Agreed. It isn’t very likely at all, primarily any current, or future ministerial representatives are merely going to vote along sectarian and ethnic lines, anyway. Accordingly, your next suggestion…
I’m thinking this is the optimal strategy, as defined by being the least disastrous in terms of ongoing Coaltion casualties. My suggestion would be to create 4, maybe 5 Super Bases. Land based Subic Bays for want of a better description on the borders with Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Just pull all the troops back to within those bases. Put them in the middle of nowhere so nobody gets their noses out of joint. Build 'em up. Make 'em no go zones for the locals. And pull out of all current occupying roles, and then let the locals go nuts. Leave the bases there to act as nation-state policemen on the beat. If any major player starts amassing too much hardware, the local Super Base gets involved.
And what makes you think that the bombs won’t be hidden in other things instead ? And what makes you think that wrecking their economy and infrastructure even worse will help them ? And what makes you think that the girl in question will even dare be on the street to begin with ? Thanks to us, Iraqi women who want to live stay in hiding.
Considering that the Coalition is at fault, their casualites desere little if any consideration.
So, you want to make sure that the civil war will be an unwinnable one ? That no one will ever have the power to stop it ? Why not just stop pretending to be anything but evil and just nuke the country instead ?
In a sad turn of tragic irony, he was the grandson of a soldier killed early in the first week of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Within days of his death, hordes of Al Qaeda invaded America, prompting a wizened old codger in Crawford, Texas to smirk: “I told you so!!”
Blah Blah Blah… wah wah wah. Tell us something you haven’t said like a broken record a hundred times already. You’re all the proof I need to affirm my earlier observation that there isn’t enough support back in the US for the occupation to do the job right. To do the job right requires over 1 million soldiers, on the ground, in Iraq, or not at all. Anything less is half assed, if that. So let me repeat ONCE AGAIN what I said in my earliest post in this thread. Given the lack of sateside support to keep the occupation up and running, time to “Get out of Dodge”. Everything you just brought up is just more strawman whining about how stupid the goals were in the first place. Hey, for the record, I agree with you insofar as Secretary Rumsfeld’s original plan was good enough to win a military war, but had little backup to implement a working political solution.
Nonetheless, what HAS become apparent is that there are multiple vectors of covert backplays happening within Iraq now. It’s myopic in the extreme to assert that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, aren’t aiding and abetting the use of IED’s at least in the context of attacking Coalition forces. By extension, the capacity to enforce a tolerable peace is diminished because it’s just so dangerous for Coalition forces to get out and about.
I’m not delluding myself that the sectarian ethnic cleansing isn’t going to continue. Indeed, once again, you’ve ignored my earlier observation that the genie is out of the bottle now. It’s time now for the Iraqi’s to sort that shit out themselves. Nobody else is gonna do it - not even the might of the US Military. However, what the US Military can do is to fall back into impenetrable super bases so as to preventing other nation states from amassing military might to an unacceptable degree.
That Iraq’s infrastructure is ruinous can’t be denied. That it’s happened can’t be denied. So for Lord’s sake Der Trihs stop bringing it up and concentrate on the thread at hand. What can be done, given the situation now? David Simmons and mstay and I are largely in agreement. Time to fall back into some local super bases, establish 3 quasi independant states based on ethnic and sectarian grounds, and let Baghdad go the through the mini Rwanda that they seem determined to inflict upon themselves, or alternitively, wall up the city and make it an intricate series of contained pockets. Is it tragedy in the making? No doubt, but it is what it is. If you’ve got a better idea, put your money on the table. We’re all listening - but enough with the strawman broken record stuff.
Look mate, if you’re so determined to keep putting words in my mouth, why don’t I just make it easy for you and give you the password to my messagboard account and you can write all the dumb shit you want on my behalf? You’re not debating anything here… all you’re doing is ignoring the stuff which doesn’t work for you, paraphrasing the stuff which is a red flag for you, and then asking strawman rhetorical questions without actually offering anything of substance yourself - which interstingly, absolves you of any chance of people using YOUR debating technique on yourself.
