With all of the debates and arguements that have surfaced recently regarding the War in Iraq, I think that it is safe to say that no matter if you are for the war, or against the war, we all agree that we want our Troops home as soon as possible. So I thought that maybe some would share their thoughts on what what kind of plan they would come up, if they were in charge, to get our troops out of Iraq.


And let's refrain form the "your plan is stupid and your plan is dumb" type of replies.


Don Cardi

DC I hope you don't mind me going off topic a little but I was wondering why it is taking so long to train the Iraqi Army or the security forces? I don't get it. Our military's bootcamp is what 8 weeks then they go to a school for a few more weeks then they are sent to the fleet or the frontlinesor to their first command. Sorry to hijack your thread.

You're not hijacking the thread Mig. Your question about why it is taking so long to train the Iraqis to defend their country themsleves falls well within the plan of a possible exit strategy.

Is that what you think it is going to take for us to get out of there? Do you think that we first need to train the Iraqis to a point where they will no longer need our military to defend them? And of so, at what point do we decided that?


Don Cardi

I would think that would be a step for us to get out of there but why is it taking so long to train them? Do they not have enough people enlisting in the army or what? I don't watch the news all that often so what exactly is the Iraqi Army doing for themselves?

We only have the official number for the deaths of US and allied forces. The government has not released any numbers for iraqi deaths, but http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ keeps a stat for it. If you take either the US or Iraqi casualty stat, the number has not reduced at all for the last few months. In fact, sometimes there have been sharp increases. This can be (arguably) interpreted that the war is not coming to an end as it should have been. Also insurgency has definitely increased. And I don't see what new thing that the allies are going to do to improve the situation. They should just admit it was a costly goof and return immedietely to minimize further damage there.

But then it would look like "the mighty Islamic heros have overwon the brutal Western agressor", in the eyes of many Arabs. And that would only largen the polarisation that exists today.

Enzo, was your reply regarding my post? If so, I agree with you that by immediete withdrawal of troops, some wrong message will be interpreted and publicized. I don't think there will be more polarization though. But if I were to choose between looking ridiculous and avoiding unnecessary sacrifice of a thousand more soldiers' lives, I would choose the former. Even if the troops return after two years, it is going to look ridiculous because you cannot defeat those directionless guys who think they have found a purpose for their otherwise meaningless lives. They are not being paid to fight. They are not fighting for virgins in heaven, I am sure they can buy them on earth. It is a different culture and US does not realize that. Do you ever succeed in pest control? NO. This is the same case. Two years down the line, not a single improvement would have taken place, but a penty of soldiers would have died for no reason. You know that will be a big tragedy. Once you do some major goof, there are no guarantees of a safe way out or face saving recovery. You simply learn from the past mistakes and not repeat them.

So SVSG, is your strategy to just cut and run right now?


Don Cardi

As far as fighting the war goes, Yes just return immedietely. I think that is my answer for your original question of exiting iraq. Will people blame US still? You bet they will. That is a price it has to pay for making a wrong decision. But bad name is better than bad name PLUS a few thousand deaths.
Where does this leave the iraqis? They will be in chaos and political flux for many more years. That is the way revolutions take place. Peace does not come overnight. Meanwhile US can use its power, clout and money to influence other nations to support it and by economic means penalize the nations supporting terrorism. Only a rich country (with a large population of consumers) like US can negotiate on economic basis. That is worthwhile trying.

I don't think any of us can begin to understand the cultural, religious, political and social differences within Iraq and US-Iraq relationships and there in lies the bungle of this debacle.

To unite the country of Iraq is a virtual impossibility. They are destined to either have civil war or a dictatorship. We have to help them establish some kind of functional government that will represent a majority of the people no matter how small that majority is, then withdraw as quickly as possible.

The US did accomplish two of it's major goals. Find the WMD (oops there weren't any) and depose Saddam. Now put a big band aid on the rest and scoot.

Now if OIL was a major reason we are there, then that's a whole different story. But no one in the government has admitted that, have they?

I agree MaryCas. My feeling is that we need to help them establish a functional government ( as you said) and train their police department and their military, as we are trying to do now. Once their government is in place, and enough Iraqi military troops are trained, then it will be time to tell them that we've stood by their side, helped them establish a government and a military, and now it's time to say goodbye.

