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.

[MODU]

Ok, here's no BS:


1. Withdraw
Pros -- Gets our troops out of harms way and ends spending on it. That's about it.
Cons -- The situation in Iraq could deteriorate to an even worse situation w/ the Iraqi government unable to support itself. You forgot the decreased trust in the US for abandoning "friends."

2. Maintain the Status Quo
Pros -- No one sticks their political neck out and we definitely know what the current situation is. Defining the "status quo" as continuing to secure the nation with no additional troops, then the pros is that the US retains/increases the trust in her allies in the region, despite the negative press and pressure to leave.
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.  Eh, that's a bit weak.  The Con would be that there will just be more unrest due to war weariness.

3. Escalate within Iraq
Pros -- Tighter security in the short term.  A sign of commitment by the US as determined to make the region safer and more free for future generations.
Cons -- Great resentment of US forces in the long term.  Probably close.

4. Escalate beyond Iraq (possible Iranian invasion)
Pros -- Potentially eliminate the threat of Iran getting nukes.  Depending on how the invasion of Iran occurs and for what reason, we can see the pro-Western citizens regain control of the nation with relative collateral damage since their current President has weakened himself over the past few months.
Cons -- Incite the entire Muslim/Arab world into believing we are just going from Islamic country to Islamic country.  Again, depending on what brings us into Iran, you could trigger off a complete regional war with large-scale damage in many nations.

I would be content with seeing where the current surge goes, and then reevaluate the situation to adjust the strategy accordingly.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

This war needs to begin the end now.  There should be a responsible time-table with a maximum deadline so we may surprise the enemy and pull out earlier (like we did with the transfer of power to the Iraqis) before they can mount a full assault.  We are fighting a war for a people who's government and a great many citizens refuses to stand up and fight, and who's government and a large segment of the population expect us to finance their government in blood and treasure. 

It is high time we stop marching around the world for what the Neocon elites decide to be in "our" best interests, when it is only in their interests, all while the average working folks make the sacrifice.  This war has come at a high price in blood and treasure, and the folks who drug us into it say we should stay the course or even escalate.  I have never heard of somebody digging themselves out of a hole, though the Neocons seem to think it is possible as long as they are not the ones doing the digging.

If Iraq cannot stand as an independent government, it will not be because we did not send enough of our men and women to die, or that we did not give them enough of our money.  It will solely be a result of the Iraqi people not uniting against the radical segments of the population in that country, and the failure of the Iraqi government to stand up and start fighting for it's own future.

[David S]

Option 1.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Best Option:
Withdraw all troops who wish to come home and replace them with chickenhawks while taking 100% of the assets of all chickenhawks to pay for the war.

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

In the end it will be option 4, whether on our terms or thiers.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

There is only one pro that I can see in invading Iran... Iran, unlike Iraq, is a "nation".  They have a common identity, common history, etc.  For that reason, it is far less likely that we would see nearly the level of violence or resistance that we are seeing in Iraq and there would probably be greater acceptance of a new Iran.

The two obvious cons are that Iran has three times the population that Iraq does, so we would have to hold down the situation in Iraq while invading into an even larger country.  Something we could never hope to do unless we had serious international help, which I highly doubt woudl be forth coming... the French really have the only significant military power left to help us, and I doubt they would get involved.

Secondly, in Iraq, we invaded over the plains and drove to the moutains (sorta) in Iran, you woudl have to drive over the moutains to get to the plains, another highly unattractive option.

[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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 1 (sane)

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

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?

As I've stated since 2003 and earlier, the long term goal of going into Afgh. and Iraq IMHO is to create platforms to launch an eventual invasion of Iran. I don't think the US would be dumb enough to start it at this point, we are just waiting for Iran to instigate a war (which is looking more likely on a daily basis) that way we can get the UN truly behind our backs. Really, if Irans' govt. is changed I would bet you that Iraq will quiet down tremendously.

[Dr. Cynic]

What I think we need is a general timetable for a gradual withdrawl... Set goals to get out by instead of aimlessly meandering in the desert.

The Iraqi government needs to begin to stand on its own two feet sooner rather than later... It is my opinion that the longer we stay, the more the new government is going to lean on us... This can't go on forever... I'm damn sick to my stomach since I heard my good friend Ron was severely wounded over there. Only our generation dies for this... Not the President's daughters or anyone else... Just those of us "Common folk".

