9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 07:52 pm
ican :
just wondering if you'd advise the president of pakistan of the intention of invading pakistan .

how many u.s. troops would the u.s. have to mobilize and send to afghanistan and pakistan ? (you might agree that the present u.s. troopstrength is insufficient to handle such a task ?)
how quickly would the u.s be able to deploy the troops ?

how would this be paid for ? through increased taxation ? i understand that americans are not fond of seeing their taxes incresed for any reason - or do think americans are ready to pay-up ?

since little - if any - headway is being achieved in iraq , it would seem to me that a massive build-up of u.s. troops would be required .
can sufficient u.s. troops been sent to the middle-east (afghanistan/pakistan) without conscription ?

i not saying that it is an impossible task - the question is , will americans be willing to sacrifice lives - probably many lives (and money) to defeat an enemy in far away lands ?

just looking at iraq does not make me hopeful that such - much bigger -task can be taken on by the u.s. and be concluded successfully .
hbg

ps. it sounds much like the work that needs to be done to wipe out aids -
there is lots of talk about it , but relatively little action - the aids crisis is still increasing every day . not a happy thought !
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 09:19 pm
Not only are Americans against tax increases, but are loathe to have conscription for military service. Bush keeps telling us we're fighting for our survival in our fight against terrorism, but will not institute the draft. I wonder in what critical situation our government will institute the draft?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 07:38 am
U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies

Quote:
BAGHDAD, June 10 ?- With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.

American officers who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups say many of them have had past links to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militants' extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.

But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans' arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq's army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite. With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.

American field commanders met this month in Baghdad with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, to discuss the conditions Sunni groups would have to meet to win American assistance. Senior officers who attended the meeting said that General Petraeus and the operational commander who is the second-ranking American officer here, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, gave cautious approval to field commanders to negotiate with Sunni groups in their areas.

One commander who attended the meeting said that despite the risks in arming groups that have until now fought against the Americans, the potential gains against Al Qaeda were too great to be missed. He said the strategy held out the prospect of finally driving a wedge between two wings of the Sunni insurgency that had previously worked in a devastating alliance ?- die-hard loyalists of Saddam Hussein's formerly dominant Baath Party, and Islamic militants belonging to a constellation of groups linked to Al Qaeda.

Even if only partly successful, the officer said, the strategy could do as much or more to stabilize Iraq, and to speed American troops on their way home, as the increase in troops ordered by President Bush late last year, which has thrown nearly 30,000 additional American troops into the war but failed so far to fulfill the aim of bringing enhanced stability to Baghdad. An initial decline in sectarian killings in Baghdad in the first two months of the troop buildup has reversed, with growing numbers of bodies showing up each day in the capital. Suicide bombings have dipped in Baghdad but increased elsewhere, as Qaeda groups, confronted with great American troop numbers, have shifted their operations elsewhere.

The strategy of arming Sunni groups was first tested earlier this year in Anbar Province, the desert hinterland west of Baghdad, and attacks on American troops plunged after tribal sheiks, angered by Qaeda strikes that killed large numbers of Sunni civilians, recruited thousands of men to join government security forces and the tribal police. With Qaeda groups quitting the province for Sunni havens elsewhere, Anbar has lost its long-held reputation as the most dangerous place in Iraq for American troops.

Now, the Americans are testing the "Anbar model" across wide areas of Sunni-dominated Iraq. The areas include parts of Baghdad, notably the Sunni stronghold of Amiriya, a district that flanks the highway leading to Baghdad's international airport; the area south of the capital in Babil province known as the Triangle of Death, site of an ambush in which four American soldiers were killed last month and three others abducted, one of whose bodies was found in the Euphrates; Diyala Province north and east of Baghdad, an area of lush palm groves and orchards which has replaced Anbar as Al Qaeda's main sanctuary in Iraq; and Salahuddin Province, also north of Baghdad, the home area of Saddam Hussein.

