We all tend to play the blame game on how/why the U.S. ousted Saddam and are now in this current mess of playing "policeman" in a country who hates themselves (Shias, Sunnis, and Kurd's) as much as they don't like us.

Obviously neither "staying the course" or "pull everyone out tomorrow" is going to work. The politico's offer time tables/increased troups/immediate withdrawal, etc. But I have yet to hear exactly how any of these options work for the betterment of Iraq or the U.S.

What do you guys and gals think would be the best approach to the US situation in Iraq?

BTW - I put this in World News, instead of Politics - hoping it won't turn into our to-often finger pointing game. I think most are aware of what each other thinks about why we invaded, but it is a touch more difficult to figure out how and when to leave.

saddam is gone thats why we needed to go. theres no need to stay anymore. i say we pull the troops back slowly but soon.let them take it from there.

There has been worse dictators than Saddam Hussein, and no one invaded those countries, actually the US had very close contact/diplomatic relations with them... So, why did the US go to Iraq?... And, please, don't tell me it was because of the (ghost) WMDs or his (non-existent) contacts with Al-Qaida. US won't leave until after the elections of 2008, provided that the Republican clowns don't cheat again...

There has been worse dictators than Saddam Hussein,

who

There has been worse dictators than Saddam Hussein, and no one invaded those countries, actually the US had very close contact/diplomatic relations with them... So, why did the US go to Iraq?... And, please, don't tell me it was because of the (ghost) WMDs or his (non-existent) contacts with Al-Qaida. US won't leave until after the elections of 2008, provided that the Republican clowns don't cheat again...

This is a solution? Please read the thread and try again.

We ARE there.... now how does the U.S. get out the best way for all concerned.

I have some thoughts on this. It seems obvious to me that any lasting solution will involve a partition -- barring the presence of a strong-man these folks will just keep on killing each other. Ideally, you would end up with three independent states: one Sunni, one Shia and one Kurd. There are Kurdish minorities in Turkey and Iran which should be incorporated into the new Kurdish state. However, both Turkey and Iran will balk at ceding any territory. But for Turkey this could be the price for admission to the European Union while for Iran it could mean the lifting of some UN sanctions. Plus, the Iranians will gain a friendly Shia state on their western border.

Oil is the major stumbling block to any solution, and the Sunnis are going to get the short end of that stick no matter what. But what about their friends the Saudis who are right next door? Why can't the Saudis (and the Kuwaitis) subsidize their Sunni brethren in return for a measure of security?

Baghdad is a major problem and will either have to be divided or handed over to the Shia, The thing is, Baghdad is already partitioning itself as neighborhoods become enclaves of one side or the other, so why not make the process easier for everyone? An international peacekeeping force could be useful during this process.

These ideas involve concessions and commitments from many states. The only way to accomplish something like this is to have a congress of nations, a diplomatic initiative where everybody sits down and hammers out a deal. Everybody gives something and everybody gets something and you keep negotiating until the deal is done. Now, I know these ideas are pie-in-the-sky but for God's sake we should at least get the ball rolling and see where it goes. It can't do any harm and might do a world of good.

Cant see a peace force working,no body wants to go in and clean up Bush's mess.

We lost 12 more of our finest ...

http://p243.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070503185490

we're getting closer and closer to the threshold.

There has been worse dictators than Saddam Hussein, and no one invaded those countries, actually the US had very close contact/diplomatic relations with them... So, why did the US go to Iraq?... And, please, don't tell me it was because of the (ghost) WMDs or his (non-existent) contacts with Al-Qaeda. US won't leave until after the elections of 2008, provided that the Republican clowns don't cheat again...

Your user name is 'liberal', does this post reflect your actual beliefs or are you just trying to play the part of the stereotypical fact-avoiding liberal we've all come to know and love?

I don't know if there is a scale for level of evil among leaders, but if there was, then Saddam was near the top. The US did not have any actual contact with him, he continuously lied to them since the gulf war. The US went to Iraq partly out of fear of something like 9/11 happening again. They went after Afghanistan, that was quick, then went after a leader who is right in the middle of the problems in the middle east. He was sponsoring terrorism and had the means to plan major attacks. The WMDs were not there, but were definitely used as the backbone in the argument to invade Iraq. Both sides in the US supported it, most everyone thought it was legit. If the US had the information there were WMDs and did nothing, then you would be bitching about them not doing enough.

Saddam had many contacts with Al-Qaeda and many contacts with other terrorist groups. Unfortunately the world is not what it was before 9/11/01 and we will probably be in a war in some form or another for many years to come. Republicans didn't cheat in the elections, that's very obvious to anyone that paid attention to that election.

This is coming from someone that does not like Bush and would never vote for him. But get real, facts are facts. Quit distorting the truth, you make yourself sound like a prick.

Not like this post was really worth typing. Just joined the board, so I apologize for any perceived abrasiveness and for my semi-detached writings.

In response to the original thread...

We definitely cannot leave Iraq yet. It seems like its their battle and we should slowly hand it over to them, but I think our presence in that region is crucial to us avoiding any future terrorist attacks in the U.S.

I think Joe Biden is spot on.

He has been predicting for years that this will eventually lead to the balkinization of Iraq. That is the best course of action in order to end the violence, end our occupation of their country and get our troops home.


We all tend to play the blame game on how/why the U.S. ousted Saddam and are now in this current mess of playing "policeman" in a country who hates themselves (Shias, Sunnis, and Kurd's) as much as they don't like us.

