YOUR Iraq Policy

[5stringJeff]

I'm interested in what your policy would be regarding Iraq. Specifically:

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

2. Have we met those conditions? If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal? Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq? If so, how many troops, and how long?

EDIT: I don't mind people commenting on other people's ideas, but please post your own first.

[avatar4321]

We will be victorious when the Iraqi military can handle security matters in ourselves and we can focus on other terror nations, such as Iran.

We are on the pathway to there. Thing is people dont have the patience to actually carry out the mission. The troops do. but there are too many Americans who want to turn and run the second things get percieved as too tough.

Yes, we should keep military facilities there because we will need other operations in the middle east against terrorists and their sponsors.

[5stringJeff]

To answer my own question:

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

- Iraq has a stable, democratically elected government.
- Iraq's military is capable of handling threats from within (terror groups, Muslim extremists looking to overthrow the government) and without (Iran and Saudi Arabia).

2. Have we met those conditions? If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

I believe the current government is able to function on its own, given an absence of internal strife. Unfortunately, the country is full of internal strife, but that can only be overcome long-term by having the Iraqis take care of their own business. Our army is great at anti-insurgent combat, but until the Iraqis figure it out for themselves, we'll never be able to leave the country in peace.
I believe the best way to go about handling that is to let the Iraqi military/police deal with insurgents within Iraq, and allow American/coalition forces to deal with "border patrol" duties - i.e. keeping foreign powers out of Iraq until the government can stabilize itself. Obviously, this involves a "phasing-in" of Iraqi troops on the job, and a phasing out of the American troops on the job. This should last for no more than 6 months.

3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal? Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq? If so, how many troops, and how long?

American troops should stay to complete the 6-month phase-in I describe above. At that point, a military force should remain to deter Iran from attempting to overthrow Iraq's government by force, until Iraq's internal strife is under control (1-2 years). America should not retain a large military presence in Iraq past that point in time.

[Doniston]

I'm interested in what your policy would be regarding Iraq. Specifically:

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

2. Have we met those conditions? If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal? Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq? If so, how many troops, and how long?

EDIT: I don't mind people commenting on other people's ideas, but please post your own first.

1. I hate to be pesimistic but your first question is a non starter. There are no such conditions under the circumstances.
If we went in at all, w should have gone in, deposed Saddam, and left. (and I'm beginning to think even that was a mistake.)
There are three factions in Iraq, which will never be able to get along as one government. they are, and will ever be, either individually or combined with other outside agencies.

2. When we leave, it will cause a serious esculation.. but it doesn't matter when. the result will be the same. (Unless we remain an occupyingforce indefinitely). In the meantime, we will continue losing brave soldiers, for no good reason.

3. To me the only reasonable course would be to follow Levin's and Hagel's Ideas.
That is to announce to the Iraqi government that at such and such a time, we will BEGIN to remove our forces ------to be completed by a certain specific date. This, if phrased properly would convey the Idea that it is time for the Iraqi Government (such as it is) to get it's ducks in a row (That in four years, they have failed miserably in the doing,)

[Dilloduck]

[QUOTE=5stringJeff;54271]I'm interested in what your policy would be regarding Iraq. Specifically:

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

If the conditions now in Iraq existed before we entered, I doubt we would have done so on such a large scale. If we entered at all it would be to support one side,faction or sect but certainly not the islamo-facists. A very public offer to the world should be made stating we are prepared to leave Iraq but are very concerned about the power vacuum that would be left. Seek a multi national or pan-Arab force to replace American troops as they left. We make it very clear that any terrorists training camps that arise will be target by air strikes.


2. Have we met those conditions? If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

If no one steps up, we remain to guard borders and maintain a few large bases to harbor most of our troops and supply lines.


3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal? Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq? If so, how many troops, and how long?

Our troops should withdraw at the request of a recognized and elected Iraqi government that was willing to take over the responsibility for the futue of Iraq.

[avatar4321]

1. I hate to be pesimistic but your first question is a non starter. There are no such conditions under the circumstances.
If we went in at all, w should have gone in, deposed Saddam, and left. (and I'm beginning to think even that was a mistake.)
There are three factions in Iraq, which will never be able to get along as one government. they are, and will ever be, either individually or combined with other outside agencies.

2. When we leave, it will cause a serious esculation.. but it doesn't matter when. the result will be the same. (Unless we remain an occupyingforce indefinitely). In the meantime, we will continue losing brave soldiers, for no good reason.

3. To me the only reasonable course would be to follow Levin's and Hagel's Ideas.
That is to announce to the Iraqi government that at such and such a time, we will BEGIN to remove our forces ------to be completed by a certain specific date. This, if phrased properly would convey the Idea that it is time for the Iraqi Government (such as it is) to get it's ducks in a row (That in four years, they have failed miserably in the doing,)

I don't think your view is accurate at all. Ive talked with people who were involved in the negotiations between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis for the establishment of the Constitution. They all realize that there only chance is to work together to make this constitution work. And they are more than willing to work together. thing is there are outside forces influencing the terrorist activities in Iraq to undermine the government.

[Mr. P]

YOUR Iraq Policy

Would have been...

Sweep it clean, secure it, and start again with the MOST western friendly faction.

