What is your solution to the War in Iraq?
- Thread starter Greg Bell
- Start date
- Status
SixForSure
New member
Go through city by city, giving them 24 hours to evacuate, and level every single building in the country. They will be too busy trying to find food and shelter to be much of a problem.
Gary Conner
New member
Wonder why the folks we elect haven't got the sense enough to listen to guys like Wingman?
I read very closely the few short words he wrote.
If Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Joint Chiefs could be convinced to read the advice Wingman provided a few posts up, perhaps we could start to regain our own freedoms, and quit worrying about being the worlds police department.
I read very closely the few short words he wrote.
If Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Joint Chiefs could be convinced to read the advice Wingman provided a few posts up, perhaps we could start to regain our own freedoms, and quit worrying about being the worlds police department.
Another smart approach
A Military Solution for Iraq
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | November 2, 2006
We went to Iraq to overthrow a police state. Through a combination of stubbornness, naivete and noble intentions, we've replaced it with another police state - more violent, more corrupt and less accountable.
As an Army officer remarked to me, Saddam's starting to look good.
Our greatest setback in Iraq may be that country's undoing: It has proven impossible to develop an honest, nonpartisan police establishment anywhere in the country's Arab provinces. The police aren't feared by criminals, but by law-abiding citizens.
The secret police are back, in the form of death squads. And the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki looks perfectly happy with the situation.
American advisers risk their lives in the struggle to build Iraqi police units committed to doing their duty. We've equipped them, trained them and led from the front.
In gratitude, Iraq's police have ambushed our troops, fielded death squads less restrained than those under Saddam, stolen everything they could steal in preparation for a future civil war - and, apparently, funneled U.S.-provided arms to militias, insurgents and terrorists.
Our efforts to develop good cops have failed (garbage in, garbage out). We need to stop wasting our efforts. Shielded by government ministers and parliamentarians, the police are so out of control that there's no longer any hope of weeding out the bad guys. Instead, the bad guys are weeding out the good guys: Honest cops get killed. By other cops.
The situation's desperate. We need to revamp our strategy (to the extent that we have one). For all its shortcomings, the Iraqi army has been a far greater success than the police - whether we're speaking of cops on the beat or paramilitary commandos.
It's time to abandon the cops. Let the anti-American elements in the Maliki government have them. Don't continue to strengthen our enemies. Concentrate on developing and expanding the army.
Why? Here's where the truth gets still uglier. As dearly as we believe in democracy, Iraq's Arabs are proving that they're incapable of the political, social and moral maturity necessary to run an elected government.
Casting ballots alone doesn't make a democracy. The government has to function. And to protect all of its citizens.
In the coming months, we may find that the only hope of restoring order is a military government. It sounds repellent, but a U.S.-backed coup may be the only alternative to endless anarchy.
Arabs still can't govern themselves democratically. That's the appalling lesson of our Iraqi experiment. A military regime might be capable of establishing order and protecting the common people.
We've got to prepare the national military to take on the local police. And the insurgents. And the militias. And the foreign terrorists.
Yes, the Iraqi army may also disappoint us in the end. Increasingly, though, it looks like the last hope. The national government is a dysfunctional collection of religious and ethnic mafias. Ministers serve only their own armed factions. Maliki has outed himself as a puppet of Muqtada al-Sadr. (President Bush may love old Nouri, but Nouri don't love him back.)
The Kurds are quietly, efficiently building a model state in the north. But the Arabs are building nothing beyond militias and death squads.
This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear.
It's ironic that, having gone to Iraq to jump-start democracy in the region, we may end up backing a military coup to save the battered country. We're not there yet (and the thought is anathema in Washington - reality usually is). But we'd better hedge our bets. The only, faint chance we have to protect the average Iraqi is to expand the Iraqi army and promote a national ethos within its ranks.
We have only two rational choices. The first is to read the government the riot act, then give democracy one more year. If Iraq's leaders refuse to lead honorably and effectively - and get the police and militias under control - we should abandon Iraq (except for Kurdistan) by autumn 2007. The other option is to start preparing the best Iraqi military leaders to take charge of their country.