Obviously neither "staying the course" or "pull everyone out tomorrow" is going to work. The politico's offer time tables/increased troups/immediate withdrawal, etc. But I have yet to hear exactly how any of these options work for the betterment of Iraq or the U.S.

What do you guys and gals think would be the best approach to the US situation in Iraq?

BTW - I put this in World News, instead of Politics - hoping it won't turn into our to-often finger pointing game. I think most are aware of what each other thinks about why we invaded, but it is a touch more difficult to figure out how and when to leave.

Oh God,same old bullshit.
Iraqs connection to AlQaeda-none.
Iraqs conection to 9/11-none.

In response to the original thread...

We definitely cannot leave Iraq yet. It seems like its their battle and we should slowly hand it over to them, but I think our presence in that region is crucial to us avoiding any future terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Stay forever then? How long are you talking. When do we leave and let them govern themselves? How much money would you be willing to spend to get them to a stable situation?

I say we should pack our bags and go home. Iraq is a different nation, we do not govern them. They govern themselves.

Let them slaughter each other, the role of the US is not to be a 'global police'.

The US Government is responsable for the safety of the Iraqi civilian population.
It must ensure they are safe before they leave.It would be totally irresponsable to invade a country,remove its leader,impose a puppet Government that nobody recognises,then simply leave when it suits.

I have some thoughts on this. It seems obvious to me that any lasting solution will involve a partition -- barring the presence of a strong-man these folks will just keep on killing each other. Ideally, you would end up with three independent states: one Sunni, one Shia and one Kurd. There are Kurdish minorities in Turkey and Iran which should be incorporated into the new Kurdish state. However, both Turkey and Iran will balk at ceding any territory. But for Turkey this could be the price for admission to the European Union while for Iran it could mean the lifting of some UN sanctions. Plus, the Iranians will gain a friendly Shia state on their western border.

Oil is the major stumbling block to any solution, and the Sunnis are going to get the short end of that stick no matter what. But what about their friends the Saudis who are right next door? Why can't the Saudis (and the Kuwaitis) subsidize their Sunni brethren in return for a measure of security?

Baghdad is a major problem and will either have to be divided or handed over to the Shia, The thing is, Baghdad is already partitioning itself as neighborhoods become enclaves of one side or the other, so why not make the process easier for everyone? An international peacekeeping force could be useful during this process.

These ideas involve concessions and commitments from many states. The only way to accomplish something like this is to have a congress of nations, a diplomatic initiative where everybody sits down and hammers out a deal. Everybody gives something and everybody gets something and you keep negotiating until the deal is done. Now, I know these ideas are pie-in-the-sky but for God's sake we should at least get the ball rolling and see where it goes. It can't do any harm and might do a world of good.

Your thoughts are very similar to mine. Bagdad will most likely become the next Berlin, a city divided for at least a few decades. I also agree the Saudi's should step up and help in this situation. The Kurds have a semi-kindred spirit north in Turkey (and the EU admittance for Turkey is a concept that I haven't thought of - excellent point).

The real problem I see is the Iranians, where there is still much hatred for the Iraqi people, and I think that they will do everything in their power to forment civil war and further weaken Iraq. I don't have my "answer" for that part yet.

As far as a "time table", I don't know yet... it will depend on cooperation between many nations and some guidelines that must be adhered to. I only wish the UN was actually useful and not such a political group of whine-bags.

As regards Turkey joining the EU,thanks but no thanks.The EU is somewhat shielded from Asia by Former Soviet states,if Turkey were to join well,their eastern borders run into some very anti western places.

I have experience of walls seperating citys,they do serve an intial purpose,but what takes a few months to erect,takes decades to dismantle.

I wouldnt be surprised if an unoffical timetable has been worked out in Washington as regards Iraq. Its really a face saving exercise now,and like I said I hope the civilian security is taken into account,which I doubt.
Aftermath of a withdrawl is another major concern,America has handed the region to Iran on a plate.

The US Government is responsable for the safety of the Iraqi civilian population.
It must ensure they are safe before they leave.It would be totally irresponsable to invade a country,remove its leader,impose a puppet Government that nobody recognises,then simply leave when it suits.

I agree, which is why we need to end the cycle of perpetual war and start trying to secure actual peace in Iraq. We need to seperate the fighting parties and get the international community involved, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

First thing, IMO, we need to solve the problem of a 60% unemployment rate in Iraq.

There are a number of posters says we need to do this, or do that, but not one has said "how" to do any of it. Seems like everyone "knows" what to do, but not how.
The only thing the U. S. should do is leave, and let the Iraqi govern and police themselves. Now, not next month, or next year. NOW!

There are a number of posters says we need to do this, or do that, but not one has said "how" to do any of it. Seems like everyone "knows" what to do, but not how.
The only thing the U. S. should do is leave, and let the Iraqi govern and police themselves. Now, not next month, or next year. NOW!I quite agree, but the topic of the thread is "Solution to the Iraq situation".

Whether we stay or not, severe problems will remain.

So why hasn't anyone posted a "solution"?
Dividing the country, ending unemployment, protecting the people, all sound great, until ask HOW.

The only thing the U. S. should do is leave, and let the Iraqi govern and police themselves. Now, not next month, or next year. NOW!

Leaving right now would cause Iran and Saudi Arabia to both try to take over and would probably cause a region-wide war between Shia and Sunnis (and Kurds) in the process.

We need to, at the very least, maintain enough of a presence to supervise the Iranians and Saudis as they step up their involvement as we draw ours down.

