[QUOTE=mstay]
In the short term (1-5 years) I’d expect to see a minimum of several hundred thousand people dead with another million internally displaced as populations shift along ethnic lines. Just a WAG.
[/QUOTE]
Last I heard there were already 2 million displaced. Something tells me that the number would be higher than another million - although it’s impossible to make it much past 25 million…
-Joe
[QUOTE=elucidator]
To put the question, what would it take for you to say “Hold! Enough!”?
[/QUOTE]
Canadian software engineers being put in danger, most likely.
-Joe
Worse than the number of people fleeing, it is whom has fled. One can fairly assume that the idle rich were already elsewhere. Necessarily, those who fled are primarily those with the means to do so. A car. Money for gas, or for bribes, etc. Hence, those who have fled have a disproportionate number of the professional classes…the doctors, engineers, that sort…amongst them. Which is to say, the very people most needed.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Canadian software engineers being put in danger, most likely.
[/QUOTE]
No fair, Joe. We have no reason to suspect Sam’s sincerity, merely because he is consistently and extravagantly wrong.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Given that currently the ‘surge’ seems to be having positive effects, doesn’t it seem smart to at least wait and see if it works?
[/QUOTE]
What is “works”? I mean this entirely seriously and without sarcasm or malice. I was going to start a new thread asking simply: “What is the current goal in Iraq?” But I think I will just include it here. First it was find WMD, then it was get Saddam, then have an election. All that has happened. Why are we still there?
What is “success” right now?
How can we measure it?
If the troops are increased, to what end are they increased?
If the troops are withdrawn, what won’t happen that the administration wants to happen?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
No fair, Joe. We have no reason to suspect Sam’s sincerity, merely because he is consistently and extravagantly wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Eh, believe that if you will.
As a pessimist I generally find that there’s plenty of people who are willing to throw their neighbor under the bus to save their own skins. Whether they’re saving themselves from their own paranoia or a legitimate threat is fairly irrelevent. There are some who consider it presidential, even.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Achieve stability. Create a cooling-off period. Reduce support for the insurgency. Get the economy moving. Give the people hope. Break the cycle of violence. Have some breathing room to train soldiers and rebuild critical infrastructure. Buy the Iraqi government time to get its security up to snuff.
[/QUOTE]
On reviewing this thread, it seems you have addressed “goals”.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
But the Malaki government is showing signs of change - there seems to be a new willingness to cooperate and do the right thing.
[/QUOTE]
So we have “turned the corner?” So many corners. Is Iraq a “dodecagooglehedron”? With each side 1 Friedman long?
Makes non-euclidean geometry look like hopscotch.
But that’s pretty much true of software geeks generally, and the Canadian reputation for ruthlessness is the stuff of legend, to be sure. But he likes Warren Zevon, as I said, so he can’t be all bad.
Bless his heart, he means well.
Well, this is getting typical, reminding me once again why I have avoided attempting to discuss this on this board. I’ve tried to remain factual, cautious in making any claims of ‘success’, and I’ve responded to requests for cites with plenty of them.
And yet, we’re rapidly progressed from accusations of lying and misleading behaviour to the typical conversation-between-the-sophisticated about how amazing it is that I’m so crazy, and finally an honest-to-god chickenhawk ad-hominem smear. And it only took an hour or two to get there.
Have a nice day.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Have a nice day.
[/QUOTE]
Kitchen. Heat. Sam Stone. Out.
Flipped the bird and buggered off
Brave, brave, brave Sir Robin…
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I]
What is “works”? I mean this entirely seriously and without sarcasm or malice. I was going to start a new thread asking simply: “What is the current goal in Iraq?” But I think I will just include it here. First it was find WMD, then it was get Saddam, then have an election. All that has happened. Why are we still there?
What is “success” right now?
How can we measure it?
If the troops are increased, to what end are they increased?
If the troops are withdrawn, what won’t happen that the administration wants to happen?
[/QUOTE]
I think these questions are exactly the ones that need to be answered right now.
As I understand things, the current goal is to prepare the Iraqis to “stand up as we stand down”. The surge is meant to help in setting an environment in which the Iraqis may be properly trained to take the reigns.
How will we be able to tell when the Iraqis are “ready”, though? My guess is that they will be considered “ready” when the Iraqi police force, et al. are able to handle the insurgent violence without major assistance from U.S. forces.
