# Iraq: more soldiers got killed, what's the next move? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294 "2004-04-05T03:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/21 "2004-04-05T12:05:13Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m not sure about the UN, but the correct question would be : which countries would agree to send troops to replace the americans on a “peace-keeping mission” in Irak while waiting for the installment of a new Iraki government? None. > > The general consensus is currently that the US should stay there now, until power can be handed (as soon as possible) to the Irakis. I disagree. I believe a transfer of authority to the UN, even if it is the same American trrops, but now under UN command, would go a long way in defusing the situation and the resistance would probably scale down operations. Not that the US government in all its arrogance would ever consider such a thing for the reasons cited by **Ale**. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/22 "2004-04-05T12:09:58Z")
On a more serious note, I really think this spells the end of the US’s ambitions in Iraq. It doesn’t look like the Iraqi’s are even going to pretend to accept Chalabi’s rule over them, and there’s noone else that’s going to look kindly toward handing over military basing, oil, privatized infrastructure or anything else to the US or US corporations. The war’s been lost. The US will keep fighting it for a while, but can no longer win. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/23 "2004-04-05T12:14:06Z")
> [@London\_Calling](#): > > You folks do understand that Bush has been trying to get the EU/UN involved in security for six months and they refuse to play - you do remember Bush going to the UN and asking for help (and that doesn’t even begin to describe what must have gone on behind the scenes as he got more and more desperate to be bailed out) ? > > How about France suggesting the US leave and let the experts nation build - Bush didn’t seem to bite at that opportunity. I hate doing this, but can you give some cites? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/24 "2004-04-05T12:40:01Z")
> [@bnorton](#): > > I hate doing this, but can you give some cites? No need to wait for **L\_C**. Here you go: > [@](#): > > [Bush urges UN unity on Iraq > Tuesday, 23 September, 2003](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3130880.stm) > > The UN debate comes as attacks continue in Iraq . US President George Bush has told the UN General Assembly the US-led invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do - but has come under fire for taking action without specific UN authorisation. > > Iraq was now free “because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace - and the credibility of the United Nations”, President Bush told the UN General Assembly. > > But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - and French President Jacques Chirac - implicitly rebuked the US for taking unilateral, pre-emptive action and called for the body to play a “full part” in rebuilding Iraq. > > \ > > “Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid and all nations of good will should step forward and provide that support,” he said. > > But the BBC’s Rob Watson, in New York, says there was little applause for Mr Bush’s words, with the speech falling decidedly flat. > > \ > > America is seeking a Security Council resolution authorising the multinational force, and approving the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. The resolution would also let Iraqis help set the timetable for creating democratic institutions. > > Mr Bush said the UN could “contribute greatly to the cause of Iraqi self-government”, but he did not see the need for a greater UN role in Iraq. > > “As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections,” he said. > > And the White House has flatly rejected French proposals for the early handover of power to Iraqi politicians, describing them as unworkable. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/25 "2004-04-05T13:16:05Z")
Staying this course isn’t achieving the desired results. Simple withdrawal would be disastrous. A change in tactics is called for. It’s in the US’s interest Iraq must come out like a _prize-winning_ rose. Anythig less further undermines our ME “grand strategy.” You know, the one that relates the invasion of Iraq to the protection of the US from terrorist attacks. The one where we make things better in the ME and thereby reduce the impetus for young people to join up with terrorist groups. If Iraq isn’t _obviously, signifigantly_ and _undeniably_ better off then what we did will still be seen through the lenses of recent colonial history. US will be seen as no more of a liberator than Stanley Maude was. Who doesn’t expect Iraqi’s and ME’ers in general to see these sorts of events in a cynical light? How can anyone not be cynical about the whole affair? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/26 "2004-04-05T13:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Mr Bush said the UN could “contribute greatly to the cause of Iraqi self-government”, but he did not see the need for a greater UN role in Iraq. It’s like he asked the UN to help with the paper work, but not the real problems. What arrogance. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/27 "2004-04-05T13:43:17Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Staying this course isn’t achieving the desired results. > Simple withdrawal would be disastrous. > A change in tactics is called for. > > It’s in the US’s interest Iraq must come out like a _prize-winning_ rose. Anythig less further undermines our ME “grand strategy.” You know, the one that relates the invasion of Iraq to the protection of the US from terrorist attacks. The one where we make things better in the ME and thereby reduce the impetus for young people to join up with terrorist groups. If Iraq isn’t _obviously, signifigantly_ and _undeniably_ better off then what we did will still be seen through the lenses of recent colonial history. US will be seen as no more of a liberator than Stanley Maude was. > > Who doesn’t expect Iraqi’s and ME’ers in general to see these sorts of events in a cynical light? > > How can anyone not be cynical about the whole affair? I think dreams that Iraq can be made by the American occupation “_obviously, signifigantly_ and _undeniably_ better off” have pretty much disappeared from any reasonable person and now the objective is just to muddle through as best as they can. You say “A change in tactics is called for” but that assumes there _is_ a winning tactic and I do not think it is clear to be the case. What tactic do you propose? Because, after all, that is the million dollar question. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/28 "2004-04-05T13:51:44Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You say “A change in tactics is called for” but that assumes there _is_ a winning tactic and I do not think it is clear to be the case. What tactic do you propose? Because, after all, that is the million dollar question. I’m not sure that **SimonX** was suggesting that he had a proposal. Looks more like he was pointing out the conflicting (and possibly mutually exclusive) objectives. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/29 "2004-04-05T14:06:02Z")
Desmostylus - Thanks. > [@bnorton](#): > > It’s like he asked the UN to help with the paper work, but not the real problems. What arrogance. If by “paperwork” you mean take the bodybag hits while US soldiers didn’t (thus contributing to the Bush reelection campaign), then sure. But that’s what Bush does – and if you don’t play his game, he’ll try as hard as he can to try and make you. The idea was for the US to retain control but to have UN troops work under the US on security, which went down not terribly well. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/30 "2004-04-05T14:09:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its the Shia that have me confused. Thier behavior really makes little sense: they’ve won, all they have to do is run out the clock. No matter how the parliamentary system is stuctured, with thier solid majority they can rewrite the laws as they choose as soon as the Americans are gone, if not before. The prize will fall into thier laps simply by an excercise of benign inertia. > > So why? Well, not to cast doubt on the “they don’t believe us” explanation, but don’t make the mistake of thinking the Shi’ites are a monolithic group. This Sadr character apparently has the loyalty of a smallish but significant minority amongst them, and may feel that he’ll be shut right out by Sistani et al if he doesn’t make a move. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/31 "2004-04-05T16:12:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its the Shia that have me confused. Thier behavior really makes little sense: they’ve won, all they have to do is run out the clock. No matter how the parliamentary system is stuctured, with thier solid majority they can rewrite the laws as they choose as soon as the Americans are gone, if not before. The prize will fall into thier laps simply by an excercise of benign inertia. THe group that has recently risen into rebelling is operating on the simple belief that America will never get its claws out of Iraq, which is quite possibly true. Keep in mind, the whole terrorist thing started _because they felt we were too involved in their business_. All we’ve done is get ourselves MORE involved, and that frightens them. For instance, we wandered into Iraq on a false premise, swept away the remains of the military after bombarding their major cities, overturned half of their social laws that, while more just, is something you just don’t do overnight, captured their only natural resource, brought in American businesses to “rebuild” with armed American security guards, installed a puppet government, etc etc. Does that sound like the actions of a peaceful people who will leave what they found alone, much less allow them to rewrite the laws? Most of the Muslim world that opposed the 9/11 strikes supports strikes in Iraq. That says a lot, and it isn’t good for us. Even by the people who might profit by our overthrow of local governments, we aren’t just a “necessary evil” that will go away. Furthermore, should any group cooperate fully with us by “waiting out the clock” until we do leave (if ever), that group would be immediately overthrown. Think about the timing of this - we say that we will hand over the government to Iraq by June. People start token rebellions and protests against America in April. Once we leave, this allows them to stand up and say, “we fought the American invaders. The current government cooperated with them.” Guess who wins the court of public opinion, and who gets their heads cut off? Best case scenario, we just create another Korea or Israel or Yugoslavia. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/32 "2004-04-05T16:41:07Z")