We need a timeline, even if it is non-binding, to put pressure on the Iraqis and to let them know we are not staying forever. If they continue to flounder, then we make it binding.

If the Iraqis cannot get it together after X amount of time, then we seperate the fighting parties and take the choice out of their hands.

We cannot stay there forever but we cannot leave overnight either.

The only way to stop those countries from taking over, just as soon as the U.S.leaves, is to build the Iraqi military back to a strength equal to others in the area. Is that you proposal? How many years, and how much money, are you willing to spend?

The only way to stop those countries from taking over, just as soon as the U.S.leaves, is to build the Iraqi military back to a strength equal to others in the area. Is that you proposal? How many years, and how much money, are you willing to spend?

No, that is not my proposal.

As I have said many times, I think Joe Biden has it right on Iraq.

Frankly, I don't think the three tribes that live in the region have enough interest in maintaining the nation of Iraq, which was created less than 90 years ago when the British took three oil fields, drew a line around them on a map and called it "Iraq".

Eventually this is going to come to a point where we have to supervise the seperation of the parties and allow them to each govern themselves.

Leaving tomorrow would be almost as big a mistake as the invasion itself originally was.

Again, I'll ask, how many years and how much money are you proposing to invest in this occupation? Or should I ask how much is Biden willing to invest?

Again, I'll ask, how many years and how much money are you proposing to invest in this occupation? Or should I ask how much is Biden willing to invest?

I cannot name a dollar value or a specific number of years. That would not be logical.

Oh man -- not another chickenhawk conservative that's gonna tell us how we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

Let the Iraqis figure out what they want to do. It's their country.

Oh man -- not another chickenhawk conservative that's gonna tell us how we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

Where?

I cannot name a dollar value or a specific number of years. That would not be logical.


Then there isn't much point of establishing a time limit for withdrawal. Its, in your words, not logical.

On that we agree, however, I don't believe we should waste one more American life, dollar, or week, occupying a country thats going to fall apart, or be invaded by its neighbors, just as soon as we leave.

Let the Iraqis figure out what they want to do. It's their country.

They know what they want to do.

The Shites want to rule since they have a Democracy and a Majority.
The Sunnis want to rule since they have been the ruling class for decades and theirs is the majority sect of Islam.
The Kurds want to be independant and have their own state, which is what they have wanted for decades.

First we need to accept that regardless of what we do, that country is fucked. However, there are things we can do to reduce the level of fuckedness.

The main thing that needs to be done is to make an effort at diplomacy and negotiation. We need to urge, rather than discourage, talks between the parties in government and the various militias. Many of them already have close associations with the militias and may be able to bring them to the table. Depending on the circumstances, the US could also take part in these negotiations.

A larger role for the US would be in international diplomacy. We need to hold talks with Iraq's neighbors and encourage them to take action against the various things fuelling the conflict, eg. the flow of arms and funds to the militias, the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, etc. Of course, how much these countries will be willing to concede will largely depend on the internal situation in Iraq and the actions taken by the Iraqi government and militias.

Militarily, we will have to adapt to the results of the various negotiations. We may have to continue the offensive against some of the militias and terrorist groups, while accepting ceasefires with others. But as always, our military strategy will depend on the situation, and will have to change as the situation changes. For the time being though, our current strategy seems the best approach to take.

Where?

Up-thread on page 1

They know what they want to do.

The Shites want to rule since they have a Democracy and a Majority.
The Sunnis want to rule since they have been the ruling class for decades and theirs is the majority sect of Islam.
The Kurds want to be independant and have their own state, which is what they have wanted for decades.

Which is why us being there and supporting the Shites makes no sense. We need to leave and let the people of Iraq solve Iraq's problems.

We lost 12 more of our finest ...

http://p243.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070503185490

we're getting closer and closer to the threshold.
What exactly is the "threshold?"

What exactly is the "threshold?"

Can't tell ya the exact number but we're almost there.

Firstly,its beyond the mind set and thinking of the Republican Party to leave Iraq in any sense of order and peace before leaving.They see the world in black and white,they're way or no way.
The next Administration will have Iraq dumped on their lap as problem #1.
This will be good for the party that looses the next election,as whoever is in charge by that time will be under massive pressure from a growing impatient American public to pull the plug,if a new Admin are too slow or get it wrong,it will virtually guarantee one term in power ten they're out,so unfortunately for Iraqs people,theres a little bit of politics to be squeezed out of them yet.

That aside,what should be done.
There's 2 options really.
1. Keep Iraq in its present form.
To try and achieve this,the US needs to train up the Iraqi forces,at the same time slowly hand over daily duties to the Iraqis,confining more US troops to base weekly,until your at the stage where Iraqi forces are doing most of the leg work,and you can start withdrawing US troops.

2.Break up the country into 3 sections, this is the least desirable option,it would take years of negotiation and US troop involvement.Would leave the oil in anti western hands for the most,would make Iran the dominate force in the region and possibly destabilise oil prices globally.

There's 2 options really.
1. Keep Iraq in its present form.
To try and achieve this,the US needs to train up the Iraqi forces,at the same time slowly hand over daily duties to the Iraqis,confining more US troops to base weekly,until your at the stage where Iraqi forces are doing most of the leg work,and you can start withdrawing US troops.

2.Break up the country into 3 sections, this is the least desirable option,it would take years of negotiation and US troop involvement.Would leave the oil in anti western hands for the most,would make Iran the dominate force in the region and possibly destabilise oil prices globally.

