My Plan for Iraq
Just so our Conservative readers are clear, I do have a plan for this horrific war. This is a strategy, mostly based on ideas of other Democratic leaders, which I believe includes the best options for salvaging this disastrous war. There are three key elements:
1) Set a time table for withdrawal. The timetable has 3 main parts.
-a) By July, drawback 50% of the troops to the borders (the strategic redeployment Murtha talks about).
-b) In one year, the remaining 50% of troops are fully out of the country (leaving a presence at the border, in case of serious crisis or genocide).
-c) Be totally out, zero presence anywhere in Iraq, in no more then18 months.
2) Train more Iraqi soldiers. An obvious statement, but I actually have an idea that I have never heard mentioned (except I think John Edwards sort of mentioned a similar plan in his VP debate, against Cheney, the man that shoots his friends).....
Over the next year, take every single Iraqi that wants to join he military OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Bring them to actual military bases, where the troops can get actual training. Its a joke to think that Iraqis can be trained in the middle of a war zone (errr, I mean Civil War zone). So take them to foreign countries where they can get the training they need. Nations like France have offered use of their facilities. Hell, take them to Fort Hood in Texas. This is doable. However, inexplicably, we aren't doing it.....and Iraqis aren't getting trained. I think it takes the US about four months to train a ground soldier. Well, if we gave those Iraqis a similar training environment, it stands to reason they would be ready to take over many responsibilities in one year.
3) Most Important: Absolutely RENOUNCE any plans of our use or attachment to any military bases in Iraq. There is fierce nationalism in Iraq, which is fueling this new surge toward Civil War. By promising we are actually leaving is the best way to temper that wild nationalism. Then we have to keep the promise, too.
So this is my plan. I don't know if it would stop the incoming Civil War. However, sadly, I do know that Bush will not be following any of my plans.
1) Set a time table for withdrawal. The timetable has 3 main parts.
-a) By July, drawback 50% of the troops to the borders (the strategic redeployment Murtha talks about).
-b) In one year, the remaining 50% of troops are fully out of the country (leaving a presence at the border, in case of serious crisis or genocide).
-c) Be totally out, zero presence anywhere in Iraq, in no more then18 months.
2) Train more Iraqi soldiers. An obvious statement, but I actually have an idea that I have never heard mentioned (except I think John Edwards sort of mentioned a similar plan in his VP debate, against Cheney, the man that shoots his friends).....
Over the next year, take every single Iraqi that wants to join he military OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Bring them to actual military bases, where the troops can get actual training. Its a joke to think that Iraqis can be trained in the middle of a war zone (errr, I mean Civil War zone). So take them to foreign countries where they can get the training they need. Nations like France have offered use of their facilities. Hell, take them to Fort Hood in Texas. This is doable. However, inexplicably, we aren't doing it.....and Iraqis aren't getting trained. I think it takes the US about four months to train a ground soldier. Well, if we gave those Iraqis a similar training environment, it stands to reason they would be ready to take over many responsibilities in one year.
3) Most Important: Absolutely RENOUNCE any plans of our use or attachment to any military bases in Iraq. There is fierce nationalism in Iraq, which is fueling this new surge toward Civil War. By promising we are actually leaving is the best way to temper that wild nationalism. Then we have to keep the promise, too.
So this is my plan. I don't know if it would stop the incoming Civil War. However, sadly, I do know that Bush will not be following any of my plans.
By Chuck - 2/25/2006
40 Comments:
Another thing I know, Jay File will return to this site in 3 months and yell about how I am just a whiny bitch that never offers any ideas.