Although the American engagement with the Sunni groups has brought some early successes against Al Qaeda, particularly in Anbar, many of the problems that hampered earlier American efforts to reach out to insurgents remain unchanged. American commanders say the Sunni groups they are negotiating with show few signs of wanting to work with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. For their part, Shiite leaders are deeply suspicious of any American move to co-opt Sunni groups that are wedded to a return to Sunni political dominance.

With the agreement to arm some Sunni groups, the Americans also appear to have made a tacit recognition that earlier demands for the disarming of Shiite militia groups are politically unachievable for now given the refusal of powerful Shiite political parties to shed their armed wings. In effect, the Americans seem to have concluded that as long as the Shiites maintain their militias, Shiite leaders are in a poor position to protest the arming of Sunni groups whose activities will be under close American scrutiny.

But officials of Mr. Maliki's government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda. Similarly, many American commanders oppose rewarding Sunni Arab groups who have been responsible, even tangentially, for any of the more than 29,000 American casualties in the war, including more than 3,500 deaths. Equally daunting for American commanders is the risk that Sunni groups receiving American backing could effectively double-cross the Americans, taking weapons and turning them against American and Iraq's Shiite-dominated government forces.

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division and leader of an American task force fighting in a wide area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers immediately south of Baghdad, said at a briefing for reporters on Sunday that no American support would be given to any Sunni group that had attacked Americans. If the Americans negotiating with Sunni groups in his area had "specific information" that the group or any of its members had killed Americans, he said, "The negotiation is going to go like this: ?'You're under arrest, and you're going with me.' I'm not going to go out and negotiate with folks who have American blood on their hands."

One of the conditions set by the American commanders who met in Baghdad was that any group receiving weapons must submit its fighters for biometric tests that would include taking fingerprints and retinal scans. The American conditions, senior officers said, also include registering the serial numbers of all weapons, steps the Americans believe will help in tracing fighters who use the weapons in attacks against American or Iraqi troops. The fighters who have received American backing in the Amiriya district of Baghdad were required to undergo the tests, the officers said.

The requirement that no support be given to insurgent groups that have attacked Americans appeared to have been set aside or loosely enforced in negotiations with the Sunni groups elsewhere, including Amiriya, where American units that have supported Sunni groups fighting to oust Al Qaeda have told reporters they believe that the Sunni groups include insurgents who had fought the Americans. The Americans have bolstered Sunni groups in Amiriya by empowering them to detain suspected Qaeda fighters and approving ammunition supplies to Sunni fighters from Iraqi Army units.

In Anbar, there have been negotiations with factions from the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a Sunni insurgent group with strong Baathist links that has a history of attacking Americans. In Diyala, insurgents who have joined the Iraqi Army have told reporters that they switched sides after working for the 1920 group. And in an agreement announced by the American command on Sunday, 130 tribal sheiks in Salahuddin met in the provincial capital, Tikrit, to form police units that would "defend" against Al Qaeda.

General Lynch said American commanders would face hard decisions in choosing which groups to support. "This isn't a black and white place," he said. "There are good guys and bad guys and there are groups in between," and separating them was a major challenge. He said some groups that had approached the Americans had made no secret of their enmity.

"They say, ?'We hate you because you are occupiers' " he said, " ?'but we hate Al Qaeda worse, and we hate the Persians even more.' " Sunni militants refer to Iraq's Shiites as Persians, a reference to the strong links between Iraqi Shiites and the Shiites who predominate in Iran.

An Iraqi government official who was reached by telephone on Sunday said the government was uncomfortable with the American negotiations with the Sunni groups because they offered no guarantee that the militias would be loyal to anyone other than the American commander in their immediate area. "The government's aim is to disarm and demobilize the militias in Iraq," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Mr. Maliki. "And we have enough militias in Iraq that we are struggling now to solve the problem. Why are we creating new ones?"

