Your HOP Plan for Iraq

[Bunz]

Ok Folks, we spend a lot of time talking about and criticizing one side or the other on the Iraq issue. Your task is to hash out and come up with a plan to make Iraq a peaceful democracy by the Presidential election in 2008.

A few things I would do.
Remove any elected official with ties to terror groups

Immediatly institute a local hire policy only for reconstruction jobs.
No more western contractors doing jobs that Iraqis can do themselves and for much cheaper and safely. By giving them meaningful jobs especially the ones being taken by westerners will encourage the military aged men to lay down thier arms and pick up shovels.

Create a dividend fund from oil revenues that will go to every Iraqi regardless of thier ethnic make up. This would be similar to the system in Alaska. Where for arguments sake, the first five years of the program %25 of petroleum revenues are set aside and invested in safe ventures, especially Iraqi ones. After 5 years, pay equal dividends to Iraqis. This gives them all a share in the oil wealth that belongs to them.

Institute strict gun laws.
This stems from every Iraqi home having an allowable AK-47. Now I am not a fan of gun control, but this will make it easy to identify those still wanting to engage in military action against Iraqis and Americans. If you have a gun, you are going to be arrested.

This is a start for me, I will add more later. I am curious as to hear anyone elses thoughts on what would really make a difference in making Iraq viable.

[Abraxis Axis]

Id turn the whole God damned place into a sheet of glass

[USMC the Almighty]

Your task is to hash out and come up with a plan to make Iraq a peaceful democracy by the Presidential election in 2008.

The current strategy debate focuses too much on the military and too little on everything that has not been working. The great failures in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have been in non-combat power. Intelligence, diplomacy, economic aid, information operations, support from the civilian elements of national power.

Military force alone cannot win the Iraq War. The civilian instruments of power are more important than the combat elements. The military can hold the line for a while but that holding the line will ultimately fail if we are not using that time to achieve progress in non-military areas.

In my opinion, the heart of the problem is in Washington. It has been amazing to watch has been the absolute inability of our system of government to analyze the problem and react effectively. It is this collapse of capacity for effectiveness which is at the heart of our current dilemma.

In my eyes, we must insist on defeating the enemies of America and the enemies of the Iraqi people and develop the strategies and the implementation mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and the interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies.

There are two ways I believe we can do this. The first would be to rely almost exclusively on about 10k Special Forces (not including air and contractors). The second, and one that I ultimately elect, is to add about 100k more troops to the sandbox immediately for a real surge.

All things considered, I present you:

USMC the Almighty's Iraq Strategy

(1) Place General Petraeus in charge of the Iraq campaign and establish that the Ambassador is operating in support of the military commander.

(2) Kill al-Sadr and the leaders of his Madhi Army. There can be no peace in Iraq without accomplishing this.

(3) Expand the American Army and Marine Corps as much as needed to sustain the fight in Iraq while also being prepared for other contingencies and maintaining a sustainable rhythm for the families and the force. Critical to this is using the Army and USMC to prepare people better for Special OPS so we can effectively increase the number of Special Forces we have without lowering the standards.

(4) Related to this, we need to pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.

(5) Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities. By this I mean throw up Wall-Marts or Nike factories in the 90% or so of Iraq that is relatively secure (i.e. not Baghdad). Give people stuff, not to mention jobs. When they have their iPods and TVs they’ll be more eager to adopt Western-style capitalism.

(6) Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally.

(7) Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures. Without this, the entire War on Terror will go in circle. We went to Afghanistan to get the terrorists there. They fled to Iraq. We then follow them into Iraq and they flee to Iran and Syria. This cannot be tolerated.

(8) Establish a jobs corps or civil conservation corps of sufficient scale to bring unemployment for males under 30 below 10%. What Giuliani did in New York is a great example of how to carry this out effectively.

(9) Expand dramatically the integration of American purchasing power in buying from Iraqi firms pioneered by Assistant Secretary Paul Brinkley to maximize the rate of recovery of the Iraqi economy.

(10) Demand a war budget for recapitalization of the military to continue modernization. The current national security budget is lower as a percentage of the economy than at any time from Pearl Harbor through the end of the Cold War. It is less than half the level Truman sustained before the Korean War.

(11) The State Department is too small, too undercapitalized and too untrained for the demands of the 21st century. By my estimations, there should be a 50% increase in the State Department budget and a profound rethinking of the culture and systems of the State Department so it can be an operationally effective system.

(12) Under our Constitution it is impossible to have this scale of rethinking and reform without deep support from the legislative branch. Without Republican Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Democratic President Harry Truman (with Kennan) could never have developed the containment policies that saved freedom and ultimately defeated the Soviet Empire. The President should ask the bipartisan leaders of Congress to cooperate in establishing a joint Legislative-Executive working group on winning the war and should openly brief the legislative branch on the problems which are weakening the American system abroad. Only by educating and informing the Congress can we achieve the level of mutual understanding and mutual commitment that this long hard task will require.