I am also certain that other conservatives will say the same type of crap. However, from now on, I will not dignify their baseless attacks.
a brief drunken rambing
iraq is much more complicated than this. what the situation always called for was more troops. this was a country that needed to be run with an iron fist - because it was never even really a country. now the tide is so turned politicaly that this could never be done. so the republican plan is pretty much the same as your plan. if a timetable is what you want then i have two words for you - midterm elections. thats when we will be withdrawling many troops. forget bush's "we listen t the military" - bush does exactly what he says he doesn't, goes with the polls. you've heard the republican senators and our ambassodor to iraq talking about how we will stop supporting them if they don't get it together. no more "we will do whatever it takes. stay the course" now its "its time to stand on your own boys, we've done what we can." yeah - democracy is messy, eh rumsfield?
southern iraq is already being run by shariah law no different than in iran. the wallstreet journals iraq correspondet just returned after being there since before the war and was taking real offense to the idea that they were hyping up the negative things going on. she made the anology that if five suicide/car bombs went off in new york city in one day are you gonna write a story about the school house that got painted on the outskirts of town?
i don't belive tht anyone truly knows the solution to the iraq problem. it definitely didn't cost the 1.7 billion they told us it would......
That not a drunken rmbling - its a right on assessment
Like I said in another forum,Pentagon and W are right now making plans to pullout/pullback. The necessary cover stories are presently being fabricated.
Anonymous, the Republican plan involves:
1) no formal timetable (important for Iraqis knowing we are leaving)
2) no training of troops abroad (important because its a different path for our failing strategy)
3) Openly admitting we are planning on staying, and going to use the about 14 military bases we are building.
So I would not call this "the same" as the Republican plan. Considering I have 3 main points, all different from the Republican way, I think you are well off base claiming my plan is the same.
That said, I agree with your assessment of what Bush is doing. We are definitely pulling out (most) troops and Bush is going to act like that means success. Its a joke.
But again, I think a formal timetable is VERY different. It allows us to leave in an honest fashion. Honesty with that destroyed nation is the only way we will limit the already-beaming American hatred.
I think this pending civil war offers the United States an exit opportunity from Iraq. I'm not saying we should necessarily take it. I heard several talking heads on the Sunday shows yesterday say that if there is a civil war our troops should not be in the business of stopping it. I guess that means they would come home? Perhaps if the Iraqis are faced with having to deal with their own security then they will step up and do so. Maybe U.S. forces are a crutch that is slowing their progress.
John Warner (R-VA), Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, was on Meet The Press yesterday. He gave no indication of troop levels being drawn back and continued with the same "stay the course" talk we have been hearing. He said that there won't be a civil war because it is basically mutual assured destruction for all parties involved within Iraq. I don't think we'll have fewer than 130,000 troops in Iraq by this November. The variable is if this civil war lets us pull them all out.
Chuck, as for your third point on the military base, I'd bet we are there a VERY long time.
I think most guys know that despite all the talk "pulling out" is much easier said than done.
Train Iraqi forces...That's a new one. I wonder why the US isn't doing this? Oh wait, they are.
Time table for withdrawal. Just when the Iraqi's who are committed to a pluralistic peaceful democratic society need us the most, let's abandon them. Hmmmm. Genius.
I think you need to re-analyze what's fueling this civil war. This fuel was there long before we got there.
Sadly, it's still safe for Jay to come in and say you haven't offered any ideas.
More later...
Yea, they need us.....that's why they want a time table. They have asked us to leave.
Oh yea, another good one... Don't leave them in a time of need! Oh no! We left Afganistan in a time of need! That's why the only place the government has control is in the capital. You are genius Pete!
Why hasn't there been any reports of the Iraqis' being trained outside of the country? Maybe because they aren't!
By the way....
What's fueling this war, is us. The U.S. and the government's greed! Read a copy of National Geographic. The country is ready to spilt. The Kurds have already set up thier own state! Maybe they have the right idea. "Just leave us alone!"
Peter:
What exactly will we get out of the Iraq War ....and Is the cost worth it?
Pete, screw off with that train the troops mock. The speed we have trained the troops is a freaking joke. My idea offers a way to speed it up. For you to act like thge speed of training is acceptable is absurd and embarrassing.
And just because I offered ideas that you don't like doesn't mean I "haven't offered any ideas". Seriously, your comments were as dick as you have ever been.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
stop censoring yourself please.