But they too must show us a sincerity in wanting to run their own country, their own government, and their own military. As long as they are sincere about that, then I think that we owe it to them to stay with them until those goals are established. But by the same token, if they are not sincere in achieving these goals, and show no interest in progressing in what we are training them for, then there has to come a point where we must realize this and tell them sorry, but we tried and you didn't. Cya.


Don Cardi

I like the Libertarian Party\'s strategy .

There is really only one reasonable option here.

To simply pull out tomorrow with the country still basically destabilized and in the disarray that we are at best partially responsible for, and at worst entirely responsible for, would be tremendously unfair to the Iraqis.

Say what you will about whether or not the invasion was right or wrong in the first place, the fact is that we did it, and even if it was wrong, the old saying applies here:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The only reasonable exit strategy, it seems to me, is to wait until a seemingly viable government is established, train the Iraqi military and other security forces to the point where it is seemingly able to defend that government against the insurgency, and then, come what may, get the hell out of there.

Unfortunately, however, questions will remain as to when exactly the two conditions mentioned above are met.

And, again unfortunately, I believe (as I have stated here many times in the past), that the "come what may" will eventually translate into a civil war in which the religious fanatics, terorists, or insurgents - call them whatever you want to and identify them as whoever you want to; it really makes no difference for the sake of this particular discussion - will be victorious.

Train them, like, say, we trained Osama and his pilots-to-be a few years back?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Bring on those smilies, smileymongers!

But I'm not all fish and bones; there is batter to be had too. I personally think we should pull out tomorrow. Fuck it; let's pull out today. Irresponsible? Certainly! Unfair? Most definitely. But waiting around can get tiresome, and it would be no more irresponsible than invading the country in the first place. Or perhaps it is. Perhaps (probably, in fact) Plaw is right (though still strictly Left), and we should wait around until somebody with a brain and balls (metaphorical; I am in no way sexist) pops up and takes responsibility to take over Iraq.

But to come full circle to my initial, for fun, warning, now a serious one: let's not train them too hard. We all know where that can lead...

Mick

I agree that the invasion was irresonsible in the first place, but the deed is done.

A second act of irresponsibility only makes it worse.

I agree with Mary Cas that none of us in the US understand just how different the cultural/religious/political views are than the US. We probably never will.

I understand that "we" started this mess and it would seem reasonable that we "clean it up." I, however, am not willing to have people killed indefinitely, in a war that seems to have no end. If I saw any end in sight it would be encouraging. Rebuilding is one thing, but how many more years/deaths will it take before we can even begin that process?

I don't have the answers, but if there was a vote, I'd vote for leaving, admitting it was a mistake, and learning from our mistakes. I don't see that happening however until the next Administration (hopefully).

I know it's hard to trust any media these days, in view of slanted/planted stories, but here's an interesting article below showing what Iraqs think of this war.

TIS
Poll

My two-cents:

I feel that Iraq is a much more dangerous place now that we have invaded it, than it was before we invaded. Iraq was in a bad way when it was under Saddam's reign, but he's gone now. We removed him from power. I agree with MaryCas, we went in and did what was (initally) our goal: Find the WMDs (which we didn't find, but at least we know now, right? :rolleyes: ), and two: remove Saddam from power.

If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong), up until we invaded Iraq, there were no American casualties to be heard of under the reign of Saddam Hussein? And, now, that we have invaded Iraq, we're losing about one troop a day. Maybe its just me, but I truly believe that Iraq is a much more dangerous place now that we're there. I believe our occupation of their country is helping harbor terrorists. Yes, we're helping the Iraqi people, but we're also pissing a lot of people off in the process. What next? We finally end up leaving, and a couple years down the road, something else happens. Then we go, blow the shit out of their country, apologize, and re-build it.

I say we pull out now, and deal with the consequences. What's the worse that can happen to the United States? (that's a rhetorical question).

We can't pull out now. We'd be leaving a Country in shambles. In essence, we have to clean up the messes we start, right?

"The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."
- Georg Hegel.

The way I see it we have very few options to end this war:

1. Pull out now and leave the country in shambles.

2. We obviously aren't winning at this point, and it would appear we need more troops, which would require a draft(which I oppose), at least long enough to train troops. Mig had a point asking why it's taking so long to train Iraq troops, when our basic training, I believe is 6 weeks. I assume perhaps the language barrier may be a factor with a shortage of translators maybe??

