# War in Iraq - The Coming Escalation



## michaeledward (Dec 28, 2006)

The term being thrown about is 'surge'. 

We currently have more than a quarter of a million United States personnel serving in Iraq (140,000 US military and greater than 100,000 contractors). Adding 10% or 15% to that figure is not going to make a significant impact to any datapoint except the deaths and expenditures.

The August 'surge', 'Forward Together', brought about increased attacks and increased fatalities in Iraq. Quite possibly, by the the time the new year begins, there will be more than 3,000 United States Military fatalities in Iraq. Projections are that this invasion is going to cost the American Taxpayer more than 2.3 Trillion dollars before it is completed; even without continuing any further with the military conflict. 

Our military is broken. There are zero 'combat ready', non-deployed military units in the Amry at this time. All the functional equipment in our military is in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military has insufficient functional hardward to conduct training operations.

It is past time to 'Declare Victory and Get Out'.

But, the President has his eyes fixed on one of two places - a time fifty years in the future, where he imagines himself one of the great leaders of all time by bring peace to a part of the world that has not known peace for its 5,000 year history - or, to January 20, 2009, when he dumps this problem on the next office holder. The first is a fantasy that ignores the reality taking place as it passes over his desk each day. The second is cause for mutiny.

George Will, this weekend passed, indicated that a Shi'ite ethnic cleansing in Baghdad might be "tranquilizing". What have we wrought? 

Against the political cover and face saving 'Iraq Study Group', against the best advice of the 'generals on the ground', against the Democratic Majority in both houses of congress, and the voters who put them there, and against the wishes of more than 70% of Americans; President Bush is planning to put more American Soldiers into the shooting gallery that is Iraq; without a definable outcome of success, without measurable tactical objectives and without a possibility of victory.

Is there no way to stop this madness?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 28, 2006)

I don't know if it's accurate to say that everything we have is in Iraq. Dispite the president's insistence that we surge on in Iraq it's doubtful that he (and the pentagon) have left this country vunerable. True we have a large troop deployment going on... we did so in WWII and in Vietnam... however we still managed to maintain adequate defense force here on the home front, plus the (unconcious) assurance that Americans will rise to our nations defense should the need calls for it. 
Why have we not been invaded (on a large scale) in a long time? The "Red Dawn" scenario that is the creme-de-la-creme of invasion movies for a lot of people hasn't and probably won't ever happen. I believe we are too strongly defended against a large invading force. So the deployment isn't the issue. 
Sometimes wars are won by popularity. We defeated Germany and Japan becaue it was a "popular" thing to do... they (Japan) hurt us and evidence that Germany was preparing to do the same (Nazi spy subs off our coasts). 
Terrorist hurt us on 9/11 ... problem is there was no *specific* place to attack. Oh, they're in Afganistan, oh now they're in Iraq, next they'll be in Iran. Like Vietnam the enemy was well hidden among the native populace and thus very difficult to pin down and eradicate for the common good. 
We're not at war with Iraq... we're at war with the terrorist (supposedly) in Iraq. 
True Saddam was killing... no, slaughtering his own people and innocent nomadic groups in his country. Josef Stalin murdered millions in his country... funny how we didn't go in and rescue those poor people. Oh but the Ruskies had Nuclear weapons... who'd be dumb enough to start a war that might escalate into that? The "Cold War" was just as George Carlin said it was... a bunch of prick waving! 

Why we don't pull out (another Carlin joke there :wink1: ) is going to be a mystery. Hopefully Saddam's recent plea for Iraqis to get along together may help but it isn't likely. We got rid of one devil. Surely Bush and the others would've realized that cutting the head of one serpent is going to cause two more to grow back in it's place? Iraq is going to have internal problems for a long time ... I'd like to think that they're mature enough to work it out for themselves.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 5, 2007)

The newly sworn Democratic congress has weighed in on the President's coming Escalation. They say - No!

For credibility's sake, the Congressional Leaders cite one of the military commanders - specifically, the Central Command Combatant Commander, General Abizaid



> I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.


 
The President has said that he listens to the commanders on the ground. Maybe, not so much. 

The Military, by the way, has informed the President that they can only field an additional 9,000 troops into Iraq as part of any 'Surge'. That does not seem like much of a surge is possible.


----------



## Carol (Jan 5, 2007)

Really good info on the Surge, Mike.

For awhile I've been very reluctant to support pulling the troops out.  

But, enough is enough.  Time to bring them home.


