is a good thing, I don't know much about the brahimi plan ( not details at least, i'll look into it).

4. Establish An International Mission to Ensure Stability and Set up Elections. We need a plan for the period after June 30 when the interim government takes control. We should establish an international mission authorized by the UN to work with the interim government on governance issues, including elections and the reconstruction of Iraq and rebuilding the Iraqi economy. A respected non-American who has the confidence of the UN Security Council should then be asked to run the mission in order to decrease the perception of an American occupation. Of course this assumes that the UN will get back into Iraq ASAP.

this is very very important in my mind. I agree we need more no-Americans in helping out to , as you said, decrease the perception of an American occupation.

The one thing I don't agree with, is the June 30 handoff to the Iraqi IG. At this point I don't see who that is going to be, and it looks like even the administration doesn't know fully at this point. It just seems to me that they are sticking to this arbitrary date for no real reason.
I'm not saying that the handoff is a bad thing, because if I'm wrong and they are ready, then it is going to be a good thing, I just think we need to be a little more realistic about it.

5. Transform U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries. Is possible to transform the U.S. force into a NATO force, commanded by an American? We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk. The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq but how many countries are willing to shed blood to make it so?

Yes to transforming the forces into a NATO force. I think that whoever is the best commander for the job, is the right one. It will probably be American at first, but I would have no problem with the commander being from another country.

I honestly don't know if other countries are going to be willing to step up to the plate after the arrogant way that the bush admin has been handling it. I hope they do because your right, everyone in the world has a stake in a stable and free Iraq, and hopefully other countries will rise above the petty BS that the bush admin. has been spouting. I fear that alot of countries have had enough, so far three countries have pulled out, will they come back under and UN/NATO force? I don't know.

So, will this plan work?

I hope so, for the sake of all Iraqis and the world as a whole.

 

[brenth]

However, UN is not ready to take over control of Iraq

I would think that they wouln't be ready by june 30th. In my mind it is going to take 8-12 months for the forces to transfer from a Americain force to a UN/NATO led force.

There would have to be alot of diplomacy involved to get countries to come on board and then moblize. The vast amount of our forces aren't going anywhere anytime some I'm afraid.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Cool... sounds like Pres. Bush is pretty much right on track then.

 

[Serial Midget]

History will be the judge of that - from where I stand it looks like the first ill conceived and poorly executed war of the 21st century.

Originally posted by N8
Cool... sounds like Pres. Bush is pretty much right on track then.

 

[Westy]

I agree with most of it but have to add our military is a great fighting force, we need to alter our tactics to an occupation force. It seems that they are spending more time trying to win the hearts and minds of the American electorate rather than the Iraqi people.


As a sidenote, my buddy Hubcap (Lt. Andrew Bischoff) made the NEWZ. He is stuck over there for another 4 months.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
History will be the judge of that - from where I stand it looks like the first ill conceived and poorly executed war of the 21st century.

uhhh..no...

That prize already goes to Presidents JFK and LBJ and a lil' ol hellhole called Vietnam.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
uhhh..no...

That prize already goes to Presidents JFK and LBJ and a lil' ol hellhole called Vietnam.

What should we have learned from LBJ? Never put a Texan in the Whitehouse.

LBJ=Viet Nam and Welfare
GWB=Iraq and free drugs for old folks.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
uhhh..no...

That prize already goes to Presidents JFK and LBJ and a lil' ol hellhole called Vietnam.

I know your history isn't quite up to snuff, but I believe that was a 20th century war...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Westy
What should we have learned from LBJ? Never put a Texan in the Whitehouse.

LBJ=Viet Nam and Welfare
GWB=Iraq and free drugs for old folks.

Vietnam + democrats in power = roughly 60,000 dead

Iraq + republicans in power = roughly 600 dead

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
Vietnam + democrats in power = roughly 60,000 dead

Iraq + republicans in power = roughly 600 dead

Last time I checked this thing is not over yet. And if you are going to make comparisons we should look at casualties, medicine is much better these days. How many guys are permanently injured? A lot more than 600.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Silver
I know your history isn't quite up to snuff, but I believe that was a 20th century war...

yeah, but I wasn't going to say anything....

we are only 4 yrs into the 21st century. It is entirely possible that a much more "ill conceived and poorly executed war of the 21st century" waiting down the pike. Being first isn't anything special...that is just timing. Being the biggest is news worthy.

So who gets credit for the ill conceived war? Saddam or GWB? :devil: I guess this could also be considered a continuation of Sadams invasion of Kuwait....making it a 20th century war....

 

[JRogers]

Originally posted by Westy
Last time I checked this thing is not over yet. And if you are going to make comparisons we should look at casualties, medicine is much better these days. How many guys are permanently injured? A lot more than 600.

True, but you have to admit that this is nowhere on the scale or intensity of Vietnam. Simply look at the amount of Vietnamese that were killed to get an idea of the scope of the conflict. Medicine isn't that much better...

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by JRogers
True, but you have to admit that this is nowhere on the scale or intensity of Vietnam. Simply look at the amount of Vietnamese that were killed to get an idea of the scope of the conflict. Medicine isn't that much better...

