[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No, they do not. OTOH, hanging W and Cheney and Rumsfeld from adjoining lampposts on Pennsylvania Avenue would not be a wrong in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
I hold them both in utter contempt, but I can’t agree with you, BG.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I hold them both in utter contempt, but I can’t agree with you, BG.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t agree with me either. Hyperbole, you know. Still, it would be such a pleasing sight . . .
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I can’t agree with me either. Hyperbole, you know. Still, it would be such a pleasing sight . . .
[/QUOTE]
Well, a war crimes trial could let you hang them legitimately. Plus, you might get to see them shuffling around in shackles and orange jumpsuits; satisfying in itself.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Still, it would be such a pleasing sight . . .
[/QUOTE]
Says you. Pennsylvania Avenue would never be improved by the sight of any corpses hanging from lampposts. That goes double for ugly old guy corpses.
Could we not hand the malefactors over to the Iraqi government instead? It might be just the thing to unite the country’s various factions. Regardless of religious affiliations, everyone loves a celebrity trial.
Isn’t Iraq, in theory, a democracy now? Why not ask the Iraqis if they want us to stay or go? If most say stay then we stay, under the “pottery barn” rule. If they say go, we go as quickly as order and safety allow.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Well, a war crimes trial could let you hang them legitimately. Plus, you might get to see them shuffling around in shackles and orange jumpsuits; satisfying in itself.
[/QUOTE]
At Guantonamo Bay?
I’m split on when to leave. Part of me thinks we’re not quite ready to just exit, stage left (but only because we fucked it up so bad in the first place), and part of me believes we’re causing the problems that we fear will manifest after a withdrawal. One thing I don’t like, though, is the idea of a gradual withdrawal.
When we’re ready to leave (which, god, I hope it’s tomorrow), I think we should all haul-ass out of there as quickly as logistically possible. A gradual withdrawal would leave the declining number of leftovers more and more vulnerable.
Would you rather go out on patrol with 500 of your best friends or 50 of your best friends?
[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Will never happen, and the only way in which Turkey is going to Iraq is through Iraqi Kurdistan which will also, never happen.
[/quote]
Hey, you don’t have to agree with my plan.
Because religious enmity will stay the same. Shi’ites were opressed in Iraq for a long time. It’s now their turn. An opressive theocracy doesn’t have to have a Saddam type strong man. An Ayatolla will do.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm what do you do with this thing. I want out but we are not going anywhere,
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Anyway, here’s the topic:
You find yourself suddenly in the oval office, with your political allies firmly in control of both house and Senate (i.e., with 2/3 or better majorities in both houses). What’s your plan to extricate the US from Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
-1) Try, then convict Rummy, Bushy, Cheney, Rovey, and Wolfy (conviction is a fait accompli)
0) Canvas all of US academia for the brightest minds and best strategists. Create a ‘process team’ from the top ten of this massive group through a 6-month vetting process
- Ask, beg, cajole the leaders of all the regional Arab & Muslim nations for the convention of a summit (Yes, including Iran)
- Send process team to summit, the mandate being to work toward a concrete resolution to begin the repair of Iraq’s infrastructure and economy (Malaki co-chairs summit along with the president of the US)
- The president of the US (that’s me, folks) formally admits to our culpability at the commencement of said summit (can of worms opens <pop!>. I don’t care)
- Provide evidence of contrition (see -1 above)
- Pledge funds equal to the yearly amount we’re currently spending for this ridiculous war for the next five years (funds held in escrow, disbursement mechanisms decided during summit)
- Pledge to remove every last contractor, advisor, mercenary, the entire US military, and any other ancillary US influence from Iraq within the next 6 months
- Do so
At this point even that chowderhead Bush knows he’s stepped in it, but with Iran looming with dripping canines he just can’t fathom leaving as an option. Too bad, Georgie, you blithering, incompetent fool.
In my estimation there’s nothing we can do with our physical presence in Iraq to make anything better as I’m convinced the US doesn’t have the ability to fix what we broke hands-on. We need to be out of Iraq within 12 months; a complete extraction. If Iraq becomes an anex of Iran so be it. Our very existence there exacerbates the myriad challenges met by any attempts to stabilize the country anyway.
I think we’re a little too far past the ‘you broke it you fix it’ stage at this point, and are now at ‘you broke it you pay for it.’
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
-1) Try, then convict Rummy, Bushy, Cheney, Rovey, and Wolfy (conviction is a fait accompli)
[/quote]
Exactly how will this help the US get out of Iraq?
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Exactly how will this help the US get out of Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t. That’s why it’s -1
I have a two part plan.
- Cut
- Run
I no longer give a rat’s ass what happens there after we leave. Let them fight it out however they want. It’s none of out business. I think the “we broke, we have to fix it” catchphrase is kind of off the mark. If you break something in a store, you don’t keep hanging around breaking MORE shit. You pay for what you broke and you leave. I think we should pay reparations to Iraq once the dust of the civil war clears but there’s fat chance of the US ever taking that kind of genuine responsibility.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think the “we broke, we have to fix it” catchphrase is kind of off the mark. If you break something in a store, you don’t keep hanging around breaking MORE shit. You pay for what you broke and you leave.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo
Draft Jenna and Barbara, Cheney’s daughter, all the neo-cons under 35, and the children of the older neo-cons and then let them figure how to get out of there.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
The object is to achieve some sort of stable end-state which minimizes the likelihood of Iraqis’ killing each other in large numbers. That’s a pretty tall order.
If I were really President, I’d spend a lot of time first, talking with our military and intelligence people, getting more detailed information than I have now as a private citizen, and trying to get *them *to figure out a decent exit strategy that doesn’t take forever.
