http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/us.iraq.ap/index.html Iraq Transition Go big, go long or go home: Few easy options for Iraq POSTED: 12:10 p.m. EST, November 20, 2006 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The postelection debate over Iraq is intensifying as members of Congress from both parties pose remedies and the Bush administration hunts for answers. Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York proposed a military draft, which the administration has repeatedly said it doesn't need. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said more troops should be sent in and that the soldiers there now are "fighting and dying for a failed policy." (Watch Sen. McCain argue for the need for more troops -- 1:22 Video) While in Indonesia Monday, Bush was asked about proposals by Sen. John McCain to send more troops to Iraq in an effort to stabilize the country. "I haven't made any decisions about troop increases or troop decreases, and won't until I hear from a variety of sources," Bush replied. (Full story) Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said troop withdrawals must begin within four to six months. And a Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options -- injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday. The newspaper quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives "Go big, go long and go home." The secret military study was commissioned by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and comes as political and military leaders struggle with how to conduct a war that is increasingly unpopular, both in the United States and in occupied Iraq. More troops or phased withdrawal? "I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel." Taking the opposite tack, newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a phased withdrawal of American forces. They hope a blue-ribbon advisory panel led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he'd like to see the commission assert that U.S. troop commitments are not open-ended; propose a clear political road map for Iraq; and recommend engaging Iraq's neighbors in a political and diplomatic solution. The United States should "begin to let the Iraqi leadership know we're not going to be staying," he said Monday on NBC's "Today" program. "Over the next four months let them know we're going to start to phase out, force them to have to address the central issue. That is not how to stand up Iraqis, but how to get Iraqis to stand together," Biden said. "The idea that we're going to have 140,000 troops in Iraq this time next year is just not reasonable," he said. McCain: Fight terrorists in Iraq or fight them here McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks -- in the region and possibly on American soil. "The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us." He was referring to Osama bin-Laden and the late al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. With about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq more than 3 1/2 years into the war, the American military has strained to provide enough forces while allowing for adequate rest and retraining between deployments. Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Sunday "there's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft." (Full story) In a speech Monday at Baruch College, Rangel said he wants to hold hearings into current troop levels and future plans for Iraq and other potential conflict regions, noting that the administration has said more troops may be needed. If they are, the congressman said, it is impossible not to ask where more troops would come from -- making the draft an egalitarian way to meet those demands. "If the country's in danger, everyone should share in the sacrifice," Rangel said. Speaking with reporters afterward, Rangel said, "You cannot increase the military without raising the possibility of the draft." He said the purpose of a hearing would be to ask questions, such as, "Mr. President, share with me what is victory, and if you have any clue what you're talking about, who is the enemy ... who do we negotiate the victory with ... who sets the agenda in the Middle East?" House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday that restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported. "The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that," said her top deputy, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Rangel spoke Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week," Levin on CNN's "Late Edition," and Biden wrote in Sunday's Washington Post. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
I am becoming more convinced that we had done a horrible diservice to the average Iraqi civilian and have no way of getting them out. What we have done by removing Saddam is unleashing the fundamentalists -- who are willing to kill each other. The tension in Iraq isn't about their hate for us it's about their hate for each other. If we pull out the violence will get worse and either a dictator or a radical fundamentalist government will come to power and enforce compliance. If we don't pull out our troops will be stuck forever between two groups that hate each other. Neither scenario is good. Do we abandon the average Iraqi or let more of our troops die a winless battle?
We had 500,000 troops facing a fanatical, well armed, popular insurgency in a country smaller than Iraq so I don't think the 180,000 troop option is going to acheive our goals. A total pull out makes us the world's *******. Pulling back so we aren't visible to the public, don't take too many US casualties while providing all the logistic help we can to the Iraqi army is probably the best we can do. It will of of course make the government look like US lackies and will not stop the bloodbath but it might support a government entity long enough for the civil war to exhaust itself. The United States just not have the requisite ruthlessness in the televised 21st century to put down a popular insurgency. The side willing to wage total war has the advantage. Now, I'd rather be the country that is outraged over our behaviour at Abu Ghraib than the country that runs death squads, beheads non-combatants and enlists suicide bombers but who do you think is going to win the test of wills? We could do it but we won't, we won't lose 25,000 US boys, or kill the 250,000 civilians that it would take to root the insugents out. I won't rule it out for sometime in the future though, something could happen to make American's pissed enough
Kissinger: Military Win No Longer Possible in Iraq http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230692,00.html Monday , November 20, 2006 LONDON — Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday. Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors — including Iran — if progress is to be made in the region. "If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp. But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq's neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict. "A dramatic collapse of Iraq — whatever we think about how the situation was created — would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said. Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors — including Iran — and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region. "I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.