Chuck, its ok if you want to call some sorry - butt - propagandist a little "name"
We dont care
The Iraq solution will be "peacekeepers " (UN). This would probably work as long as the US does not participate.
We have made such a goddam mess (diplomatically too) so far that its hardly a wonder that UN countries dont want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.
But when we take our face off the forces shaping the new Iraq, progress will have a much better chance.
Hey , what the hell , we can just redeploy back to Afganistan and waste the Taliban.....
I posted this comment below, but it serves just as well as a response here. I should say that you are right in that the military should have focused on training Iraqis sooner, but hindsight is 20/20, and everything I read now (including in the NYTimes) tells me that this is exactly what the military is focusing on now. (See Dexter Filkins article from 2/19 NYTimes Magazine)
Here is the WSJ quote I mention in the post below:
2/27 WSJ: "Democracy offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies- even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations- than acceding to dictatorships, which already have."
It's really easy to point to violence in Iraq and ask what we are winning, but there is no way to tell whether we are winning or not right now. Surely things could be going better, but you've admitted yourself that it will be years before we know the ultimate results of planting the seed of democracy in the Middle East.
It's too bad that you dismiss the WSJ quote as useless rhetoric...I suppose it's easy for you to do that since it seems these days that you only have Ben and I, and the random odd anonymous conservative poster braving your site (and not particularly eloquent ones at that). Judging from the responses that I get here, and the names that I'm constantly called, it's pretty easy to see why.
But since we're friends, I'll connect the dots re: the WSJ quote - First: The forces that are causing this violence have been in place long before US presence in Iraq...these evil forces seek to use religious strife to perpetuate the power of those who have it, instead of diffusing the power to the people. The people who perpetuate this are powerful, but they are not all powerful, as evidenced by the many young and old Iraqis who are committed to a peaceful, pluralistic society (including Ayatollah Sistani). What U.S. intervention in Iraq and the Middle East is all about is helping those people increase their legitimate power, and help encourage the average citizen to believe in self-determination and claim it as their right. To give up on this struggle is what you all are calling for, and what I (and the WSJ piece) point out is that this is exactly the strategy that led to the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the intifada in Israel, WTC bombing, 9/11, etc. in the first place. To say that Saddam is the only one who could keep Iraq under control is an insult to the Iraqi people, especially when we consider the brutal tactics that Saddam used to keep Iraq under control. Appeasing rulers like him was exactly what got us into all kinds of trouble in the first place. To give up now when we've accomplished so much (and spent so much) is foolish. We have to see things through until peaceful and right-thinking Iraqi's can defend themselves and democracy.
To acknowledge on one hand that we won't know the results of this intervention for years, and on the other to advocate premature withdrawal is tantamount to wishing for democracy in the Middle East to fail.
Blah blah blah. Its all well and good Pete, but that doesn't change my earlier pissed offness.
1) you claimed I didn't propose ideas, which is totally baseless and a bad-faith attempt at diminishing my post.
2) Through all your nice connecting of dots, you fail to acknowledge my "most important" point: we must denounce long term use of the Iraqi military bases.
All your comments are nice, but nearly irrelevant to my main arguments.
(not sure why i answered so nicely, since you used a very insulting tactic in your original comment)
A clarification: When I say "rulers like (Saddam)" I only mean rulers who conceive that their power derives from choking off the freedoms of their people. There are no rulers like Saddam if we compare his unique grip on the country, his brutal rule, and the tremendous amount of resources he had at his disposal.
Regarding my deleted comment. I made an unnecessary comment about how pro-war people should go to Iraq. It is off topic. While I think its true, I don't want to give the other side room to veer this debate off track.
I am just noting my comment to explain why I removed it. I don't want to debate it. It is irrelevant to our current discussion.
I will give our Conservative readers credit: they are getting me more focused.
That's a nice trick...completely ignore my arguments about why we shouldn't pull out (which is directly responsive to your timetable suggestion), then call it "focus."
Chuck, do yourself a favor and just ignore all the above doubletalk.
