Can the U.S. win in Iraq?

[ckg68]

According to a commission(headed up by James Baker)set up to assess the Iraq matter and determine a new course,the answer is a loud and clear....

NO.

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371?page_no=1

They're considering 2 option papers,which both rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy any time soon.

The first one calls for stabilizing Baghdad while the U.S. Embassy should work toward political accomodation with insurgents. Nurturing a democracy in Iraq? Gone.

The second paper calls for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq,but they have yet to say where they will go. Top priority: minimizing American casualities.

(Keep in mind that the N.Y. Sun is a conservative paper,editorial-wise.)

[г]

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/1576753018.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[ckg68]

Actually,D3,I HAVE heard of the book you've mentioned but haven't read it.

Its author has appeared on Democracy Now to talk about it.

[г]

There's a good, short summary here (http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1696661,00.html)

[Gibby]

We can win in Iraq, but doing so WILL break us. The simple truth about Iraq is that too win we need more troops. We need to garrison the country with 500-750 K troops, and with Britain considering a withdrawal, we will have to supply this number on our own. Our major problem in Iraq is not beating the terrorists. See we go into town after town and oust the insurgents, but the problem is that once we leave they come back. We need to end all attempts at a democratic state there now in order to build one later. This means curfews of 9 AM to 6 PM, enforcable by death, summary executions of all terrorist and insurgent leaders without trials along with their families, forcible seizure of all weapons from private citizens, forcible seizure and closure of all businesses with any ties to insurgent or terrorist organizations, forcible closure of all universities, public, and religious schools who have ties to terrorists and teach radicalism, show trials of any high ranking terror suspect who is caught.

As for the Iraqi army I would further Trotskiite and Stalinist policy, anyone who signs up and then deserts or refuses to fight faces summary execution without trial. All officers who join the Iraqi army will have their family held hostage to ensure good command of the troops. Former Iraqi officers including those of the Republican Guard would be hired on as Tactical Specialists and would be observed by a Government officers who could shoot them if they suspected bad command or treason. Iraqis who retreated in the face of the insurgents would be shot.

Stalinist Terror is the only way that you will ever get Iraq in security. Once people lived in overwhelming fear and awe of the state and lost their will to be insurgents then and only then could you talk about parliamentary democracy. Stalin knew this in 1936-37, and this is why a bloody purge occured after he declared a constitution. We need to do the same thing. We can win this war, but doing so would require Draconian measures that would indeed make all previous crimes committed by us in the long occupation look like a comma. Savage, red hot, and unyielding terror is the only way we can have victory in Iraq. We need to appoint a "democratically elected" strong man in that country who would be willing to carry this out.

For these reasons and so many more, I say we can win in Iraq but the cost would destroy us.

[г]

So basically what you're saying is that you need a new, improved Saddam Hussein

[coastal]

We can win in Iraq, but doing so WILL break us. The simple truth about Iraq is that too win we need more troops. We need to garrison the country with 500-750 K troops, and with Britain considering a withdrawal, we will have to supply this number on our own. Our major problem in Iraq is not beating the terrorists. See we go into town after town and oust the insurgents, but the problem is that once we leave they come back. We need to end all attempts at a democratic state there now in order to build one later. This means curfews of 9 AM to 6 PM, enforcable by death, summary executions of all terrorist and insurgent leaders without trials along with their families, forcible seizure of all weapons from private citizens, forcible seizure and closure of all businesses with any ties to insurgent or terrorist organizations, forcible closure of all universities, public, and religious schools who have ties to terrorists and teach radicalism, show trials of any high ranking terror suspect who is caught.

As for the Iraqi army I would further Trotskiite and Stalinist policy, anyone who signs up and then deserts or refuses to fight faces summary execution without trial. All officers who join the Iraqi army will have their family held hostage to ensure good command of the troops. Former Iraqi officers including those of the Republican Guard would be hired on as Tactical Specialists and would be observed by a Government officers who could shoot them if they suspected bad command or treason. Iraqis who retreated in the face of the insurgents would be shot.