Despite such views, General Lynch said, the Americans believed that Sunni groups offering to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American and Iraqi forces met a basic condition for re-establishing stability in insurgent-hit areas: they had roots in the areas where they operated, and thus held out the prospect of building security from the ground up. He cited areas in Babil Province where there were "no security forces, zero, zilch," and added: "When you've got people who say, ?'I want to protect my neighbors,' we ought to jump like a duck on a june bug."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 07:42 am
Meanwhile:

Quote:
Factbox - Security developments in Iraq, 10 Jun 2007
June 10 (Reuters) - Following are security developments in Iraq at 1930 GMT on Sunday:

* ISKANDIRIYA - A car bomb exploded on a bridge often used by U.S. forces near al-Iskandiriya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. The U.S. military said there were reports of casualties but no other information was available.

* BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed during combat operations in southern Baghdad and one other was wounded, the U.S. military said.

* TIKRIT - A U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire during combat operations in Diyala province north of Baghdad on Saturday, the U.S. military said. One other soldier was wounded.

* BAQUBA - U.S. attack helicopters killed eight suspected insurgents south of Khanan near Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, on Saturday, the U.S. military said.

TIKRIT - A suicide truck bomb killed 14 policemen and wounded 42 more at a police station near Tikrit, 175 km (110 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi forces killed five insurgents and detained 56 others around the country in the past 24 hours, the Defence Ministry said.

TUZ KHURMATO - A roadside bomb targeting a military patrol killed one soldier and wounded six others in the Tuz Khurmato district, south of the northern city of Kirkuk, police said.

HAWIJA - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol wounded three civilians in Hawija, 70 km (43 miles) southwest of Kirkuk, police said.

BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed the leader of the Shi'ite Dialogue Faction, Jawdet Kadhem al-Obeidi, and wounded his driver in a drive-by shooting in western Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed one civilian and wounded five near a petrol station in the Bayaa district of southwestern Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed one civilian and wounded three others in the Saidiya district in southwestern Baghdad, police said.


source

It seems we are going to give insurgents weapons to kill our troops and other Iraqis.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 08:30 am
Quote:
U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies


that makes sense , doesn't it ?
i recall that the u.s. armed certain afghan rebels to fight the soviet troops - unfortunately they later decided to use those weapons (stinger missiles) against the americans !
yes , it makes a great deal of sense Crying or Very sad !
hbg
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 08:37 am
Ricks of 'Wash Post' Reveals Plans for Long-Term U.S. Force
Ricks of 'Wash Post' Reveals Plans for Long-Term U.S. Force in Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: June 10, 2007

Thomas Ricks, military reporter for The Washington Post and author of the book "Fiasco," reveals in a front-page story today that military commanders have outlined for him long-range plans for the U.S. to stay in Iraq with a force of 40,000 personnel even after a "withdrawal" is finished.

"Such a long-term presence would have four major components," Ricks writes from Baghdad. "The centerpiece would be a reinforced mechanized infantry division of around 20,000 soldiers assigned to guarantee the security of the Iraqi government and to assist Iraqi forces or their U.S. advisers if they get into fights they can't handle.

"Second, a training and advisory force of close to 10,000 troops would work with Iraqi military and police units....In addition, officials envision a small but significant Special Operations unit focused on fighting the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. 'I think you'll retain a very robust counterterror capability in this country for a long, long time,' a Pentagon official in Iraq said.

"Finally, the headquarters and logistical elements to command and supply such a force would total more than 10,000 troops, plus some civilian contractors."

Ricks last year disclosed what the military famously called options of "go big, go home, or go long." Now he returns to this theme. A Pentagon planning group's recommendation to "go long" appears to carry weight in Baghdad, "where some of the colonels who led that planning group have been working for Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq since February," he observes.

He concludes: "Even as they focus on the realities in Iraq, officials here are also keeping an eye on Washington politics. Despite the talk in the U.S. capital that Petraeus has only until September to stabilize the situation in Iraq, some officers here are quietly suggesting that they really may have until Jan. 20, 2009 -- when President Bush leaves office -- to put the smaller, revised force in place. They doubt that Bush will pull the plug on the war or that Congress will ultimately force his hand.