It took Saddam, what 20 years, to "train up the Iraqi forces" to the point where, with a lot of American military aid, he could stand off Iran.
The American people will never allow anywhere near that amount of time, or money, on Iraq.
Its best to just tell them to do it now, rather than waste time, money, and most importantly, lives on a worthless endeavor.

OK mod, you were asking for solutions to the issue,theres mine,lets see yours.

OK mod, you were asking for solutions to the issue,theres mine,lets see yours.

I don't believe there are any solutions, that will be good for all sides. At least not than can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time, with a reasonable cost (in both lives and dollars). Your dealing with the mid-east. Nothing has ever been settled there, not since Alexander.

what about the civilians who were not aligned to saddam,do you think the US has a responsibility to them.

what about the civilians who were not aligned to saddam,do you think the US has a responsibility to them.

No, not really. I believe our people should have been pulled out of Iraq, when Saddams government fell apart, and his army took off their uniforms and went home. From that moment on Iraqi should have been responsible for themselves. We should have never become a occupation force.

Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it. You ask me for mine, I gave it to you. I think it was irresponsable for so many nation to allow Saddam to rule as long as he did. It was irresponsable for the Iraqi people to allow it. Now its time for them to take care of themselves.

That aside,what should be done.
There's 2 options really.
1. Keep Iraq in its present form.
To try and achieve this,the US needs to train up the Iraqi forces,at the same time slowly hand over daily duties to the Iraqis,confining more US troops to base weekly,until your at the stage where Iraqi forces are doing most of the leg work,and you can start withdrawing US troops.

2.Break up the country into 3 sections, this is the least desirable option,it would take years of negotiation and US troop involvement.Would leave the oil in anti western hands for the most,would make Iran the dominate force in the region and possibly destabilise oil prices globally.

i'd definitely agree with the first. As in most third world countries the army is the one institution of state that has the ability to hold the state together and keep it on track. The sooner we can get them up and running the sooner our presence can be diminished. It won't take 20 years. The US Army is infinitely more capable than Saddam when it comes to military affairs. More like 10 years. They need to create an NCO cadre which forms the backbone of any army. That only comes with time and experience.

The most interesting development is the creation of the Awakening Party. It sunni oriented and consists of the tribes that are now part of the Anbar Salvation Council. If they prove to be as good as their word and can help eliminate AQ in Iraq then that may generate some political capital. They need some room and time to breath on that.

As to segregating the sides it's already happening on its own. The sunni's, once 20% of the population, are apparently down to 10%. The ASC/Awakening Party are an expression of that realization. They no longer have the numbers to conduct anything other than a guerilla campaign. Any guerilla campaign will see more sunnis tossed out of bagdhad and kirkuk which are the last big population centers for the sunnis. The sunni may be in the mood to begin horse trading.

With Iraq being such a corrupt country,and the police and military so infiltrated by insurgents and radical Muslims,the private Armys are stronger than the National one.
I fear the breakup will win the day,and Iraq will become what Lebanon was 20 years ago,and still is to an extent.

Your user name is 'liberal', does this post reflect your actual beliefs or are you just trying to play the part of the stereotypical fact-avoiding liberal we've all come to know and love?

I don't know if there is a scale for level of evil among leaders, but if there was, then Saddam was near the top. The US did not have any actual contact with him, he continuously lied to them since the gulf war. The US went to Iraq partly out of fear of something like 9/11 happening again. They went after Afghanistan, that was quick, then went after a leader who is right in the middle of the problems in the middle east. He was sponsoring terrorism and had the means to plan major attacks. The WMDs were not there, but were definitely used as the backbone in the argument to invade Iraq. Both sides in the US supported it, most everyone thought it was legit. If the US had the information there were WMDs and did nothing, then you would be bitching about them not doing enough.

Saddam had many contacts with Al-Qaeda and many contacts with other terrorist groups. Unfortunately the world is not what it was before 9/11/01 and we will probably be in a war in some form or another for many years to come. Republicans didn't cheat in the elections, that's very obvious to anyone that paid attention to that election.

This is coming from someone that does not like Bush and would never vote for him. But get real, facts are facts. Quit distorting the truth, you make yourself sound like a prick.

Not like this post was really worth typing. Just joined the board, so I apologize for any perceived abrasiveness and for my semi-detached writings.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7884/sheepleii6.jpg

Baa-aa-aa-aa-hhhhh!!!!!!

With Iraq being such a corrupt country,and the police and military so infiltrated by insurgents and radical Muslims,the private Armys are stronger than the National one.
I fear the breakup will win the day,and Iraq will become what Lebanon was 20 years ago,and still is to an extent.

What is the evidence for the military being so infiltrated by radicals and 'insurgents'?

What is the evidence for the military being so infiltrated by radicals and 'insurgents'?
Dont know what it is today,everyone wants proof.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7828/

Dont know what it is today,everyone wants proof.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7828/


That's more than 2 years old. While i'll grant you that the military is not completely free i won't grant you that they are rife. On a scale of 10 they're probably a 3/4 and heading lower.

That's more than 2 years old. While i'll grant you that the military is not completely free i won't grant you that they are rife. On a scale of 10 they're probably a 3/4 and heading lower.
Well,Im not sure how much of a percentage point you need to make the point that Iraqi forces are infiltrated,but there ya go.
No doubt if I trawled thru the data I could find a more up to date report on the issue,but whats the point,the evidence you required was provided.

Well,Im not sure how much of a percentage point you need to make the point that Iraqi forces are infiltrated,but there ya go.
No doubt if I trawled thru the data I could find a more up to date report on the issue,but whats the point,the evidence you required was provided.