[Napoleon]

1. Social Services - We need to increase our spending on their social services, such as electricity, water, food, education, and healthcare, and have a little chat with the World Bank and international community about why they haven't ponied up the vast majority of their loans and pledges from the Madrid Conference on Reconstruction. Socially and politically stable nations don't have a 15% rate of malnutrition, less than 8 hours of electricity per day, and dire need of sanitary water.

2. Economy - We need to stimulate the agricultural and industrial industries. This can partially be achieved by providing jobs and contracting Iraqi businesses for their reconstruction instead of foreign ones.

3. Government - We need to pressure the Iraqi government to take on more pressing issues than their pay and benefit packages. Someone needs to remind them that their people and our people are dying out there while they bicker over how much money they'll be making. A time table needs to be set for these issues. They don't like it? Tough. They can see what it's like trying to hold sessions of parliament without the protection of coalition troops.


4. Security - Hand over the bulk of security to the Iraqi forces with coalition forces supporting them. Emphasis should be placed on securing their borders and conducting appropriate building-to-building searches for banned materials and wanted persons.

[r0beph]

I think we should place several IHOPs in Iraq, the influx of pancakes to their backwards culture should bring great advancement.

[USMC the Almighty]

4. Security - Hand over the bulk of security to the Iraqi forces with coalition forces supporting them. Emphasis should be placed on securing their borders and conducting appropriate building-to-building searches for banned materials and wanted persons.

This is where we depart ways. This strategy relies on the Iraqis somehow magically improving their performance in a very short time period. Yet the argument for staying in Iraq is that it is a vital AMERICAN interest. If we are seeking victory in Iraq because it is vital to America then we need a strategy which will win even if our Iraqi allies are inadequate. We did not rely on the free French to defeat Nazi Germany. We did not rely on the South Koreans to stop North Korea and China during the Korean War. When it mattered to American vital interests we accepted all the help we could get but we made sure we had enough strength to win on our own if need be.

To me, the supreme importance of victory cannot be allowed to rest with the efforts of a new, weak, untested and inexperienced government and military force while we are risking American lives.

[SW85]

I recommend reading Harry Summers' On Strategy, a detailed dissection of what went wrong in Vietnam. Most of the problems with Vietnam (the lack of a coherent national objective, poor communication with the American people, an excessive focus on counterinsurgency, etc.) are applicable to Iraq, as well.

(Summers makes no moral judgments about Vietnam; he simply states what needed to be done in order to have won. That's why the book is so useful).

[rmbarron]

On this I have to agree with USMC the Almighty. His military proscription is harsh, but rational. Personally, I feel that the only way to resolve the dilema is to withdraw entirely and allow the country to self-destruct and rebuild. However, it can't be done for a couple of reasons. First, the American electorate would never be able to tolerate the inevitable genocide that would follow. Any party that allowed that to happen would be commiting suicide. Secondly, the moment Iraq starts to go to pot, Iran will undoubtedly step in and establish itself as the main power in the region. Since, in my humble opinion, preventing this is the reason we went to war in the first place, this will never happen. So, seeing as withdrawl is not an option, the only alternative would be full remorseless commital.

[rmbarron]

I think we should place several IHOPs in Iraq, the influx of pancakes to their backwards culture should bring great advancement.

Genius!!! :eek:

[Napoleon]

This is where we depart ways. This strategy relies on the Iraqis somehow magically improving their performance in a very short time period. Yet the argument for staying in Iraq is that it is a vital AMERICAN interest. If we are seeking victory in Iraq because it is vital to America then we need a strategy which will win even if our Iraqi allies are inadequate.

This isn't a battle that we can or should win. This is a battle for the Iraqis to win and if the United States would stop coddling them they might be more prepared. The Iraqi security forces are capable of handling operations with our support.

We did not rely on the South Koreans to stop North Korea and China during the Korean War. When it mattered to American vital interests we accepted all the help we could get but we made sure we had enough strength to win on our own if need be.

Right and we all know how well that turned out. 57 years later and we're still there and have only achieved a ceasefire which is tenuous at best.

To me, the supreme importance of victory cannot be allowed to rest with the efforts of a new, weak, untested and inexperienced government and military force while we are risking American lives.

How does taking on the role of occupier convince the Iraqis that we're working in their best interest?

[r0beph]

Oh it said HOP plan, I misread that...carry on.

[rmbarron]

This isn't a battle that we can or should win.


This is a flawed argument. The problem that our political leadership has failed to give a clear strategic mission for the troops. If they would buck up and lay it out in simple terms (i.e. establish a buffer state against Iran, or drive Islamist parties out of the region) then the Military can and should succeed at its goals, provided it is given the leverage to do whatever it takes to do the job.