"Such timing matters because, despite some tactical success in making some Baghdad neighborhoods safer, officials here believe the real test of the U.S. troop increase will be its ability to create space over time for political accommodation among rival Iraqi factions. Officers agree that hasn't happened yet -- at least not significantly enough to make a difference in Washington."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 08:50 am
Officers Anticipate Small 'Post-Occupation' Force
Now we know what those permanent bases the U.S. has been building are for---despite Bush denials.---BBB

Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq
Officers Anticipate Small 'Post-Occupation' Force
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 10, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD -- U.S. military officials here are increasingly envisioning a "post-occupation" troop presence in Iraq that neither maintains current levels nor leads to a complete pullout, but aims for a smaller, longer-term force that would remain in the country for years.

This goal, drawn from recent interviews with more than 20 U.S. military officers and other officials here, including senior commanders, strategists and analysts, remains in the early planning stages. It is based on officials' assessment that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009. The questions officials are grappling with are not whether the U.S. presence will be cut, but how quickly, to what level and to what purpose.

One of the guiding principles, according to two officials here, is that the United States should leave Iraq more intelligently than it entered. Military officials, many of whom would be interviewed only on the condition of anonymity, say they are now assessing conditions more realistically, rejecting the "steady progress" mantra of their predecessors and recognizing that short-term political reconciliation in Iraq is unlikely. A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country.

The planning is shaped in part by logistical realities in Iraq. The immediate all-or-nothing debate in Washington over troop levels represents a false dilemma, some military officials said. Even if a total pullout is the goal, it could take a year to execute a full withdrawal. One official estimated that with only one major route from the country -- through southern Iraq to Kuwait -- it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.

"We're not going to go from where we're at now to zero overnight," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the U.S. commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq.

U.S. officials also calculate that underneath the anti-American rhetoric, even Shiite radicals such as cleric Moqtada al-Sadr don't really want to see a total U.S. pullout, especially while they feel threatened by Sunni insurgents. Also, officials think any Iraqi government will prefer to keep a small U.S. combat force to deter foreign intervention.

Such a long-term presence would have four major components. The centerpiece would be a reinforced mechanized infantry division of around 20,000 soldiers assigned to guarantee the security of the Iraqi government and to assist Iraqi forces or their U.S. advisers if they get into fights they can't handle.

Second, a training and advisory force of close to 10,000 troops would work with Iraqi military and police units. "I think it would be very helpful to have a force here for a period of time to continue to help the Iraqis train and continue to build their capabilities," Odierno said.

In addition, officials envision a small but significant Special Operations unit focused on fighting the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq. "I think you'll retain a very robust counterterror capability in this country for a long, long time," a Pentagon official in Iraq said.

Finally, the headquarters and logistical elements to command and supply such a force would total more than 10,000 troops, plus some civilian contractors.

The thinking behind this "post-occupation" force, as one official called it, echoes the core conclusion of a Joint Chiefs of Staff planning group that last fall secretly considered three possible courses in Iraq, which it categorized as "go big," "go home" and "go long." The group's recommendation to reshape the U.S. presence in order to "go long" -- to remain in Iraq for years with a smaller force -- appears to carry weight in Baghdad, where some of the colonels who led that planning group have been working for Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq since February.

Despite the significant differences in the way the war has been discussed in Washington and in Baghdad, this plan is emerging as a point of convergence between the two capitals. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and White House spokesman Tony Snow both recently made comments indicating that the administration is thinking along the same lines as military officials here. Snow has likened the possible long-term mission of U.S. troops in Iraq to the protective role American forces have played in South Korea since the end of the Korean War 54 years ago. And Gates said recently that is he considering a "protracted" U.S. presence in Iraq rather than a complete withdrawal.

This is hardly the first time officials have considered troop reductions. The original U.S. war plan called for the Army to have only 30,000 troops in Iraq by fall 2003; later, top commanders planned for a drawdown in the summer of 2004. Neither option came to pass, as the military found itself engaged in a tougher and longer war in Iraq than it or the Bush administration had expected.

