The War In Iraq: Our Options

[Wakie]

The purpose of this thread is to attempt to have a no BS discussion about the options available to the US government in dealing with the situation in Iraq.

As I see it there are really only 4 options open to us in facing the situation in Iraq (if anyone has any other ideas please share them).

1. Withdraw
Pros -- Gets our troops out of harms way and ends spending on it.
Cons -- The situation in Iraq could deteriorate to an even worse situation w/ the Iraqi government unable to support itself.

2. Maintain the Status Quo
Pros -- No one sticks their political neck out and we definitely know what the current situation is.
Cons -- The current situation is far from desirable and there is no reason to believe that by doing the same thing we will see different results.

3. Escalate within Iraq
Pros -- Tighter security in the short term
Cons -- Great resentment of US forces in the long term

4. Escalate beyond Iraq (possible Iranian invasion)
Pros -- Potentially eliminate the threat of Iran getting nukes
Cons -- Incite the entire Muslim/Arab world into believing we are just going from Islamic country to Islamic country.


Frankly I for one am in favor of massive escalation beyond Iraq or total withdrawal.  I think the other two options are just putting a band-aid on a festering wound of someone who is allergic to adhesive.

[Wakie]

I actually tend to agree with StatesRights on this one.

I don't really believing we are securing Iraq.  If we are I'd love to know what actions we are taking which are securing Iraq not just in the short term but in the long term as well.

I have a friend who is an air force doctor.  He just returned from Iraq and said that over there they used to call it "Groundhog Day".  As in, every day is the same.  There is no sense of progress or accomplishment amongst the troops.  THAT is dangerous my friends.

[Wakie]

I guess the way I see it is that the situation in Iraq doesn't seem to be changing at all.  We're 4 years in and there's hardly any change from the time we first went in.  The only difference is that the bad guys are getting smarter about how to run an insurgency.

Is the situation getting any better?  If the answer is no, then how will more troops there make a difference?  Seriously.  Do they patrol more?  Search more houses?  Basically act as police?  Without a change in tactics will we see any improvement?

[Wakie]

Is anyone else here a student of military history?  The US campaign in Iraq reminds me of Hannibal in the 2nd Punic War.

For those not in know, Hannibal marched into Italy and smashed the Roman armies thrown at him.  Many times w/ vastly inferior numbers Hannibal won stunning victories over the Romans.  He won over the support of a variety of Italian cities which were once loyal to Rome and used them as bases of operations.

After the Battle of Cannae the Romans finely adopted a strategy of refusing to engage Hannibal directly.  Instead they used a "Fabian strategy" (similar to that used by the Washington in the Revolutionary War).  They launched small attacks on his forces and wore them down.  Hannibal didn't have the military power to seize Rome directly so he eventually was forced to withdraw.  Many have argued that if Hannibal had the strength to attack Rome directly he could have won the war.

In my comparison the US is Hannibal and Iran is Rome.  They fund the insurgents in Iraq to wear us down because they know we don't have the strength right now to launch a direct assault on them.

[Wakie]

Angus, I'm ok with turning our great killing machine loose except who do we turn em loose on?  Just the Iraqi people?  If so that can have some very dangerous consequences.