I’ve never been especially hopeful of a good outcome in Iraq, having read a few articles on conditions there prior to the invasion … something no one in the Bush Admin. apparently did. So I don’t feel particularly compelled to suggest a winning strategy. I don’t feel much ownership of this problem. Well, none, actually.
What might keep the fighting limited in a pullout by telling each faction: you control the territory your people are on. Fine. But if you Shias go after the Sunnis, or you Kurds go after the Shias, or anybody invades anybody else’s turf, we’ll provide air support to the defenders, and attack the aggressors from the air. So behave your bad asses. And try to be democratic."
As I’ve suggested, pull out the stops in Iraqifying the conflict. Training programs – including something along the lines of this paramilitary suggestion being debated – should be multiplied by several times. Efforts to root out insurgents in existing security forces should be multiplied.
As this goes on, redeploy US troops to “redline” areas. Start moving troops out of Mosul, Baghdad, and Barsah to border areas to keep Iranian and Syrian “aid” out of Iraq. Maintain only a presence in those areas where the worst of the terrorists reside – not the Iraqis who hate Americans, like the Sadr types, but the hardcore Zarqawi type killers. As more responsibility gets shifted over to Iraqis, draw down US troops. Hopefully this would be complete within 6 months, maybe 10.
So you’re content to let the prestige of the US continue down the toilet, so long as you can blame it all on Bush? I’m not in any mood to do any favors for Bush, but when it is so plainly evident that this war and the angry backlash against the US has inspired so many to join the ranks of Al Qaeda, I think laying back, blaming everything on Bush, and washing our liberal hands of the whole affair is a prescription for fiddling while terrorists gather strength to fight this Administration. Unfortunately, their only way of attacking this Administration is by attacking the US, and I happen to be in it, so I don’t think that’s such a good idea. My motives are purely self-interested: I don’t want to get blown up just because I reside in the same city as the Moron in Chief. :mad:
The purpose of the invasion was in the end to protect America from attack, yes I know it is laughable now to remember that, but we should not forget that on the way out. I do think we have still the upper hand to make all potential leaders of a future Iraq to sign binding documents that will say in essence that we will bomb the leadership if there is even a whiff of setting terrorist camps or weapons of mass destruction against America or their neighbors. If you laugh at this, consider that historically the USA was ultimately right in WWII because it was the Axis powers that broke treaties.
A big carrot and stick approach will be applied to aid and threats of bombings if they decide to do ethnic cleansing, and yes, the much maligned UN will be there to keep the factions separated or else.
xtisme: I do think that the USA not leaving Vietnam sooner was then the cause the USA did not have any will to do anything when Pol Pot reared his ugly head in Cambodia, similarly I do think that when all is said and done, when the toll of the dead squads is found, when the toll of American lives is accounted, when finally the majority of Americans come to grips with the fact that this war was unnecessary. Then it is very likely that a future administration will find that the prospect of attacking Iraq or other Middle East nation in the future to be an unattainable one, no matter how right that action would be.
Leaving sooner will allow us to set trip wires for future problems that then we will have the resolve to take care off, no matter if they are trigged a decade or a few years from now.
Offensive operations that would “create a fear of aiding the insurgency”. Fear. This guy Shahwani is advocating government-sponsored efforts to scare his own citizens into line.
How, precisely, is this different from terrorists? RickJay is absolutely right. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If we support this, we are actually, honest-to-God supporting terror.
What’s that mean? I can understand Sunnifying and Shiifying and Kurdifying their various efforts, but where pray tell is there a truly national government to turn over responsibility to?
That abandons most of the country to its fate.
That doesn’t narrow it down much. The insurgents are everywhere, meaning they’re supported everywhere.
It’s down the toilet anyway, so the person responsible should be blamed.
If we make it clear that our government is not the same as our country, there may be some hope that their attacks will be more closely targeted.
The UN has endorsed a roadmap to a national Iraqi government. The scheduled elections won’t be the greatest thing, but I’m willing to trust the UN lead on this and say its time we stop trying to hand-hold Iraq on every step of the way. Further “nation building” by the US sure as hell won’t help the nacent Iraqi government. Better to rip the bandaid off all at once, and hope the government, with the support of the UN, swims rather than sinks.
As far as leaving Iraq to its fate vs. partitioning it, I’d much rather see Iraq implode than explode. In terms of worst-case scenarios, at least implosion wouldn’t threaten a NATO ally, strengthen Iran, and possibly lead to an even more radical, brutal regime in Saudi Arabia.
Ah. So it’s worth wishing death on high government officials, so long as the terrorist don’t hurt any of us innocents who opposed the war. Someone tell Osama bin Laden to update his fatwah that justifies killing ALL Americans, regardless of whether they serve their government or not! Let him know that some of us are raising the white flag of truce!
Er, they killed the mayor of Baghdad and most of his security force.
I believe what was meant was that they would expand their assassination attempts to American leaders… in America… in essence, making them a real threat to America instead of an isolated rebellion.
Don’t forget the “School of the Americas” (part of the winning El Salvador project, now called “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation”). I’m sure many of the noble professors there will be pressed into service.
This was my point, which I thought was so obvious that nobody would need to have it explicitly spelled out. But for those posters who rode the short bus:
If the United States government starts a program of targeting Iraqi opposition leaders for assassination it is very probable that the Iraqi opposition will retaliate by targeting American political leaders for assassination.
The only way they will stop things is if they put a very big boot on the neck of a very large segment of society. Saddam was very good at this. The Allied leaders are always telling us how much of a bastard he was.
If they don’t go down the total oppression route the movements will thrive due to the civilian population seeing their people killed. Look at my little Island. A lot of the rebel leaders were executed in 1916. In 1919 the survivors and the Next Gen. rebels started a war with the British.
Ya…I got that. Again…you think they are restraining themselves atm from doing so, and that assassinating insurgent leaders are going to suddenly lift the scales from their eyes and allow them to let slip their leashes and come after our leaders here?? If they COULD assassinate the President (or members of Congress or the Senate) they certainly WOULD…and whether we do this ‘Salvador Option’ or not doesn’t change that equation at all. Its a matter of capability. Assassinating a leader in Iraq is difficult but do-able…assassinating the President of the US is nearly impossible, especially for an outside agency.
Even if it would be feasable it would be difficult to plan, have a low probability of success, require a lot of money and time…and would probably backfire on whoever tried to do it. What do you suppose the reaction of the American people would be (minus those in the majority on this board) if Bush were assassinated, and it was an Islamic Fundamentalist with ties to the insurgency in Iraq…and perhaps ties to Iran or Syria or some other nation? Take a wild guess then multiply it by 10.
I agree that using US forces to do assassinations against insurgent leaders is, on the surface at least, a better option than using Kurds or other Iraqi’s, for all the reasons listed earlier. Perhaps it IS the best option to go after the leadership. I certainly wouldn’t be shedding any tears if someone put a 50 cal round through the head of a certain beheading terrorist leader we all know and hate (well, some of us do). I just don’t think that the plan as it was listed in the OP is sound.
Given that this administration used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Saddam though he wasn’t responsible, it wouldn’t matter who actually did it, Cheney would use it as an excuse to attack, oh I dunno, maybe France.
I wasn’t pointing a finger at YOU with that. However I call a spade a spade…and there are any number of folks on this board who would be overjoyed if Bush got wacked…getting wacked by an Islamic Terrorist from Iraq would just be icing on the cake. The irony would probably bring half the board into rapturous fits. Even if they weren’t jumping for joy I think the majority on this board wouldn’t exactly be heart broken about Bush being assassinated.
However if it bothers you that much 'luci then I will refrain from saying such things in future.