The alternative to a military government looks like continued mayhem - an endless slaughter of the innocents - along with more American casualties as we protect our enemies.
A year ago, one of our legislators asked for my assessment of Iraq's future. I told him that, while the various armed factions couldn't defeat us, the culture of corruption was the greatest threat to a future Iraqi government. That prediction has come to pass.
The state of the Iraqi police confirms it. They're not lawmen. They're murderers wearing uniforms we paid for. Our embedded advisers have to fear for their lives. Most are discouraged by Iraqi duplicity and partisanship. Our troops despise Iraq's police.
Again, we didn't destroy Iraq. We just gave Sunni and Shia Arabs a chance to destroy it. And they grabbed it.
What has become of our dreams for democracy when today's Iraqi police are worse than Saddam's and the most humane possibility for the country is a military government? The answer is that Arab civilization has revealed itself as a catastrophic failure.
A Military Solution for Iraq
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | November 2, 2006
We went to Iraq to overthrow a police state. Through a combination of stubbornness, naivete and noble intentions, we've replaced it with another police state - more violent, more corrupt and less accountable.
As an Army officer remarked to me, Saddam's starting to look good.
Our greatest setback in Iraq may be that country's undoing: It has proven impossible to develop an honest, nonpartisan police establishment anywhere in the country's Arab provinces. The police aren't feared by criminals, but by law-abiding citizens.
The secret police are back, in the form of death squads. And the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki looks perfectly happy with the situation.
American advisers risk their lives in the struggle to build Iraqi police units committed to doing their duty. We've equipped them, trained them and led from the front.
In gratitude, Iraq's police have ambushed our troops, fielded death squads less restrained than those under Saddam, stolen everything they could steal in preparation for a future civil war - and, apparently, funneled U.S.-provided arms to militias, insurgents and terrorists.
Our efforts to develop good cops have failed (garbage in, garbage out). We need to stop wasting our efforts. Shielded by government ministers and parliamentarians, the police are so out of control that there's no longer any hope of weeding out the bad guys. Instead, the bad guys are weeding out the good guys: Honest cops get killed. By other cops.
The situation's desperate. We need to revamp our strategy (to the extent that we have one). For all its shortcomings, the Iraqi army has been a far greater success than the police - whether we're speaking of cops on the beat or paramilitary commandos.
It's time to abandon the cops. Let the anti-American elements in the Maliki government have them. Don't continue to strengthen our enemies. Concentrate on developing and expanding the army.
Why? Here's where the truth gets still uglier. As dearly as we believe in democracy, Iraq's Arabs are proving that they're incapable of the political, social and moral maturity necessary to run an elected government.
Casting ballots alone doesn't make a democracy. The government has to function. And to protect all of its citizens.
In the coming months, we may find that the only hope of restoring order is a military government. It sounds repellent, but a U.S.-backed coup may be the only alternative to endless anarchy.
Arabs still can't govern themselves democratically. That's the appalling lesson of our Iraqi experiment. A military regime might be capable of establishing order and protecting the common people.
We've got to prepare the national military to take on the local police. And the insurgents. And the militias. And the foreign terrorists.
Yes, the Iraqi army may also disappoint us in the end. Increasingly, though, it looks like the last hope. The national government is a dysfunctional collection of religious and ethnic mafias. Ministers serve only their own armed factions. Maliki has outed himself as a puppet of Muqtada al-Sadr. (President Bush may love old Nouri, but Nouri don't love him back.)
The Kurds are quietly, efficiently building a model state in the north. But the Arabs are building nothing beyond militias and death squads.
This really isn't our failure. The failure is on the part of the Iraqis. They had this one great chance - bought with American and allied blood - to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Arab world. They appear determined to throw that chance away, preferring to wallow in old hatreds, vengeance, corruption and the tyranny of fear.
It's ironic that, having gone to Iraq to jump-start democracy in the region, we may end up backing a military coup to save the battered country. We're not there yet (and the thought is anathema in Washington - reality usually is). But we'd better hedge our bets. The only, faint chance we have to protect the average Iraqi is to expand the Iraqi army and promote a national ethos within its ranks.