Peter will be very dissapointed when he wakes up to the fact that Iraq is an extremely destructive & costly military blunder.
I actually pity him (assuming he has a conscience)because he will have to live with scars of this war for the rest of his (God willing) long life.
Believe me, war such as this is not an isolated event - it eventually insidiously infects every aspect of the Nations who engage in it.
Pete, its not a trick.
1) You insulted me by saying i didn't propose ideas, so I have zero understanding of why I should go out of my way to debate your argument (which is only a fraction of my overall point).
2) I get it. you think we shouldn't pull out. I am not going to go in circles over it. I think we should leave. you and the WSJ editorial page don't. What more needs to be said.
3) your failure to acknowledge the military base issue is unfortunate. (oh, and that is what I labeled as most important)
Whatever, Pete. I want a retraction of the i "haven't offered any ideas" comment to be retracted before I ever respond to you again.
Solutions for Iraq
It is a common criticism of the pro-war crowd that all we, who opposed the war, do is criticize it and point out its shortcomings. There are very good reasons for that, not the least of which being the persistent denial about the facts in which many of the pro-war crowd persist--but it is also true that few of us offer viable alternatives for what to do /now/. None of the Democratic presidential candidates seem to have a very good vision of what to do yet, and I would argue that Bush's administration appears not to either.
So let's get down to brass tacks and work together to come up with a solution. What should our primary goals be in Iraq?
As I see it, they include:
Representative government: it does not need to be a democracy per se, nor necessarily anything on the American model, and the Iraqi people are certain to insist on a role for Islam to a degree with which we are not comfortable. But it must be a government which represents the desires and interests of the Iraqi people first, which respects internationally-recognized norms of human rights, and which can rejoin the world community as a peaceful member free of weapons of mass destruction.
Peace and lawful order: a functional police force which respects the rights of its citizens, protects them from harm and crime, and which offers due process for those accused of violating the law.
The total withdrawal of all American and Coalition forces as swiftly as can be managed: despite the crowing of those who espouse the "flypaper" strategy, the greatest risk to the Iraqi people from terrorists comes precisely because Iraq is occupied by American troops. Remove the Americans, and you remove almost all of the motivation for droves of terrorists to cross the border and come blow things up. Similarly, the presence and conduct of American troops is the #1 motivating factor for Iraqis who are presently involved in insurgency operations.
A mending of fences with the world community: put simply, ever since Bush came into office, he has been consistently snubbing the world community and sending the message that the United States is not a team player. This hurts our interests, it hurts the credibility and effectiveness of the UN, and it hurts our ability to pull strings and exert influence with a carrot instead of a stick. And in the current context, it is desperately hurting our ability to stabilize the mess that exists in Iraq.
Can anyone think of anything else?
Catsy
Heres some backup to Chuck's points:
Peter, pay heed
ENDING THE U.S. WAR IN IRAQ :
How to Bring the Troops Home and Internationalize the Peace
Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver
Institute for Policy Studies
January 12, 2005
How to Bring the Troops Home and Internationalize the Peace
Thanks Catsy. Thanks Petey.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow. I didn't realize you were so insulted. OK, I retract my "you didn't offer ANY ideas" and change it to "you didn't offer any particularly useful ideas," and I think I've gone out of my way to explain why.
I do take your point regarding minimizing US presence in Iraq. I don't know that anyone would argue that that would be a good thing, but to the extent that bases are necessary to fulfill our greater purpose in Iraq, I think that disavowing them would simply be cutting off our noses to spite our face. I thought that that would have been obvious from my initial post. So, can you please try to tell us why you think that pulling out is a good idea? Can you address the argument that the strategy you advocate is exactly what got us into trouble in the first place?
Catsy, no supporter of the war would argue that peace and order, representative government, and withdrawal of US troops are all valid goals that the government is working toward, and your last point regarding the "international community" is a tough one. Given the Oil for Food Scandal, and the rampant corruption that exists at the UN, especially w/r/t Saddam's oil contracts, its hard to say that we hurt the effectiveness and credibility of the UN, and it's hard to imagine what deference we ought to have toward it.
