Well, as GW likes to say, over and over, everything changed on 9/11.
Just an inquiry, because I really don’t know the answer: If we used Der Trihs’ two-step solution, is there a good chance that we would suffer even larger casualty rates as we “stood down” in preparation for re-deployment? It seems to me that even if we made it abundantly clear that we were leaving, the thugs would increase their attacks against Americans just so they could kill as many Americans while they were still handy. Are troops more vulnerable when in the process of withdrawing?
After nearly 30 years. Yes, plenty of Vietnamese would stay in the grim hope of it actually getting better, many don’t. Hence boat people.
It doesn’t matter, because that what we definately happen in the midst of a seperation of Iraq.
That’s strange, I thought the US was an armed robber since the beginning of the invasion, why would this be any different? And what would be the point of allowing Kirkuk to burn if it can be relatively successful if incorporated into Kurdistan?
Complete rubbish. If this were the case, why haven’t the Turks or Iranians done anything? Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan have agreed to a free trade area, Because US forces, no matter how small, are stationed in Kurdistan. If the US military established bases within that area, no one would touch the place.
All of which is not happening in Kurdistan, so I don’t see how this would affect an American encampment there.
When did I say that all massacres were the doing of U.S. military personnel? Please provide a specific quote.
Wrong about what?
Do you think it would have been better had the U.S. prolonged the war for another ten or twelve years? How many more needed to die after the 2-4 million already killed? How many lives could have been saved had the U.S. allowed Vietnam to hold a referendum on unification, as was planned, rather than set up a series of puppet governments so as to provoke a war?
What on earth are you talking about? There’s U.S. troops occupying part of Turkey now?
They may be more vulnerable, but IMO things would get less dangerous for the US troops. The people steering the insurgents aren’t fools - why would they want to piss away their foot soldiers against an armed and prepared US military when they’ll need those men to help grab all the power they can?
Killing Americans isn’t a holy goal for most of those killing Americans in Iraq - killing Americans is a means to an end, and that end is getting a functional military out of the way.
-Joe
Why under 35? The Army is now accepting recruits up to 46.
Oh, and add “Anyone dumb enough to vote for Bush/Cheney in 2004” to your list. 
Do you have any evidence of that ? It seems implausible to me, given that the majority of Iraqis approve of killing Americans. I think you underestimate the hatred we have created for ourselves.
Look up Turkey and the PPK. And then get back to me
The PKK operates inside Kurdish Turkey, and is discouraged from operating in Iraqi Kurdistan as much as possible. But Turkish incursions won’t surmount to an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan proper, they can’t afford to repress them, the Turkish Kurds all together.
'The mayor conveniently left out the terror campaign waged by the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey from the 1970s to the 1990s. The PKK was, after all, occasionally supported by some Kurdish groups in Iraq. Even so, several Kurds I spoke to thought the PKK was a strategic and moral disaster. “Abdullah Öcalan was our own Yasser Arafat,” one person told me, referring to the PKK’s former leader. “The difference between us and the Palestinians is that we learn from our mistakes.”
You didn’t, but you didn’t specify how brutal both sides were, that I can accept, but you convieniently brushed aside the NVA, NLF, to vent your fury onto the US troops stationed there.
Upto the same amount were killed in Korea, but yet there’s still a South Korean Government which was virtually set up by the US which is independent and independently run, same thing would of happened in Vietnam, if the culmination of Watergate and the non enforcement of the Paris Peace Accords didn’t happen.
Not to mention, US troops were out of Vietnam in '73, and the ARVN were relying on the US for logistics financial support and Airpower but holding their own. Now if that had continued it would of been more likely to of emerged into a democratic or authoritarian regime e.g a ‘Thailand’ or ‘Malaysia’
Only when the funding for the ARVN dried up did morale, which quickly brought about its collapse.
‘Puppet’ Governments only sprang up after Diem was executed. And as far as I know, President Theiu brought about military and political stability, only when the support under his country was taken away, did SV wither away.
Iraqi Kurdistan. There is a US presence in that part of the country and as long as it remains neither Iran or Turkey will do anything major to provoke them.
