RE: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,147308,00.html

Pretty tight analysis.

One thing that always seems to be missing from this sort of piece is the extent to which the Saudis, Jordanians, etc. are already planning for the exit or redeployment of US forces. I doubt we're going to make any move without consulting with anybody we see as a counterweight to Iranian or Syrian adventurism in Iraq. Sort of makes me wonder what's going on behind the curtain.

To paraphrase Colin Powell: If you break it, you fix it!

Bush "broke" Iraq and we, the American people, will have to fix it. I think that we will have troops in Iraq for at least the next 30 years. (We've had troops in Korea for 50 years.) There are no easy ways out of this morass in which we find ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by fnewt:
To paraphrase Colin Powell: If you break it, you fix it!

Bush "broke" Iraq and we, the American people, will have to fix it. I think that we will have troops in Iraq for at least the next 30 years.

I doubt it. At this pace we'll go broke before ... that.

Interesting article..........and even more interesting remarks.

Personally I think we are stuck there. I origionally supported the war. Today I am not so certain.

All for a variety of reasons

This is the krap that democrats have been pushing for:

quote:

If withdrawal is the plan, this scenario is more attractive than the phased process. It might increase the level of chaos in Iraq, but that is not certain, nor is it clear whether that is any longer an issue involving the U.S. national interest. Its virtue is that it leads to the same end as phased withdrawal without the continued loss of American lives.

Our withdrawal will create an amazing chaos and genocide and will make Iraq into a Terrorist breading ground 100X worst than Afghanistan. We need the good old American-stick-to-it-and-get-it-done mentality here.
The fact is the surge is working, but in my opinion the surge was not large enough and we need more of it.

quote:

Originally posted by 82ndbrat:
Our withdrawal will create an amazing chaos and genocide and will make Iraq into a Terrorist breading ground 100X worst than Afghanistan. We need the good old American-stick-to-it-and-get-it-done mentality here.
The fact is the surge is working, but in my opinion the surge was not large enough and we need more of it.

And you know all that for a fact?

I served in Iraq, have friends who are currently over there, and I don't agree with a single word of what you just said.

Agreed, pretty good report covering a wide range of present and future conditions faced by conventional forces in the Middle East. Nothing really new, but laid out all in one article. Choices of bad, worse, and worst seem to be the main theme. One thing though,is that even the best fully functionally democratically elected government we could have ever hoped for would have been somewhat of an Iranian partner. Religiously that majority of Shia Iraq would always be willing to side with Iran and thus a large portion of any functioning Iraq. My question is when will one of these decisions finally be made? Seems unlikely that W is going to admit to any withdrawn and thus taking the fall while in office so is this a 2009 thing we are talking about? I hope the candidates of both 'cough incompetent cough' parties get grilled on just what they plan to do if elected during next years lead up to November!

I hope the next person elected as President gives we the voter a clear choice on Iraq. Stay or leave within no less than 2 years.

Otherwise if we withdraw they will have the 'cut and run' label hung around their neck and we will continue to anguish with this as we do Vietnam.

quote:

Otherwise if we withdraw they will have the 'cut and run' label hung around their neck and we will continue to anguish with this as we do Vietnam.

True, but really Desert Storm erased a lot of anguish and bitterness ... this of course will renew all that ... past that I don't have much faith that any candidate from the two ruling parties of incompetence will ever truly value 'we the voters' ... at least no more than in campaign speeches and a few staged votes on doomed bills during important election times.

quote:

I served in Iraq, have friends who are currently over there, and I don't agree with a single word of what you just said.

To quote my Master Sargent nephew, headed back for tour #3, "Just because you've been there doesn't make you an expert on policy."
I know several soldiers and Marines who would disagree with your point of view. But that's okay.

What do you and your friends suggest as an alternative? Does a foot soldier REALLY have a broad perpective, or are they actually subject to their immediate surroundings? How much of a soldier's opinion is based on being pissed-off because they can't be home.

There was a lot of political infighting about the costs of the June 6, 1944 invasion (surge?) of Europe. But history has shown it to be a stellar moment in mankind's struggle against tyranny.
We're in that struggle still. It's not as glamorous as Hollywierd has painted WW2 to be (I wonder how glamorous it was to the guys on Normandy Beach?) but it is none the less a struggle for our rights and freedoms.

So...when do we quit? Surrender? Withdraw? Retreat?

Pretty good article but I believe some options were not mentioned and there were a couple of errors.