That's like giving me a map from 1000 A.D. and saying see, the world is flat, the map proves it.
I can give you lots more information about units being disbanded, military and police, a number of members being turfed from the unit, the entire new unit being retrained with new commanders.

That's like giving me a map from 1000 A.D. and saying see, the world is flat, the map proves it.
I can give you lots more information about units being disbanded, military and police, a number of members being turfed from the unit, the entire new unit being retrained with new commanders.
Fair enough,but whos to say whether these new commanders and servicemen are not working for the insurgents or the Mullahs,its impossable to answer.
All we know is,that they have been infiltrated and some have been found out.

The latest news from Iraq, and quite indicative of the situation there:
U.S. allows Shiite militia security role (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_baghdad_shrine)

This is the best synopsis of the situation, pros and cons, and what needs to be done you'll read anywhere.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/05/iraq-trip-report-2-29-april-20/

The latest news from Iraq, and quite indicative of the situation there:
U.S. allows Shiite militia security role (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_baghdad_shrine)

Lets hope they don't put them in charge of policing the Sunnis.

This is the best synopsis of the situation, pros and cons, and what needs to be done you'll read anywhere.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/05/iraq-trip-report-2-29-april-20/

That blogger certainly is longwinded.

Unfortunately he still thinks this is a war, when in fact it is an occupation.

Bing West, blogger? You might want to read up on bing's history. Hardly a blogger.

As to what he actually said it was nothing about it being a war or an occupation. He described what he thinks, based on what he saw, is required to achieve stability in iraq.

Do you disagree with what he said? If so why?

Unfortunately he still thinks this is a war, when in fact it is an occupation.
Since you constantly bring this up, let me repeat some questions that I never really got an answer to:

1. Is it not possible to occupy a country and be at war with some of its population at the same time? Why is it an either-or thing?

2. Why does it matter what it's called? Does calling it something different change anything?

Well,Im not sure how much of a percentage point you need to make the point that Iraqi forces are infiltrated,but there ya go.
No doubt if I trawled thru the data I could find a more up to date report on the issue,but whats the point,the evidence you required was provided.

That's part of the huge conundrum we faced when Iraqi Freedom
started.I don't believe The Pentagon or State Dept,has any idea'r that
Saddam & Sons and his Military would disperse,NOT fight and basically
go underground,and blend into the Community.
Saddam's Republican Guard even fled.About the only ones who
initially fought when Iraqi Freedom started were the dreaded and
deadly Fedayeen and holdouts like Ba'ath Party Loyalists.
Then as Opportunity arose for Iran & Syria to import their brand
of insurgents and al-Qaeda set up shop,the new Revolution of
past Religious intolerance and routes of leadership and
control began taking root.
This is a very complicated War with many diverging elements.

Its a pity the so called experts in the Pentagon didnt thing this would happen before they found WMDs in Iraq.

Its a pity the so called experts in the Pentagon didnt thing this would happen before they found WMDs in Iraq.

The Marked difference between republicans AND democrats is thus :
-----------------------------------------------------------
Democcrats act like little spoiled brat tattle tales.They love to
Boast,and preen but also kowtow to whining.They're THE first to
Revel in Victory and the Last to stand up and take notice.
Paris Hilton is a poster child for Democrats.
**********************************************

Republicans are True realists.Like Rummy said. " You go to War
with the Military you have." That also means you take things as
they come in War.War is ALWAYS a huge part inevitability and
mystery.You don't Stop and take a Nap in the heat of Battle.
Curl up on yer little security blanket and munch animal crackers
and sip Kool aid.
Mel Gibson is the Poster boy for Repubbies.
He stands up and takes his licks like a Man.

1. Is it not possible to occupy a country and be at war with some of its population at the same time? Why is it an either-or thing?

2. Why does it matter what it's called? Does calling it something different change anything?

The answer to the both is the same, because a "War" and an "Occupation" have completely different goals and require completely different priorities, tactics and skillsets.

President Bush told the American people that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" over 4 years ago. He also said that we entered a phase of "rebuilding" in Iraq.

Was he Lying?

Let me ask you a question, how can you simultaneously "rebuild" a country and be at war with it's people at the same time?

Explain that to me.

Bing West, blogger? You might want to read up on bing's history. Hardly a blogger.

He is a blogger.
What part of the word "blog" on his website confused you?

I already explained why I don't agree with him. Go reread it.

The answer to the both is the same, because a "War" and an "Occupation" have completely different goals and require completely different priorities, tactics and skillsets.Yes, they have different goals, but that still doesn't mean that the two can't occur simultaneously.


President Bush told the American people that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" over 4 years ago. He also said that we entered a phase of "rebuilding" in Iraq.

Was he Lying?No, he was just very wrong. Some of the operations that have taken place after "Mission Accomplished" can barely be called anything but major combat operations.

Let me ask you a question, how can you simultaneously "rebuild" a country and be at war with it's people at the same time?

Explain that to meWe're not at war with the entire population of Iraq. We're at war with some of them, while helping others "rebuild."

Yes, they have different goals, but that still doesn't mean that the two can't occur simultaneously.

Actually, yes it does. You cannot simultaneously rebuild and wage war on the same nation.

However, you CAN simultaneously rebuild a country and assist the local authorities in a police action.

That is why the language matters, because with it comes a whole different set of priorities, goals and tactics for achieving them.


No, he was just very wrong. Some of the operations that have taken place after "Mission Accomplished" can barely be called anything but major combat operations.