Turning Iraq upside down was a huge mistake product of the arrogant thought that they could control everything. It made iraq a chaotic mess and people are blaming the Americans. Historically we see that occupations were more successful when the occupiers retained and used the existing social and political structures to their advantage. That is what the English mostly did where they went and, contrary to popular belief, that is also largely what the Spanish did in their colonization. The Spanish used the native nobility by confirming their ruling powers and incorporating them into the government. Sometimes the natives revolted against their own princes but often it meant a very few Spanish could control vast numbers of natives. Even the Romans or Spanish conquistadors understood politics better than the present American government. For the USA to dissolve the army and turn the country upside down, to consider Iraq as the spoils of war and sell it wholesale to foreign investors, all this has been a huge mistake which has just created resentment and backlash. ---
**Author:** ![verybdog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/49beb7/32.png) [@verybdog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/verybdog)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/33 "2004-04-05T20:06:33Z")
What would the US casualties (soldiers killed) be, in your opinion, for the general US public to say - we would no longer want the troops to stay in Iraq for another day? My estimate is 3000, given the media keeps them informed truthfully. Once the number reaches the level of thousands, it’s harder and harder for them to keep silence. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/34 "2004-04-05T20:23:26Z")
3003 or whatever the number of victims were on 9/11 will be a watershed moment. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/35 "2004-04-05T20:25:12Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I think dreams that Iraq can be made by the American occupation “_obviously, signifigantly_ and _undeniably_ better off” have pretty much disappeared from any reasonable person and now the objective is just to muddle through as best as they can. > > You say “A change in tactics is called for” but that assumes there _is_ a winning tactic and I do not think it is clear to be the case. What tactic do you propose? Because, after all, that is the million dollar question. From the [Pentagon Commissioned CSIS Report on the Reconstrcution of Iraq](http://www.csis.org/isp/pcr/IraqTrip.pdf) _[.pdf]_ **July 17, 2003** : \*\* “The Iraqi population has exceedingly high expectations, and the window for cooperation may close rapidly if they do not see progress on delivering security, basic services, opportunities for broad political involvement, and economic opportunity.” “In our travels throughout the country, Iraqis uniformly expressed the view that the window of opportunity for the CPA to turn things around in Iraq is closing rapidly.” \*\* Based on these sorts of reports, it seems that things are getting more and more complicated as time goes by. The needed changes should begin and occur sooner rather than later. IIRC, the decision to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the Department of Defense was an unusual one. The Pentagon has shown itself to be poorly prepared to deal with the “post-war” period. One of the first things in my capacity as a member of the American electorate that I’d like to see done is to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the State Dept. While I don’t know exactly what all should be done in Iraq, I am certain that I’d like to have a new set of experts providing advice. ---
**Author:** ![verybdog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/49beb7/32.png) [@verybdog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/verybdog)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/36 "2004-04-05T20:38:25Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > One of the first things in my capacity as a member of the American electorate that I’d like to see done is to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the State Dept. You must be working for Colin Powell…😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/37 "2004-04-05T21:40:23Z")
Well, we wanted to know what the next blunder would be… [http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq](http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq) “An Iraqi judge has issued a murder arrest warrant for a radical Shiite Muslim cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, for the slaying of another Shiite leader shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of the country, coalition officials said Monday…” Yeah. That’ll work. To be fair, a case can be made that this al-Sadr’s arrest has no direct connection to his anti-American stance, a case I find suspect, under the circumstances and timing. But most likely the average Shia follower of al-Sadr will see it as American oppression, or an action by Iraqi puppets of the American oppressor, which is just as bad. Closing the newspaper was a bad idea, this is a worse idea. Lord have mercy on us all if this man should die in custody. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/38 "2004-04-05T21:55:13Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Based on these sorts of reports, it seems that things are getting more and more complicated as time goes by. The needed changes should begin and occur sooner rather than later. I think the time has run out. The idea a year ago was that by now things would be much better, that order and public services would have been restored months ago. . . and just look what we have instead and it’s not getting better. Even if it started to turn around now, too much damage has been done. > [@](#): > > IIRC, the decision to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the Department of Defense was an unusual one. The Pentagon has shown itself to be poorly prepared to deal with the “post-war” period. One of the first things in my capacity as a member of the American electorate that I’d like to see done is to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the State Dept. Well the problem is that it’s difficult to rebuild a country when they are shooting at you. If there is a state of virtual war nobody is going to be able to rebuild anything and at least the military can defend themselves. Maybe the situation has progressed to the point where there is no answer but get the hell out , let the civil war sort things out and once things settle and Iraq is ready (25 years?) _then_ help in the reconstruction. At this point the only thing keeping the USA there is the hope that it can still hang on to bases and oil and that turning tail now would look awfully bad. The situation is quite fucked up and sometimes there is no way out but to bite the bullet and admit defeat. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/39 "2004-04-05T22:05:55Z")
The arrogance of our leaders is costing thousands of lives. Thing is, so far as I can tell, folks in the Gulf seem to be pretty keen on slaughtering one another. If the Persians and Arabs aren’t trying to wipe each other out, Arab factions apparently get bored and go to work on themselves. Throw some Kurds in the mix and you’ve got a nice little shit sandwich on your plate. So what on earth gave Geedub&Co. the idea to take a bite? What in flaming hell posessed them? Now it’s _our_ shit sandwich. Just like Vietnam. Heaven knows we didn’t need it, but we’ve jumped in with both feet. We presently have two choices: Exit in disgrace now, or later. It all depends on how many body-bags the voters can tolerate. This policy of trying to save Iraq from itself is doomed to failure, just like every other time we’ve tried that approach. Pacify? Yeah, after we’ve killed them all. A needless waste, all because we can’t kick the oil habit. When are our leaders going to learn to take renewable energy seriously so we don’t have to be dependant on the capricious whims of a land ruled by despots and fanatics? It isn’t all faggoty-ass tree-hugging liberalism, you nitwits, it’s sound policy. Is all the crude in Arabia really worth this? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294/40 "2004-04-06T02:36:58Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > I think the time has run out. The idea a year ago was that by now things would be much better, that order and public services would have been restored months ago. . . and just look what we have instead and it’s not getting better. Even if it started to turn around now, too much damage has been done. “too much damage” for what? > [@sailor](#): > > Well the problem is that it’s difficult to rebuild a country when they are shooting at you. If there is a state of virtual war nobody is going to be able to rebuild anything and at least the military can defend themselves. I’m not suggesting that the military leave, or quit providing security. I’m also not suggesting that the State Dept get into the business of the military. On the other hand, note that the Marshall Plan was named for a Secretary of State, not a Secretary of Defense. I just want “to turn the _rebuilding_ of Iraq over to the State Dept.” I’m under the impression that rebuilding countries is more Foggy Bottom’s cup of tea than the Pentagon’s. Maybe I’m wrong about that? > [@sailor](#): > > Maybe the situation has progressed to the point where there is no answer but get the hell out , let the civil war sort things out and once things settle and Iraq is ready (25 years?) _then_ help in the reconstruction. > > At this point the only thing keeping the USA there is the hope that it can still hang on to bases and oil and that turning tail now would look awfully bad. The situation is quite fucked up and sometimes there is no way out but to bite the bullet and admit defeat. The costs are too high to quit yet. The costs of exhausting some more possibilities before throwing in the towel are rendered insignifigant in comparison to the costs of failure. IOW, we’re in for a penny, and stand to lose a whole lot more than just another pound, so might as well go in for another pound or two as well. I earnestly believe that the _US_ can salvage the situation. I still don’t have confidence in key elements of the team we’ve got enaged in the endeavor at the moment. For example, On the balance, [Ahmed Chalabi](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3326581#post3326581)’s brought inestimably more grief to the US and US taxpayers than he’s been worth. Without certain Pentagon civilians Chalabi wouldn’t be in on things. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-more-soldiers-got-killed-whats-the-next-move/238294.md?page=3)