3. Stay there whether it takes 2 more years or 50 or more, and continue trying to tread water with minimum troops. Whether they're terrorists or insurgents, they still need to be contended with.

4. The option I'd at least "try" if it were up to me (although admittedly, with our shot reputation, it's not very optimistic, but with the right leader could be worth a shot): Start eating some crow and admit we were wrong, and ask other nations in a "non" superior "holier than thou" manner to assist us to at least train troops, and then get out. If that were possible, at the very least we would see some kind of end in sight.

Let me ask the war supporters, is time of no significance to you as far as the length of this war? Is 5 yrs enough? 20? How about 50? 100? Does it make no difference how many deaths of both US and Iraqs troops, as long as we don't admit our mistakes? Also, can we win? What if it's an unwinnable war. Does that make any difference?

TIS

Yes, The only reasonable exit strategy.

The problem is that it is an enormous job. In fact almost impossible to put in place I feel.
Iraqi was a shit hole before we got there. So you are starting from the very bottom of the septic tank. It is tuff to build a foundation in such a place.
The old saying is so true: "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

I thank God that most of our fore fathers didn't think this way. They left their homes and farms in what seems a lot harder times to do what they thought was right to fight the English. Was our Democratic system put in place in a few short years?

Our grandparents left 4-5 years to fight in World War two. Maybe we should have left Europe take care of their own mess. I am sure many thought the same way TIS as they had their loved ones gone for so long. Many women had to raise their familles without their husbands for a very long time. Some sitting in prisoner of war camps, some never coming home at all. I bet they didn't see any end in sight as the years ticked by. In fact fighting in two fronts at the same time.
How do you think the Jews of Europe would have felt if they heard Americans talking about cutting and running in World War two?

It seems like the last few times we have gotten involved in a conflict it only takes a short time before Americans want to cut and run. Easy when the fighting is over there and doesn't effect most people daily lives here. Things never seem to be worth a person life it doesn't effect them directly.

Was any of the last few conflicts worth the trouble. Is that how to beat the super power? Chip away in a hide and seek conflict until the people get tired and want to go home. After all, isn't that how we tore into the English.

TIS, I am not bitching about what you are saying, just pointing out some points about our past.

How about we wait until the Iraqi elections which are comng up, tell the new government that security is now their problem, leave some non-combatant military "advisors" there, and then get the hell out?

----------

FS....How can you compare the American Revolution or WW II to this mess?

The Revolution was fought for this country's freedom. We joined WW II after being directly attacked by another country.

I don't know about the Revolution - I suppose that there were some or many who preferred that we remain a British colony - but I don't think there were any Americans (with the possible exception of a few screwballs) who didn't think we belonged in WW II.

Entering WW II had little to do with helping our European allies. Sure, we were helping them with supplies through the lend-lease program, but no troops were involved until we were directly attacked by Japan.

Once we were involved, we had to fight in Europe because the Germans were Japan's ally.

Nobody wanted to "cut and run" until we won.

You asked "Were any of (our) last few conflicts worth the trouble?"

Well, the last one, Viet Nam, certainly wasn't.

FS,

Thanks for the non-sarcastic reply. I didn't take it as "bitching" at all. :p

However

This war is like no other IMHO, and for many of the reasons PLaw mentioned I don't think it is on the same "level" so to speak.

I agree that we Americans are "impatient" as you say, and I know many don't like to hear this, but I do believe had we attacked Afghanistan and sought Bin Laden,(instead of Iraq) patience, not to mention understanding wouldn't be wearing so thin, not only in America, but also with other countries. This would have "justified" the war and I like to think, would have given us more support from other countries that we don't have now. Let's face it, we can surely use the help.

I keep reading that these upcoming elections need to go well in order for things to progress, yet I'm still not certain what exactly that means.

TIS

Holy doodyballs. I agree with this FS.

Americans (today) simply don't have the heart for a fight. Times and circumstances have changed since WWII. The enemy is different. It is NOT a foreign country (or government). It is NOT as well defined or recognizable. The way of fighting the enemy has changed (we're not able to simply bomb the shit out of an entire country). Without seeing immediate results the average American tires of the fighting and starts bitching about ending it. This is the time when you either have to be patient and support your government's decisions OR vote them out of office. Neither of those choices happened.