Oh hell, forget you. Might as well fight some ignorance myself:
Turkey, Iran flex their muscles in north Iraq
Bolding mine.
What was that you were saying about “not touching the place” becuase Americans are there? Pandora’s Box indeed.
You should really stop watching so many Hollywood war movies where Americans are always the good guys and never lose.
Withdrawl has been pretty beaten to death here, and it seems nobody likes anything. Interesting that.
And, as I’ve said in at least one other thread, no “civilized” nation is going to do the only things that will bring stability and peace to Iraq, so it’s kind of a moot point.
Off to the pit, to see if there’s a thread for Der Trihs. I’m not gonna make one, but I’m almost willing to bet money there’s already one there.
What would those only things be?
Brutality.
I’m of the opinion that the only thing that will stop the “insurgency” is to kill all the insurgents.
First you outlaw the weapons. Make it known that this is a law, binding to all.
Then go door to door with rapid response teams, and if there is any resistance, use lethal force. If you find weapons in the house, you arrest everyone there and put them in a deep deep hole somewhere.
Repeat as necessary.
It’s distasteful, and horrible, and we’re the “good guys” so we won’t do it.
But I think it’s the only thing that could work at this point.
My plan is to divide Iraq into several smaller countries, each with an overwhelming ethnic majority, let each new country self rule. Perhaps some of the land would be given to neighbors.
The oil fields will be ceeded to the world good, perhaps under the control of the UN, but I would prefer a less corrupt organization, so the mafia might be better.
Our troops would enforce the new borders till a semistable balance established between the new nations.
Except you would have to keep it up permanently. Which means it’s a false stability, maintained by brute force, and it’s not peace; it simply changes who is doing the killing. Instead of some US troops and some insurgents, all the bloodshed will be American. And you’ll have to be very brutal, since most of the population already supports the insurgents; a fact that will only go up with such a campaign.
Which means never, since the countries in question would be lacking in resources, since you just stole them. Besides, the presence of our troops would crate a permanent incitement towards violence and rage.
You misspelled “God-King Aspirant.”
So don’t say I did, or else you’re a liar.
Are you seriously asking that I mention that war is brutal? What other kids of war are there, kid?
I didn’t “Vent my fury” at “US troops” or, for that matter, at anyone. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the United States escalated and prolonged a war in Vietnam that went on for over ten years and killed millions of people. It was a terrible mistake and a humanitarian disaster.
Deal with it.
Because of course Korea and Vietnam are exactly the same… oh, no, wait, they’re not.
The US has proven very good at robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, just look at our tax code - I have no doubt that we can extend this internationally.
No, their violence and rage will incite us to oppose them, it is the terrorists who are creating their enemy, not the other way around.
Gotta say (as I’m sure others have done) that you’re wrong on this one. I’ve got a brother who was over there for about 18 months, and several friends that have spent at least 9 months apiece over there.
Most of the people are at worst, ambivilant. A minority are very very against the US/Coalition forces. They tend to be very very vocal.
And another minority actually likes and supports the US/Coalition forces, and hopes that the Iraqi government can get it’s ducks in a row.
Please keep in mind that while some of these friends were of course talking to the Iraqi’s with a fully armed patrol group with them, my brother was often talking to the Iraqi people directly (at least the ones that spoke English) when it was him and his partner in a truck.
It’s almost comical that a bunch ov political nobodies are challenged to come up with a plan for getting out of Iraq. I’m becoming more and more convinced that those who, for the time being, have the power have no intention of leaving. I’m becoming more and more convinced that “the course” that the US is supposed to stay is intended to lead to a time when all of Iraq’s oil is safely in the hands of GW and Cheney’s oil industry buddies.
Supposedly “as they, the Iraq security apparatus, stand up, we will stand down.” However it is our governmental officials who will decide when they have sufficiently “stood up.” In Vietnam, as McNamara’s book says plainly, we kept saying that the fight was for the South Vietnamese to carry, and they would just as soon as they were ready. Problem was they were never ready. That’s beginning to sound a lot like “when they stand etc., etc. etc.”
And, by the way, I don’t think there is much chance that control of Iraq oil will wind up where they want it to. I think it a lot more likely to be controlled by Iran.