----------



## tellner (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm more than half convinced that The Decider's handlers already know it's lost. But they want to hang on long enough to make the defeat someone else's fault whether it's President McCain or President Obama.


----------



## Carol (Jan 5, 2007)

tellner said:


> I'm more than half convinced that The Decider's handlers already know it's lost. But they want to hang on long enough to make the defeat someone else's fault whether it's President McCain or President Obama.


 
Can't disagree with you there, unfortunately.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 7, 2007)

It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars. 

Central Command is responsible for military matters that take place in the Middle East. Originally, CentCom was run from Tampa, Florida. But in the build up of the invasion of Iraq a duplicate operating facility was built in Qatar.

Currently CentCom is heavily involved with fighting two ground wars. One in the Land-Locked country of Afghanistan. The other in Iraq. Iraq has a coastline of less than 60 Kilometers (approximately 35 miles).

Of course, we have always had a military presence in the Persian Gulf. I think it is normally a couple of aircraft carriers. But, it still seems odd that a Naval Commander is given control over these two ground wars. Admiral Fallon is replacing General Abizaid.

Then, I saw a map similiar to the one below. There is one country on this map with an awful long coastline. It has a coastline of more than 1700 Kilometers. This country borders the northeast side of the Persian Gulf.  Now, what was the name of that country again?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 7, 2007)

Part of the President's escalation plan, is to provide One Billion Dollars to put young Iraqi men to work: apparently cleaning streets and painting over graffiti. 

Others have before mentioned that just paying off the Iraqis might be cheaper than fighting the war. Of course, such suggestions were irony laced, at the time. 

So, in addition to another 30,000 Americans walking the streets of Baghdad, we are going to simultaneously take $1,000,000,000.00 United States taxpayers dollars and give it to Iraqi's to *not shoot* our soldiers.


----------



## tellner (Jan 8, 2007)

If they're like people anywhere else they'll be perfectly happy to take the money and still shoot the invaders 

The choice of Fallon does seem odd. Perhaps the President is running out of yes-men in the Army and the Marine Corps. 

Maybe it's because of the possible war with Iran. The Iranians have said the the Straits of Hormuz are now an America-free zone. American ships will be attacked. If Bush wants to extend the war to Iran, leaving aside the question of "him and what army?" it would be a perfect _causus belli_. They attacked us. The Dems will fall into line. At that point we may see firepower supplied by the Navy through cruise missles, planes and maybe *shudder* SLBMS preceding  attacks by the ground forces.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2007)

So now we ask the question .... 


Are the current airstrikes in Somalia 

A) - Designed to Distract the American Public from the true beginnings of the 110th Democratically lead Congressional 'First 100 Hours'. 

B) - Designed to 'Set the Scene' for the President's speech Wednesday evening; wherein he listened to Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki over the advice of American Generals, to send another 20,000 American Soldiers to killing field that is Baghdad.


... somewhere there is a dog, searching for his tail, eh?


----------



## Carol (Jan 8, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars.
> 
> Central Command is responsible for military matters that take place in the Middle East. Originally, CentCom was run from Tampa, Florida. But in the build up of the invasion of Iraq a duplicate operating facility was built in Qatar.
> 
> ...


 

WhereToSendTheForcesNextElectionCycle-stan?


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Jan 8, 2007)

Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs.  Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 8, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs. Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.


 
They need time, along with a plan. 2 things the Dems will not put into that plan are money and more troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp_8

Send more help?


> Another senior Democrat, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said one option under consideration would be for lawmakers to vote on denying the use of funds for any increase in the U.S. deployment.


 
Tie the hands of the Commander in Chief?


> Sen. Barack Obama a potential presidential candidate, said that while he opposes any measure that would increase the risk to troops already deployed, "the central question then becomes, is there a way of conditioning appropriations so that the president is constrained and that's something that we're investigating right now."


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Our military is not broken, who told you that load of bs. Every friend I have in the military says that they are wining and just need time to finish their mission, I figure they know better than me so I trust them.


 
This is not a question of someone telling me anything. This determination is based on reports from people with much greater knowledge and experience than me. 

Unless your friends in the military are overseeing the readiness of then entire force structure, their individual opinions are the equivilent of the fleas making a veterinary diagnosis of the dog. 

