Iraq War Options Thread

[angus]

Other: Increase troop levels dramatically until a peaceful democracy is created without the daily threat of terrorism.

Which would result in an accompanying dramatic increase in casualties.

I don't disagree with the idea of creating a democracy, but one also has to weigh the costs. The money and especially the lives could be much better used elsewhere.

Defeat is simply not an option.  The stakes are higher than Vietnam.  At least in Vietnam when we withdrew a stable, although communist and corrupt, government was able to provide stability in the country.  If we were to withdraw from Iraq, there is now entity powerful enough to take power.  In the North, the Kurds will battle the Turks and the national unity government for control of oil rich cities and regions.  In the South, an Iran-funded Shiite theocracy will form.  Finally, in the center, all three groups, though mostly the Sunnis and Shiites, will battle.  The Shiites will be supported by Iran and Hezbollah, while the Sunnis will be backed by Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda.  The national government will fall in a matter of months.  Defeat is not an option, and in my opinion, the only way for victory is for the addition of more troops, and 21,000 more troops is not a big enough increase.  I think we should double our troops.  We can withdraw American troops from Europe to accmplish this, and we can greatly incrase the size of our volunteer military.

What do the anti-war people think of this assessment?

The anti-war people will think you are reasonably intelligent, but they will also think you are an idealist.  You're in good company.  The Nazis were extremely idealistic.  As were the Bolsheviks.  As was Plato for that matter.  We tend to think of idealism mostly in the form of militant idealism of those on the very far left or the very far right.  And of pragmatism as its philosophical antithesis.  But this is misleading, since anyone can be an idealist.  And there's nothing wrong with idealism.  In fact, I'm fairly idealistic, and it's a source of constant frustration for me.  But don't let your idealism affect your judgement.  This is what the Nazis and the Bolsheviks did.  And, from time to time, I do it too.  But don't wrap youself up so tightly in your flag that its folds blind you.  Unfurl it once in a while and fly it high.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Be brave enough to admit the mistakes of the Mother country.   "This lady may have stumbled, but she ain't never fell" is how the Charlie Daniels Band sings it.  And I agree with Charlie.  When you stumble, you have a couple of choices.  One is to lie down and try to trip every one around you.  Another is to look around nervously and tell everybody around that you'll beat them up if they tell anyone you stumbled.  Another is to hold your head up high and just keep walking.  Kick a cat or two if it makes you feel better, but mainly keep walking.  No shame in stumbling.

Defeat need never occur.  We went in.  We removed Saddam just like we said we would.  We come out.  Bush, if he weren't so goddamned intransigent, would spin it this way. 

Anyway, I like the way you bolded volunteer.  You and I agree about that.  We probably also agree about lots of other stuff.  For example, we agree that there are many potential enemies of the United States that would terrorize us.  So why give them more reason to do so?  Yes, all these groups, Sunni, Shia, and Kurds will fight each other.  This is because they're forced into an arrangement they didn't want in the first place.  The modern borders of Iraq were a mistake resulting from many bad decisions made by the British during their imperialist heydey.  And a bunch of Yankees, no matter how right they think they are, will not be able to enforce those borders any better than anyone else has.  And this brings us to the definition of insanity:  doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You're not insane, so it doesn't follow that you'd want to pursue an insane strategy.

I still vote for immediate withdrawal.  That may also be idealistic, but it isn't insane.

[??????????]

Angus, immediate withdrawl is of course insane, immoral, cowardice and borderline treasonous.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Like I said before, while it was a terrible terrible movie, the situation in Iraq is accurately summed up by the tagline for Alien vs. Predator:

"Whoever wins, we lose"

So get now and end the meaningless deaths rather than try to referee a civil war with no good sides.

[angus]

Angus, immediate withdrawl is of course insane, immoral, cowardice and borderline treasonous.

harsh, old boy.  But honest.  I admire your honesty, even if I disagree.  Well, on the point of insanity I'd say it's more insane to keep doing what you're doing and expect different results.  Maybe it's not insane to ratchet it up with another 21000 soldiers, because at least that's a new tack, but then by the same reasoning immediate withdrawal isn't either, since it's trying something new.