How does taking on the role of occupier convince the Iraqis that we're working in their best interest?

Who said we were working in the Iraqi's best interest? We're over there to secure American power in the region and maintain access to vital natural resources. These are our interests, not theirs. If we can secure a government thats even marginally less oppressive than Hussiens than great for them. If not, it doesn't change American interests in the region.

[Napoleon]

This is a flawed argument. The problem that our political leadership has failed to give a clear strategic mission for the troops. If they would buck up and lay it out in simple terms (i.e. establish a buffer state against Iran, or drive Islamist parties out of the region) then the Military can and should succeed at its goals, provided it is given the leverage to do whatever it takes to do the job.

The United States military is not capable of quashing the centuries of religious and ethnic tension in Iraq which is causing this mess.


Who said we were working in the Iraqi's best interest? We're over there to secure American power in the region and maintain access to vital natural resources.

If we were really interested in Iraq's resources then we wouldn't be EXPORTING oil to them. An independent and stable Iraq is whats in our best interest. Not indefinite occupation.

[Bunz]

A few things I have noticed and am glad of, nobody has said the war is going fine it is the media portrayal of it that is causing the problem.
I agree with an earlier statement that Al-Sadr needs to be removed from the scene.
I also agree with having local military commanders with some "petty cash" that is dispersable at what is convenient to them for the needs of local population.
The State Dept. needs to be more involved but I dont think this is from a lack of them being interested. The focus of this endeavour we have been led into has been a military one. The military is good for only one thing, that is military operations. We cant expect a hammer to cut wood properly. We need all sorts of different tools to make this work.
Economic development is still the key to making this work if it is possible at all. Jobs and therefore money give people the reason to stop fighting. When given opportunity people will have the chance to flourish. If I was a 26 year old guy in Iraq, my job opportunities consist of joining the police or military force, join a religious/secular militia or to have an opportunity through friends or family for a non-fighting job. There are people being hired from western countries to do such work as clerical, child care, construction, accounting, and health care of which the Iraqis could be filling those jobs. There would be nothing more that would piss me off to see a white guy driving a truck for $80k USD a year. When an Iraqi person could just as easily do that job.
Also along with boosting their petroleum production, we need to boost thier agriculture production.

[USMC the Almighty]

Bunz, so you pretty much exactly agree with me?

[rmbarron]

The United States military is not capable of quashing the centuries of religious and ethnic tension in Iraq which is causing this mess.

1) There is no evidence that any religious and ethnic tension existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. The current strife is only as old as the Baathist regime which tried to subjegate the Shiite majority in favor of the minority Sunnis.

2) The military is not capable of securing the country. But they could be. If the rules of engagement were made less restricitve and they were allowed to do what it really takes to truly subjegate the country, they could. In my view we have a choice. Either we leave the country and let the people decide through genocide or we use our strength to clamp down and pacify the country in the tradition of geniune conquest.

If we were really interested in Iraq's resources then we wouldn't be EXPORTING oil to them.

There's a valid reason we are "EXPORTING" oil to them. Most of the Middle East lacks the capacity to "REFINE" the oil they produce. It comes out of their ground, goes to our refineries and is shipped back for their markets. It's a pretty shady arrangement, frankly. But then, I guess that's what we're fighting over.

[Beetle Bailey]

Id turn the whole God damned place into a sheet of glass

Another prime example of why most people in the world now hate Americans. The perception of this kind of callous arrogance combined with glaring stupidity. The majority of people in countries that are supposed to be our allies despise us because of this kind of attitude. As if we have the right to decide the fate of millions of people in other countries. I wonder what allies will follow us into the next war?

[SW85]

Another prime example of why most people in the world now hate Americans. The perception of this kind of callous arrogance combined with glaring stupidity. The majority of people in countries that are supposed to be our allies despise us because of this kind of attitude. As if we have the right to decide the fate of millions of people in other countries. I wonder what allies will follow us into the next war?

Hm. So when a guy who's obviously on the fringe of American society makes a stupid statement, it's a ringing condemnation of all Americana -- whereas when an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in an Israeli market, he's just a fringe outsider whose actions are in no way representative of the "religion of peace" he claims to represent. (Either that or it's another ringing condemnation of all Americana).

It's stuff like this that always causes the left's hard-on for "moral credibility" to get a chuckle out of me.

[Bunz]

Bunz, so you pretty much exactly agree with me?

Well I won't say I exactly agree with you, but yeah you have some worthy ideas on the issue, and I think most would or could work. Ill say I agree with you on those issues if you will agree with me, that the difficulties were are experiencing over there is not media hype, that so many want to blame this on.

[USMC the Almighty]

Well I won't say I exactly agree with you, but yeah you have some worthy ideas on the issue, and I think most would or could work. Ill say I agree with you on those issues if you will agree with me, that the difficulties were are experiencing over there is not media hype, that so many want to blame this on.

