Thoughts on Iraq:

The democrats have now taken legislative power, or atleast they will in january. One of the central themes of their platform was that Bush fucked up by going into iraq and then pulled off an idiot chain-combo by screwing up every other major decision about Iraq for the next 2+ years. I REALLY don't think there's any point in argueing the above. If you don't believe it was a mistake going into Iraq, and that 90% of the actions that followed ranged between 'idiotic' and 'catastrophic', go read a god damn book. No, instead, lets talk about where the bungling of the last 3 years has left us, and what the legislative branch may be able to do to salvage the operation.

Larry, Curly, and Schemp try to build a country

That's right, the administration didn't even do a good enough job to get Moe in their roster. This was obviously schemp-quality work...

Lets take stock on the major fuck-ups thus far, to get a better idea of what aspects need the most immediate attention. These are in no particular order. Following each bullet point is a short bit of reasoning to explain WHY it was a fuck-up, assuming it's not immediately obvious.
-Not enough troops
The effects of this were obvious and numerous. The troops would clear one area, then leave it behind where it would immediately be reclaimed by the enemy. The triangle NW of the capital was COMPLETELY ignored until after the invasion. There was no way secure the borders from the influx of foreign fighters. I could go on for another 2 paragraphs about the effects. Lets just concede that this is a major point, though, and leave it at that.
-Complete neglect of the prime aspects of counterinsurgent warfare
Firepower used as primary tactic instead of a last resort. Troops concentrated on bases instead of in small groups among the population. Lack of respect for the local population, and/or, lack of ability to communicate with and understand the culture of the population.
-There was no clear chain of command with one person leading the operation
The department of state didn't get along with the department of defense. The military didn't get along with the Civilian leadership. NOBODY got along the CPA. As things are/were, you had differing people with differing goals, all with claims to controlling Iraq.
-Disbanding the military, Sweeps of Baath party members
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The military was practically BEGGING Bremer not to do it. In one fell swoop he put 140k armed and disgruntled iraqis on the streets, and then barred them from government employment(Their whole means to feed their families). Not to mention they then needed to train a NEW army without using any of the people most qualified. That stacks with the fact they we didn't even use our special forces to train the new army, but instead passed the job to contractors. The contractors, in turn, did such a BAD JOB that more than 50% of the army they trained defected before their first engagement. This was the crown jewel of fuck-ups

So, how the hell do we fix THAT mess???

Option #1 - Teh Win!!11

Here we will present the best, or atleast, most acceptable outcome. We'll define this in pretty broad terms. Lets say that an 'acceptable outcome' results in one nation of Iraq(no split) that has established law and order able and willing to prevent terrorist training and recruiting within it's borders. I think any US citizen would recognize that as a victory at this point. So, what do we do?

The first and most obvious answer is send more troops. To do ANY of the moves that follow, we must first have enough troops to secure the entire country at once. This could mean a draft. It could mean MAJOR stop-loss and defacto re-instatement. Either way, it isn't gonna be pretty. There would be a major backlash against whatever party endorsed the idea, even if it is only sensible.

From that point on the strategy is pretty straightforward, despite being infinately harder and more counterintuitive than the one we've been engaged in thus far. First we shut down the borders, HARD. Then we'll need to become like a police-force among the people. We'd need the vast majority of our troops living among the people and reporting to local precincts to do their daily jobs, which would shift dramatically to the rebuilding effort. This would put a big target on the chests of our servicemen, but if we're serious about the job, it's the only feasible option(hence, how I mentioned being counterintuitive).

The majority of our job would change. Instead of looking for enemies to kill, we'd be mainly reactionary, only firing when fired upon. Cordon and sweep searches would be stopped altogether. As the military did the police work, special forces would be training replacements for our men, and local governments could form above them. Another less-than-favorable outcome of this(for our military) would be a near-requirement that the same unit stay in one area until that area has transfered authority. Change in the military leadership causes TREMENDOUS setbacks in these kinds of situations. As each secto;r developed a police force and local government, the units in those finished sectors could be redeployed to other parts around the country, or return home.

