Iraq - 2007 and

We either fight this war like we mean to win it, by any means necessary, or get out. We have played long enough, lost 3,000 GIs, thousands more woulded, maybe never to be the person, physically or mentally that they were. I know that war is awful & that people die & get hurt, but to allow it to go on using spit balls to kill the emeny is more than awful, it's barbarisim towards our own military. After the answer that Bush gave today about the winning-not winning situation, a pox on him. he is the C-n-C, if he doesn't have the grit to have this war fought & done with, then I hope he is impeached!!! If the Iraqis won't stand & fight for themselves, to hell with them too.

Sorry, realjohnboy-welcome to a2k, sit for a spell & I hope you brought your armor with you.

Hi rjb, Good to see you're starting a thread on a topic that's top-most in many of our minds. Where do we go from here?

A surge in troops by 30,000 is not the answer, because that only delays the inevitable final decision to be made after more of our soldiers get exposed and killed. This option only stretches our troops thinner exposing them to danger for longer periods. It's not a good option.

The only solution is to give the Malaki government a time frame by which we will begin to remove our troops within a short period of time - say six (6) months from now we will begin to withdraw our troops - and do it.

Announce this to the world, and follow it to the letter even if violence escalates.

Beginning in 2007, reconstitute conscription for all 18 year olds to build up our military to really fight terrorism around the world - if that is our goal. We can't do it with the current staffing levels. If fighting terrorism is indeed our most important goal and purpose, show it with actions - not words. We need to cooperate with the world community to win our war on terrorism. It's not a sole-US responsibility.

Hi, LoneStar. Yes, I did bring my armor, knowing full well where this thread may go. I reitereate that I hope that we will be discussing where we will be going from here at the end of 2006.
Full disclosure: I wrote, on the night this Iraq thing started 3 plus years ago, that this was a mistake. We were heading into a quagmire.
But now it is 2007. What the hell should we do?
I don't know. As a combat vet from Vietnam, I am terrified at the concept of things going on the way they are. -rjb-

After today, I'm pretty sure that you observations are, sadly, right. I wasn't in favor of this war, but remembering Vietnam (my husband is also a V-Vet) & how this country treated the VV, I have said very little negative about this war. I couldn't/can't stand the thoughts of seeing another round of returning GIs treated like the enemy, worse than. However, now I just want it finished, one way or the other. I voted for Bush twice, & have never been more disappointed in a president, especially one that i expected to be what he said he was.

LoneStar, come on now be honest. You think we should blow the damned place to kingdom come.

By sending more troops we are simply throwing more fuel on the fire. That's more of our soldiers that will be killed. I know a couple of parents who have sent their kids of to Iraq. The parents are scared. It ain't pretty.

Yes, or something near that. We're not going to get out of there using pop guns & spit balls, not intact anyway. We've seen this stuff before & we've also seen what overpowering strength can do. A lot of people die in that situation, but how many hundreds of thousands of lives did Truman say was saved by droppin the bomb?

Just a few planes armed would do the trick.

To me 'the way forward' is moot until the symbiotic debacle of a relationship between Maliki and Sadr comes to a halt....which is completely out of our hands.

I would not send one more troop..in fact I'd tell Maliki we will pull up the anchor and leave pronto as long as he is enabling Sadr to be the instigator of most of the violence these days.

If what would be the stupid decision is made to send more....the chaos had better come to an end in 3 to 6 months or it's going to be evident to all that failure is the only option as far as stated objectives.

The last gasp it would be IMO.

I am very dis-heartened by the most recent reports out of Iraq with the violence reaching new heights on a daily basis and the continuing loss of American lives. It's difficult to conceive, now that we look back at it, a more sophomoric idea than the one proposed and pursued by this administration: that it would be beneficial to the peace and stability of the Middle East if we toppled the dictator's ruling government in Iraq and inserted a democracy in it's place.

But here we are.

There's lots of talk about the way forward and there was more it today at the President's new conference. NOW, he wants to get more input before he announces what the method of getting to the way forward will be. I am not the only one wishing he had thought that way six years ago when he decided on Sept 12, 2001 that Iraq must have had something to do with the Al Queda attacks on the US.

But enough of looking back, let's look forward to the end of 2007 in Iraq.
Here's what I see happening:

Tribal politics being the reality of Iraq, meaning the average Iraqi doesn't care who wins so long as his tribe doesn't lose power, a combination of strong leaders including Muqtada al-Sadr, if we don't kill him, and Sistani and one or two more will be leading a fractured country.

There will be unsuccessful attempts to partition the country officially but only the Kurds support the idea, most other people just move to wherever they feel safer. There is no really safe place in Iraq, just a place you feel safer.

We will still have over 100,000 troops in Iraq almost all of them in Bagdad. We will still only have less then twenty fluent Iraqi interpreters in the Green Zone.

5,000 or more American GI's will be dead.
Saddam will be alive.
Osama bin Laden will not have been heard from since mid-year.
No one will be certain what that means.

The Head of the House Intelligence Committee will have finally know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. George Bush will not.

===
Meanwhile, FEMA will announce that they are hoping to have the last of the Katrina victims, all 160,000 of them, out of the trailers by year's end.

A summary of the changes in US policy over the past year includes this note:

The number of recommendations offered by the Iraq Study Group that were actually implemented is equal to the Celsius freezing temperature of water.

Joe(oh, and they still haven't talked to Iran directly)Nation

Perhaps Johnboy may have hit a nerve here. But we have to keep the topic aimed forward. 2007.

how about, since Iraq is already pretty much destroyed and f*cked anyway, we round up EVERYONE, whether they're from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, London, Texas, Minnesota, who supports war and murder and drop them all off there, and then destroy them all with their own beloved nukes in one day.

I don't have a clue what will happen tomorrow with this war, never mind 2007. My wish for what will happen is that it's over tomorrow & they'll be back home by 2007.
Only two ways I can see that happening, cut & run, then we deserve the tag we were stuck with after Vietnam & Somalia, or just send in air power like we did in the Balkins & finish it.

Don't forget Durham & Nifong, Raleigh too.

sure. absolutely. we have mouth breathers here just like your home town. they can go.

Iran and Syria could play a role if the us would let them. For some reason Bush and co are afraid of these regimes.

What role could Syria & Iran play?