Well the media is certainly not helping and I think it would be helpful to remove easy opportunities for our enemies. At any rate, I don't think censoring the media will accomplish much, which is why I didn't mention it in my original post.

[Beetle Bailey]

Hm. So when a guy who's obviously on the fringe of American society makes a stupid statement, it's a ringing condemnation of all Americana -- whereas when an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in an Israeli market, he's just a fringe outsider whose actions are in no way representative of the "religion of peace" he claims to represent. (Either that or it's another ringing condemnation of all Americana).

It's stuff like this that always causes the left's hard-on for "moral credibility" to get a chuckle out of me.

Far from a "fringe" opinion. Many supposedly reasonable people have publically suggested that we need to be more aggressive in Iraq. That we shouldn't be so concerned about civilian casualties. Are you going to pretend that you haven't heard plenty of people say we should just "nuke" countries that we think support terrorism? Oh and by the way. If this country appears to lack "moral credibility", on what basis do we lead? Military and economic power alone doesn't inspire anyone to follow us. American credibility in the world is at it's lowest ebb since Vietnam.

[Bunz]

While American credibility is probably at its lowest since Vietnam, what gives America that good will, at least in my humble opinion is the liberties that are often taken for granted by Americans. Assuming the far majority of us are American, for one the freedom of speech we are exercising right now and allowing the transfer of ideas no matter how ridiculous they seem to others. Plus the ability to directly and openly criticize the government is a huge place on the world stage.

In the idea of keeping the discussion going, Id like to read some posts on where you think or hope Iraq will be 2013, 10 years after Bush led us on this adventure.
For me it is like this, despite the incompatent leadership that has been displayed since this began, I hope that 10 years after it all started that Iraq will be a flagbearer of liberties among the corruption that is currently and has historically gone on in the middle east. I hope we can begin buying Iraqi oil on large scale rather than continuing to prop up a horrible monarchy in KSA, through our need for petroleum.
That all being said, I think what is most likely to happen is that there will only be a small token force of troops on the ground after the next President is inagurated in January 2009. By Jan.1 2010, there will probably be less than 40K troops.
I often wonder though, how long the Iraqis would continue in thier civil war if the Americans pulled out tomorrow? Is thier mere presence there alone causing a good chunk of this violence through the perception that one side is helping the Americans at the cost of another side.

[USMC the Almighty]

The best case scenario for Iraq in 2013 would be for it to be like the U.S. was in 1786 -- in the so-called "Critical Period" where we were under the Articles amidst a healthy debate over where we wanted our government to go.

More likely it will be like Germany in 1955, though.

[Bunz]

Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.

[ArmChair General]

Id turn the whole God damned place into a sheet of glass

There ain't nothing that can work, short of the NBC network.

[ArmChair General]

Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.

Haven't you heard? Cheney's office has alreadu come up with a recipe for a new, finger-lickin' good Middle East.

Their idea is pretty simple: you just admit that Iraq has blown up into a mess, claim you always meant to do it that way, and then smile at the camera and say, "Just look what a great set of ingredients we've now got scattered all over the kitchen! Gosh-golly, let's make something great out of all this! Grab those intestines off the ceiling, gimme that hunk of thigh off the wall-clock, and toss that gob of smoking skull off the sink! Let's get cookin'!"

Step one is chopping up Iraq into three pieces, the P-word, "partition." It's got a kind of sense to it: if the Sunni, Shia and Kurds can't stop killing each other, let's just give each group its own little tribal homeland.

The reason Bush's people haven't latched onto this idea sooner is that they're supposed to be creating a free, democratic Iraq and it doesn't look good to break the place down into tribal homelands when you've gone around promising to make Iraq the Jeffersonian Democracy of the Middle East. But things are so bad now that nobody in the administration can afford to worry about PR problems like that any more. Torture killings are now officially the national sport of Iraq. When somebody gets out a power drill in Baghdad, nobody thinks Home Improvement. Instead, I hear Black & Decker is getting its own volume in the next edition of Jane's Weapons Systems.

But, there's just one little problem with splitting Iraq into three nice little homelands: Iran.

If you smash Saddam Hussein's united Iraq, you've destroyed the one army in the region that could have held the Iranians in check. If you go in after that and replace a united Iraq with three little ethnic states, you've just made a big sandbox for the Persians to play in. They can easily destabilize all three of the Iraqi statelets; in fact, the biggest, the Shia Iraqi statelet, won't even need to be stabilized. It'll side with Iran every time against the Sunnis. It won't have a choice.

Anyways, Cheney's plan doesnt stop with just Iraq though. The idea is to divide up every state in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia gets split into a Shia state on the Persian Gulf (where all the oil is), a "Sacred State" with Mecca and Medina, and someplace that ought to be called The Republic of Leftover Sand, with Riyadh and not much else. Lebanon turns into teeny, ethnically pure neighborhood states for Christians, Sunni, Shia and maybe Mormons. Yep, turns out all that Lebanese unity was a danger to the region, we've gotta go in there and break the place up a little more.