Of course, there'd be alot of other smaller details that I don't have time to go into, but that'd be the main idea. Essentially, if we want to win this we are going to need to increase our troop strength(probably around double or triple), completely rework our positioning into a more constructive yet vulnerable ground position, and be prepared to spend atleast another 1-3 years there(taking even greater casualties for the next 6 months atleast).

Option #2 - Stay the course!

If you think this is a feasible option, PLEASE go read a book. Simply put, all we're doing right now is killing time. No progress is being made. Actually, no, thats not ENTIRELY correct. Did you ever see that video in Psychology 101 where the guy has his left and right brain seperated and then tries to do those IQ test puzzles? His right hand puts the pieces together in the correct design while his left hand takes them apart just as fast(left/right brain duality). THATS what the current situation is like. We don't have the resources on the ground to do the job right, so our military comes in and puts things right(right brain), only to leave and let it fall back into chaos just as fast(left brain).

Option #3 - Screw you guys... I'm going home!

Let's consider this to be the 'phased withdrawal' or 'Cut and run' option(depending on your political affiliation). The main objective here is to GTFO ASAP while the optional secondary objective is to make it seem like someone else's fault. Blame the Iraqis for not 'stepping up'. Blame the GOP for letting things get this fucked up. Blame whoever tries to excuse themselves from the room once the accusations start flying. Basically, just paint the situation as untenable and give a fatalist response(example: "There is simply no way to resolve this problem through the use of our military on the ground. At this point, the responsibility lies with the Iraqis").

This is probably the most likely response. Let's face it, it's alot easier to sell short-term benefits over long-term benefits, especially when long-term benefits would require such a high level of short-term sacrifice. Besides, your average american doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people, he just wants to make sure they aren't gonna anthrax his office building or something. The resulting civil war in Iraq would likely keep them from focusing their rage on us for a while, and may even divert the attention of islamic extremists everywhere. Why go half way around the world to fight heathens when there's plenty in your back yard? They'd be left with Sunni vs Shiite, fight to the finish!(Which isn't a bad situation for us in the short-term, assuming you're an uncaring prick like 60% of our population)

Long term would be bad, though. Very bad, actually. After a few bloody years spent screwing themselves, the Iraqis would likely latch on to the US as a MAJOR focus of anger and resentment. Picture Iran, but nuttier(Ya, I know, thats pretty damn nutty). We're talking about a 1984-esque "5 minute hate" level of animosity.

Option #4 - Time keeps on slippin... slippin...

Option 4... Time machine??? Oh, come on. Lets be serious. Even IF someone had a time machine, they probably wouldn't use it to stop the Iraq war from happening. They'd probably be back in colonial america chillin with ben franklin or procuring their own pet dinosoar.

Me? I've always wondered who would win if I could get Ghengis Kahn to fight Ceasar, hand-to-hand, in a giant bowl of pudding. Make it happen time machine!

In conclusion:

Bush fucked us right in the collective ass-hole. Any attempt to fix the problem is gonna be painfull. The current plan, stay the course, doesn't seem as painfull but is completely pointless in that it accomplishes nothing. It looks like the Dems are gonna try to pass the buck and GTFO of iraq, which honestly doesn't seem like THAT bad of an idea. The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we really care about the average Iraqi citizen? If the answer is yes, to the point where you'd die for one, then proceed to option #1. If the answer is no, then proceed to option #3. If the answer is, "Screw this, I came for the puddin wrastlin!" then proceed to option #4, and pick me up along the way... 'cause I'm sick of politics.


(I have to admit, I wrote this to take my mind off of my craving to have a cigarette. If you actually read it all, then kudos to you my friend. I'm not gonna proof-read it...)

To be honest any opinion I give is pretty uninformed and probably not very educated cos I don't really know a whole lot about this stuff

But I think another option would be that the occupation should focus more of education and public works rather than a military occupation.

The thing Im thinking of would be very long term and probably cost more than any military actions. Building up the countries infrastructure, education system, trade relations, etc

But then people would just try to blow it up or something unless there were substantial military forces overseeing everything so maybe not.