Maybe I'm a little angry since hearing the news, and knowing I still have some friends over there... Maybe its just raw emotion?... I still believe a timetable for gradual withdrawl is the best solution.

[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.

[The Duke]

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

I'm not sure an escalation would cause long term resenetment of US forces.  I think it is much more likely that Iraqis would appreciate the physical safety provided by a larger number of troops in Baghdad.  The fact that people would be able to walk around without fear of being blown up might actually make us more popular within Iraq, and certainly not less popular.

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.

It is true that Iran is funding and arming the Shi'ite militias, and I have no doubt they are pleased with our struggles.  But I think the comparison to the Punic War is not apt.

Even if Iran was not funding the militias, they would still exist.  In fact, all evidence suggests that Iran's financing of the militias is not very extensive to begin with.  If Hannibal had the manpower to sack Rome, he certainly could have won the 2nd Punic War.  Things are different today becuase even if we had the manpower to strike at Iran it would not be likely to have anything more than a minor effect on events in Iraq.

I have the same objection to striking Iran to solve our troubles in Iraq as I have with the position that negotiating with Iran will solve our problems in Iraq.  My objection is Iran's role in Iraq's troubles are secondary.  Iraq's troubles stem from its own sectarian divisions and cannot be solved by engaging with Iran in dialogue or warfare.  It can only be solved by disarming the Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias, finding an equitable political settlement on power sharing and resource sharing, and offering asylum those those who lay down their own arms and make peace with the new Iraq.  None of these aims are furthered by war with Iran.

[jokerman]

The partitioning of the nation seems to be the most sensible option should the national government continue to fail to stabilize the country.

[GOP = Terrorists]

The partitioning of the nation seems to be the most sensible option should the national government continue to fail to stabilize the country.

This results in ethnic clensing and continued war.  Probably open war between Turkey and the Kurds.

Sad thing is this is the longterm result regardless of what happens.  This was the only possible result the minute we invaded. =(

[jokerman]

The partitioning of the nation seems to be the most sensible option should the national government continue to fail to stabilize the country.

This results in ethnic clensing and continued war.  Probably open war between Turkey and the Kurds.

Sad thing is this is the longterm result regardless of what happens.  This was the only possible result the minute we invaded. =(

The difference is that we carry it out now, in a peaceful manner, and leave enough U.S. troops behind to contain any possible conflict in the region (in a neutral zone, perhaps in southern Iraq where they could also distribute the oil revenues among the various emergent states).

[GOP = Terrorists]

in a peaceful manner

Is there an example of ethnic cleansing being done in a peaceful manner?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if the number required is a million troops and trillions upon trillions of dollars?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without even talking about other countries being involved (which will happen) lets look at Iraq itself.  First off realize that you cant neatly put a neutral zone between sunni and shi'ia communities.  And why would the future Shiite states give their oil revenues to the Sunnis?  Further wtf happens in Kirkuk if there is already a strong movement to de-Arabize the area when it becomes clear there is going to be an official split into 3 countries?

No win situation no matter what happens and has been since the second Bush decided to invade.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No win situation no matter what happens and has been since the second Bush decided to invade.

No, there's been no hope of anything other than a no-win situation for much longer than that.

[The Duke]

The partitioning of the nation seems to be the most sensible option should the national government continue to fail to stabilize the country.

How do you plan to partition an ethnically mixed area such as Mosul or Irbil?  Or how about Baghdad for that matter?  There are no clear lines of partition in Iraq.

Partition is not a feasable idea upon close inspection.

[angus]

1. Withdraw immediately.  Money saved and lives saved.  On the down side we look like jerks in the international community.  The international community only likes jerks if they  still have lots of money to spend on oil.  Also, the history books eventually make comparisons to the early stages of the Fall of the empire at some future point when they start to have titles like "The rise and fall of the United States of America"  Some egghead somewhere in some classroom someday says that the people simply lost their stomachs for imperialism, but by then the republic had already transitioned to empire, so the whole system fell apart. 


2. Maintain the Status Quo:  As you point out, it makes for stability in congress, since no one looks too bold or too weak.  We like our congressmen and congresswomen to be seen and not heard.  Like children.  On the other hand, "maintaining the status quo" is a game only for the rich.  We're up to about 4100 dollars per taxpayer, and if we start to have to tax ourselves so heavily in order to "maintain the status quo" then our economy suffers.  Economic historians will no doubt prefer this angle when they discuss The Fall.