But officials here insist that they are now assessing the situation more soberly. For example, when Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of the 25th Infantry Division, briefed reporters last month, he expressed worries about the performance of Iraqi forces and called the Iraqi government in Diyala province "nonfunctional." He also said candidly that he did not have enough soldiers in Diyala. As one officer here put it, his comments were of the sort that generals in Iraq once discussed in private but avoided stating publicly.

"I think there's a greater appreciation for complexity," said Lt. Col. Brad Brown, a crisis manager for the 1st Cavalry Division, which is overseeing operations in Baghdad.

Officials now dismiss the 2004-06 years -- when Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was in command -- as a fruitless "rush to transition," as one senior defense official here put it. "The idea was, 'As they stand up, we'll stand down,' " he said. That phrase has been all but banished from the Green Zone, as has the notion of measuring U.S. progress in Iraq by the number of Iraqi troops trained or by changes in U.S. casualty counts.

"We had previously 'transitioned' ourselves into irrelevance, and the whole thing was going to hell in a handbasket," a senior official commented in an e-mail.

Top military officials even say that Iraq's elections in December 2005 only deepened sectarian divides and contributed to the outbreak of a low-grade civil war in Baghdad last year. "We wanted an election in the worst way, and we got one in the worst way," one U.S. general here said.

Another major difference is that U.S. officials, both political and military, say they are more willing to take chances than before. The clearest gamble was the decision in January to move U.S. troops off big, isolated bases and into 60 small, relatively vulnerable outposts across Baghdad. However, the risk-taking also includes reaching out to people once declared enemies of the United States, such as Sadr, the Shiite cleric. "Some people say he might be ready to negotiate behind the scenes," Odierno said in an interview.

In addition, commanders will be forced to lean heavily in coming months on Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been mixed at best. The U.S. strategy in Baghdad of "clear, hold and build" calls for clearing neighborhoods of enemy forces, then holding them with a sustained military presence while reconstruction efforts get underway. Yet by itself, the United States does not have enough troops to "hold," so that mission must be executed by Iraqis.

"My nightmare -- the thing that keeps me up at night -- is a failure of Iraqi security forces, somehow, catastrophically, mixed with a major Samarra-mosque-type catastrophe," Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, said last week, referring to the February 2006 bombing of a mosque in Samarra that sparked renewed civil strife.

Even as they focus on the realities in Iraq, officials here are also keeping an eye on Washington politics. Despite the talk in the U.S. capital that Petraeus has only until September to stabilize the situation in Iraq, some officers here are quietly suggesting that they really may have until Jan. 20, 2009 -- when President Bush leaves office -- to put the smaller, revised force in place. They doubt that Bush will pull the plug on the war or that Congress will ultimately force his hand.

Such timing matters because, despite some tactical success in making some Baghdad neighborhoods safer, officials here believe the real test of the U.S. troop increase will be its ability to create space over time for political accommodation among rival Iraqi factions. Officers agree that hasn't happened yet -- at least not significantly enough to make a difference in Washington.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 08:53 am
hamburger wrote:
Quote:
U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies


that makes sense , doesn't it ?
i recall that the u.s. armed certain afghan rebels to fight the soviet troops - unfortunately they later decided to use those weapons (stinger missiles) against the americans !
yes , it makes a great deal of sense Crying or Very sad !
hbg



It would make sense if we then get the hell out of Iraq.

Al-Qaida attacked us because we are occupiers in the ME. We need to get out of the ME and, for that matter, out of S. Korea.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 09:44 am
Those who can reconcile Bush's building of permanent US bases, and his rhetoric about "we will leave when the Iraqis ask us to leave" in their brains has vacated all common sense and logic. Their arguments have no credibility - not one iota. It's amazing how they can twist these facts, and still believe Bush tells no lies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 09:48 am
If the Iraqi government never asks the US to leave, you feel they should live in tents forever?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 09:54 am
Can't afford to stay in Iraq forever. Costs a lot of money and lives.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/11/iraq.main/index.html

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Three U.S. soldiers were killed and six wounded when a suicide bomb blast caused a highway overpass to collapse on them near Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Monday.