Are you beginning to understand why popping out a few nukes is a much more reasonable proposition?

Cheney is bat**** insane.

[SW85]

Far from a "fringe" opinion. Many supposedly reasonable people have publically suggested that we need to be more aggressive in Iraq. That we shouldn't be so concerned about civilian casualties. Are you going to pretend that you haven't heard plenty of people say we should just "nuke" countries that we think support terrorism? Oh and by the way. If this country appears to lack "moral credibility", on what basis do we lead? Military and economic power alone doesn't inspire anyone to follow us. American credibility in the world is at it's lowest ebb since Vietnam.

A supermajority of Americans don't even support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and I'm expected to believe they're now warlike enough to demand its nuclear annihilation?

"Plenty" of people may well say such things (though how many are serious?). But "plenty" in this country amounts to zip in the big picture. You're forgetting that a fringe that makes up just 1% of the population of the population is still a whopping three million people.

Again, if vitriol such as yours were directed at Muslims and not Americans, you would be chastizing the poster and not his victims. That you can post drivel like that straight-facedly and then complain about other people's lack of "moral credibility" is astounding.

As for your BTW, we don't need to "lead" anyone. They've contributed minimally to the war on terror anyway, despite the fact that we still largely rubber-stamp their national security checks. They have as much stake in this as anyone; if they don't like the way we run things, they can go it alone.

And I have a hard time believing the leaders of other nations are so uninterested in their own country's well-being that they will follow some worthless philosophical abstraction ("moral credibility," the meaning of which I still don't understand because no one ever actually says what they're talking about here) rather than real, tangible interests (like money, power, and their own security).

[USMC the Almighty]

Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.

In reality -- I think that the troop level will be cut in half by next spring. I don't think it's right, but that's what I believe is going to happen. With this withdrawl, you'll see the level of violence in Iraq stay about the same. With the next President, you'll probably see an immediate surge of troops in an attempt to win the war quickly and when they don't see the lightning fast results that they are looking for, then the virtually everyone will be pulled out.

Iraq will degenerate into a real civil war and Iran will ultimately move in and seize control.

[Bunz]

So if I can assume, you are suggesting we will lose this war...and if we do, whose fault would you lay blame one just as a matter of curiousity?
I also wonder if the level of violence might actually go down if US troops are pulled. I say this because it appears to me that a fair amount of the violence between Iraqis has to do with retaliation for working with the coalition forces. Sure they are drawn on sectarian differences, but what has triggered the latest round of it, is that the Shia in a very loose general term are working with the coalition and the Sunni's dont like that.
Although Iran is a concern no doubt, I think(or hope) similar to the Iran-Iraq war that Iraqis will largely put aside thier sectarian differences and fight against the Iranians.

[Beetle Bailey]

A supermajority of Americans don't even support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and I'm expected to believe they're now warlike enough to demand its nuclear annihilation?

"Plenty" of people may well say such things (though how many are serious?). But "plenty" in this country amounts to zip in the big picture. You're forgetting that a fringe that makes up just 1% of the population of the population is still a whopping three million people.

Again, if vitriol such as yours were directed at Muslims and not Americans, you would be chastizing the poster and not his victims. That you can post drivel like that straight-facedly and then complain about other people's lack of "moral credibility" is astounding.

As for your BTW, we don't need to "lead" anyone. They've contributed minimally to the war on terror anyway, despite the fact that we still largely rubber-stamp their national security checks. They have as much stake in this as anyone; if they don't like the way we run things, they can go it alone.

And I have a hard time believing the leaders of other nations are so uninterested in their own country's well-being that they will follow some worthless philosophical abstraction ("moral credibility," the meaning of which I still don't understand because no one ever actually says what they're talking about here) rather than real, tangible interests (like money, power, and their own security).

The vapid ranting of a relativist. Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. Clearly only a superficial comprehension of history. And talk about philisophical abstraction. It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies. Morality becomes more relative every day. The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.

[USMC the Almighty]

So if I can assume, you are suggesting we will lose this war...and if we do, whose fault would you lay blame one just as a matter of curiousity?

Obviously, it's the fault of whichever President withdraws the troops but I think it would be unfair to lay the blame solely on his shoulders. You could rightly put a lot of blame on the Bush Administration for its dreadful handling of the war in its earlier stages in its reluctance to use enough troops early on.

In addition, some blame deserves to be placed on the Democrats and the media for their eternal pessimism at the first signs of struggle in Iraq and for their premature clamoring for withdrawl.

And lastly, the American people. They have largely made it a political impossibility to continue to support this war. Maybe Lincoln was right -- you can't win a war with significant public dissent.