Never meant to say that it was equivalant to Viet Nam.

Just found some info on google. So far minor US casualties=1256. Serious US casualties=2374. US dead 704, British dead=59, Other Coalition Dead=44.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by Silver
I know your history isn't quite up to snuff, but I believe that was a 20th century war...

D'OH!!!!



..well spank my monkey....

 

[Serial Midget]

This pre-recorded message brought to you by...

 

[brenth]

Originally posted by N8
Cool... sounds like Pres. Bush is pretty much right on track then.

Its funny, as I was writing my reply out, I figured that you were going to say something like that. Funny.

I'll get into why thats not the case later though. at work, no time right now.

 

[$tinkle]

implement this recipe only after we re-engage shock & awe for the last 60 days.

seriously. The "insurgents" take cover from mosques, where their heavy weaponry & supply line is. Put a couple spookies in orbit during the small hours & knock 'em down when unoccuppied by legitamite worshippers. After a couple weeks of this, the locals will be loathe to have these thugs in their midst & will face the reality that they can be all but guaranteed to die by collateral damage, or they can take a smaller risk of retrubution by narcing. Remember: it only hurts the first time.

above all, let al-jizzbag cover this. They seem to be suspiciously present during all the other horrific incidents (i.e. they are accessories, and not just after the fact).

to recap: pull the boots back to waylay & for safe fwd observing for a few weeks.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
implement this recipe only after we re-engage shock & awe for the last 60 days.

seriously. The "insurgents" take cover from mosques, where their heavy weaponry & supply line is. Put a couple spookies in orbit during the small hours & knock 'em down when unoccuppied by legitamite worshippers. After a couple weeks of this, the locals will be loathe to have these thugs in their midst & will face the reality that they can be all but guaranteed to die by collateral damage, or they can take a smaller risk of retrubution by narcing. Remember: it only hurts the first time.

above all, let al-jizzbag cover this. They seem to be suspiciously present during all the other horrific incidents (i.e. they are accessories, and not just after the fact).

to recap: pull the boots back to waylay & for safe fwd observing for a few weeks.

Put less effort into killing the bad guys and more time helping the old women cross the street. At this point in history the US Military probably needs a special branch just for occupation and peacekeeping, specializing in crowd control, small special ops raids, psy-ops in political sensitivity instead of demoralizing the enemy.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy


Put less effort into killing the bad guys and more time helping the old women cross the street. At this point in history the US Military probably needs a special branch just for occupation and peacekeeping, specializing in crowd control, small special ops raids, psy-ops in political sensitivity instead of demoralizing the enemy.

the UN's job is to pass out powdered milk & help old ladies across the street. The military's job is to break the back of the enemy & their sympathizers. The rest of the tasks are well suited for our military, when allowed to fully employ their training (i.e. don't wait to be fired upon before engaging a threat). An AC-130 is less effort, & it's more humane, less threatening (when seen - of course it rarely ever is), and boy does it ever employ psyops. (from globalspecops.com)

The AC-l30 is an excellent low threat, night CAS platform.The gunship can provide surgical fire support with limited collateral damage, and it can remain on station for extended periods of time.

but, i'll take a warthog just before morning prayers.

Help me to understand: why would we not want to demoralize the enemy? If he's the enemy, is that not exactly what we should do to coerce him into giving up?

here's somewhere else where we're not doing it right: we appointed members of the iraqi governing council not based upon their collective desire to have freedom ring from border to border, but rather to represent religious & ethnic diversity. Talk about your cart before the camel.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Help me to understand: why would we not want to demoralize the enemy? If he's the enemy, is that not exactly what we should do to coerce him into giving up?

The problem is that it doesn't work, you simply alienate the population even more. It makes it less and less possible for them to see you as liberators rather than occupiers. Saddam was supposed to be your enemy, not the Iraqi people.

Blanket bombing failed to demoralise British or German civilians during WWII, or North Vietnamese during some other war, why should it start having that affect now. If the US military did what you suggest you would bring a modern day Vietnam situation several steps closer.

Confrontation leads to more violence, apparently the best peacekeeping troops in the world are Canadian and British because they avoid escalting situations.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
The problem is that it doesn't work, you simply alienate the population even more. It makes it less and less possible for them to see you as liberators rather than occupiers.

i'm suggesting there's a tipping point. It was found on aug 6 1945, i understand.

Originally posted by fluff
Blanket bombing failed to demoralise British or German civilians during WWII, or North Vietnamese during some other war, why should it start having that affect now. If the US military did what you suggest you would bring a modern day Vietnam situation several steps closer.

no blanket bombing.
well, maybe a few thousand noodie mags to distract them might soften them up....or maybe just the opposite.

Originally posted by fluff
Confrontation leads to more violence, apparently the best peacekeeping troops in the world are Canadian and British because they avoid escalting situations.

exepting for that whole IRA thing, you may be right

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
or maybe just the opposite.exepting for that whole IRA thing, you may be right

Oh God... even I would never take this pathetic cheap shot.