We have only two rational choices. The first is to read the government the riot act, then give democracy one more year. If Iraq's leaders refuse to lead honorably and effectively - and get the police and militias under control - we should abandon Iraq (except for Kurdistan) by autumn 2007. The other option is to start preparing the best Iraqi military leaders to take charge of their country.
The alternative to a military government looks like continued mayhem - an endless slaughter of the innocents - along with more American casualties as we protect our enemies.
A year ago, one of our legislators asked for my assessment of Iraq's future. I told him that, while the various armed factions couldn't defeat us, the culture of corruption was the greatest threat to a future Iraqi government. That prediction has come to pass.
The state of the Iraqi police confirms it. They're not lawmen. They're murderers wearing uniforms we paid for. Our embedded advisers have to fear for their lives. Most are discouraged by Iraqi duplicity and partisanship. Our troops despise Iraq's police.
Again, we didn't destroy Iraq. We just gave Sunni and Shia Arabs a chance to destroy it. And they grabbed it.
What has become of our dreams for democracy when today's Iraqi police are worse than Saddam's and the most humane possibility for the country is a military government? The answer is that Arab civilization has revealed itself as a catastrophic failure.
Blue Heeler
Moderator
I'm with wingman. The whole thing can be dealt with on our terms, not theirs.
Caesar showed the World that frequent use of overwhelming force sorted out all the revolting problems he had to deal with.
(and, in case there is a lurking pedant out there - yes, I do know that a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with.)
Caesar showed the World that frequent use of overwhelming force sorted out all the revolting problems he had to deal with.
(and, in case there is a lurking pedant out there - yes, I do know that a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with.)
Heheh. Nice try, but I call shenanigans. We most assuredly did destroy it. We have replaced a minor irritant with a potential enemy who's magnitude won't be fully realized for several more years. And it's not their fault for being arabs and thus somehow incapable of forming a civilized society any more than Bosnia was a result of europeans' inability to form a civilized society. That whole concept is highly insulting and more than a little racist.
It's our fault for not establishing security in the first place. Hell, it's our fault for knocking over the existing government with no plan in place for restoring order.
If the best this 'guy' (the most charitable description I can think of) can come up with is "they're too primitive to form a society"...good luck with that. To my way of thinking, if you leave your car with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition in a bad neighborhood, you're not doing yourself any favors by loudly proclaiming "it's not my fault they're a bunch of thieving savages".
But you know, that's just me...
invention_45
New member
That's the facts, put most succinctly.
invention_45
New member
About Iran.
Ask yourself this question. Given the controls now in place for nuclear materials, how many nuclear weapons do you think Iran could reasonably amass in a short (as in unrespondable) time? Probably not many.
This isn't the same game as it used to be with the Soviet Union. Defense against a nation's nuclear arsenal of maybe 5 or 10 nuclear missiles is a lot more plausible than defense against an arsenal of thousands.
That being the case, no Iranian nuclear missile will ever land in the US. Period.
So let's say they decide to purposely let one or two (1/10 or 1/5 of their inventory) out of their control by handing it over to a terrorist and trust him to smuggle it into the US. You may be different, but I don't think I'd do that. But let's say they do anyway. How are they going to make sure we cannot identify its origin?
When we have a thousand or so hydrogen weapons that can guaranteed be delivered by missile and convert Iran to a glowing smoking hole within minutes, what makes you think they would be stupid enough to use or allow to be used one of their mere fission bombs on the US?
Worse (or actually better for us), what if their attempt failed and we responded to the attempt the same way we would to a successful attack? It wouldn't be hard to justify.
After that happened, what would become of al Quaida's posturing that the US is a "paper tiger"? Perhaps a smart terrorist (the only kind with any capability) would conclude that nuclear isn't the way to go against the US.
Ask yourself this question. Given the controls now in place for nuclear materials, how many nuclear weapons do you think Iran could reasonably amass in a short (as in unrespondable) time? Probably not many.