We get it already. You think the Iraq War was a mistake. OK… we get it.
Now, show some guts, and offer a solution yourself. And on edit: I would note that in your first post in this thread, you yourself stated that you think the chances of winning anything in Iraq are impossible. Yet, you reserve the right to get high and mighty when somebody basically agrees with you? Weird.
Earlier you dismissed the suggestion that we should have consideration for the safety of Coalition forces. Now you’re suggesting that it should be considered. I’m not seeing a quality debate here.
And the Strawman count now goes up to Number 15.
You know what I’m reading? I’m just reading the words of some guy who can’t get past the mindset that “IT WAS ALL SO WRONG TO BEGIN WITH!” I’m not reading the words of a guy who’s prepared to offer a suggestion of his own which may, or may not work. Others, as well as myself have had a go. Why not you?
Like I said before, we get it already. You think the Iraq War v.2003 was a BAD IDEA. We get it already. Man, I’ll say it again. Show some guts and offer a solution yourself then - but I’m not holding my breath. And if anyone is so naieve as to assert that Iran and Syria are not playing spoiler roles in this shitfight, well, that’s just beyond stupid.
I started a thread way back in September 2003 after the first major sectarian car bombing took place. I noted at the time it was the beginning of an unexpected and unchartered direction. I also noted, all the way back then… IT’S GONNA KEEP HAPPENING. Whether we’re there, or whether a vacuum is left in it’s place… it’s gonna keep happening. The genie is firmly out of the bottle now. Accordingly, what is the least of all evils left? I’ve already outlined my postion. But once again Der Trihs I noticed you’ve studiously continued your sniper debating technique without offering a solution yourself.
And I’ve run out of numbers for Bush Lies. Why should I believe our government when it makes a claim like that ?
I have less than zero concern for the “Coalition”; I’d be perfectly happy if they withdrew into your superbases, got starved into helplessness, overrun and slaughtered to the last man.
You do love to label something a strawman without actually explaining why, don’t you ? How very convenient.
No, you’re reading someone who doesn’t believe that there is anything that will work.
And being gullible enough to believe Bush and friends yet again is not ?
Well, so far I haven’t seen an answer to the question of how these bases are supplied. In order to maintain a large force in Iraq we have to hold Basra. I’m not sure what the plan for that is once the British leave. In addition to Basra we must guard the roads leading to the bases.
Even if we can supply the bases, what do they do? In order to make a difference the troops in the bases have to leave them on occasion and actually do something. You suggest that we watch the sides and if one of them starts getting a lead we intervene which puts us back in the middle of a war between the factions who are trying to get as much of the oil as they can. Furthermore if we intervene to prevent one side from getting too strong don’t we just prolong the conflict?
Well, I’m not a proponent of the plan I described. I was just putting it out there. You know, if we wanted to stay there and control Iraq as a client state. Personally, I don’t think we have the right, the need, or possibly even the capability of doing so. As far as I can see every day we have soldiers in Arab lands where they aren’t welcomed is another boon to the extreme Islam fundamentalist propaganda and another notch off both our moral credibility and international reputation. The further we play into the extremists’ hands the worse we are. We need to embrace the moderates, not alienate them.
There, right there is the strawman. That’s not what the thread is about. If you wanna go and start a thread asking that question, go nuts, but for the love of Pete, stop cluttering up this thread with your innane hijacks. I’ll give you a hint though - if you do start such a thread, it’ll be version 2,498,093 of the same question. Hardly original.
Right then. You’ve admitted it yourself. Clearly you’ve got nothing to offer except multiple thread hijacks which have got nothing to do with the Opening Post. Go shit in someone else’s thread.
Now THAT is quality debating. We’re debating the merits, the pros and cons of a “possible solution”. I’m cool with that.
David, I’ve always admired your insights, and I still do - very much so. Clearly, major military bases owned by foreign powers in countries which are anything less than 75% supportive are unsupportable in the long run. Subic Bay is a classic example insofar as the negotiations regarding the land lease weren’t getting anywhere and Mt Pinotubo merely signed the deal.