Each year since the war began, the military has been changing standards in order to be able to state that enlistment goals are being met. Eligible ages have been increased. More waivers for past inappropriate behavior have been issued. Recent discussions have included ending the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' program, to get more openly gay men and women to enlist. Also there are discussions about increasing the number of non-citizens the military will accept; and then fast-tracking those non-citizens toward citizenship (Robert Heinlein anyone?). 

This is the text of a letter submitted to members of Congress. 



> August 1, 2006
> The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Democratic Leader United States House of Representatives The Capitol Washington, D.C. 20515
> The Honorable Harry Reid Democratic Leader United States Senate The Capitol
> Washington, D.C. 20510
> ...


 

This link also offers some insights. I remind you that Congressman Murtha is a United States Marine. 

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRmilreadiness0913.html


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> They need time, along with a plan. 2 things the Dems will not put into that plan are money and more troops.
> 
> Send more help?
> 
> Tie the hands of the Commander in Chief?


 
The American Public was told the war would take six days, or six weeks. Our Secretary of Defense said that he doubted it would take six months. 

Since the President and his Administration planned and executed so well for the first eight attempts at a war that was less than six months, how many 'Do Overs' does he get?

The Congress of the United States, in case you forgot, is a co-equal branch of government. They have a responsibility to effect a 'check and balance' on the President, and the Supreme Court for that matter.


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Jan 8, 2007)

Kind of like they check and balanced Pres. Clinton when he bombed Serbia into the Stone Age?  One of those friends is a Captain in the Army who did a couple of tours in Irap which he volunteered for.  If he tell me they are winning I'll take his word for it.  Sen John Macain was also a veteran of Vietnam and he feels we should finish the job in Iraq, why is his opinion less than Congressman Murtha in your eyes?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> Kind of like they check and balanced Pres. Clinton when he bombed Serbia into the Stone Age? One of those friends is a Captain in the Army who did a couple of tours in Irap which he volunteered for. If he tell me they are winning I'll take his word for it. Sen John Macain was also a veteran of Vietnam and he feels we should finish the job in Iraq, why is his opinion less than Congressman Murtha in your eyes?


 
When President Clinton acted in the Balkans, I will point out, that both Houses of Congress were acting under Republican leadership, weren't they? I know they were busy worrying about who was schlepping whom, and when Mr. A was going to get take them to the Verizon, but it was the Republicans. Oh, yeah, and how many Americans died in Serbia? And how much did that military campaign cost the US Taxpayer? 



I am familiar with Senator McCain. I have not indicated that my his opinion is "less than" that of Congressman Murtha. After McCain, Lieberman and Bush, what do you have next. On the other end, there are Hagel, Abizaid, Casey, Collins, Wilson, and the list goes on, and on. 

EDIT --- Oh, yeah, and there is that Blair guy from Britian. He's opposed to the idea, too - END EDIT

And, if you look closely, you'll see even 'Straight Talk Express' McCain, himself, is beginning to see the political calculus in this. 



			
				CBS News said:
			
		

> Even Sen. John McCain, a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.
> 
> "I need to know if it's enough or not," McCain said.


 
So, I think it is a fair question to ask why are so many of the leaders in the Military, and in the Congress are opposed to the Escalation of forces in Iraq? 

Once again I will say - if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, suddenly every problem starts to look like a nail.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jan 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems interesting to me, that the new combatant commander of 'Central Command' is an Admiral. While no doubt qualified, in that he has been a leader for the Pacific Fleet and that he has not voiced an opinion against the coming escalation, it seems odd to put a Sailor in charge of ground wars.



I think you are probably reading a bit too much into this.  At the higher levels of command, Generals and Admirals alike receive a lot of education and have experience (remember, the Marines are part of the Navy) with the concepts and strategies of ground warfare.

Jeff


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2007)

JeffJ said:


> I think you are probably reading a bit too much into this. At the higher levels of command, Generals and Admirals alike receive a lot of education and have experience (remember, the Marines are part of the Navy) with the concepts and strategies of ground warfare.
> 
> Jeff


 
Jeff, you are probably correct on this. My assertion is a bit toward, if not over, the edge. 

But, I think the question I raised is something to consider. Are there no Army commanders who have trained for desert warfare, or urban combat, or fighting insurgents available? Yes, Patreaus is moving up through the chain of command in that arena, but are there no other two stars or three stars that can be moved up? Is there a credible reason to select a Navy commander over an Army commander? 

And, I think you might find some Marines who are not terribly pleased with your assertion that they are part of the Navy. I'm sure they will acknowledge the heritage, but since 1947, they have been their own service.