Maybe just drop off Chuck Norris in a chopper and give him a machete and some masking tape and tell him to fix Iraq

To be honest any opinion I give is pretty uninformed and probably not very educated cos I don't really know a whole lot about this stuff
But I think another option would be that the occupation should focus more of education and public works rather than a military occupation.
The thing Im thinking of would be very long term and probably cost more than any military actions. Building up the countries infrastructure, education system, trade relations, etc
But then people would just try to blow it up or something unless there were substantial military forces overseeing everything so maybe not.
Maybe just drop off Chuck Norris in a chopper and give him a machete and some masking tape and tell him to fix Iraq
Essentially, that's the first option from above. We can't just have a bunch of military types pretending to be habitat for humanity out there, though. They'd still be the primary entity in charge of security, police training, and then we'd be heaping rebuilding ON TOP of all that.

You'd need the more troops, and you'd need to move most of those troops off the bases. So, you'd be left with something similar to what I stated as 'option one' from above.

if you ask me, the only course of action is to raise taxes, outlaw guns, and force everyone to have abortions.

No, the only path is HUGE tax breaks...but only for the rich, hand out free guns in public schools, and nationwide use of capitol punishment.

1. Pull out and let the place go to shit.

or

2. Admit it was a "put together" country with a bunch of artifical lines in the sand. Let it break up into 3 natural groups with boundries. (this will piss off some negboring countries cause they will have to give up some "tribal" land too).


or

3. Fuck em, Pave the whole fuckin place and put in parking meters.

Again, we need to let the Iraqi people vote in mass if they want us to leave or stay in their country. If their wish is we get the fuck out, they overwhelmingly vote as such, then we get our troops out ASAP. There's a lot of benefits for us going that route as it relates to our image in the world community, and it would be a right step to make in the "War on Terror."

1. Pull out and let the place go to shit.
or
2. Admit it was a "put together" country with a bunch of artifical lines in the sand. Let it break up into 3 natural groups with boundries. (this will piss off some negboring countries cause they will have to give up some "tribal" land too).
or
3. Fuck em, Pave the whole fuckin place and put in parking meters.
oooh...i pick #3 :biggrin:

3. Fuck em, Pave the whole fuckin place and put in parking meters.

You can't just pave over a country with 26million people!



...the road would probably end up being haunted or something. No one wants to drive on a road infested with ghosts. Well, maybe if I had a volkswagon bus and a talking dog..... nah, nevermind

But think of all the parking tickets we could rack up...

The Washington Post reported Monday that the Pentagon is preparing three policy options: one that increased troop levels in Iraq to bring stability to the country (dubbed "go big"), that that maintains the current levels over a longer period ("go long"), and one that begins a phrased withdrawal ("go home").

Heh, funny. I'm happy to see they're narrowing down their options, lol! Other than the cute nick-names, they basically just said nothing. I mean, its like looking at a cheeseburger and saying, "I could eat it now, save it for later, or throw it away. Hmmmmmmmm." Those aren't plans!!!

A plan must contain some kind of guiding principle. It doesn't matter how many troops we send over there if they aren't following a comprehensive strategy! Even if we had enough men to cordon and sweep the entire country, THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT A GOOD IDEA!!!

Man, does no one in congress read about the military??? I simply read some books about military organization and strategy when I have some free time and even I know this whole 'strategy' is bunk.

Making a strategy is actually pretty simple as long as you are thorough and can follow sequential logic. All strategy evolves from one question:
"Who are we, and what are we trying to accomplish?"
From there, most of the work follows intuitively(ie: this is who we are, and this is what we are trying to accomplish. These are the resources we have available to pursue that goal, and this is how we plan to use them. etc etc...)

I forget the exact wording or who said this, but it seems appropriate:
"People are typically promoted to the point where they are unable to perform, at which point they fail spectacuraly."