I also wonder if the level of violence might actually go down if US troops are pulled. I say this because it appears to me that a fair amount of the violence between Iraqis has to do with retaliation for working with the coalition forces. Sure they are drawn on sectarian differences, but what has triggered the latest round of it, is that the Shia in a very loose general term are working with the coalition and the Sunni's dont like that.

Although Iran is a concern no doubt, I think(or hope) similar to the Iran-Iraq war that Iraqis will largely put aside thier sectarian differences and fight against the Iranians.

Violence might go down after the ensuing genocide and will only be kept down with large-scale oppression and brutality.

[Beetle Bailey]

Ok Folks, we spend a lot of time talking about and criticizing one side or the other on the Iraq issue. Your task is to hash out and come up with a plan to make Iraq a peaceful democracy by the Presidential election in 2008.

A few things I would do.
Remove any elected official with ties to terror groups

Immediatly institute a local hire policy only for reconstruction jobs.
No more western contractors doing jobs that Iraqis can do themselves and for much cheaper and safely. By giving them meaningful jobs especially the ones being taken by westerners will encourage the military aged men to lay down thier arms and pick up shovels.

Create a dividend fund from oil revenues that will go to every Iraqi regardless of thier ethnic make up. This would be similar to the system in Alaska. Where for arguments sake, the first five years of the program %25 of petroleum revenues are set aside and invested in safe ventures, especially Iraqi ones. After 5 years, pay equal dividends to Iraqis. This gives them all a share in the oil wealth that belongs to them.

Institute strict gun laws.
This stems from every Iraqi home having an allowable AK-47. Now I am not a fan of gun control, but this will make it easy to identify those still wanting to engage in military action against Iraqis and Americans. If you have a gun, you are going to be arrested.

This is a start for me, I will add more later. I am curious as to hear anyone elses thoughts on what would really make a difference in making Iraq viable.

There is no possibility of peace in Iraq in 2008 or any time in the foreseable future. Not under the current conditions. Not with 160,000 US troops. At best we can sustain a stalemate. Clearly the Bush administration policies have failed to meet expectation.
We have two choices. We could go all out in Iraq. Reinstitute the draft. Send in three or four times the number of troops we have there now. That might do the job. But since there is no domestic political incentive to do so, it won't happen.
Other choice. Begin a gradual withdrawal of US troops now. That should provide some incentive for Iraqi politicians to come to a reasonable accomodation with each other. The Iraqi government will have to stand on it's own sooner or later. If it doesn't it will end up like the government of South Vietnam.

[SW85]

The vapid ranting of a relativist.

I wish you knew what that word meant.:rolleyes:

Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about.

Oh, for god's sake. This country is not "about" anything. It is not a proposition; propositions don't issue passports. It's a country, with a real history and a real culture and a real quality of life. The only concern of the government is promoting those things, not whatever it is you think this country is about.

It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies.

I haven't yet defined what I consider to be in our national interests, and I've only argued that it ought to be priority and not some half-assed obsession with "moral credibility" that enables us to feel better about ourselves while we grovel for help from the people whose help we don't actually need and who aren't willing to give it, anyway.

Morality becomes more relative every day.

Wait, you acknowledge this, knowing that your position favors "moral credibility" above concrete things like national interest, but then you say that I'm a moral relativist?

The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.

There's no understanding it. It's a meaningless buzzword liberals use to derail any effort to protect our national interest. I have seen no indication otherwise, especially as the closest thing liberals come to an explanation of it is that it's something you "just wouldn't understand" if you're not a liberal.

[Bunz]

[QUOTE]Obviously, it's the fault of whichever President withdraws the troops
I dont see how much blame can be put on them considering what the situation on the ground to work with potentially will be. With costs exponentially more than was protrayed by the Bush administration, a rising death toll and little progress in security. Not to mention the fact the iraqi government doesnt seem interested in stopping the violence. They appear to be warehoused in the green zone due to the serious and constant threat of assasination, they have lost touch with the people they attempt to govern.
You could rightly put a lot of blame on the Bush Administration for its dreadful handling of the war in its earlier stages in its reluctance to use enough troops early on.
I think the Bush admin. deserves much more blame that what your placing on them.
In addition, some blame deserves to be placed on the Democrats
A little, but as the opposition party in an unfavorable war, it is thier responsibility to ask questions and demand results.
the media for their eternal pessimism at the first signs of struggle in Iraq and for their premature clamoring for withdrawl.
The media a bit maybe, but I dont like to blame them for much. It is ultimately the consumer of the media who interprets the message.
And lastly, the American people. They have largely made it a political impossibility to continue to support this war. Maybe Lincoln was right -- you can't win a war with significant public dissent.
Lincoln probably was right, but how do you blame the people? We continue to fund this endeavor through our taxes among many other things.