Mike


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jan 9, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Jeff, you are probably correct on this. My assertion is a bit toward, if not over, the edge.
> 
> But, I think the question I raised is something to consider. Are there no Army commanders who have trained for desert warfare, or urban combat, or fighting insurgents available? Yes, Patreaus is moving up through the chain of command in that arena, but are there no other two stars or three stars that can be moved up? Is there a credible reason to select a Navy commander over an Army commander?
> 
> ...


They are kind of their own service.  They still are part of the Department of the Navy.  

I'll do a little digging around and find out what I can about his quals.  I've often thought most of the area commanders should be Army or Marines just because when it comes down to it, I like my commanders to have been boots on the ground at some point, 'cause you don't win without that.

Jeff


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 9, 2007)

Here is some info about the USMC/USN relationship.  They are peer services under the direction of the Department of the Navy and work closely together.  Marines like to joke about the Navy being their chauffeur, but the reality is that the services complement each other well.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Looking to the old adage ... 

_It is always darkest, just before it goes completely black._

The President's much hyped speech about a 'New Way Forward' remains an integral part of the All Hat, No Cattle President. His new 'Strategy' remains nothing but an increase in 'Tactic', which will result in nothing.

Of course, that is what I expected. The United States Military has increased troop strengths for short periods a couple of times over the past four years. Each time, the results were the same; ineffective. 

The Administration and military has regularly argued their position has never been 'Clear, Hold and Build'. The military would 'Clear', the Iraqi's would 'Hold', and Halliburton would 'Build'. The President's announcement seems to be nothing more than "We will now Clear and Hold (But with the Iraqi's)" - Halliburton continues to receive no-bid contracts to Build. An Exxon gets to rape the Iraqi Oil fields at 75% of profits for the next 30 years. 

Nothin' new here folks - the prime time speech was completely predictible. And then ... just for good measure. 



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity  and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
> 
> We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing  and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


 
Never in my wildest dreams of Presidential criminal incompetence would I imagine that President Bush would use the 'New Way Forward in Iraq' speech to declare war on Iran and Syria. Forgetting that the Constitution gives power of war declaration to one of the other branches of government, the 'Escalation' I predicted a few weeks back; really; I expected only to be within Iraq. Sure, many people here and elsewhere have told us that Iran is next - but, the President got the hint after the election right? I mean Democrats won 36 new Congressional Seats - Republicans won ZERO new Congressional Seats. 

The President wasn't going to Escalate the War in Iraq *AND* Expand the War to the Broader Middle East. Not even he can be that incompetent, right. 

Nope - _It is always darkest, just before it goes completely black*. *_

Last evening's speech marked the End of the Invasion of Iraq - to protect us from 'The Late' Saddam Hussien's non-existant Weapons of Mass Destruction. It marked the beginning of the American Invasion of the Middle East. By our military strength, we are going to usurp the mineral rights from any country not willing to supplant themselves before US.

"Resistance is Futile. We will add your distinctiveness to our own."


----------



## tellner (Jan 11, 2007)

And this just in. US troops have attacked the Iranian consulate in Ibril, Iraq. In the words of fark.com "What could possibly go wrong?" And in my own words "You wanna war? You and what army?"


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 11, 2007)

tellner said:


> And this just in. US troops have attacked the Iranian consulate in Ibril, Iraq. In the words of fark.com "What could possibly go wrong?" And in my own words "You wanna war? You and what army?"


 
Looks like they seized six staff members too.  But don't worry... I'm sure Iran will get them back in fewer than 444 days.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 11, 2007)

when is an escalation not an escalation. 20,000 troop surge that is simply a troop trickle (they are sending in troops over a stretch of many months to reach that number). this isn't anything McCain imagined, which is why he's nearly done with the Bush leadership. It's all or nothing and all we're doing is giving a not all too much as well as an out.

i'm sure the troops there feel like they're winning-- it's not like they aren't outgunning the insurgents and taking out pockets of resistance at will. it's just that the insurgents keep replacing those pockets with other pockets. they scurry about, gain new recruits and start up again. it's how insurgencies work. but winning is a meaningless term in this battle. how do you win if the gov't you're backing is also backed by the iranians and sadr? 

this debacle which is finally been recognized out loud by the resident-in -chief about 2 years two late is the only thing that the prez said that was note worthy.