How will we be able to tell when the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgency without major assistance from the U.S.? I don’t have a clue. I can’t even wager a guess.
My main concern is this: U.S. forces are having some problems with containing the insurgency. These problems are present even when the U.S. is working with Iraq personnel. And we are expecting that the Iraqis will be able to handle this insurgency better than the U.S.?
I think that’s an unrealistic goal, for two reasons:
The U.S. forces (presumably) have a lot more training under their belts, compared with some of the new Iraqi soldiers. I am assuming this because the U.S. soldiers are training the Iraq soldiers. If the U.S. is having a problem with containing the violence, then how much training is necessary to prepare the Iraqis to successfully contain the violence, on their own?
Some of the insurgency is likely caused by the presence of the U.S. forces. If they are actually seen as occupiers (which, AFAICT, they are) then for all we know, the insurgency could die down considerably once we leave. OTOH, the insurgency could completely erupt once we leave, simply because the insurgents might just view the trained Iraqi soldiers as an extension of the U.S. soldiers.
We need to get rid of the subjective parts of our goal(s), and replace them with objective components.
LilShieste
Man… I hope some of that rambling made sense…
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
My attitude toward the deaths of our soldiers and allies : Too damned bad; they deserve it. I regard what has happened to Iraq as an act of mass murder and mass vandalism, and these are the people who did the dirty work. I feel no more sympathy for them than I would the same number of professional assassins; less, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Mass murder? Give me a break. I wonder if the U.S. military has yet to kill as many Iraqis as Saddam Hussein did. As for “mass vandalism,” what do you think has done more damage: the precision-guided bombs the U.S. military uses that land within feet or their targets, or the thousands of IEDs and huge car bombs Iraqis have detonated all over the country, which were intended to kill anyone standing nearby?
That Iraq is a murderous, bloody mess is undeniable, but most of the killing is being done by the Iraqis themselves to each other, not us.
As for saying a bunch of soldiers who didn’t choose their mission “deserve” to die, none of us ever really get what we deserve. If we did, someone would’ve kicked you in the balls already.
Why do you keep acting as if I’m connecting Al-Quaida and Iraq, when I have never done anything of the kind? As clear as I can make it: Invading Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaida; how we withdraw or otherwise handle the situation we created in Iraq will affect our influence abroad, which will have an impact on how easily we can go after Al-Quaida where it really is.
On this we can certainly agree. The military seems to have learned nothing from it’s Vietnam experience. Personally, I wonder if the bureacracy that came into existence after WWII is even capable of winning any war.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
…
Man… I hope some of that rambling made sense…
[/QUOTE]
Rambling? I think it is dead on. Not only do the Iraqis have less training, they have less equipment and lack the dedication of US forces. How in holy hell can we expect the Iraqis to accomplish what we cannot?
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
My attitude toward the deaths of our soldiers and allies : Too damned bad; they deserve it. I regard what has happened to Iraq as an act of mass murder and mass vandalism, and these are the people who did the dirty work. I feel no more sympathy for them than I would the same number of professional assassins; less, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
I think that this is a disturbing, horrid view to have of our soldiers. Contrary to how you may view the war, our soldiers are not traveling all the way to Iraq simply to whip out their guns and mow down entire families in the comfort of their homes.
With few exceptions, each of our soldiers would be more than happy to complete their mission in Iraq without taking a single life (Iraqi or otherwise). To paint our soldiers as nothing but mindless drones carrying out murderous commands from their superiors is misguided at best, and woefully ignorant at worst.
For example: the current goal (I believe) is to train the Iraqis to take the torch from the U.S. forces. Iraqi civilians (and, likely, visitors) are attacking the U.S. soldiers because they are invaders/occupiers of their country. Our soldiers are killing the insurgents only because they are threatening to A) our soldiers, B) the “Iraqi public”, and C) general stability of the country.
The invasion part of the war is long over. We’re currently in the occupation phase. Because of that, our troops are now in a position where they will be shot at/attacked, even if they are not currently engaging an “enemy”. The surge is (presumably) meant to help in containing this violence, so our troops can continue training the Iraqis, and hopefully get out of the quagmire soon.
I am saying all of this from the standpoint of a person who thinks this war is a mistake, thinks that the surge is another mistake, and who thinks that our troops should be provided with a general plan of when to expect they can come home.
