How is this for an Alternative Plan?

Great Debates
1

I am not sure if I am advocating either of these, I am considering them and would value your input.

Let me hit you with two options:

Seal off Iraq Move our guys to the borders, seal off Iraq from outside help, tell the Iraqis we will cover them while they sort out stuff amongst themselves. Give them a year to finish up their civil war. (It might work, but it would be immoral perhaps.)

Double Down, in Afghanistan Pull out of Iraq in the best way possible. Then move all the troops to Afghanistan where we are winning. Iraq still has a civil war, if need be we can go back there later. (This violated what the Sergeant Major told me about never buying the same property twice.) This way we reinforce success.

Do either of these ideas have any value whomsoever?

2

You think a year is enough to “finish” an Arab civil war? They’d be avenging for at least three more generations just the shit that happens this week. To do it up right, give every Iraqi over the age of 5 a gun so the slaughter, while intense, will be over relatively quickly.

And shoot all the survivors, just to be safe.

3

Trying to keep the Iranians out? Why bother?

Are we winning?

Things would have gone better in Afghanistan if we had made it a joint NATO operation from the start – and then every participating country would share an equal responsibility for the poswar nation-building part.

4

That’s not far from how things are now.

5

Okay, then. The transition will be a smooth one.

6

Well, since the US lacks an adequate number of troops to secure Baghdad, I fail to see how it would be at all possible to seal the borders of the entire country. Even using the so-called surge as nothing but border patrol officers.

As BrainGlutton already wondered. Too, how would you define, “in the best way possible”? Only another 3000 dead? Dumping the whole mess in al Maliki’s lap and saying, “Knock yerself out.”? Not to mention that thinking for even a moment that we can always go back and fix what was irreparably fucked up originally is Pollyannaish to say the very least.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

7

Are there any peaceful cities or neighborhoods with a working infrastructure and an economic base? Why not secure them, and then gradually expand?

Baghdad’s too big. I’m anti-metropolis anyway. Unmanageable, unlivable, polluted, resource hogs.

8

Afghanistan is as close to success as we could have ever hoped for. Even when there is no war Afghans seem to like fighting. We have opened up the nation to NGOs, banished the Taliban from power and reopened schools. What more could anyone have expected. This is what success looks like, imperfect, but success nonetheless.

Pull out as best we can? I dunno. I suppose it would take ninety or so days. Something like that. Write off Iran as beyond our ability to fix. Let the Iraqis deal with it, in the long run there is no other choice really.

9

Except that we let ourselves get diverted into Iraq and now the Taliban has re-established itself in Afghanistan and is probably now at least as strong as the theoretical national government.

10

So. . .you recommend dumping it all on al Maliki and running? And your statement that there is no other choice stands in pretty stark opposition to your original contention that we can always go back and fix what got even more cocked up in our absence.

Not that we didn’t cock it up aplenty all by ourselves.

Really? Ninety days? Because I can’t think of a better way to make the whole fucking place go kablooey than to just split.

11

So we can’t stay or leave? Reality will dictate that something approaching one or the other will happen. I tend to favor the latter as the one with the fewest problems. Note that I did not say any problems, I said fewest. I’m sure millions will be displaced and/or killed.

12

I would not bother with sealing off Iraq

  • the Iraqis are quite capable of dealing with anyone who crosses their borders

Getting out is a smart idea, as soon as possible, and as fast as possible.

I would maintain a presence amongst the Kurds, I’m not entirely sure about Basra, probably better if we go.

Afghanistan remains a problem, in some ways, being cynical, it is quite a good training ground - and I would like to see the Taliban completely wiped out.

Iraq is a lost cause, getting out will force the rival factions to sort things out themselves, and I have a suspicion that the Sunnis and Shi’ites would unite to wipe out the criminal elements - after that they might, or might not, turn on each other again.

13

If I recall correctly, most of the success we have experienced in Afghanistan has come from the heavily populated areas. We have incursions into the rural areas, but there is not a sustained presence.

If history has taught us anything, if we throw more troops into Afghanistan and attempt to control the rural areas that are primarily controlled by local warlords, then we would experience the same thing the Soviets did… massive defeat.

14

You get the impression the Kurds are going to abandoned just like the Americans the Hmong?

15

Well, yes, no and not sure.

The Kurds are a problem to Iran, Syria and Turkey

  • but they regard the USA as something of a saviour

Using them as buffer troops in Baghdad would be insane, but they would make one of several very nice jumping off points, should an Iraqi faction request some muscle.