Take a minute to look at these faces
Seabee KIAs
Catsy's statement primarily refers to other nation's attitude towards the US. The state of the UN is secondary. In fact, no matter what the UN thinks about us - the most important is for the US to maintain good diplomatic relations with other countries and this is NOT happening under the current administration.
"A mending of fences with the world community: put simply, ever since Bush came into office, he has been consistently snubbing the world community and sending the message that the United States is not a team player. This hurts our interests, it hurts the credibility and effectiveness of the UN, and it hurts our ability to pull strings and exert influence with a carrot instead of a stick. And in the current context, it is desperately hurting our ability to stabilize the mess that exists in Iraq."
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
meant to post a comment in the gay adoption post. will respond here, later.
OK: Still waiting. Until then I recommend that the current plan that we have always had is still working: "Defeat the terrorists, train the military, and provide time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists."
"Defeat the terrorists, , and provide time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists."
Defeat the terrorists-not exactly happening
train the military-for how long, after the explosions of the shia mosques Iraqis were calling for the US troops to increase patrols/presence to maintain the govt imposed curfews...b/c there is no Iraqi force to speak of THREE YEARS LATER!!
"provide time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists."
till when Peter? what bench marks have occurred to make you feel that significant progress has been made on this front? The elections have happened, great and the region has seen an upswing in sectarian violence along with ever-increasing anti US sentiment.
Tangible goals please outline acceptable tangible goals, no more overarching hypotheses that cost far too much in lives and $$
We're not exactly defeating the terrorists? While it's essentially impossible for you to know that, have you ever considered that the recent violence is a sign of desparation? Every play poker? (All in...loser...damn)
How can you dismiss the elections so quickly? And how can you ignore the fact that within hours of the mosque blowing up, both Sunni and Shia leaders called for the violence to stop?
The goals discussed above are both entirely tangible and acceptable.
Apparently Chuck has given up on his plan. A good idea.
"We're not exactly defeating the terrorists? While it's essentially impossible for you to know that, have you ever considered that the recent violence is a sign of desperation? "-peterpettakos
But just up your plan was
"Until then I recommend that the current plan that we have always had is still working: "Defeat the terrorists" how do you know we are?
By Robert H. Reid, Associated Press | March 3, 2006
BAGHDAD -- The death toll among Iraqi civilians in insurgency-related violence last year was more than twice as high as that of the country's soldiers and police combined, according to government figures obtained yesterday by The Associated Press.
Breaking News Alerts And the civilian death count in the first two months of this year already stands at more than one-quarter of last year's total -- due largely to sectarian violence triggered by the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine and car bombings in Shi'ite neighborhoods around Baghdad.
From todays Boston globe-so I am comfortable in dismissing your analogy pertaining to desperation poker playing
Friday 03 March 2006, 15:00 Makka Time, 12:00 GMT
Armed men stormed an electricity substation and killed Shia factory workers in overnight attacks that killed at least 19 people in Baghdad's southeastern suburbs, police said on Friday.
From http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C3B01F23-1C2F-4D90-BE9D-F6A9474FF100.htm
So much for the calls of violence to stop, obviously the shia and sunni leaders you reference have little to no control over the insurgency, and it doesn't seem to be on the wane if you look at the evidence
In reference to goals, I was hoping you would state a # of independently functioning troops, establishment of basic civil services by a certain time, things like that instead you answered my direct question with a question of your own, which is again hypothetical in nature and avoid dealing with the issues I raised.
Sammy...for what it's worth, as much as I think you're missing a few important points, I know you're a good guy.
Who are you anyway?
a concerned citizen.. same as you my friend
Thank you!
[url=http://elhrfxex.com/qzjn/mbrt.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://dfpnfqyc.com/avwx/lszx.html]Cool site[/url]
Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit
Thank you!
http://elhrfxex.com/qzjn/mbrt.html | http://jxzbqtly.com/bcxj/hgqa.html
Post a Comment
<< Home