First, Saudi Arabia has already publicly stated it would go to the aid of its Iraqi Sunni brethren if the US leaves. I doubt very much such a statement would have been made had the Saudi's not discussed this option with other Sunni Arab nations. Which leads me to what I believe is an error by the author, that of the Iranian military.

Anyone can go to Jane's and verify what each Sunni Arab nations has militarily. The combined miitary weight of the Sunni Arab nations outweighs Iran's. Between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria (Syria who would be forced to side with the Sunni), Egypt, possibly Turkey (they do not want a Shiia neighbor), and other Sunni Arab nation's in northern Africa, Iran would have a difficult time defeating such an alliance. Add the fact we would probably supply the Sunni Arab nations with advanced weapons systems/intel (like the deal we just inked with Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and the possibility the Sunni Arab nations may accept non-Sunni Arab help in such a conflict, including that of the US, it is hard to imagine Iran becoming to overly aggressive in Iraq.

As a desperate move by the US, we could also side with the Sunni. We are arming Sunni groups now much to the displeasure of the Shiia controlled Iraqi government. The Sunni in general is more pragmatic, with religion not being on their top ten list of concerns. Maybe the Malaki government could be replaced with a more pro Sunni group? Not like we haven't been part of changing governments and heads of governments over the years... ...we've been pretty good at it.

Now, I realize such a move would be unwelcome by the Shiia. But the Sunni, despite being the minority in Iraq, did control the country for many decades. And I also would assume there would be additional blood shed in Iraq with such a change but, maybe it is time to face the music. If the Shiia have their way, they will eventually slaughter the Iraqi Sunni and drive as many out of Iraq as possible. Those that remain will probably be relegated to living in ghetto like conditions and face abuse as long as they remain living at the hands of the Shiia. The Malaki government doesn't care how many Sunni we kill as it will just make their job easier down the road, hence his being upset we are now arming the Sunni.

Bottom line, we cannot allow the Shiia to dominate Iraq. To do so will surely mean a country allied with Iran. In my opinion, siding with the Sunni is the only possible option at seeing an Iraq allied with the US.

S/F Gordon

Since none of our scenarios has much chance of fruition, or are based on fantasy, here's a completely unrealistic, but "feel good" option that will NEVER happen...

Let's withdraw our forces to the borders around the primary islamic nation players in this farce. With carrier battle groups and armoured division at the ready, tell our esteemed muslim participants to go at it. Kill off as many of each other as you can, however you want, for as long as you want. BUT..DO NOT STEP OUTSIDE THE RING, OR YOU WILL BE NUKED! You will effectively be isolated from the rest of the world, but, hey...you made the choice to live the culture of murder and mayhem you call religion!
Whoever ends up on top has to deal with us (and the rest of the world), either peacefully or not...their choice!

Pretty unlikely, huh?

As to the last posting, I always liked the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still". We made that threat when we pulled out of South Vietnam and didn't follow through. I think it's the only way to stop Iran from becoming a major threat. Air strikes and missles if they don't comply.

DaveHolden:

Yep, that will stop those pesky terrorists and teach them a lesson...force them to watch Klatu in action over and over and over.

S/F Gordon
______________________________________________
Posted Thu 30 August 2007 04:12 PM
As to the last posting, I always liked the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still". We made that threat when we pulled out of South Vietnam and didn't follow through. I think it's the only way to stop Iran from becoming a major threat. Air strikes and missles if they don't comply.

Ohhhhhh! Is this the wish and fantasy thread?

Mine is to see the news report that fairly close to the holy city of Mecca a large smoking area of molten glass as suddenly appeared.

To me this whole thing is about Islam and how it would praise and glorifiy God and the Prophet Mohammad.

Well God is immune to nukes but ole pedifile Mohammmd and his holy city are not.

Attack the world on religious grounds and get your religion attacked in return.

quote:

Pretty good article but I believe some options were not mentioned and there were a couple of errors.

First, Saudi Arabia has already publicly stated it would go to the aid of its Iraqi Sunni brethren if the US leaves. I doubt very much such a statement would have been made had the Saudi's not discussed this option with other Sunni Arab nations. Which leads me to what I believe is an error by the author, that of the Iranian military.