The soldiers were operating a checkpoint under the al-Ashreen bridge in Iskandariya, a town about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Baghdad when the explosion occurred at 7:30 p.m. Sunday (11:30 a.m. ET), an official with the Hilla police said.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:08 am
We can't stay in Iraq forever as the police force, agreed. Eventually the Iraqi military and law enforcement agencies will need to pick up the slack and take over for role the US military is playing now. That has been the plan all along according to government officials.

That may take some time though and I doubt it takes forever. Having a US military presence in Iraq for major disasters would be good for the Iraqi government though. Until such time as Iraq can fend for itself though, we are there. Either that or if the Dems are successful in getting in a president that believes surrender is the best option in which case our troops may end up leaving Iraq and I guess we will get to see what real chaos is like in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:12 am
Quote:
That may take some time though and I doubt it takes forever.


Yes, but you've been wrong about everything else having to do with the war so far, so why should anyone care what you 'doubt?'

There isn't much available evidence to support your position. We cannot afford to stay in Iraq for two more years, let alone the kind of timelines you are proposing, to let their gov't get their act together.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:16 am
If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond.

I guarantee you we will have troops in Iraq while Bush is President or the Iraqi government gets their **** together and then we won't need to be there.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond.

I guarantee you we will have troops in Iraq while Bush is President or the Iraqi government gets their **** together and then we won't need to be there.


Bush won't be President much longer. I agree that we cannot force him to admit the error of his ways and withdraw, but the next Dem president can do so.

I don't think you understand how far the Iraqi gov't and IA has to go before we 'don't need to be there.' Their army couldn't stop any of their neighbors from invading at all. There's no air force or heavy artillery to speak of. And there won't be any time soon. There won't be a point where they don't 'need us' for defense within the next 20 years...

But, let's not let little things like the details get in the way of a grand plan for the region or anything.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:25 am
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that I don't "understand how far the Iraqi gov't and IA has to go before we 'don't need to be there.'", but whatever.

Seems like you agree with Bush in the need for permanent US bases in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 10:29 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that I don't "understand how far the Iraqi gov't and IA has to go before we 'don't need to be there.'", but whatever.

Seems like you agree with Bush in the need for permanent US bases in Iraq.


No, I think we should leave completely and let them sort it out for themselves.

We'll find out how badly Iraq wants to remain Iraq. Right now it seems that they are more interested in fighting each other than forming a stable state. That isn't our problem.

And please, save me the breathless exhortations about how a failed state will lead to increased terrorism for the US... that's a tired, old line with no actual legitimacy in fact - like most of the arguments made by the pro-war crowd, now that I think about it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 12:21 pm
What ever happened to the republican mantra of being against nation building?

They don't want us there and we don't want to be there and can't afford to be there regardless of their inability to run their country like we think it should be run. Let them sort it out for themselves in whatever manner they see fit. Let them get financial or other aid from the United Nations so it won't be a US thing.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 05:02 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican :
just wondering if you'd advise the president of pakistan of the intention of invading pakistan .

how many u.s. troops would the u.s. have to mobilize and send to afghanistan and pakistan ? (you might agree that the present u.s. troopstrength is insufficient to handle such a task ?)
how quickly would the u.s be able to deploy the troops ?

...

Of course, I would advise the president of Pakistan of our intention of invading Pakistan for the specific purpose of exterminating al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

If the US were to concentrate on exterminating al-Qaeda in Pakistan, rather than replacing the government of Pakistan, or even directing the government of Pakistan, the required ordnance and special forces required would be small compared to our current program in Afghanistan, and very very small compared to our current program in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 05:11 pm
ican, And where is your army coming from?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 03:52:12