George W. also noted that there would be no blank check on Maliki's gov't to improve the situation-- which means what? that if things don't improve... we do what? if the insurgency is going as strong as ever in 12 months we do what? 

then we have these statements

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires  stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge" "begins with addressing Iran and Syria." 
 "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

o.k.-- so now we're going to add syria and iran (two countries that are interested in dialog with the US) to our military operations... though how is a mystery. 

it all sounds like George W. is dumping this mess on the next President be they republican or democrat-- and let them pull the plug and get us out of there.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

Here is a great article from the Brookings Institute, a very respectable think tank:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/pollack/20070111.htm

The new plan isn't a bad one, actually. Most people, of course, have no idea what the concept of the new plan actually is and why it would work. But if you understand anything about what is going on, then you realize that it isn't a bad plan, really. Here are some key issues, though:

1. It might be too late. This should have been done a year or more ago, before the escalation of sectarianism and the civil war psychosis of the Iraqi people.

2. The strategy has been talked about before. A year ago, we were supposed to "Clear, Hold, and rebuild." Our military has done it's job; which is the "clearing" part. It is the Iraqi government and people who need to take the initiative for the "Hold and rebuild" part. We can help them with this, but we ultimatily cannot take the innitiative on this, as it is their country and not ours. Where we succeeded militarily so far, we have been failing on a foreign policy/diplomatic level, and they have been failing with restructuring efforts.

3. We can't leave until there is some kind of stability in that country. If that country falls into civil war, it will become a world war with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others will all getting in the mix. The instability will become a breeding ground for international terrorism, and we will be far worse off then we ever were before 9-11. All this, of course, going on in the world's gas station. Failure in Iraq will not only be demoralizing to our people, and the men and women who went over there to make a difference regardless of politics, but failure could mean a catastrophy to the worlds security.

That said, in my opinion, we can't leave Iraq unstable. So, even if is a long shot, we owe it to ourselves, to them, and to the world to do what we can. With 20,000 more troops, our military can do what it needs too without question. The question remains, will our administration and the Iraqi government have the diplomatic intelligence to do it's job of "holding and rebuilding." It's a long shot, but in my opinion it is worth a try.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 11, 2007)

Link broken; try this one.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> That said, in my opinion, we can't leave Iraq unstable. So, even if is a long shot, we owe it to ourselves, to them, and to the world to do what we can. With 20,000 more troops, our military can do what it needs too without question. The question remains, will our administration and the Iraqi government have the diplomatic intelligence to do it's job of "holding and rebuilding." It's a long shot, but in my opinion it is worth a try.


 
The question is ... if this is a long shot, how much are you willing to put on the table. I'll buy a $2.00 ticket on a 67 to 1 horse. Should we, as a nation, pony up another $100,000,000,000.00 for this long shot? That's a lot of money we don't have; that we haven't budgeted for. 

Currently, that cost is being pushed on to our children. 

And, if the horse breaks a leg in the first turn .... and we placed our bet, and the soldiers have died, and the race is lost anyhow ... ... ... well, let's just leave that question out there.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The question is ... if this is a long shot, how much are you willing to put on the table. I'll buy a $2.00 ticket on a 67 to 1 horse. Should we, as a nation, pony up another $100,000,000,000.00 for this long shot? That's a lot of money we don't have; that we haven't budgeted for.
> 
> Currently, that cost is being pushed on to our children.
> 
> And, if the horse breaks a leg in the first turn .... and we placed our bet, and the soldiers have died, and the race is lost anyhow ... ... ... well, let's just leave that question out there.


 
I'm not so sure he is asking for another 100bil., is he? 

I understand the problem with the cost; this is a valid argument, particularly as to why we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. 

But, we are there now. And the question is, what will it cost in both lives (of our troops and abroad) and money if we fail, and it turns into a worst case scenario of sectarian violence with many other countries participating, and of a grooming center for international terrorists? This, unfortunatily, is a very likely scenario if we pull out too early. I think that a failure may actually cost us even more in the long run.

So, I think the plan might be worth a try. I don't think that this is a long shot, militarily. I think the long shot is whether or not the Maliki government can hold and rebuild with the diplomatic/political/financial help of our administration. I think that it is a long shot that the Iraqi people, who have been segmented into religious/tribal factions for thousands of years, will decide to coexist peacefully. It is the competency of the administration, the Maliki government, and the Iraqi people that I question. But, unfortunatily, that is all we have to work with at the moment.

The question is, when do we finally decide to pull out and cut our loses, if efforts to hold and rebuild are failing? 

