THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Yeah, isn't it interesting that the pro-Iraq war-mongers are the ones that continue to support the idea that we need to stay until the Iraqis are able to stabilize their country by themselves. They can't see the simple truth, that sectarian and terrorist activities are increasing with that rhetoric.

Leave Iraq to its own devices. How hard is that to understand?

And I'm not interested in your doomsday predictions as to what will happen if we do that, because your the predictions of those who supported this war have been almost completely wrong; therefore, there is no good reason to believe you.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Leave Iraq to its own devices. How hard is that to understand?

And I'm not interested in your doomsday predictions as to what will happen if we do that, because your the predictions of those who supported this war have been almost completely wrong; therefore, there is no good reason to believe you.

Cycloptichorn

That's easy to understand.

It's also easy to understand that you want to lack comprehension of what are the probable "devices" to which the Iraqis might evolve if we leave prematurely.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Leave Iraq to its own devices. How hard is that to understand?

And I'm not interested in your doomsday predictions as to what will happen if we do that, because your the predictions of those who supported this war have been almost completely wrong; therefore, there is no good reason to believe you.

Cycloptichorn

That's easy to understand.

It's also easy to understand that you want to lack comprehension of what are the probable "devices" to which the Iraqis might evolve if we leave prematurely.

So, what are the "probable 'devices' to which the Iraqis might evolve if we leave prematurely"?

InfraBlue wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Leave Iraq to its own devices. How hard is that to understand?

And I'm not interested in your doomsday predictions as to what will happen if we do that, because your the predictions of those who supported this war have been almost completely wrong; therefore, there is no good reason to believe you.

Cycloptichorn

That's easy to understand.

It's also easy to understand that you want to lack comprehension of what are the probable "devices" to which the Iraqis might evolve if we leave prematurely.

So, what are the "probable 'devices' to which the Iraqis might evolve if we leave prematurely"?

Let me take a shot at answering this.

As I see it,several things can happen,and in no particular order they are...

1. Iraq can split into 3 different countries,with the Kurds controlling one,and the Shiites and Sunni's controlling the other two.
This would not be a good thing,because the Turks,who are having trouble with the Kurds in their own country,would then invade and take over the Kurds in Iraq.
Also,the Iranians would most likely invade the other 2 areas,and Iraq would cease to exist as a country.
It would also put the Iranians that much closer to Israel,which would also be a major problem.

2.A major civil war,one that makes our civil war look like a weekend party.
The violence and bloodshed would spread into Iran and Saudi Arabia,putting the entire region into severe risk.

3.Another dictator,like SAddam Hussein,would come topower,and would then kill everybody that worked for Iraqi freedom and democracy.

4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.

US plans last big push in Iraq

Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

Simon Tisdall
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian

A farewell ceremony for US troops deployed to Iraq. Instead of a troop withdrawal next year, Bush is thinking of increasing the numbers. Photograph: Peter Turnley/Corbis

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

"The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Externally, US policy is focused on what is achievable. Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try."

Yesterday, a top state department official, David Satterfield, said America was prepared in principle to discuss with Iran its activities in Iraq.

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

To the certain dismay of US neo-cons, initial post-invasion ideas about imposing fully-fledged western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system, as advocated by Democratic senator Joe Biden and others would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.

"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry] Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq. Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall."

The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Mr Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House.

The official added: "Bush has said 'no' to withdrawal, so what else do you have? The Baker report will be a set of ideas, more realistic than in the past, that can be used as political tools. What they're going to say is: lower the goals, forget about the democracy crap, put more resources in, do it."

Addressing Congress yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, warned against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing US and Iraqi forces. Gen Abizaid spoke as the Senate armed services committee began re-examining US policy after last week's Democratic election victory. But Gen Abizaid argued against extra troops, saying US divisional commanders believed more pressure needed to be put on the Iraqi army to do its part.

Four-point strategy

· Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

· Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

· Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

· Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces

4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.

4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.

MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:

Quote:

4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.

And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

MM Wrote, and Ican emphasized:

Quote:

4.The terrorists and Insurgents would win,thereby having a huge base to conduct operations from,and they would attack Europe,Israel,the United STates,and any other country that doesnt follow their version of Islam.

And yet, both of you have been wrong about nearly everything about this war (maybe MM less so than Ican because he doesn't spend as much time talking about it). So you need to give some good reasons why this would happen, other than just assert it; because the assertions of war supporters have a very poor track record over the last three years, whereas those of us who have been against it have been completely validated in our views.

Cycloptichorn

CYC
I would be interested to hear your thoughts regarding what the outcome of an insurgent win would be.