[Doniston]

I don't think your view is accurate at all. Ive talked with people who were involved in the negotiations between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis for the establishment of the Constitution. They all realize that there only chance is to work together to make this constitution work. And they are more than willing to work together. thing is there are outside forces influencing the terrorist activities in Iraq to undermine the government. .

I would like you to be right, I really would, but I am positive that what I stated will be the case

[manu1959]

I will answer this because we are there.....i do not believe we should be there nor do i believe we should have US military bases on foreign soil....

that said......

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

An iraq that can govern and defend itself.

2. Have we met those conditions?

No
If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

1 year

3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal?

An iraq that can govern and defend itself or 1 year whichever comes first
Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq?

Yes
If so, how many troops, and how long?

25,000, 5 years

[zefrendylia]

I'm interested in what your policy would be regarding Iraq. Specifically:

1. What are the conditions for success/victory in Iraq?

2. Have we met those conditions? If not, can we, and how long would it take, given the right amount of resources/soldiers?

3. What are the conditions for troop withdrawal? Should the U.S. retain a residual military presence in Iraq? If so, how many troops, and how long?

EDIT: I don't mind people commenting on other people's ideas, but please post your own first.


1. Get the f*** out. That's a victory. The whole reason there is a "war" in Iraq is because of the American occupation. The occupation itself is fundamentally despised by 75% of Iraqis (including Kurds) and further loathed by our governmental incompetence. End the occupation and you end the war. Will there still be conflict, strife, killing? Sure. That's going on right now in Darfur and we aren't doing a thing about it. But you remove one of the main reasons for the existence of an insurgency (or resistance if you will), and you remove the motivation to fight.

Remember Al Qaeda is just one group in the insurgency, and they are not well liked by all its members. But Sunnis form this unholy alliance because AQ has the means and will to attack Americans. The Shiites too are growing more angry with the Americans and some groups are stepping up their attacks. They of course have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Once America leaves, the Sunnis will have no qualms with kicking out their Al Qaeda brothers. They're starting to do it right now with the internal fighting between the Sunnis. The media likes to highlight the sectarian division between Sunnis and Shias, but the fact of the matter is they can get along fine. It was the occupation that artificially empowered the Shias and disenfranchised the Sunnis. It was also Al Qaeda, who much to the chagrin of Sunnis, attacked innocent civilians to "punish" them for collaborating with the Americans. I'm not blaming anyone, its just a fact of life when you occupy another country by force.


2. If you want a WWII-like victory, then all you have to do is nuke the whole country and bomb everyone--civilian and insurgent--until they submit to your will. We could very well accomplish this--if that's your idea of success.

If you want to establish security, you will need something closer to 500,000 troops plus combat support to lock down a country of 25 million. Even then, you will still have an active resistance. Once you lock everyone down, process them, install a martial law type of government, then you can start rebuilding and reconstruction. But for this to mean anything to the people, they have to be actively involved with their own reconstruction. The larger, unasked question is, is this what the Iraqi people want? How would you like it if I walked into your house and told you how to live? No offense, I'm just asking.

I'd say, with adequate resources 2-3 years for security, and 3 years for basic infrastructure, and 10-20 years for economic development (if we don't impose loans with high interest rates). However, establishing security is not a guarantee regardless of how many troops you have. Also, this would cost the U.S. taxpayers a pretty penny of money we don't have (everything we have spent in Iraq so far is through securities bought by foreign countries--mainly China).

3. Should the U.S. maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq? Only if you want them to get attacked. At this point in time, right or wrong, any military presence will be viewed as an occupation and an attempt to maintain U.S. influence over Iraq--economically and politically. Again, how would you like it if the Iraqis kept dozens of garrisons here in the states and could use deadly force without any repercussions by our government?

[avatar4321]

I would like you to be right, I really would, but I am positive that what I stated will be the case

you dont have to take my word for it. I completely understand if you dont. The media propaganda against winning in Iraq would be completely overwhelming if i paid attention to it instead of getting information from more direct sources.

[5stringJeff]

Yes, we should keep military facilities there because we will need other operations in the middle east against terrorists and their sponsors.

Couldn't we use our military facilities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for such operations?


That is to announce to the Iraqi government that at such and such a time, we will BEGIN to remove our forces ------to be completed by a certain specific date. This, if phrased properly would convey the Idea that it is time for the Iraqi Government (such as it is) to get it's ducks in a row (That in four years, they have failed miserably in the doing,)

Would you make that announcement public, or just to the government? If you make it public, you are essentially giving insurgent groups a target date for their attempt to overthrow the government.


A very public offer to the world should be made stating we are prepared to leave Iraq but are very concerned about the power vacuum that would be left. Seek a multi national or pan-Arab force to replace American troops as they left. We make it very clear that any terrorists training camps that arise will be target by air strikes.[quote]

So, in other words, replace the American troop presence with an Arab troop presence? Sounds good in theory, but I'm not too sure the Iraqis would go for that.

[quote=Dilloduck]Our troops should withdraw at the request of a recognized and elected Iraqi government that was willing to take over the responsibility for the futue of Iraq.

What happens when the Iraqi government realizes it is getting something for nothing, and they never request America to leave?