So, according to you, the Commander in Chief is so completely incompetent and out of touch with reality that he would declare an end to major combat operations in a "War" without a clue what he was actually doing; And that his Generals and top advisors all allowed him to do it.

God help us if you are right.


We're not at war with the entire population of Iraq. We're at war with some of them, while helping others "rebuild."

Thats called a "Police Action" not a "war".

"War" is waged by nations upon other nations, not individual citizens.

Anyone know what the legal acpect is.
Legislation for war must be different from a police action.

He is a blogger.
What part of the word "blog" on his website confused you?

I already explained why I don't agree with him. Go reread it.


This just in, it's not his web site. Small Wars Journal is a private site. It is run by Small Wars Journal, LLC, a private company formed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its principals are Dave Dilegge (Editor-in-Chief) and Bill Nagle (Publisher). .

You didn't explain anything other than to say he doesn't understand that it's an occupation, not a war. You offer no critique whatsoever of his recomendations. If this is the depth of your 'explanation' i'd suggest you want to stay away from the deep end of the pool.

So, according to you, the Commander in Chief is so completely incompetent and out of touch with reality that he would declare an end to major combat operations in a "War" without a clue what he was actually doing; And that his Generals and top advisors all allowed him to do it.

God help us if you are right. Can you point to a single engagement with the enemy above the squad level that would indicate that there has been a major combat operation?



Thats called a "Police Action" not a "war".

"War" is waged by nations upon other nations, not individual citizens.

Explain to us please what is a guerilla war and what is a civil war? Hardly a battle between two nations. Better rethink that one as well as your entire construct on events in iraq.

You didn't explain anything other than to say he doesn't understand that it's an occupation, not a war. You offer no critique whatsoever of his recomendations.

I decline to go through his post one suggestion at a time. If that is what you are looking for, keep dreaming.
Needless to say, I already explained that he started from a false premise, therefore everything else he says flows from that.

Can you point to a single engagement with the enemy above the squad level that would indicate that there has been a major combat operation?


So you don't think there ever was major combat operations?

Wow, you guys seem to think George Bush is either completely incompetent or a habitual liar.

what is a civil war?

Thats what our troops are stuck in the middle of in Iraq.

::Shakes head::

So you don't think there ever was major combat operations?

Wow, you guys seem to think George Bush is either completely incompetent or a habitual liar.If you included me in "you guys," let me remind you that I'm the one who argued major combat operations have taken place since the fall of Baghdad.

Thats what our troops are stuck in the middle of in Iraq.But you previously said this:
""War" is waged by nations upon other nations, not individual citizens."

A little contradictory, don't you think?

But anyway, if different segments of the Iraqi population can be at war with each another, isn't it possible that WE can be at war with them too?

But you previously said this:
""War" is waged by nations upon other nations, not individual citizens."

A little contradictory, don't you think?

No, not at all.
What do you think is contradictory about it?

But anyway, if different segments of the Iraqi population can be at war with each another, isn't it possible that WE can be at war with them too?

It is possible. We could declare war upon the new Iraqi government, but we have certainly not done it yet.

No, not at all.
What do you think is contradictory about it?You say war waged between nations, but acknowledge that there is a civil war in Iraq. If war can only happen between nations, how is civil war even possible? (That's a rhetorical question.)

It is possible. We could declare war upon the new Iraqi government, but we have certainly not done it yet.Again, you agree that there is in fact a war in Iraq and that it is a civil war. I assume that the civil war you're referring to is either the war between the Sunnis and Shi'ite militias, or the war between the Iraqi government and all the various insurgent groups.

Now, if it is possible for the Iraqi government to be at war with a portion of the Iraqi population, why isn't it possible for the US government be at war with a portion of the Iraqi population? If the various militias in Iraq can be at war with each other, why can't we be at war with them as well? (Those are rhetorical questions too.)

I hope you understand my point now.

I hope you understand my point now.

I believe I do.

You are confusing (purposely, I think) rhetorical uses of the term "war" with actual, legitimate uses.

You are confusing the legitimate instance of a government declaring war and the instance of the citizens within a particular nation fighting for control of said government.

If "war" were meant to be so vague and indefinable then the framers would not have been so explicit in giving the power to declare war and govern the military to Congress.

Bush it's over ... they also told him that any news about Iraq must come the generals because the white house has no credibility left.

One rep said his district is prepared for defeat ... I love the smell of republicans being unseated by democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ (click on blunt talk -- this one won't be up long)

I believe I do.

You are confusing (purposely, I think) rhetorical uses of the term "war" with actual, legitimate uses.

You are confusing the legitimate instance of a government declaring war and the instance of the citizens within a particular nation fighting for control of said government.

If "war" were meant to be so vague and indefinable then the framers would not have been so explicit in giving the power to declare war and govern the military to Congress.Okay, for the sake of clarity, please give me your definitions of "war" and "civil war."

Okay, for the sake of clarity, please give me your definitions of "war" and "civil war."

I believe I already did, but since you insist on arguing semantics...

A "War" is waged between two nations. A "civil war" is waged by the citizens for control of their nation.

What we are doing in Iraq right now is neither, it is an occupation.

Just pack up the troops and equipment, and bring everything home. Let the Iraqi solve their own problems. Thats something that will never happen as long as any American troops remain, in that region.

I believe I already did, but since you insist on arguing semantics...

A "War" is waged between two nations. A "civil war" is waged by the citizens for control of their nation.

What we are doing in Iraq right now is neither, it is an occupation.Well, we've finally uncovered the problem -- you have a different definition of "war" than, well, everyone else. To most people, "war" means any large-scale armed conflict, whether it's between nations, between citizens, between citizens and their own government, or between citizens and a foreign government.