Stalinist Terror is the only way that you will ever get Iraq in security. Once people lived in overwhelming fear and awe of the state and lost their will to be insurgents then and only then could you talk about parliamentary democracy. Stalin knew this in 1936-37, and this is why a bloody purge occured after he declared a constitution. We need to do the same thing. We can win this war, but doing so would require Draconian measures that would indeed make all previous crimes committed by us in the long occupation look like a comma. Savage, red hot, and unyielding terror is the only way we can have victory in Iraq. We need to appoint a "democratically elected" strong man in that country who would be willing to carry this out.

For these reasons and so many more, I say we can win in Iraq but the cost would destroy us.

try jerking off in the morning instead.

you'll feel better.

[Gibby]

So basically what you're saying is that you need a new, improved Saddam Hussein

Essentially because of the stupidity involved in trying to build this utopian Iraq by force and foreign occupation and because we are trying democracy from above yes

try jerking off in the morning instead.

you'll feel better.

Coastal, you are missing my point. I am not advocating tyranny or dictatorship and nor do I appreciate your capricious attack. My point is, dear Coastal, that we can win but to do so we would have to sell our national soul, image, values, respect, and dignity to do so. I am of the view that it is not possible to win this war because doing so would destroy us and everything that we are about.

Now, that being said, we could have won this war if we had followed either one of the following scenarios.

1) Instead of putting troops on the ground we provide weapons, CIA and military advisors ( a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand) and provide air support for those who wanted to topple Saddam, and if my memory serves me correctly there were thousands just itching to topple him. There may indeed have been civil war, and doubtless it would be far more bloody than the civil war currently going on but at least we would not be dying in it.

2) We go in like we did, but we do it properly. We debaathize Iraqi society and keep the army there already intact. We don't tell Saddam loyalists that they have no future in the New Iraq. We only try those with blood on their hands - a few thousand at most, and everyone else is reeducated. We keep Baathist administrators and police and military units together to keep the nation running as smoothly as possible until a new generation that is free of Baathism could take over. We do not let the looting that occured in the aftermath of Saddam occur as this was legalized lawlessness (contradiction I know, but it happened) and it created a society without order and once you remove law and order you lose control. IMHO we were winning this war until the day we allowed museums, palaces, houses, and businesses to be looted. Once that shit occured we lost all control. Another mistake that we did was not immediately collecting evidence and then promptly demolishing Saddam's torture prisons. What was even worse is torturing people in them ourselves. Another mistake made was shutting papers down that disagreed with the occupation. I would rather have hundred thousand man protests and demonstrations (as long as they were peaceful) that a seething hatred and violence.

Another thing I would have done is to ink an official surrender document for the Iraqi high command to sign to show their soldiers that this war was over. Many would have seen the jig was up and would have quit resistance, but instead we just kicked out an old regime and established a very deep and very nasty power vacuum.

As of now unless we try and succeed at establishing a Stalinist Police State -which would destroy us and our values- we cannot win. However we can do what is the least evil and hopefully have some sort of lasting peace and stability. The easiest thing to do is chop the nation into three parts. Kurds rule Kurdistan and then you split the remainder of the nation between the Sunni and Shia. You ensure that both get somewhat equal shares of the oil revenues and you ensure both have access to the sea. So theoretically you have Kurdistan in the north. The Shia Republic of Iraq in East, and the Sunni Republic of Iraq in the West. Then what you do is support the Sunni because Iran will have immense power once you give the Shia independence and the Sunni will serve as a counterbalance. This is not victory, but nor is it defeat.

As for trying to establish a democracy, well you have to prepare yourself for the possibility that democracy might be what is occuring now. The Iraqis are voting with their feet and their guns and want us gone. We have to realize this. We also need to realize the idiocy that is trying to establish democracy from above. Democracy and republics by their nature must come from the people and not the state.

[rob on the job]

Define "win."

[Gibby]

Define "win."

the antonym of lose. :D

[mark3274]

Iran already runs Iraq nice job rummy......

In other words we have already lost in iraq.

[micknaboz]

You cant win an occupation.

We did'nt learn anything from Russia's incursion into Afghanistan in the '80's .

Or Englands incursion into America in the 1700's.

This may not only end up bankrupting our country, but this stupid WOT may also result in the end of our democracy. I think it already has. Not the bamkrupting part yet.

The writing is on the wall.

[Gibby]

Iran already runs Iraq nice job rummy......