Interesting that none of the blame you mention is directed at the military. I am not suggesting one bit that the soldiers and marines on the ground arent doing the best they can. But certainly leadership failures have happened in the military, from the fresh LT to the JCS.
Violence might go down after the ensuing genocide and will only be kept down with large-scale oppression and brutality.

I simply have a sinking feeling that there wouldnt be a great genocide as has been thrown around by many, mostly in my eyes as a scare tactic to add to another reason of already misleading ones on why we are there. I think there will surely be some violence, and maybe more violent than today is, but the secular violence in Baghdad from a year ago in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing as gone down. One could attribute this to the surge, but there are surely other factors as well.

[USMC the Almighty]

I simply have a sinking feeling that there wouldnt be a great genocide as has been thrown around by many, mostly in my eyes as a scare tactic to add to another reason of already misleading ones on why we are there. I think there will surely be some violence, and maybe more violent than today is, but the secular violence in Baghdad from a year ago in the aftermath of the Samarra bombing as gone down. One could attribute this to the surge, but there are surely other factors as well.

If we leave Iraq, then Iran (primarily Shia) will come in to squash the Sunnis, then you will have Saudi Arabia (primarily Sunni) move in to Iraq in order to help their Sunni brethren. What you get is an all out civil war.

Ahmadenijad has said that he will go to Iran and his actions indicate this. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps if we had taken other dictators like Hitler or Stalin at their word, thousands of lives could've been saved.

[Bunz]

I mentioned earlier, that the same thought process you laid down was apparent in the Iran-Iraq war. The Shia would side with the Iranians and being the majority population. But the fact of the matter is nationalism won the day and the Iraqi Shia remained loyal to the Iraq side. That may be chalked up to the grip Saddam had, but I am unsure.
This all might be wishful thinking on my part, I will readily admit that. I guess my questions are these, how much of the sectarian killings are due to one side working with coalition forces(Shia) and the Sunni's launching attacks against them, and then it becomes a tit-for-tat situation. And, how much violence are the American troops actually preventing vs. how much they might be the general cause of. I dont think this is done on purpose, but Id like to hear anyones thoughts on those.

[Beetle Bailey]

I wish you knew what that word meant.:rolleyes:



Oh, for god's sake. This country is not "about" anything. It is not a proposition; propositions don't issue passports. It's a country, with a real history and a real culture and a real quality of life. The only concern of the government is promoting those things, not whatever it is you think this country is about.



I haven't yet defined what I consider to be in our national interests, and I've only argued that it ought to be priority and not some half-assed obsession with "moral credibility" that enables us to feel better about ourselves while we grovel for help from the people whose help we don't actually need and who aren't willing to give it, anyway.



Wait, you acknowledge this, knowing that your position favors "moral credibility" above concrete things like national interest, but then you say that I'm a moral relativist?



There's no understanding it. It's a meaningless buzzword liberals use to derail any effort to protect our national interest. I have seen no indication otherwise, especially as the closest thing liberals come to an explanation of it is that it's something you "just wouldn't understand" if you're not a liberal.

Relativism: The theory that all truth is relative to the individual and to the time or place in which he acts.
Your statements exemplify that definition. Your complete lack of coherent argument combined with feeble rationalizations laced with obvious agenda only serves to make my point for me. Your professed ignorance of morality reveals a deeper problem.
Pretty funny though. I'll bet so called "conservatives" would be surprised to learn that moral credibility doesn't really mean anything. Really just something for liberals to worry about. Hilarious. Also, I like the way you just completely ignore history. This country is not about anything? Where have you been? I see now why you are so uncomfortable with questions of morality.

[Chip]

The sole reason we invaded Iraq was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We acted thusly as murderous thieves.

We did so because Saddam was threatening to stop selling Iraqi special, light, sweet crude to us, crude we had been receiving for decades, as soon as the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners ended ... and those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

We did not invade Iraq as the Bush and Senate Security Commision lies presented: WMDs, terrorism, "evil" dictator, stop Jihad of radical Muslims, etc. These were all lies told the rank and file of Congress and the public for the sake of using unjustified fear to garner support. Had they told the truth, the real reason for the invasion, we would have impeached them all to prevent the predicted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a slaughter that indeed came to pass, a slaughter wherein nearly half of those massacred were children, with a median age of eight years-old.

Nor did we invade for the cynical excuses told by the opposition: jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, further Christian ministry, etc. These were just easy ways of keeping the opposition placated ... without having to face the truth.

The hard economic fact is that if we had lost the special light, sweet Iraqi crude oil, for which there is no alternative supply anywhere in the world, Iraqi crude that accounts for nearly 20% of the foreign crude refined in California alone, that loss would have plunged America into a devastating domino-chain depression, taking our allies with us.

So we spent many billions of dollars ... to save many trillions of dollars in loss.

It was the economically "prudent" thing to do.

But ... it was still wrong.