But if I have to come up with my own, on my own, with none of the special tools a President has at his disposal:
I think the way there is to tell them that we’re on our way out, and will be completely gone by March 2008; five years is enough. And that unless the warring parties can come up with some sort of peace deal on their own, we’re going to partition the country into Kurd, Shi’ite and Sunni parts, so they’d better get on with it, because we’ll use our air power to protect their country from foreign invasion (or from full-scale interfactional military actions) after we leave only if they come to a deal. Otherwise, we don’t mind terribly if Turkey grabs a piece here, and Iran takes a piece there, or if Sadrists and Badrists kill each other off while fighting over Basra.
My thought, or at least my wild-ass hope, is that that combination of facts and threats would get all the main parties to the negotiating table in earnest.
First of all, all the parties have something to lose from foreign invasion. The Kurds are most vulnerable, since Turkey and Iran could easily come to a deal to split up Iraqi Kurdistan; both feel threatened by the existence of a Kurdish quasi-state. The Iraqi Shi’ites, friendly though they may be with Iran, don’t really want to be ruled by non-Arabs. And even the Sunnis have to consider that Syria might grab much of western Iraq, even if it isn’t worth much, once Iran and Turkey were active in other places.
And the Sunnis, without a deal, have no oil, so they need a deal to keep them economically alive. The Kurds and Shi’ites still need us there to preserve some sort of order, in the absence of a deal.
So that’s how I’d do it: tell them to start dealing, or we start partitioning Iraq next June 30 based on the votes in the last election (since most parties were closely identified with religious/ethnic groups), with the partition to be complete by the time we leave on or before March 19, 2008. And if that involves drawing lines right through the middle of Baghdad or Kirkuk, well, so be it.
[/QUOTE]
Like he said, and I have to add what I have mentioned before: that the window of opportunity to do this is closing on us. There is still political will to do like Murtha said, to hang close by as a direct threat to anyone daring to set terror camps or genocide.
The longer this current course of occupation goes, I see it becoming like India, with Iraq breaking apart and thousands dead, but the difference is: just imagine the British had remained there, and not even Gandhi would had prevented the extra carnage that would then had been directed to the British.
If that happens in Iraq then it would be cut and run time, and the final mistake of Vietnam will then occur: Everyone was so sick of that war in the USA that by the time we cut, we ignored the following genocide in the Cambodgia neighbor, I see us falling again in that mode when the final 1/3 of the American people begin to realize we did mess up.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
At Guantonamo Bay?
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I called it first.
And we should give them a trial - the same kind they gave the people they plucked off the streets and sent off to be tortured. Fair is fair, after all.
I’m not sure how the USA should extricate itself, but I know what I would do in the British sector.
I would launch a massive recruitment campaign and deliberately recruit insurgents, once you get them into uniform and drawing a healthy wage packet, then they have a vested interest in the system.
I would isolate supplies that are in short supply, such as gasoline, and make a massive effort to import them, and sell them at a discount and on a generous ration to all Iraqi military personel - in a deliberate attempt to build a black market run by the lower echelons of the army.
In addition I would prioritize provision/upgrading of utilities to those in the military.
I would rapidly bring in a ruling that any person seen in public in possession of a weapon is liable to summary arrest - with a very good chance of getting shot resisting arrest.
I would also ensure that all Iraqi patrols are ‘mixed’, so that former/potential insurgents have to rely on others who have less extreme views.
In essence I would try ‘buying’ our way out of the mess, and mopping up/absorbing potential opposition.
The result would probably be a military dictatorship, but it could be a stable one.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Put up or shut up. What is the plan for “staying the course?” What detailed paln do you propose to achieve the goal of establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon of hope to the Mideast?
[/QUOTE]
Referring to me, David? I don’t have one. Iraq isn’t going to be a shining beacon for anyone other than those looking for some target practice.
I do believe, however, that I am smart enough to recognize when the situation is a total loss and time to drop it. Any excuses, rationalizations, or milestones (presumably ones where there will be sufficient wiggle room to allow them to still be “met” when the situation gets too out of control) are just an excuse to stretch things out, continue denying what is right in front of us, and waste more money and more lives.
-Joe
It’s true that the Iraq occupation has been handled really poorly and I place a large share of the blame on Ayatollah Sistani. He would have been the best placed person by far to bring a good conclusion to the occupation. Imagine if, in June of 2003, he would have issued a big fat fatwa exhorting all Iraqis to totally disengage from the occupiers. Nobody talks to the Americans. Nobody works with the Americans. Nobody helps the Americans. IOW, he should have pulled a complete Gandhi - “…the father of India… the pioneer[1] and perfector of Satyagraha — resistance through mass civil disobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total non-violence)…”
OK, too late for that. So what should we do now? I still think complete disengagement is the key. If I were in charge, I would push consistently, strongly and publicly at every turn to kick the occupiers out of the country. I would break off diplomatic relations with America and pull out our ambassador. I would call for the immediate handover of the permanent bases and for the closure of the American embassy. Furthermore, I would call for strong cooperation with our best friends today, the Iranians. They have the opportunity, the means, and the motive to make a real positive difference to help the country.
And as for America, that “hub of evil”? Well, I think the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians and Europeans should band together to invade the U.S.A., bring down the regime, get rid of the WMD’s and…
…and…what? Up until recently, I would have continued: …and install a democracy. However, lately I have started wondering whether America is really ready for democracy. I large fraction of the population is really hopelessly belligerent, really thinks that the only solution to disagreements is to shoot somebody (anybody). So I don’t think America is ready for democracy at this time. I think the best solution would be reeducation camps for everybody - teach people to live together peacefully and be able to handle differences of opinion both internal and external.