16

I’ll be damned if I know anymore. I was one of the Saddamites/traitors/haters of America and by extension lovers of the terrorists who said that going in was a terrible idea, and was roundly shouted down by those who knew that which was Right.

Then, after Bush had decided to go in and overthrow the government, and declared that the Mission was Accomplished, I was one of those pointing out that no such thing had happened, and that Iraqle was even more fucked up than it had been. I also said that since the US had managed to make things worse, then it fell to the US to stick around and make things better. Which meant that my fellow travellers called me a sellout and a patsy, and those who had referred to me as a traitor were suddenly willing to concede that I had perhaps managed to see the light. Mind you, at no point in time was I advocating bringing Iraqle to its knees, just fixing what we had managed to screw up, and look at getting out.

Now, after waiting too goddamned long to do a single fucking thing that even might improve the nation that has been destroyed by the pig-fucking willful ignorance of an entire administration, I just don’t know what to do. Part of me still says that we should fix what we destroyed, which I grant is all but an impossibility. And part of me says that we should just wash our hands of the whole mess and walk away. Which I also think is all but impossible. Does that make me a wishy-washy candy ass? Maybe. Because, as you point out, something will have to be done, and since all options that were ever viable have been dismissed, and even the so-called surge doesn’t throw enough troops at Iraqle to make a flying fuck’s worth of difference, I just don’t know.

And that depresses the shit outta me.

17

Yes and no.

It depends on the troops, also how they are used.

Occupying S Afghanistan is pointless, but doing deals with Warlords and perfusing (killing) Taliban fighters is quite viable.

Obviously we (the UK) could do with a few more helicopters, but apart from that S Afghanistan makes a very good sandpit, and in time the attrition rate and futility will make the Taliban ‘go away’.

You raise an interesting point, I wonder whether Russia would like to supply some of their better troops. We were on the wrong side in 1979.

18

The remaining Taliban moved to Pakistan. They come back for more mayhem whenever they wish. There’s no lack of new recruits there. If the US leaves it’ll be right back where it was before.

Iraq can never be stable because of the Sunni/Shia emnity recently further intensifed by Saddam’s sham trial and execution. The neoconservatives who concocted this mess ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.

19

a) Yes, but there is nothing stopping us chasing them in Pakistan
- sure tribally raised local regiments, but heck, they are not going to lose their pay packets - mainstream Pakistan is, and has always been, very pro USA

b) The Sunnis and Shi’ites can probably rub along - they used to.

I don’t go for this 'uman rites stuff, crimes against humanity is c/ap, like Churchill I reckon the solution is to line up the non useful ones and shoot them.

However, I would very much like to execute Bush or Blair, mainly on the grounds that they are so thick that they should be treated like 30 month old beef.

20

Is this going to be like how the US ‘secures’ the Mexican border?
Are you going to allow food, medicine and oil to cross the borders?
Are you going to search every vehicle?

Cover them from who?
When you say ‘finish up their civil war’, do you mean ‘let helpless civilans be slughtered in their millions’?
This might ‘perhaps’ be immoral?

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]

Double Down, in Afghanistan Pull out of Iraq in the best way possible. Then move all the troops to Afghanistan where we are winning.

Winning in Afghanistan?

‘President Hamid Karzai’s lined, care-worn face is as good a record as any of five years of terror and counter-terror in Afghanistan. The strain is plain for all to see. Speaking in Kabul last week, George Bush’s favourite Muslim democrat was in tears as he talked about Afghan children killed in the west’s latest campaign against the Taliban.’

‘Since then 4,000 or more people have died in insurgency-related violence. The kill rate is accelerating. Civilian deaths account for roughly one-quarter of the total. There have been over 100 suicide attacks. Drug trafficking is up. And British troops have become the latest foreign detachment to be accused of killing civilians.’

‘Afghanistan has agreed to poppy-spraying measures in a desperate bid to deflate the soaring drugs trade, America’s anti-narcotics tsar announced at the weekend.’

‘The debate has been injected with fresh urgency by this year’s record opium harvest. Production rose 49% to 6,700 tonnes in 2006, more than 90% of the world’s supply. Taliban commanders have started to take a slice of drug profits, which fuel the insurgency. The money trail also leads to the higher echelons of government, where corruption at provincial and central levels has eroded public confidence in Mr Karzai.’

‘France’s decision to pull out the troops comes amid mounting violence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are returning to the fore despite some 32,800 Nato troops in the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). Isaf commanders have recently been demanding more troops for the south, where the militants are most active.’

No. They are a combination of genocidal, expensive and terrorist recuitment.