LilShieste
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Not only do the Iraqis have less training, they have less equipment and lack the dedication of US forces. How in holy hell can we expect the Iraqis to accomplish what we cannot?
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think it is for this reason alone, that we should start thinking about withdrawing our troops. The fact that this administration won’t even consider this viewpoint (reality, that is) is really upsetting.
LilShieste
[QUOTE=Lizard]
Mass murder? Give me a break. I wonder if the U.S. military has yet to kill as many Iraqis as Saddam Hussein did.
[/quote]
We haven’t had as long. As well, “At least we’re better than Saddam Hussein !” is one of the most pathetic excuses I can imagine. And that’s assuming that we are better.
[QUOTE=Lizard]
As for “mass vandalism,” what do you think has done more damage: the precision-guided bombs the U.S. military uses that land within feet or their targets, or the thousands of IEDs and huge car bombs Iraqis have detonated all over the country, which were intended to kill anyone standing nearby?
That Iraq is a murderous, bloody mess is undeniable, but most of the killing is being done by the Iraqis themselves to each other, not us.
[/quote]
And who let all that bloody anarchy loose ? Us. We share the blame for every IED, every person who suffers or dies due to the chaos we unleashed, the infrastructure we destroyed.
[QUOTE=Lizard]
As for saying a bunch of soldiers who didn’t choose their mission “deserve” to die, none of us ever really get what we deserve.
[/quote]
“I was just following orders” is not an excuse.
[QUOTE=Lizard]
Why do you keep acting as if I’m connecting Al-Quaida and Iraq, when I have never done anything of the kind? As clear as I can make it: Invading Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaida; how we withdraw or otherwise handle the situation we created in Iraq will affect our influence abroad, which will have an impact on how easily we can go after Al-Quaida where it really is.
[/quote]
Every moment we stay hurts our interests, not that our interests deserve any consideration at this point.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I think that this is a disturbing, horrid view to have of our soldiers. Contrary to how you may view the war, our soldiers are not traveling all the way to Iraq simply to whip out their guns and mow down entire families in the comfort of their homes.
[/quote]
So ? Even if you are right - they have.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
With few exceptions, each of our soldiers would be more than happy to complete their mission in Iraq without taking a single life (Iraqi or otherwise). To paint our soldiers as nothing but mindless drones carrying out murderous commands from their superiors is misguided at best, and woefully ignorant at worst.
[/quote]
No, I picture them not as drones, but as sadists, murderers, bullies, bigots, thugs, rapists and torturers.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Our soldiers are killing the insurgents only because they are threatening to A) our soldiers, B) the “Iraqi public”, and C) general stability of the country.
[/quote]
Or because someone sells their enemies to us, or because they step out of a car at the wrong time, or because we dropped a cluster bomb years ago, or because they are male in the wrong place, or because we occupied the hospital and won’t let them get help, or trying to escape a town we’ve targeted for destruction, or trying to haul a wounded friend off the street, or happen to be near some place that we have vague intelligence that an enemy is.
That’s putting it pretty mildly. Most accounts have the Iraqi military made up of members of the Shiite militias themselves - they get training and arms, go off and take out a Sunni neighborhood when they feel like it, wander back when the paychecks (from US taxpayers) come out. They absolutely cannot be counted upon to *fight * the Shiite militias, rather the contrary. The same goes for the police - just a year after Dubya told us in the State of the Union speech about how things were going swimmingly in Tal Afar, just for one instance, the new Shiite Tal Afar police went on a pogrom against the few remaining Sunnis in town. And that’s what the administration wants to call a *success * story.
Any unification of the country can only be done by unified national institutions, obviously, including members of all groups, willing to work against their fellow ethnic group members at times, but sharing a common goal. But there aren’t any. Not since we disbanded the old Army anyway, whether or not de-Baathifying it was ever feasible, which doesn’t matter now anyway.
Sam, ever consider the possibility that the problem here isn’t with everybody else?:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
Man… I hope some of that rambling made sense…
[/QUOTE]
It made complete sense to me, and I agree with it all.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
…No, I picture them not as drones, but as sadists, murderers, bullies, bigots, thugs, rapists and torturers…
[/QUOTE]
You keep this shit up, you’ll have the Board’s first Pit “sticky”.