Anyone can go to Jane's and verify what each Sunni Arab nations has militarily. The combined miitary weight of the Sunni Arab nations outweighs Iran's. Between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria (Syria who would be forced to side with the Sunni), Egypt, possibly Turkey (they do not want a Shiia neighbor), and other Sunni Arab nation's in northern Africa, Iran would have a difficult time defeating such an alliance. Add the fact we would probably supply the Sunni Arab nations with advanced weapons systems/intel (like the deal we just inked with Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and the possibility the Sunni Arab nations may accept non-Sunni Arab help in such a conflict, including that of the US, it is hard to imagine Iran becoming to overly aggressive in Iraq.

As a desperate move by the US, we could also side with the Sunni. We are arming Sunni groups now much to the displeasure of the Shiia controlled Iraqi government. The Sunni in general is more pragmatic, with religion not being on their top ten list of concerns. Maybe the Malaki government could be replaced with a more pro Sunni group? Not like we haven't been part of changing governments and heads of governments over the years... ...we've been pretty good at it.

Now, I realize such a move would be unwelcome by the Shiia. But the Sunni, despite being the minority in Iraq, did control the country for many decades. And I also would assume there would be additional blood shed in Iraq with such a change but, maybe it is time to face the music. If the Shiia have their way, they will eventually slaughter the Iraqi Sunni and drive as many out of Iraq as possible. Those that remain will probably be relegated to living in ghetto like conditions and face abuse as long as they remain living at the hands of the Shiia. The Malaki government doesn't care how many Sunni we kill as it will just make their job easier down the road, hence his being upset we are now arming the Sunni.

Bottom line, we cannot allow the Shiia to dominate Iraq. To do so will surely mean a country allied with Iran. In my opinion, siding with the Sunni is the only possible option at seeing an Iraq allied with the US.

S/F Gordon

Pretty much agree with you, in regards that the United States can't leave (trust) it to the Shia. Major problem is, at least for the next 18 months, is that George W. Bush (and the neoconservatives) are quite unlikely to admit that "democracy" is a failure in Iraq, and take the necessary steps that would allow a more "sectarian" government (Sunni) to regain control and stablize the Iraqi government. One, has to wonder what kind of "sales pitch" would be necessary for the majority Shiite and Kurd population to buy into that? At this point, there really is "no good" option. I think the best the United States can do is station a sizable force (50,000) in Kuwait and fully assist the other Sunni states that border Iraq. As far as keeping a force in Iraq, I think once the current (or future) Shiite government figures out the United States plans on assisting the Sunnis, that the United States will be asked to remove whatever forces still remain in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by 82ndbrat:
This is the krap that democrats have been pushing for:

quote:

If withdrawal is the plan, this scenario is more attractive than the phased process. It might increase the level of chaos in Iraq, but that is not certain, nor is it clear whether that is any longer an issue involving the U.S. national interest. Its virtue is that it leads to the same end as phased withdrawal without the continued loss of American lives.

Our withdrawal will create an amazing chaos and genocide and will make Iraq into a Terrorist breading groundHaven't you been paying attention for the last 4 years? Our invasion did that! 100X worst than Afghanistan. We need the good old American-stick-to-it-and-get-it-done mentality here.
The fact is the surge is working, but in my opinion the surge was not large enough and we need more of it. Without a dramatic improvement in the political situation, which no one expects to happen, the surge can be nothing more than a temporary improvement. The stability provided by the surge will quickly evaporate as soon as we pull out. At best, the surge will only amount to an intermission in the civil war.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Deepsea04,

Deepsea04:

Posted Wed 05 September 2007 08:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 82ndbrat:
This is the krap that democrats have been pushing for:


quote:
If withdrawal is the plan, this scenario is more attractive than the phased process. It might increase the level of chaos in Iraq, but that is not certain, nor is it clear whether that is any longer an issue involving the U.S. national interest. Its virtue is that it leads to the same end as phased withdrawal without the continued loss of American lives.


Our withdrawal will create an amazing chaos and genocide and will make Iraq into a Terrorist breading groundHaven't you been paying attention for the last 4 years?

(Really! And how do you know that for a fact? So far, this administration has been wrong in every facet regarding the Iraq War.

Also, if you have been paying attention for the four years, you should realize al Quida is an unwelcome lot in Iraq as evidenced by the situation in Anbar. The Iraqi's, whether Sunni or Shiia or Kurds will not surrender their territory to al Quida.)

S/F Gordon

Our invasion did that! 100X worst than Afghanistan. We need the good old American-stick-to-it-and-get-it-done mentality here.
The fact is the surge is working, but in my opinion the surge was not large enough and we need more of it.