This isn't the same game as it used to be with the Soviet Union. Defense against a nation's nuclear arsenal of maybe 5 or 10 nuclear missiles is a lot more plausible than defense against an arsenal of thousands.
That being the case, no Iranian nuclear missile will ever land in the US. Period.
So let's say they decide to purposely let one or two (1/10 or 1/5 of their inventory) out of their control by handing it over to a terrorist and trust him to smuggle it into the US. You may be different, but I don't think I'd do that. But let's say they do anyway. How are they going to make sure we cannot identify its origin?
When we have a thousand or so hydrogen weapons that can guaranteed be delivered by missile and convert Iran to a glowing smoking hole within minutes, what makes you think they would be stupid enough to use or allow to be used one of their mere fission bombs on the US?
Worse (or actually better for us), what if their attempt failed and we responded to the attempt the same way we would to a successful attack? It wouldn't be hard to justify.
After that happened, what would become of al Quaida's posturing that the US is a "paper tiger"? Perhaps a smart terrorist (the only kind with any capability) would conclude that nuclear isn't the way to go against the US.
SixForSure
New member
"Arab Civilization" is an oxymoron. With the possible exception of Turkey, I don't see much civilization in Arab countries.
SixForSure
New member
Being civilized enough not to want to kill other people simply because they exist, or just for the fun of it.
Geoff Timm
New member
Moslems have a different religious view.
Cross reference: Dr. Wafa Sultan.
The major view is make everyone a Moslem or kill them.
Considering the highest achievement in Moslem society is:
"Note that women buy into the Mohammedan life style because they know no different. Dr. Wafa Sultan relates an incident from her former world before she came to the US in which a woman kills her own daughter. Her daughter's crime was being raped and becoming pregnant. The rapist was her own brother. Thus she was guilty of incitement to rape and had to be killed to restore honor to the family. Women like this support their pugnacious domineering husbands. They do not know life can be any different."
Islam is currently taking over Europe. They are currently taking over parts of the US of A. Cross reference: Dearborne MI and the west side of Cleveland, OH where "honor" killings and gang rapes of "Christian" women have become common.
Unfortunately most of the US population prefers to live in Communist trained ignorance spread by US public schools and the infiltrated media.
I just hope when the SHTF the Republic survives and does not fall to Empire or Kingdom or Dictatorship.
Geoff
Who has little hope for the Republic in a land that has forgotten what it once was like to be free. :barf:
Cross reference: Dr. Wafa Sultan.
The major view is make everyone a Moslem or kill them.
Considering the highest achievement in Moslem society is:
"Note that women buy into the Mohammedan life style because they know no different. Dr. Wafa Sultan relates an incident from her former world before she came to the US in which a woman kills her own daughter. Her daughter's crime was being raped and becoming pregnant. The rapist was her own brother. Thus she was guilty of incitement to rape and had to be killed to restore honor to the family. Women like this support their pugnacious domineering husbands. They do not know life can be any different."
Islam is currently taking over Europe. They are currently taking over parts of the US of A. Cross reference: Dearborne MI and the west side of Cleveland, OH where "honor" killings and gang rapes of "Christian" women have become common.
Unfortunately most of the US population prefers to live in Communist trained ignorance spread by US public schools and the infiltrated media.
I just hope when the SHTF the Republic survives and does not fall to Empire or Kingdom or Dictatorship.
Geoff
Who has little hope for the Republic in a land that has forgotten what it once was like to be free. :barf:
jrt_ms1995
New member
Airburst
Don't we still have a large stockpile of neutron bombs laying about? One for maybe each city in the world with over 100k population would pretty much eliminate any needless worrying about things our opinions will never have any influence on.
Don't we still have a large stockpile of neutron bombs laying about? One for maybe each city in the world with over 100k population would pretty much eliminate any needless worrying about things our opinions will never have any influence on.
SixForSure
New member
Yes, and the key here is that they are "laying about", not being launched at others. How long do you suppose the Muslim extremists would let them just lay about if they had them?