What we've seen throughout the iraq war hasn't just been failure, it has been SPECTACULAR failure... A 'shock and awe' barrage of failue, if you will

That was a very good post GCD, I think now that the dems are actually in power again they are HOPEFULLY going to do something that might actually regain their power instead of the latter that's been happening. If democrats actually secured a viable option of what to please everyone and not worry about finger pointing it would help a lot. I mean if you listened to Rumsfeld talk it seemed like he had no influence, Iraq was going great, putting time on goals was ludicrous, and any decent against his plans was criminal or anti american. He's gone. And to quote Jon Stewart "You...... won't be missed".

I think the only win win option could possibly be to get more of an international force there in with your first option. So far our world credit that was amazingly high from 9/11 has gone down to seeing us as a nation that wants to do everything alone and not nearly any support to help us. An option I always think of is if it would be possible for more countries to again commit troops IF they were under the understanding that it would be for rebuilding only and only for a temporary basis made before even sending forces in.

Now at this point I think it is just a mess of shit that will be the biggest memory of the Bush administration. Because when I think of Bush and his presidency I think of 4 things mostly: Iraq, bad economy that still hasn't fully recovered strongly since he started, 9/11(remember 9/11, come on we say it in all our ads), and Katrina. But.....

That's not going to fix anything for sure. Not just American public support but world international support has to go up and Iraquis have to decide if they would favor a world effort over ours there. I know it seems like if you study history, people don't like to be invaded and told how to behave except in the case of Rome where Rome just assimilated who they conquered to in essence say "We beat you, now you are part of our team." America thus far has taken the stance, we will destroy your government, you will welcome our change, if you don't we have no real other plan except to say you will eventually. Iraquis are not being trained to handle themselves in a well formed government.

In my mind we should just withdraw. I'm sorry and I know that pisses a lot of people off but things are not getting better, NO ONE is going to go from saying that the handling of the war that is consistently getting less support should now foster a draft. And the people that lead us into this pissed off the rest of the free world with things like "freedom fries", "bring em on", "stay the course" and basically not listening to a single thing others said. My vote is get out in increments and let Iraq decide itself what must happen.

The one ironic thing though to me is that most conservatives I have met define their party stance with how they favor defense and protection of the country. The interesting thing is that the world has become much more volatile 3 years after this war started than before. That comes from going after a country and not a sect. Which gets back to what I said 3 and a 1/2 years ago: "Why do you need to invade a country to remove one person?". Many would argue with that to say "Well another person will just come back to replace him." Well not really if you look at history.... Musolini, Hitler, Stalin.

Rumsfeld was an envoy to Saddam, which when you really think of history is hilarious that Bush put the same person in charge of fighting not someone but an entire country when he was put 20 years ago in charge of helping Saddam in the Iran Iraq conflict. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle and others basic plan was that if you told everyone what to do they would be overjoyed. Generally when you tell someone what to do, what to think, and how to act that is DIFFERENT than what they are used to and you have no respect for their culture they really don't listen. The one thing I do know in which 20/20 is always perfect vision is that replacing one dictator is no where near as bad as having a Sunni and Shiite sectarian war where the only thing they are unified in is hating us.

In my mind we should just withdraw. I'm sorry and I know that pisses a lot of people off but things are not getting better, NO ONE is going to go from saying that the handling of the war that is consistently getting less support should now foster a draft. And the people that lead us into this pissed off the rest of the free world with things like "freedom fries", "bring em on", "stay the course" and basically not listening to a single thing others said. My vote is get out in increments and let Iraq decide itself what must happen

At this point, we might as well withdraw. Americans simply don't care enough about the iraqis to do what is necessary to 'win'. Without a draft or some overnight 200% increase in the armed forces, its pretty pointless to talk about winning. Honestly, at this point, even if we had the troops, the politics of "protect our troops" and the general discontentment with the situation would still keep us from taking the steps necessary to complete the job.

We don't have the resources to fix what we broke under current condition. The people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to improve those resources. Then, even if we had them, our strategy isn't adapting with the enemy. Essentially, staying there accomplishes nothing, so why do it?

I'm fairly convinced that Bush new a long time ago that this situation was irrevocably fucked. I think his major strategy was to hold on until someone else had to deal with it, and then he could pass the blame. If the democrats insist that we leave, you'll have Bush talking about all the progress that has been made and how the democrats screwed it all up.