In other words we have already lost in iraq.

sad but true.

[Gibby]

You cant win an occupation.

We did'nt learn anything from Russia's incursion into Afghanistan in the '80's .

Or Englands incursion into America in the 1700's.

This may not only end up bankrupting our country, but this stupid WOT may also result in the end of our democracy. I think it already has. Not the bamkrupting part yet.

The writing is on the wall.

good posting as usual. Except I wouldn't have England on this list as we were a colony since 1609 and so I would replace incursion with the end of benign neglect.

[mark3274]

A article just for upstart....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204.html

no fear uppy we will win..... LOL NOT!!! we are losing and even the troops know we are.

A entire region run by terrorists brillant just brillant work by rumsfield.

so the question becomes are the troops in iraq losing their life for nothing? because at the end of the day we will not be in Iraq , Iraq will be run by Iran or worse and it will be a dictatorship that hates america far far worse than the one we just got rid of did.

stay the course it's working............ LOL
how are those iraqi death squad police doing by the way? you know the ones US troops trained??????????????

[Bellowing4DaBills]

Ah, I think its a definite "no" on the Iraqi democracy vision thing.

Really, just a matter time before the US and Brits call it quits and the Iraqis will have their full scale civil war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410163&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Government stunned by Army chief's Iraq blast
Last updated at 15:17pm on 13th October 2006


Call to arms: General Sir Richard Dannatt

A blistering assessment of British policy in Iraq from the country's top soldier left Tony Blair reeling today.

General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should come home within two years - flatly contradicting the Prime Minister's policy that the military will stay "as long as it takes".

In unprecedented comments he warned that the Army could 'break' if British soldiers are kept too long in Iraq...

He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."

[shiva2999]

Losers.

[uppy]

A article just for upstart....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204.html

no fear uppy we will win..... LOL NOT!!! we are losing and even the troops know we are.

A entire region run by terrorists brillant just brillant work by rumsfield.

so the question becomes are the troops in iraq losing their life for nothing? because at the end of the day we will not be in Iraq , Iraq will be run by Iran or worse and it will be a dictatorship that hates america far far worse than the one we just got rid of did.

stay the course it's working............ LOL
how are those iraqi death squad police doing by the way? you know the ones US troops trained??????????????


We are winning, Iraq has been liberated a new goverment is in place and
its police force and military are starting to work and thay are weeding out
the bad appales.

The fight we now see in Iraq, IMO, is mainly Iranian special forces.

If we change the rules of engagement we can beat this back in weeks.IMO

[micknaboz]

We are winning, Iraq has been liberated a new goverment is in place and
its police force and military are starting to work and thay are weeding out
the bad appales.

The fight we now see in Iraq, IMO, is mainly Iranian special forces.

If we change the rules of engagement we can beat this back in weeks.IMO

Dude, what are you smoking man? Dont you watch, read the news?
We're in the middle of a civil war there, everyone has pretty much already admitted that. Add a little al qaeda , a little insurgency, a little support from Iran, you got one giant neocon cluster ****.

We dont control most of the country.

The forces the Iraquis are putting up are mostly local militias and going off and fighting in their own civil war, or worse.

****************FUBAR ******************

The only way we could even hope of getting a grip on it would be to institute a draft and commit another 100,000 troops. Plus whatever Britain has there, cuz they gonna be bailing that gig soon also. Then we'll be the coaliton of the stupid.

[uppy]

Dude, what are you smoking man? Dont you watch, read the news?
We're in the middle of a civil war there, everyone has pretty much already admitted that. Add a little al qaeda , a little insurgency, a little support from Iran, you got one giant neocon cluster ****.

We dont control most of the country.

The forces the Iraquis are putting up are mostly local militias and going off and fighting in their own civil war, or worse.

****************FUBAR ******************

The only way we could even hope of getting a grip on it would be to institute a draft and commit another 100,000 troops. Plus whatever Britain has there, cuz they gonna be bailing that gig soon also. Then we'll be the coaliton of the stupid.

No,if we change the rules of engagement the "insurgency" could
be in its last gasp in weeks.

You state, we don't control most of the country....and need a draft so we

can commit 100,000 more troops.