Geoff,
You had a pretty rational argument going there. Right up until the "Unfortunately most of the US population prefers to live in Communist trained ignorance spread by US public schools and the infiltrated media." part.
First of all
1. Ship the journalists home ...at least the ones that are giving aid and comfort to the enemy without equal concern for our own troops.
You know the ones I mean....the ones that jump on every opportunity to "spin" events to support the notion that things are worse now than they were under Hussein
2. Let the troops fight...war is messy...sometimes good people die, but risking the lives of our troops in a vain attempt to "save one innocent Iraqui" is flat out stupid...and it is a direct result of the second guessing that can be minimized/eliminated by item #1
It is like the sausage making analogy....a lot of people are not comfotable with the details...so just show them the results!
Yeah...Iraq has not been directly linked to the hijackers or the planning for 9/11...so what.
Troops did find AQ training camps funded and equipped by S.H.
Equipped with things like an airliner so they could practice takeovers/hijacking...hmmm...too much of a coincidence...you decide
Our previous actions convinvced the bad guys(and a lot of good guys) that we had no stomach for fighting back...We bailed from the last Gulf War and a lot of good Iraquis died..people that stepped up because they trusted us.
The events in Somalia and halfhearted responses to terrorist activity by both Republicans and Democrats alike reinforced the idea that we would not respond (yes...I said both parties)
Whatever you might think of the current administrations efforts, at least we have seen leadership...as in doing what may not be popular ....but what needs to be done
We have taken the fight to terrorists and sponsors of terrorism
Maybe not all of them
But you don't need to fight every bully to send a clear message to them all
And yes....intelligent people can disagree..and that disagreement should be conveyed to the leadership in some organized fashion
But the incessant whining by the media....and yes....sections of the American public CAN and DO give aid and comfort to the enemy
Call it whatever you want...but it is adding to the problem without supporting (or offering) a solution
For better or worse....doing anything other than seeing this through would be a huge step backward and a horrible mistake
How we started the race is less important than how we finish
Whew...there...I feel better!
1. Ship the journalists home ...at least the ones that are giving aid and comfort to the enemy without equal concern for our own troops.
You know the ones I mean....the ones that jump on every opportunity to "spin" events to support the notion that things are worse now than they were under Hussein
2. Let the troops fight...war is messy...sometimes good people die, but risking the lives of our troops in a vain attempt to "save one innocent Iraqui" is flat out stupid...and it is a direct result of the second guessing that can be minimized/eliminated by item #1
It is like the sausage making analogy....a lot of people are not comfotable with the details...so just show them the results!
Yeah...Iraq has not been directly linked to the hijackers or the planning for 9/11...so what.
Troops did find AQ training camps funded and equipped by S.H.
Equipped with things like an airliner so they could practice takeovers/hijacking...hmmm...too much of a coincidence...you decide
Our previous actions convinvced the bad guys(and a lot of good guys) that we had no stomach for fighting back...We bailed from the last Gulf War and a lot of good Iraquis died..people that stepped up because they trusted us.
The events in Somalia and halfhearted responses to terrorist activity by both Republicans and Democrats alike reinforced the idea that we would not respond (yes...I said both parties)
Whatever you might think of the current administrations efforts, at least we have seen leadership...as in doing what may not be popular ....but what needs to be done
We have taken the fight to terrorists and sponsors of terrorism
Maybe not all of them
But you don't need to fight every bully to send a clear message to them all
And yes....intelligent people can disagree..and that disagreement should be conveyed to the leadership in some organized fashion
But the incessant whining by the media....and yes....sections of the American public CAN and DO give aid and comfort to the enemy
Call it whatever you want...but it is adding to the problem without supporting (or offering) a solution
For better or worse....doing anything other than seeing this through would be a huge step backward and a horrible mistake
How we started the race is less important than how we finish
Whew...there...I feel better!
Simple cost/benefit analysis:
I see only three choices:
1. The results of staying in Iraq are better than the results of leaving: We stay. Easy answer.
2. The results of staying are worse than the results of leaving: We leave. Again, an easy answer.
3. The results of staying and leaving are the same, or equal for different reasons. This is the tough one, but I say, in this case, we leave, and save the money and blood we'd otherwise spend for the same results as not spending them.