Immoral?  That's when you know the difference between right and wrong and choose wrong.  Not to be confused with amoral.  This is a fine point, but what you think is right might not be what someone else thinks is right.  It'd be immoral for you to vote for immediate withdrawal, if you think it's the wrong thing to do, just to curry favor with you constituents.  I'll agree with that.  Just as it'd be immoral for me to vote against it, if I thought that's what was right, just to curry favor with mine.  Having said that, I do agree that we should finish any job we start, and should probably make, or have tried to make by now, a good faith and reasonable effort to get things back in hand in that country.  But we did capture Saddam Hussein, we did search thoroughly and found what weapons facilities we could.  As for leaving the country stable, I think you have to draw the line somewhere.  Would you be willing to spend a hundred billion dollars a year for the next 20 years to ensure stability?  Some would argue that such a proposal is not only amoral, but also insane.

Cowardice?  That's really more of a subjective matter.  If you want to think all opponents of the Iraq war are cowards, or specifically those who favor quitting now, then that's certainly your right.  Many men died honorably to give you the right to say what you think, and I believe, at least I hope, that I'd be among those who have the courage to die for your right to call me a coward.  But this isn't that fight.  This isn't a fight for your country, or your honor, or your freedom.

Treason?  That's harder to call.  Treason would be undermining the federal government of the united states or making war against it.  You should think long and hard about this.  For a long time you wore the stars and bars in your signature, and at times even the naval battle flag of the Confederate States of America in your signature like a badge of honor on your sleeve.  That's a battle flag, mind you, of a band of US citizens rebelling against the federal government of the united states, and battle flags have one meaning:  call to arms.  And in this case, it meant kill United States service men.  Yet, I defended your honor during all those debates about that.  I said, no, to him, it doesn't mean kill US soldiers.  To him it is a symbol of States Rights and of regional pride.  It means he's proud of an heritage of defense of sovereignty.  However right or wrong rebellions against my country may be, I never impugned the rebellion you celebrate.  I think it's a hard thing for you to now call us traitors just because we have the courage to speak up and say five hundred billion dollars and 3000 american boys and girls is enough.  Maybe those who favor immediate withdrawal are the opposite of traitors.  I can't speak for everyone, but I fly an American flag proudly in my office and in my home, and gladly defend my country verbally whenever arguments with foreigners arise.  I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and on this forum have always supported the right of schools to require its students to pledge the same.  Every morning.  Just like I did as a boy.  It is precisely because I value and honor my country that I won't support wasting its national treasure, and it is because I value my fellow citizens that I want to see our fighting men and women to come home and lead productive lives.

You're quite a well-read historian, so I shouldn't need to remind you which great American once said, "Beware of Foreign Entanglements," in his farewell address to the people of this nation.  US military involvement in Iraq is a costly, unnecessary, and damaging foreign entanglement, and I think that the sooner we untangle ourselves, the more secure we will be.

[SPC]

Partition the country:
*Give Kurds most of Northern Iraq
*Give Turks some of northern Iraq in exchange for peace treaty with Kurdistan
*Give Jordan part of western Iraq
*Give Saudis land east of Jordan's share, west of Kuwait, and south of the Euphrates
*Give Kuwait land near Persian Gulf contingent upon them forming either a constitutional monarchy or a representative democracy
*Give Iran token share of land with a Shia majority, rampant violence, and no oil
*Allow areas of Iraq w/ most violence to plunge into anarchy

[Frodo]

Anyone else want to share their opinions? 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Alright.

Iraq should NEVER have happened, not only has it been a humanitarian disaster (the 1m estimated dead), it's also opened up a geo-political hornet's nest. Which unsurprisingly was what was being predicted in late 2002.

I don't believe the war was for oil, it was for geo-political reasons. Who were the architects? Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz - they chief proponent of the democratisation of the Middle-east theory, a sort of new domino theory.

The day the coalition went in there was no chance that "victory" by any reasonble definition was going to be achieved. I liken it to someone climbing a mountain, the summit is victory. They're half-way up a constant blinding snowstorm is stopping them from moving, every now and again they get a break and move a little bit closer... but never close enough. Eventually, they have to figure out a way to extracate themselves from the situation without causing even more damage.

Immediate sudden withdrawral will have MASSIVE consequences, chances are civil war will be underway within six months. Plus the resentment toward the US from the next generation of Iraqis will make the Iranians look like nothing.

There was so MUCH more to this than the planners (assuming there was any) imagined, and leaving will be complicated. There is no good way to leave. 

[Person Man]

I think there should be a slow gradual withdraw, not predicated on time or events.

[perdedor]

Though it is likely never to occur, for reasons political, I would prefer the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Prolonging this imperialist occupation of an innocent country is not only immoral, but also costly.