I would advise that from now on don't discount a person's opinion just because they call the situation in Iraq a war. They simply have a different definition of the word than you have.

Well, we've finally uncovered the problem -- you have a different definition of "war" than, well, everyone else.

Says who? You?
Well you, Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove anyway.

To most people, "war" means any large-scale armed conflict, whether it's between nations, between citizens, between citizens and their own government, or between citizens and a foreign government.

The framers of the United States Constitution strongly disagreed with you and agreed with me.

"War" is not a nebulous, indefinable thing that you can declare willy-nilly on anybody you don't like.

Sorry, it just isn't.

Only Congress was given the ability to declare war and the Constitution places strict limitations on that power as well.


I would advise that from now on don't discount a person's opinion just because they call the situation in Iraq a war. They simply have a different definition of the word than you have.

I am afraid I am going to have to ignore your advice.
The fact is they are using a bad definition.

I am obligated to point that fact out for the sake of truth.

I see what the problem is now Jester.

You are confused about the difference between War and war.

Anyone can be at war with anyone else. The Hatfields were at war with the McCoys.

Only Congress has the authority to declare War.

When discussing Iraq, we are talking about War. (real War, not rhetorical war)
Once you understand that distinction, you will understand why Iraq is not a War.
We won the War back in 2003. It has been an Occupation ever since.

The Media likes to use the term war because it gets them ratings.

You are confusing the two.

Says who? You?
Well you, Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove anyway.

WTF? Is anyone who disagrees with you a right-wing dittohead?

I see what the problem is now Jester.

You are confused about the difference between War and war.

Anyone can be at war with anyone else. The Hatfields were at war with the McCoys.

Only Congress has the authority to declare War.

When discussing Iraq, we are talking about War. (real War, not rhetorical war)
Once you understand that distinction, you will understand why Iraq is not a War.
We won the War back in 2003. It has been an Occupation ever since.

The Media likes to use the term war because it gets them ratings.

You are confusing the two.Let's assume you're right for a minute. Going by what you refer to as War (as opposed to war), the US has not been in a War since WWII, since that was the last time Congress formally declared War.

Congress does not have to declare War in order for the President to use military force, as established by the War Powers Act. The President is only required to have consultations with Congress, and to receive authorization from them for the use of force.

WTF? Is anyone who disagrees with you a right-wing dittohead?

Nope, just anyone who thinks this Occupation is still a War.


Let's assume you're right for a minute.

Thats not difficult.

Going by what you refer to as War (as opposed to war), the US has not been in a War since WWII, since that was the last time Congress formally declared War.

Not true.

Congress has given authorizations to use force under the War Powers act, which is essentially the same thing.


Congress does not have to declare War in order for the President to use military force, as established by the War Powers Act.

Partially correct, the President is still required to get authorization to use force from Congress and he is still required to get reauthorization from Congress under the War Powers Act. (which he hasn't actually been doing)

The President is only required to have consultations with Congress, and to receive authorization from them for the use of force.

Again, Authorization from Congress is required for any real War.

Congress granted Bush the authorization to use force to remove Saddam Hussien from power.

We won that War in 2003.

This has been an Occupation ever since.

Our failure to acknowledge that fact is partially responsible for our failure to secure the peace.

Nope, just anyone who thinks this Occupation is still a War.Yes, whether you call it the Iraq war or the Iraq War is the ultimate political litmus test. :rolleyes:

Not true.

Congress has given authorizations to use force under the War Powers act, which is essentially the same thing.So you're saying that authorization under the War Powers Act is sufficient for a conflict to be a War.

So according to that definition, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam were not wars since there was no War Powers act prior to 1973.

Partially correct, the President is still required to get authorization to use force from Congress and he is still required to get reauthorization from Congress under the War Powers Act. (which he hasn't actually been doing)Actually he's not required reauthorization. As long as it has already been authorized, and as long as hostilities continue, he is only required to report to Congress at least once every six months. So far, the War Powers Act has been abided by and that make it, by your own definition, a War.

Furthermore, why do you think the Democrats have resorted to cutting funds in order to redeploy troops from Iraq? The first reason, of course, is that the President would veto any bill or resolution explicitly requiring the redeployment of troops. The second reason is that the President is not legally required by the War Powers Act to do so. If he was, then you could bet that the Democrats would be using it as their primary tool to withdraw from Iraq. But that's simply not the case, and cutting funds is their only possible route.

Our failure to acknowledge that fact is partially responsible for our failure to secure the peace.I would love to hear you elaborate on that.

I decline to go through his post one suggestion at a time. If that is what you are looking for, keep dreaming.
Needless to say, I already explained that he started from a false premise, therefore everything else he says flows from that.

This is basic english. His premise, clearly stated at the beginning, was what was required for stability. There is nothing inherently false in stating that he is seeking stability. What might be false or incorrect is in what he states is required for stability. If you can't deconstruct his arguement you can't offer any legitimate criticism of it.

So you don't think there ever was major combat operations?

If you could point to one i'm sure you would, wouldn't you.

Thats what our troops are stuck in the middle of in Iraq.

Now you're contradicting yourself. did you just come out of the spin cycle on the washer, or tumble out of the dryer after 30 minutes?

No I think what Dharm has said is that he has tried to explain his position to the best of his ability and that Jester still does not understand and he is not going to keep going over it again and again. It does not mean he can't offer any legitimate critcism of it just mean it won't do any good if he did explain his side because Jester would not understand his point of view so why waste his time.
Two completely different things.