Those were the best days of my life/Back in the summer of 69!!!!!!! Henry is dusting off the B-52's in order to get us an "honorable peace" again...woohooo!!!!!!!
If Kissinger is saying that we're screwed, I think its safe to say that we're screwed. I honestly have no idea what to do anymore. Withdrawal would make us look like complete dumbasses and it would basically be a humiliating failure on the international stage and ensure the creation of a cesspool of terrorism with a government that is ripe for de-facto Iranian control. But if we stay, American troops keep dying, insurgents keep blowing **** up, and reconstruction continues to be non-existant. We're not actually doing anything to build up the government or rebuild the country anymore. And adding more troops seem irrelevant. The Iraqi government has gotten into the business of politicing its policy so what good is more troops when the government prohibits us from going into Sadr City or other areas with Shi'ite insurgents. The government isn't cooperating with us anymore and these sorts of insurgent strongholds will stay protected. God this is just so frustrating to think about... no more explicitly, this is just ****ed up. You seriously couldn't have scripted a worse ending. I don't think even war opponents thought it would be this bad.
Any battle is winnable. Just put a ton of troops in immediately. If it fails, withdraw, and bomb. Then bring the troops back in. If it fails again, withdraw and bomb. Repeat until situation is rectified. And I mean this seriously. I've had it. Treat Iraq like the f***ing Titanic if you have to. Women and children get dragged out of here, and we settle this. If I were president, this would've been solved three years ago, at least.
BTW, I love Kissenger's response (who I typically respect immensely) Treating any situation that is out of control needs to be treated like an anarchy in the classroom, or a riot, or anything else where people become out of control. Why we look at this in other ways regarding international affairs astounds me. We are still finishing Iraq. Quit being p*****s and finish it like we'd finish a riot at Pelican Bay! Stupid F-ing beuracracy.
So how do we "finish?" I'd like to "finish" if we could but how in the world do we do that and what would that even entail doing?
We are building huge military bases and a huge Embassy. So we aren't leaving. We are going to be forced to secure the military bases and the Embassy so we will have plenty of power needed. We have 27% of the known oil reserves sitting underneath those bases and three of the military complexes are within shouting distance of the largest known oil reserve on the planet in eastern Saudi Arabia. Add to that the pipelines to the Caspian Sea that are needed for gas and oil -plus the strike capabilites this gives us in the Middle East and I venture to say our military is a permanent fixture in Iraq. Whatever the maintenance force is going to be we should get to that number as soon as possible. The insurgency will not end until the Shiite majority establishes security that is favorable to the U.S. policy. We made the mess, and it isn't going away cleanly. We should get the troop numbers down as much as possible as soon as possible. Why should any more soldiers die for lying, thieving bankers and industrialists?
Yep. We have had a military base in Cuba for 100 years. We have an embargo and little diplomatic relations with Cuba, but we still have a base there. The same thing will happen in Iraq. The county may go to hell, but our bases will be secure.
So you blow up the people you're trying to protect, while the insurgents (who you have no idea where they are) just wait you out. Brilliant. What exactly did you solve? It's almost as though you know nothing about the war and the situation the troops are in.
I don’t think the war will stop while the US is still there. There are too many groups and countries who don’t want the US there, and I don’t think they’ll stop attacking until the US is gone. That’s why this war was unwinnable, if we’re talking about the US having control of the region, from the outset. It was never just about Saddam. It was about Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, all the other groups in the area who hate the US, all the other countries in the region who don’t want the US there, and maybe it involves other countries far away who have something to gain from the US being caught in a quagmire in Iraq too. Certainly while the US has been tied up there Russia and China and even North Korea have had the room to take some liberties. If winning means bringing peace and stability to Iraq then the only way to achieve it is with the agreement of most or all of the key stakeholders listed above. Iraq is a weak, unstable, country that can’t protect itself. What is needed is a regional solution that Iraq’s neighbours and the key stakeholders feel they want to or need to support. Chaos in Iraq could be bad for everyone in the long run, but they may be prepared to deal with it now because the prospect of the US gaining control is likely seen as worse. If part of the deal is that the US will pull out then that reason to continue to foster the instability is removed and there may be more for them to gain by coming together to solve the problem. There is a Shiite and Sunni split that I’m sure other countries don’t want to spread into a regional conflict, and there is the instability that the Kurds could cause with the Turks. While I’m sure that some countries would like to get hold of Iraq’s resources for themselves I suspect that they also don’t want other countries to get control of them, so the best solution may be to support an independent Iraq that maintains control of its own resources. Coming to such an agreement wouldn’t be easy, but I don’t think there is any other solution.
Wow, I'm glad I was sent off to boarding school. Haha, I was wondering where they found reality tv guests. Good luck on Springer or whatever show rednecks like.