The US Base in Saudi Arabia left behind after Gulf War v.1991 is still running, isn’t it? Have the numbers been whittled down? It’s an example of a military base which basically is unloved and unwelcome. And not for one moment do I believe that 4 or 5 Super Bases in Iraq would be any more welcome. Accordingly, the question has to be asked… where is the balance regarding diminishing returns versus regional stability? I look upon the Iraq region as being like a wasp’s nest with angry wasps on all sides - all with different agendas. Hence, if the US was to totally pull out, as in every single troop in the Middle East, every single base, every single port? What then? How much military projection could be asserted from Carrier groups in the Persian Gulf? What power vacuums would be filled I wonder?
I like asking these questions and I enjoy reading informed predictions. If the US decided it would be in the regions interests to leave 4 Super Bases within Iraq to prevent a regional meltdown, then so be it. But they would be very expensive, and clearly, they would be sitting targets - which is why they’re best set up in wide open, defensable places. But it’s a bit like being half pregnant. As you know, You can’t project land based military presence without putting people at risk. So the other question is, what price a total pullout?
My gut feeling? A mini Rwanda would happen. For better or for worse, the place has been busted wide open. I’d back the South, and I’d back Kurdistan, and leave the middle to go nuts about themselves. That’s my optimal, but I’m happy to accept a superior arguement which suggests a total pullout from the entire Middle East.
Iraq: How can we win?
Squares: How can we define them as circular?
The Papacy: How can we get an Islamic imam elected to it?
The Sun: How can we colonize its surface?
Rational Numbers: How can we divide them by Zero?
pi: How can we determine its exact numerical value?
Those all sound to me like equally useful questions for consideration.
Let Kurdistan declare its independence. Make deals with Turkey, Iran, and Syria so they swallow this with nothing more than diplomatic protests. Kurdistan is the only part of Iraq that’s relatively peaceful and stable and wants an American presense. So we’ve got an American base in the region but we’re not in the middle of a constant firefight.
As for the rest of Iraq, we can either pull out or we can broker a deal to divide the country into Shi’a and Sunni zones and then pull out. Either way, it’s past time to admit our presense in Iraq isn’t solving any problems. The problems are still occurring and our soldiers are getting killed. If we pull out, the problems will still occur and our soldiers won’t be getting killed. It’s not a great solution but it’s better than what we’ve got.
The war will sort itself out. Maybe one side will kill off the other. Maybe a new dictator will take over. Maybe Iran will invade (and it couldn’t happen to a nicer country). Maybe the Mahdi will appear. Who knows? It’ll calm down eventually (or it won’t). But there’s no longer any reason for us to go along for the ride.
Boo Boo Foo, if someone asks,“How can I win at Blackjack if I have 23 and the dealer has 21?”, the only logical answer is ,“You can’t.” You keep asking for solutions as if there is a way to unfuck this mess.
That’s better than your effort so far. You’ve got nothing. Zip. Nothing but “IT WAS ALL SO WRONG!”. If the Titanic was sinking, I’d be the guy organising life rafts for the women and children. You’d be the guy screaming in the Captain’s room “How could we have hit an iceberg! This never should have happened.” And then you’d be wet.
Get this through your head. Whatever happens now, the place is busted wide open. The ethnic cleansing is already happening. 4 million refugees. It’s already in progress. The mini Rwanda is gonna happen on some scale - no matter what.
The only debate now is how big do ya wanna let it be? When YOU can summon the guts to answer THAT question, get back to us with something constructive.
Well, to be fair, Merkwurdigliebe originated the question. Boo Boo Foo is merely insisting that it be treated as meaningful.
Not that there’s a lot of value in that…
ETA: On reading Boo Boo Foo latest response to Der Trihs, perhaps he isn’t. Boo Boo Foo, just how strenuously are you insisting on a final outcome that can legitimately be considered the U.S. (and the "Coalition of the snerk Willing) as having “won”?