LMAO

Tell me Mick,what parts of Iraq do we not control ?

Are you saying someone in Iraq can tell the US forces..that we control

this town and their is nothing you can do about it ?

Saddam said that about all of Iraq....and it dident work out for him.

life is good

[ckg68]

I seem to recall Cheney making such statements about it being in "the last throes of the insurgency" a few years ago.

Gee,that's gotta be one LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG-ass insurgency.

[г]

'Change the rules of engagement' = kill all the brown people

[uppy]

d3, it means kill terrorists.

[JLB]

You say hello and I say goodbye!!!

[Sledgecammer]

If the U.S government has decided that it cannot acheive what it wants to in Iraq, then it is imperative that they come up with some sort of plan to deal with the inevitable expansion of Iranian power in the middle east if they withdraw. Iraq will, without a doubt, become a vassal state of Iran and Mahmoud Amadinijad will become the de facto ruler of that country, as well as Syria, and Lebanon. You have a new cold war emerging here, where Iran will be the principal enemy instead of Russia.. Fortunately, the U.S government has lots of experience to draw on in that sort of conflict..

[JLB]

If the U.S government has decided that it cannot acheive what it wants to in Iraq, then it is imperative that they come up with some sort of plan to deal with the inevitable expansion of Iranian power in the middle east if they withdraw. Iraq will, without a doubt, become a vassal state of Iran and Mahmoud Amadinijad will become the de facto ruler of that country, as well as Syria, and Lebanon. You have a new cold war emerging here, where Iran will be the principal enemy instead of Russia.. Fortunately, the U.S government has lots of experience to draw on in that sort of conflict..

Great Post!!!!! Well developed nice job.
I expect no less from a 25 year fan of the BILLS!!!

[deconstruction]

Considering the manner in which they are prosecuting the war, no, we cannot.

[JLB]

Considering the manner in which they are prosecuting the war, no, we cannot.

Do you agree with what Sledgecammer has said?

[deconstruction]

Not really. Iran doesn't have the GDP to engage in some sort of cold war, nor does it have the international savvy. While nature does abhore a vacume, I think that Iran is probably already a major player in Iraq. I don't think we have an exit strategy, most likely because the Neocons don't want to leave. They believe in American Empire.

[Sledgecammer]

Not really. Iran doesn't have the GDP to engage in some sort of cold war, nor does it have the international savvy. While nature does abhore a vacume, I think that Iran is probably already a major player in Iraq. I don't think we have an exit strategy, most likely because the Neocons don't want to leave. They believe in American Empire.






Your point about Iran's GDP is well taken, but we need to look ahead a bit.. If we leave the field to Iran it stands to reason that they will exercise their power in many ways, and taking a cut of Iraq's oil revenues would only be one of them. The massive sums of money they have already earned from their own oil vis a vis rising oil prices have already allowed them to finance extensive terror operations by proxy (Hezbollah) against Israel.

As far as "international savvy", I am not altogether sure what you mean by that, but if Iran is successful in building a bomb, they will certainly have the respect of the international community whether same wants to respect them or not. Just look at the concern the North Koreans have generated with one test of a bomb that might not even have worked.

Prior to the U.S invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, monster though he was, represented a counter-weight to the Iranians.. For a lot of years this allowed for a tenuous but effective balance of power in the middle east. However, since Hussein won't be running the Iraqi government anymore, that balance of power is gone. When the American troops leave, the field will be open to the Iranians and they will be the dominant force in the region.

This will have huge implications for the world economy and the security of everyone else in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, its odds on that war will follow, because Israel won't accept this. Secondly, other countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait etc will not feel safe until they have their own deterrent against the Iranian bomb.. Non-proliferation will be dead..

What is to be done about all this? For starters, how about a meaningful committment to alternative fuels? Why is America financing evil dictators who hate it and want to kill its citizens? If the United States can finally curb its oil habit, this will go a very long way to reducing the damage a country like Iran can do. The money it needs to finance terror operations against the U.S will dry up.
That isn't the only solution, but its a start..

[Sledgecammer]

Great Post!!!!! Well developed nice job.
I expect no less from a 25 year fan of the BILLS!!!







Many thanks, Jib - I appreciate the compliment - GO BILLS !!