Fuck it. Lets get out of there. We aren't accomplishing anything, so what's the point in staying?

("go big"), ("go long"), ("go home").

That use to be my slogan when I was single.

Fuck it. Lets get out of there. We aren't accomplishing anything, so what's the point in staying?

I'm with you, as well, on getting out of there. But it has to be under the right conditions so as to not make it appear Al-Qaeda pushed us out and made us run. Somalia comes to mind, which Bin Laden followed closely.

Bin Laden has stated that was one instance he saw of America being weak, and he believes the same will happen in Iraq. That's a big part of our so-called "stay the course" strategy and how it ties in with the "war on terror." Some people don't see the big picture, though.

I'd prefer not to give his organization, and others around the world, a so-called "victory" to help their cause in more ways than I care to elaborate in this post.

But I will say your statement "we aren't accomplishing anything" shows you're truly ignorant to the things that are being accomplished in the region for the Iraqi people through agencies like the PCO (not to mention other groups) which I've brought up before, and nobody in here ever heard of.

Just like most of the American people who are zombies in front of their television sets don't know either. They get spoon-fed death tolls on a daily basis and no reports of the progress of groups like the PCO and their work. I had to learn of them through a documentary on Iraq and the good things we're doing over there to help the Iraqi people, or I'd be as ignorant as the rest of most of the American sheeple. Not their fault btw. It's the media.

I'd post some accomplishments and future planned ones, but it's in PDF so it can't be put in here. Read it all, if you care to, but specifically go to page 3.

If you can read that page, the rest of the site, and say "we aren't accomplishing anything," you're just another casualty of CNN, Fox, or whatever other news agency you buy into like most Americans, and just plain ass wrong in your statement. That's not an opinion, either. It's a fact.

Also, our troops who are now keeping order (even though it is chaotic) are making such "progress" possible. Your argument isn't true in the least. That is, unless you think the site I linked to is all bogus and made up. But I'd expect that from HG. But not you. No offense HG. You know I like your conspiracy theories. :fingersx:

https://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PCO_CONTENT/HOME/DOWNLOADS/RECONSTRUCTION_UPDATE.PDF

EDIT: I'd add this, in case you miss it or don't bother to check out the site or go to the report and page I directed you to. Out of 3539 planned projects it shows 3295 have been started with a total of 2604 projects completed to date. 9.9 billion has already been dispersed by this agency on such projects, with more in reserve to try and finish the rest they have planned and that are ongoing. Not accomplishing anything? :laugh:

We may have accomplished some things, but none of those things are moving us closer to our final objective, which is supposedly a self-sustaining Iraq that isn't hostile to the US.

Every day violence against our troops grows. Every day the average citizen turns against us more. Every day it gets harder to operate in the area.

Sure, we may have built a school or public office here and there, but the average Iraqi still doesn't have electricity or water reliability that they had before we got there.

I do agree with you on one point though. We aren't leaving because we don't want to 'lose' or be percieved as weak. You say that it will embolden terrorists, but I have to ask, do you think staying for another 2 years and watching the situation deteriorate farther would improve our position? If we lose another 200, 300, 500 troops, will that really prevent terrorists from striking at america, or will it just be more lives wasted for nothing? I tend to believe that latter.

Believe what you want, but I don't see how leaving our troops in harms way without a hope of success is going to intimidate terrorists. That is, unless you think that we can somehow pull a functioning country out of our collective asses. I tell you, though, its gonna take ALOT more sacrifice than most would like to believe...

I think the only win win option could possibly be to get more of an international force there in with your first option. So far our world credit that was amazingly high from 9/11 has gone down to seeing us as a nation that wants to do everything alone and not nearly any support to help us. An option I always think of is if it would be possible for more countries to again commit troops IF they were under the understanding that it would be for rebuilding only and only for a temporary basis made before even sending forces in.

I rarely, if ever, have done this, but I agree with Django on this one, which goes along with your point, GCD. It just doesn't need to be more American troops. It needs to be shown the entire world stands behind the actions taking place in Iraq, the rebuilding, having a stable government, etc.