If you could point to one i'm sure you would, wouldn't you.



Now you're contradicting yourself. did you just come out of the spin cycle on the washer, or tumble out of the dryer after 30 minutes?


How about the surge??

and there you go insulting people personally again to try and invalidate their comments.

Let's simplify the issue. Merriam defines war as.....a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

occupation
One entry found for occupation.


Main Entry: oc·cu·pa·tion
Pronunciation: "ä-ky&-'pA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English occupacioun, from Anglo-French occupaciun, from Latin occupation-, occupatio, from occupare
1 a : an activity in which one engages <pursuing pleasure has been his major occupation> b : the principal business of one's life : VOCATION
2 a : the possession, use, or settlement of land : OCCUPANCY b : the holding of an office or position
3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
synonym see WORK
- oc·cu·pa·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- oc·cu·pa·tion·al·ly adverb

How about the surge??

and there you go insulting people personally again to try and invalidate their comments.

The surge is about increasing manpower. There are now more squads in the field. Their is no insurgent 'army'. There are no insurgent or AQ divisions. There are no AQ battalions. Their are no major firefights. Everything that happens in iraq is at the squad level.

You thought that was an insult? WTF! Honey if wanted to insult him you'd all know it. That's a friendly jibe. If you find that too much you should refrain from posting. You too may soon be the target of such jibes.

Yes, whether you call it the Iraq war or the Iraq War is the ultimate political litmus test.

I will say it again for you, this is an Occupation.


So you're saying that authorization under the War Powers Act is sufficient for a conflict to be a War.

Nope, that is not what I am saying.
I, like many people who have actually bothered to read the Constitution, believe the war powers act is unconstitutional.

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution — Philip Bobbitt's in "War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely's War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath," Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400 — runs as follows: "The power to make war is not an enumerated power" and the notion that to "declare" war is to "commence" war is a "contemporary textual preconception"; the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that 'declaration' was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800); in general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as "linked and sequenced"; Congress's control over the armed forces is "structured" by appropriation, while the president commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized. (Bobbitt, the nephew of Lyndon Johnson, also argues that "A democracy cannot… tolerate secret policies" because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.)

A second constitutionality argument concerns a possible breach of the 'separation of powers' doctrine. The legislature may be impeding the executive in carrying out the Oath of Office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8) This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that instance, the Legislative branch attempted to control the removal of Executive branch officers.


So according to that definition, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam were not wars since there was no War Powers act prior to 1973.

Correct, those were technically "police actions". Not wars.

Look it up.



Actually he's not required reauthorization. As long as it has already been authorized, and as long as hostilities continue, he is only required to report to Congress at least once every six months. So far, the War Powers Act has been abided by and that make it, by your own definition, a War.


You are incorrect.

As Senator Robert Byrd pointed out the other day to Sec. of Defense Gates, the resolution that granted authorization to use force against Iraq (H.J. Res. 114, Public Law 107-243, 107th Congress, OCTOBER 16, 2002) was granted for two specific purposes:

1. "to defend the security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

2. "to enforce all relevent United Nations security counsil resolutions against Iraq."

Senator Byrd pointed out that since the government of Iraq mentioned in those resolutions no longer exists and has been replaced by a Democraticly elected government, that the authorization to use force no longer applies.

When asked if the authorization was still legal Mr. Gates said, "I don't know."

Cutting off the funding is hardly the only option that Congress has.
For instance, I support Senator Clinton's bill that specificly repeals the authorization the Republican Congress gave Bush.

If you could point to one i'm sure you would, wouldn't you.

Are you high?

What do you call the invasion? A picnic???



Now you're contradicting yourself. did you just come out of the spin cycle on the washer, or tumble out of the dryer after 30 minutes?

I swear to God, you sound like you have been doing whatever drugs it is that keeps Foolsworth so loopy.

Are you high?

What do you call the invasion? A picnic???





I swear to God, you sound like you have been doing whatever drugs it is that keeps Foolsworth so loopy.


You write so much that you lose track of what you've said.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
So, according to you, the Commander in Chief is so completely incompetent and out of touch with reality that he would declare an end to major combat operations in a "War" without a clue what he was actually doing; And that his Generals and top advisors all allowed him to do it.

God help us if you are right.



and i said there hasn't been a major combat operation since that statement.

You haven't listed a single major combat operation that would prove bush's statement wrong have you.

Waldo,

Here you go.

The "surge" = 50,000 more troops and increased combat operations.

Bush was wrong. You are wrong.

Have a nice day! :)

Waldo,

Here you go.

The "surge" = 50,000 more troops and increased combat operations.

Bush was wrong. You are wrong.

Have a nice day! :)

Can you even get the news right? The surge is 20k. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16453606/

And what major combat operations are there. What divisions are involved? What battalions are invovled? Where are these big battles occuring? Combat operations have increased at the squad level, that's it.

Can you even get the news right? The surge is 20k.

Wrong Again Waldo.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNScbosurge070201/

CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 2, 2007 12:45:15 EST

A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.

No I think what Dharm has said is that he has tried to explain his position to the best of his ability and that Jester still does not understand and he is not going to keep going over it again and again. It does not mean he can't offer any legitimate critcism of it just mean it won't do any good if he did explain his side because Jester would not understand his point of view so why waste his time.
Two completely different things.I understand his position perfectly. I simply disagree with it and was therefore arguing against it.

I understand his position perfectly.

No, I really do not think you do.