[Person Man]

Everyone wants that, but we need to do it in the most cost-effective and non-chalant way possibile.

[NDN]

The following should happen:

1. Change the objectives of our troops. Right now they're basically Iraq's policemen. This is stupid. Position them at the borders and move towards more of an oversight role.
2. Begin Iraq Repartition Talks.
3. Drop the PC bullsh**t. If the Insurgents take over mosques or give us problems, allow our Men and the Iraqi government to take whatever action is necessary to defeat them.
4. Begin to draw down forces while integrating certain ex-Ba'athist officials into the government.
5. Declare victory and leave.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Option 1

[dead0man]

I voted which ever option got us out the soonest.  I'm not some halfass that doesn't want the war anymore, but doesn't want to leave either.  "I can't quit you" indeed.  If you want Iraq to turn into Korea or Germany (ie, full of American bases), with a much meaner and more violent set of locals then fine, have the balls to say so like most of the Republicans.  I don't know how they couch that against their small govt spiel, but I don't think anybody with 4 brain cells to rub together buys that ruse anymore.  On the other hand, if you don't want to be bothered by the war anymore because it makes you feel guilty or because you don't like seeing the highly reported casualty lists from Iraq (Afghanistan's fine though, it's the "sacred" front in the WoT) and it stirs the "make love not war" blood burning inside you (or whatever other altruistic reason you can come up with that makes you feel better towards your halfassed approach to peace), then have the balls to say so.  What we can't do as a nation is get into an argument about what some meaningless set of conditions must be in place before we can withdrawl, because that will just make this allready meaninglessly long quagmire (I hate that word) take exponentially longer.  That's good for Raytheon, KBR and Haliburton, but it isn't good for our military at large, our goodwill at home, the financial stability of our nation's future and numerous other bad things one good make a good argument about.

Bottom line, we're either there and we're staying there, good or bad, hell or high water (at least until we don't need to transport our energy blood out of and/or through the region anymore) or we need to come home right now.

The following should happen:

1. Change the objectives of our troops. Right now they're basically Iraq's policemen. This is stupid. Position them at the borders and move towards more of an oversight role.
2. Begin Iraq Repartition Talks.
3. Drop the PC bullsh**t. If the Insurgents take over mosques or give us problems, allow our Men and the Iraqi government to take whatever action is necessary to defeat them.
4. Begin to draw down forces while integrating certain ex-Ba'athist officials into the government.
5. Declare victory and leave.

Can we just do 5?

[Ebowed]

Voted for 'Immediate withdrawal of all US forces' when the poll was posted and still agree with it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Move the US troops to areas with oil then expel/kill any natives in the areas with oil. Let the natives have the unproductive deserts of Iraq.

[Hash]

1, but I almost chose 2.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Option 1.... encouraging results, surely surprising for this forum.

[Willy Woz]

Option 3, the Iraq War is bullshytte

[phk]

Option 1 -it is the most prudent policy available that I can see, and one that the Bush administration may soon adopt.   

Option 1 - it is the most prudent policy available that I can see, and one that the Bush administration has been stating for over a year.

[dead0man]

I can't believe all you Democrats are for the war.  I guess the "surge" ruse really worked on you guys.  Do you need some dikes to get that hook out of your cheek?

[Ebowed]

I can't believe all you Democrats are for the war.  I guess the "surge" ruse really worked on you guys.

It is pretty pathetic, I agree.

[NDN]

Option one is the best of all terrible options.

Pretty much. I'd prefer something between 1 and 2. What bothered me about option 2 was really the time table. That's foolishness, we should leave when we feel we've won not on some arbitrary date. And honestly, I doubt the Democrats are really serious about that. It sounds like a gimmick.

[NDN]

As most people here know, I used to be pretty staunchly anti-Iraq War. But my opinion on this has really shifted lately. To be honest, now I think the whole debate has become sort of phony. Almost everyone other than a shrill minority think that total, immediate withdrawal would be a disaster, and that we need to stabilize Iraq. And most people agree that going in was a mistake, or at least based on faulty information.

The question is really on how to stabilize Iraq with the least damage. Obviously most of the Republicans running for office say we need to sustain the surge, and most Democrats say we should withdraw most of our troops except in key areas. But really, when you get down to it that's about it. No one more, no less despite all the rhetoric about 'time tables' and 'defeatism.' So what is all of this bickering going on for still? It's just gotten tiresome.