3. Escalate within Iraq:  It's a gamble.  I kind of like it, since we're at least changing something.  (it's insane to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.)  And it's a nice gesture of trust to make to the president.  On the other hand, it's like saying we need to fight fire with fire.  That only really works when you're trying to stop forest wildfires from spreading so you burn the surrounding deadwood.  Also, escalation of violence is hard to justify to your potential allies.  We couldn't scratch up much of a coalition outside the anglophone world even with Powell going around with his slideshow.  If the slideshow includes escalation you won't even get the imperialistic English (and their minions in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) on our side.  So we're on our own.


4. Escalate beyond Iraq (possible Iranian invasion):  This would give Dick Morris a hard-on, no doubt, and the neoconservative think tanks would love it.  Also, it weakens Opec alliance, perhaps to our advantage, perhaps not.  But don't kid yourself about the nukes.  As we learned over the past couple of decades, a large state enemy is a more responsible enemy than bands of disorganized rogues.  I'd rather have states with mutually assured destruction on their minds playing headgames with nukes than unemployed atomic physicists roaming the west asian countryside tinkering for the highest bidder.

I think that the guy in "The Blair Witch Project" who threw away the map is sort of like George Bush.  And the film student in that movie is like the Democrats crying and whining but offering no real solution.  And the other guy is the American People who (by his own choices) ended up being led by such inept clowns.  We're at the part where we're crossing that little stream for the third time and just starting to realize that we're walking in circles.  At least we realize that.  But the analogy ends there, because apparently we caught the blair witch, tried him, and executed him.  Yet, somehow we're still seeing those scary figures hanging in the trees and we're still not out of the woods.

Oops, you said you wanted a "no BS" discussion.  okay, really, I'm against timetables, since they just give the enemy an advantage.  We either surprise them by evacuating now, or we surprise them by ratcheting it up.  I prefer the less expensive option, obviously.  But sometimes it's worth betting even if all you have is a pair of jacks.  But don't bet more than you can afford to lose.  As far as invading Iran, dude that's a real country.  It's not just a piece of the West Asian map that was left over after France and England got finished carving up the countryside a hundred years ago.  Iran is not Iraq.  It's an ancient, proud nation with a history longer than ours.  It has a reasonably intelligent president and a well-educated public.  They have not threatened us, except the obligatory backslapping remarks leaders always make when they're having tea with the Venezuelan president.  Bravado and such.  The environmental and economic destruction of war is great, and responsible empires need to figure out new ways to control the world.  We can't use a 19th century model of subjugation if we want to control a 21st century world.

But whether we stay the course or bring them home, mostly we just need to let our armies do their jobs.  Stop worrying about how many whores they're screwing and how many imams they're urinating on.  In any scenario, we need to let our efficient killing machine kill, unfettered by the rules of nice behavior that we impose on ourselves here in the real world. 

[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.

[angus]

No, we turn them loose on whomever we think is our enemy.  If all we really wanted was Saddam's head on a platter, we should have sent a platoon of specially-trained, expendable, invisible, deadly forces in to get in his bedroom, kill whomever they have to get to him, and waste him.  Quick, quiet, not flashy or showy.  Piano wire would suffice.  That would have been preferable.  Ah, but that's all water under the bridge.  In this situation, we keep hearing reports of meals-ready-to-eat that are so tasteless (or so nasty) that American GIs are trading them for real food, we're hearing Walter Reed Hospital is run about as efficiently as the DMV, we're hearing some in congress and the executive branch getting upset that soldiers like to have pay-for sex with prostitutes from time to time, and we're putting our own soldiers on trial left and right.  I'm just saying we have to think about how we're treating our soldiers.  Maybe any general shake-up will have to wait till we have finished our business in Iraq.  But that's all the more reason to get them out of there now.  But if we're going to ratchet up the peacekeeping force, then yeah, we have to expect a few innocent bystanders are going to continue to get killed.  War is hell.  That's just the way it is, and if we don't have the stomach for it, then we should get out of the business of nation building.  (Something Candidate Bush actually promised to do in the summer of 2000.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

All of them are almost guaranteed to end in eventual humiliating defeat by this point, so it hardly matters.

[Dr. Cynic]

The problem I have with this whole situation is no matter what we do, we end up losing... Losing respect, losing our peers, losing our money... Losing something... As Yul Brynner said to Steve McQueen:

"We lost. We always lose."