Though, I see the best option being, again, letting the Iraqi people vote if we leave or stay. I've elaborated before why that's a win/win situation. If they vote us out, we pack up and leave tomorrow, stop rebuilding their country, et cetera, and leave them to their own devices.

There's other reasons that would be a good alternative also, but I've spoken about them in another thread, so I'll keep this one short.

Another point worth bringing up...

What if, by staying there, we are actually weakening our army?
source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/us.marines/index.html

Its not just conjecture, either. All of the people I know in the military(except one guy) is planning to leave ASAP and wont re-enlist because of how they feel they've been treated.

Sure, we may have built a school or public office here and there, but the average Iraqi still doesn't have electricity or water reliability that they had before we got there

It's more than "a school or public office here and there." Over 2600 projects have been completed, and I've already listed the figures for the ones in progress and planned in the future that show they will tremendously help the Iraqi people.

Now, as far as the water situation and electricity, I'd be interested to see some link that that's true. I'm not calling you a liar in the least. I'd just like to see it for myself. It's something I haven't checked into or heard and I could be "ignorant" on.

My limited understanding is even before the first Gulf War they were in piss-poor shape under Saddam going back over a decade, and I know the PCO has been building water treatment plants and electrical facilities all across the country.

I guess if it's worse than before we got there, it's because we bombed the hell out of said facilities in the invasion, which is what the PCO is trying to fix, including other agencies, to bring them back to where they were before.

I've stated numerous times we need to fix what we destroyed when everybody has been saying pretty much "fuck Iraq." I don't believe it was okay to not bring them back to where they were prior to us occupying their land and just leaving. The water and electricity issue would be a case in point.

I do agree with you on one point though. We aren't leaving because we don't want to 'lose' or be percieved as weak. You say that it will embolden terrorists, but I have to ask, do you think staying for another 2 years and watching the situation deteriorate farther would improve our position? If we lose another 200, 300, 500 troops, will that really prevent terrorists from striking at america, or will it just be more lives wasted for nothing? I tend to believe that latter.

It could deteriorate, or it could get better. There's no telling. Though, on that I believe the "latter" unless big changes are made.

Like I said, I agree with Django, which goes along with your point for sending in more troops. But the world needs to get behind this with us. I don't see it happening, but one could hope. There's also my idea that Senator (who's name I can't remember) was pushing. I haven't heard much on it lately, but it's a viable option. If they want us gone, let them vote on it through their own government. Seems logical to me.

Now, this is just an opinion, but I believe a timetable is already set for our withdrawal from the region. When? God only knows. The thing is that can't be blasted across the airwaves for our enemies to hear. I think the wheels are in motion now for us to leave, but we're not going to state a "time specific" date because of how our enemies would react to it.

I might elaborate later in here. But right now I'm going to go jump on Live for a couple of hours, try out Gears of War that I rented, and then catch some zzz's. I have to get my daughter early in the morning.

Something I missed:

We may have accomplished some things, but none of those things are moving us closer to our final objective, which is supposedly a self-sustaining Iraq that isn't hostile to the US.

That goes to the rebuilding their infrastructure I've harped on over the months. It was one of our stated goals, and if you check that link I put up they're nearing completion of their projected goals.

If the water and electricity situation is as you say it is, which the PCO is working to fix, as it shows in the link I put up, I can see where that goes to their ability to be "self-sustaining." It sure would affect their quality of life. Can you imagine living in that shithole? I feel sorry for them.

There's countless other projects, as well. It's a sticky situation. They could be hostile if we leave and don't rebuild their infrastructure. They could be hostile if we stay.

It's why I say let them vote on what they want. If they want us out, they vote us out, we leave, then it might make them less hostile. It would also do a lot of other things I've already mentioned in another thread.

It's a really fucked up situation any way you turn. I just want us to get out of the country on our timetable and not Al-Qaeda's and when our leaders believe Iraq can handle its own affairs if we're not going to let the people vote.

I saw you made a post about troops, and I'll check into it later. Not ignoring it.

Speaking of troops, I've been hearing the word "draft" thrown up lately. All I can say to that is BULLSHIT!