Now we face the spectre of having to pay for our crimes against humanity ... and as more and more GOP Congress members are learning the truth of why we invaded Iraq, they are distancing themselves from Bush in the hope of not getting singed by the fire of impeachment that is headed his way.

The truth I tell here is criculating in many e-mails that are deluging Congress and the White House.

The public is learning the truth, the truth it previously couldn't handle.

The right thing to do now is to turn Iraq over to the U.N., minus U.S. assistance, so that Iraq can call on the U.N. for help if it wants to. And the right thing to do is for America to leave Iraq and let Iraqis use the U.N. to help them put their country back together again. And the right thing to do is for us to pay trillions in crimes-against-humanity reparations to Iraq, and to apologize to everyone for the crimes of Bush and the Senate Security Committe, a committe which also includes Ted Kennedy.

We will likely lose our Iraqi crude after all ... and it will be difficult to endure the depression we merely forestalled.

But if we get creative, and find that greatly needed energy alternative ... or change the way we live to be more healthy ... we will not only courageously weather the storm, but we will feel so much better about ourselves than we do now.

Our self-respect, as well as our respect for the very lives of others, demands that we do this, the right thing, now.

[OPGhostdog]

The sole reason we invaded Iraq was to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We acted thusly as murderous thieves.

We did so because Saddam was threatening to stop selling Iraqi special, light, sweet crude to us, crude we had been receiving for decades, as soon as the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners ended ... and those sanctions were about to end ... when we invaded.

We did not invade Iraq as the Bush and Senate Security Commision lies presented: WMDs, terrorism, "evil" dictator, stop Jihad of radical Muslims, etc. These were all lies told the rank and file of Congress and the public for the sake of using unjustified fear to garner support. Had they told the truth, the real reason for the invasion, we would have impeached them all to prevent the predicted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a slaughter that indeed came to pass, a slaughter wherein nearly half of those massacred were children, with a median age of eight years-old.

Nor did we invade for the cynical excuses told by the opposition: jobs for Halliburton, profits for the oil industry, revenge for "Daddy" Bush, further Christian ministry, etc. These were just easy ways of keeping the opposition placated ... without having to face the truth.

The hard economic fact is that if we had lost the special light, sweet Iraqi crude oil, for which there is no alternative supply anywhere in the world, Iraqi crude that accounts for nearly 20% of the foreign crude refined in California alone, that loss would have plunged America into a devastating domino-chain depression, taking our allies with us.

So we spent many billions of dollars ... to save many trillions of dollars in loss.

It was the economically "prudent" thing to do.

But ... it was still wrong.

Now we face the spectre of having to pay for our crimes against humanity ... and as more and more GOP Congress members are learning the truth of why we invaded Iraq, they are distancing themselves from Bush in the hope of not getting singed by the fire of impeachment that is headed his way.

The truth I tell here is criculating in many e-mails that are deluging Congress and the White House.

The public is learning the truth, the truth it previously couldn't handle.

The right thing to do now is to turn Iraq over to the U.N., minus U.S. assistance, so that Iraq can call on the U.N. for help if it wants to. And the right thing to do is for America to leave Iraq and let Iraqis use the U.N. to help them put their country back together again. And the right thing to do is for us to pay trillions in crimes-against-humanity reparations to Iraq, and to apologize to everyone for the crimes of Bush and the Senate Security Committe, a committe which also includes Ted Kennedy.

We will likely lose our Iraqi crude after all ... and it will be difficult to endure the depression we merely forestalled.

But if we get creative, and find that greatly needed energy alternative ... or change the way we live to be more healthy ... we will not only courageously weather the storm, but we will feel so much better about ourselves than we do now.

Our self-respect, as well as our respect for the very lives of others, demands that we do this, the right thing, now.


CHIP, I applause your Post. Because its the first for real post that I
have ever read here on the HOP.

My plans here on H.O.P is to continue to support my Muslim Brothers
and Sisters in the Middle East who is suffering because of Bush's bs.
As a Muslim myself, I feel that our government (USA) is meddling in
countries that did not invite them.

I can't understand why is the American public is so blinded to the
bs paragenda that's being used by this Administration. Troopers is
losing their lifes more and more each day, and killing Muslims who
are innocent by-standers for nothing.

Again, As a member of this forum I will continue to do battle
in reality, and here online for humanitarian reasons. This war
isn't right, and the people in Washington DC knows it. So this
is one of the many message boards where opinions can be
posted, and of course...people won't agree because of political
blindness.

[rmbarron]

The vapid ranting of a relativist. Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. Clearly only a superficial comprehension of history. And talk about philisophical abstraction. It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies. Morality becomes more relative every day. The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.

Morality is for the thoughtless. Just thought you'd like to know.

[Beetle Bailey]

Morality is for the thoughtless. Just thought you'd like to know.

That is so deep. This must be what pearls of wisdom look like when they get pulled straight from this guy's ass.