I disagree.

There's no reason to think that we don't have the heart for a fight that can be justifed.

I don't reacall hearing any complaining when we invaded Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden and ferret out the Al Qaeda strongholds.

It seems that at present, though, in the minds of a good many Americans, this fight can't be justified.

And just because the present administration wasn't voted out of office, that doesn't mean that the 47% (or whatever it was) of the voters who tried now should support those decisions of our government that we disagree with.

I think the comparison's between the American Revolution, WWII, and the Iraq War aren't that far off base, but not necessarily in the way the FS suggested. We were attacked prior to this war on 9/11. Unlike Pearl Harbor, we weren't directly attacked by a specific country we could simply retaliate against with military procedures. We can't attack Afghanistan because it wasn't their government that attacked us, but rather an organization supposedly within their borders. We went in to find Bin Laden, but look what good it did us. Much like the British troops during the Revolution, we know we have the superior military forces, so we responded by trying to fight a typical military war against a non-typical enemy. Since we couldn't specifically target the people that carried out the attacks, we invaded a country whom we believed supported our attackers. Like it or not, the world is changing. Just as the British couldn't just dress up in their nice red coats and march in the open field to vanguish their foes, we can't just line up our allies and patrol the world with our battleships and tanks like we could 60 years ago.

The colonists used sneak attacks to defeat the British, just like the terrorists are using sneak attacks to attempt to defeat us. (The major difference is the colonist never killed innocent civilians, of course.) The British never adjusted and lost the war. The US needs to learn from Great Britian's mistake. We need to concentrate our effort on developing effective ways to counter terrorism. I think we need to stay in Iraq to set up a stable government that won't be overthrown by terrorists. (Although, history tells it will be regardless of what we do.) If we don't leave soon, however, I think, while eliminating terrorist threats in Iraq, we will be increasing terrorist threats elsewhere in the world as a result of our meddling in parts of the world where we don't belong. I'm not saying we don't belong there now, I'm saying we won't belong there once Iraq has a government in place. Each month that passes in which we are still present in Saddam-less Iraq, will make more and more countries think of us in the same way as Al Qaeda.

Once you are in a conflict, you are in. You have partners who you take sides with, such as the South Vietnam people in that war and the South Korean people in that war.

We cut and ran and left both high and dry after our own people didn't feel things were worth it.

OK, so we got stuck in this cesspool in Afghanistan and also Iraq, for what ever the reason. Lets do the same thing.
Stick it to them like we did before to our other partners. After all we are doing a great job making it the norm.

After all we only commit the "whole" way to ourselves. For this country. Hell, it is better to fight in their countries and tear everything apart there then have to do that it over here anyway. It sure makes it a lot easier to take off and go home, now doesn't it. You don't have to look at them face to face that way.

I am sure we told many in these countries to help us get the job done. So they could live in a better world like our people wanted from the English.

Oh my, we made a mistake coming to your countries, Tuff luck suckers. Looks like the American Bullies have screwed up again. And you wonder why the rest of the world thinks this way?

Yes, not one more American life is worth the price to give another person/country the same things that we have here?

Like I said thank God Our fore fathers thought it was worth the price. Oh, and lets not just blame Bush here, it seem if you look a little closer here you notice that this crap has been going on for the last forty years or so.

What I am talking about is the attitude once in the conflicts. How we got there is a whole different thing.

Another thought>
You know I think we really screwed up in starting the Social Security system. It was a mistake from the beginning. It never should have been done. Big mistake. It is old and doesn't meet my needs or other young people needs. Let's drop the whole thing and cancel everything after all. Oh, sorry folks who need the cash, tuff luck if you depended on the US Government to take care of you.

Too bad the people who should see that, don't.

If we don't know shit about the country, then why invade it.

Too bad the people who should see that, don't.

[/b][/quote] I don't follow you Enzo. A statement is made that we are no longer able to simply bomb the shit out of an entire country and you say that it's too bad that the people show should see that don't.

Where and when did we just simply bomb the shit out of Iraq?

Am I misunderstanding your reply?


Don Cardi