Number 1 is the Administration's theory, but I just don't see it. Really, I think #3 is about right. If the Iraqis are going to have a civil war, they're gonna. There's nothing we can do to stop it. We've been trying since at least the bombing of the Golden Dome, and it hasn't worked. We're spending 2 billion dollars a week that we don't have, thousands of our own are being killed, and I just don't see it getting any better.
The only way for an outside power to successfully intervene in a civil war would be to pick a side. Which one would you suggest? The Kurds are (smartly) sitting this out, and defending their own. Maybe if we pulled up into the North, in exchange for helping the Kurds set up an independent state (screw Turkey), we could get out of the way and be around to help pick up the peices afterwards, if you assume that an American presence in Iraq is in our interest, wich I don't think it is, at least not in any likely real world.
Do I want America to lose in Iraq? No. Do I think we will? Yes, I do. In fact, I think we already have. "Defeatism" is a non-word. For it to be a real concept, you have to believe that wishing something will make it so, and reality has a nasty habit of crushing that idea. I simply see no outcome in Iraq that will be worth the cost.
Get out.
--Shannon
I see only three choices:
1. The results of staying in Iraq are better than the results of leaving: We stay. Easy answer.
2. The results of staying are worse than the results of leaving: We leave. Again, an easy answer.
3. The results of staying and leaving are the same, or equal for different reasons. This is the tough one, but I say, in this case, we leave, and save the money and blood we'd otherwise spend for the same results as not spending them.
Number 1 is the Administration's theory, but I just don't see it. Really, I think #3 is about right. If the Iraqis are going to have a civil war, they're gonna. There's nothing we can do to stop it. We've been trying since at least the bombing of the Golden Dome, and it hasn't worked. We're spending 2 billion dollars a week that we don't have, thousands of our own are being killed, and I just don't see it getting any better.
The only way for an outside power to successfully intervene in a civil war would be to pick a side. Which one would you suggest? The Kurds are (smartly) sitting this out, and defending their own. Maybe if we pulled up into the North, in exchange for helping the Kurds set up an independent state (screw Turkey), we could get out of the way and be around to help pick up the peices afterwards, if you assume that an American presence in Iraq is in our interest, wich I don't think it is, at least not in any likely real world.
Do I want America to lose in Iraq? No. Do I think we will? Yes, I do. In fact, I think we already have. "Defeatism" is a non-word. For it to be a real concept, you have to believe that wishing something will make it so, and reality has a nasty habit of crushing that idea. I simply see no outcome in Iraq that will be worth the cost.
Get out.
--Shannon
mooreshawnm
New member
1) Anytime an IED goes off in front of a house, have the engineers level the house with heavy equipment.
2) Go after the militias and destroy them utterly.
3) Maintain accurate roles of Iraqi police/soldiers and severly punish those who desert.
4) Return fire with heavy artillery during mortor and rocket attacks.
5) Arrest any Iraqi government officials who sympathize with the insurgents.
6) Close the borders and kill anyone going through unofficial check points.
7) Find out where the Syrian/Iranian arms are coming through and attack the border towns with air power at night (on the other side of the border).....denying all responsibility afterwords.
8) Pull all troops into the Capital and at least maintain control there....giving responsibilty for the rest of the country to the Iraqis.
Shawn
2) Go after the militias and destroy them utterly.
3) Maintain accurate roles of Iraqi police/soldiers and severly punish those who desert.
4) Return fire with heavy artillery during mortor and rocket attacks.
5) Arrest any Iraqi government officials who sympathize with the insurgents.
6) Close the borders and kill anyone going through unofficial check points.
7) Find out where the Syrian/Iranian arms are coming through and attack the border towns with air power at night (on the other side of the border).....denying all responsibility afterwords.
8) Pull all troops into the Capital and at least maintain control there....giving responsibilty for the rest of the country to the Iraqis.
Shawn
- Status