I’m under the impression that, by now, several high ranking pentagon officials have said that a great deal more troops were needed in Iraq.
Which is the better course of action? gradually decreasing troop levels and getting out of Iraq completely in the next couple of years or , on the contrary, deploying many more soldiers over there. I think the numbers recommended were in the 250k-300k range but don’t take my word for it. These are the questions I have no answers for:
Which is better for the U.S in the short term? In the long term?
Which is better for Iraq in the short term? In the long term?
Which is better for the Middle-East and/or rest of the world?
Leave, as soon as practical, and pay Iraq massive reparations. While I’m dreaming, I’d send Bush and Cheney and friends over to Iraq to be punished by them for the invasion. We have no right to be there, and we have demonstrated little ability to do anything but harm.
A nitpick I know but the last I heard there are a few thousand (I believe) Brits fighting and dying over there.
Be fair the U.K.s only the size of a table napkin.
Any positive effects in Baghdad are negated by increased sectarian violence in other areas. This is just more of the ‘whack-a-mole’ strategy which only highlights the fact that we don’t have enough troops to effectively shutdown the insurgency and militias. When we apply pressure in one area, the insurgents move to the weakest point, and continue the carnage. It is simply not in our power to make any lasting difference in this civil war on a nationwide basis.
Given that they are likely to be attacked by us at any time, I seriously doubt they are going to invading anybody. Besides, why bother ? We’ve set things up so that Iraq and Iran will likely become allies, or Iraq become an outright Iranian puppet state; there’s no need for an invasion.
And they’d fail, just as we are failing.
Positive according to whom ? And since we shouldn’t be there, I don’t really care if it “works” anyway. We are, when all’s said and done, the villains of this piece; when something works for us, that’s bad not good. We should fail in Iraq, as disasterously for us as possible. A Vietnam scale disaster might convince us to stop trying to conquer people for a decade or two.
Better to have the violence in the outlying areas rather than having the Capital city completely destabilised.
The only way in which we can withdraw effectively is to build up Iraqi forces, the Government institutions, and be in the knowledge that an acceptable ‘level’ of terrorist violence is going to happen regardless. All we have to do is make sure Iraqs government at least has a few legs to stand on after we leave.
I seriously doubt that Iran would invade, they would simply find that even their supposed allies turned against them.
Occupying someone else’s territory is not easy, even if one has benign intent.
To be honest, I suspect that without us, the place would re-align on geographical grounds - a Shi’ite resident of Baghdad would have more in common with a Sunni resident of Baghdad than a bunch of peasant looters from the South.
Also, the Iraqi army would probably re-form - and probably impose some sort of military dictatorship.
The majority of citizens live in Baghdad or the surrounding areas, so therefore it’s necessary to secure this first, since most of the country lives in that area.
I question the conclusion that once Baghadad is pacified, the rest of the country can then follow. We don’t have enough troops to maintain order in Baghdad, and also pacify the rest of the country. Baghdad will not remain pacified without high levels of American troops. The Iraqi defense forces are simply not up to the task, and will not be in the foreseeable future. The police are totally infiltrated by Shiite death squads. With the current strategy, Maliki will remain the mayor of Baghdad, nothing more.
I didn’t/don’t support what the U.S. has done in Iraq. I think the “surge” is a glorified P.R. stunt. I think the actions of the both the president and Congress surrounding this mess have embarrassed the entire country, and I’m ashamed of them both. But what you say here is despicable. Do you think there are no consequences to what you’re saying? There’s stategic retreat and then there’s disastrous failure, and the latter should never be flippantly tossed around, as if it DIDN’T involve the deaths of our fellow countrymen and allies. It’s debatable exactly how and when to get out of Iraq, but wishing for disaster in the Middle East is cynical.
Invading Iraq was not justifiable, but how this situation is resolved will have a real impact in how effectively we can pursue our enemies abroad in the future. And Al Quaida are not the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong weren’t simply homicidal, and they never tried to attack civilians on the American mainland. Invading Iraq was a major error, one that has only compounded, but that doesn’t mean something important isn’t now at stake.
Given? By whom? :dubious: McCain? Coulter? Where the hell are you getting *that * latest falsehood from?
Cites, dude. Now. Reality time.
To the OP question, a major increase is not a possibility. The troops aren’t there. The generals are warning that the Army is on the verge of “breaking” as it is. Bush’s escalation is only happening because his Poppy’s people on the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended the opposite, and he’s The Decider, dammit. So how about we give the recommendations of people in the reality-based community a try instead, hmm?
Why would Iran *need * to invade? They only have to bide their time and let the Shiite groups they’re supporting consolidate dominance over the bulk of the territory.
The concept, that Baker-Hamilton dismissed as unrealistic btw, was that it would simply give the Green Zone “government” time to forge a unified nation and then take over. There’s no sign whatever of any progress on that front, though, meaning these are just more lives being thrown away in the cause of Bush refusing to admit a screwup.