Our government had no solution or way of addressing this before. What is new is that we have an answer to this question now. The solution is that if the Maliki Government and the Iraqi people are unwilling to show actionable efforts to stabilize their own country, then that is when we decide to pull out. This ultimatum was never given before, which was a mistake because without it, they become co-dependent on our troop levels and $$ to secure their country. Hopefully with Gates and a few new Generals, they will be objective enough to determine if the Maliki Government and Iraqi people are making an actionable effort or not, and will react accordingly.

This solution has not yet been put in place. Until now, our occupation of Iraq and the $$ we will spend was indefinate. Now, there are at least conditions put in place regarding our occupation. 

This is a start. It is just too bad that this wasn't done a year to a year and a half ago, like I said before.

Well, with no good solution, this is a tough situation we have gotten ourselves into. This plan at least has some chances of working; so I am going to do my part and hope that it does work. I worry about what the consequences will be if it doesn't.

Now, I am going to try to find that article, because it was a good one...


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

Not the article I am looking for yet, but this one is good because it shows a chart on how the problem has been escalating. We have more insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq now then ever before:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20061220.htm


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

Well, that sucks. It looks like they decided to remove the Op Ed peice that I linked for some reason. It was by Kenneth Pollack; it was a good piece and expressed my views pretty well. Why they decided to remove it, I don't know. Hopefully they will put it back...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> I'm not so sure he is asking for another 100bil., is he?


 
Yes.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4464286.html



> The White House is unlikely to raise supplemental funding levels beyond the $99.7 billion already proposed to help replace and refurbish war-torn equipment or provide needed armor and weapons supplies.


 




Tulisan said:


> . . . .. Hopefully with Gates and a few new Generals, they will be objective enough to determine if the Maliki Government and Iraqi people are making an actionable effort or not, and will react accordingly..


 
Getting rid of Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the whole damn idea. There is no way we can win. The best we can hope to do at this point is to have Maliki become the new strong man (*OUR* Son of a *****) in Iraq, supported by Sadr's Mahdi Army. 

The Shi'ite and Sunni's have been fighting for centuries, if not longer. This is a dispute we can not solve. So, we are going to arm Maliki to the teeth, so that he can suppress the population for the next quarter of a century while Exxon and BP get all of our oil out of their sand. 

Now, I like to believe we didn't start this war for oil ...  but that is what it has come down to, isn't it? 'Big Oil' gets 75% of the profits from the Iraqi oil fields for the next 25 years. Our military has to stay there to prevent those oil reserves from coming under the control of al Qaeda or Amhadeenijadh.

The only ending for this - and it is not a good one - is to start driving those Abrams tanks back to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. We are not going to be able to fly them out of Baghdad International Airport on the C-5's. Not while our helicopters are pulling people from the roofs of the Green Zone. 

One last note - even if we are facing more foreign fighters than ever before in Iraq - they still amount to single digit participates. They represent less than 10% of the fighting in Iraq. 

This gets worse with every passing day. And so it will continue.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Getting rid of Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the whole damn idea. There is no way we can win.


 
I continue to believe that the mere presence of the US in Iraq continues to fuel much of the fighting.  We have made ourselves so hated over there that they will oppose us no matter what we might try to accomplish, even if it would truly be to their benefit.  The longer we stay, the greater our presence, the worse the fighting will be.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I continue to believe that the mere presence of the US in Iraq continues to fuel much of the fighting. We have made ourselves so hated over there that they will oppose us no matter what we might try to accomplish, even if it would truly be to their benefit. The longer we stay, the greater our presence, the worse the fighting will be.


 
Michael, much of this, I too, believe to be axiomatic. 

The down side to this truth, is that when we leave, the fighting is not going to stop. It is going to continue while the region attempts to find an equalibrium between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds in the Nation formerly known as Iraq. The possible horror, is that the Shi'ite exact genocide upon the Sunni. Can we just sit by, and watch that happen? That is not a question anyone is making, nor an argument anyone is putting forward. 

I think it would be possible to apply enough diplomatic pressure to keep Iran out of Iraq, to keep Syria out of Iraq, and to keep Saudi Arabia out of Iraq *while* the Shi'ite and Sunni work out their differences. Our presense very close by will remain a requirement for decades to come. 

But, politically, the Sunni's are going to be moving from the top dogs to the ugly red-headed step children. I have no idea what incentives could be extended that will quiet them. And while the Shia may end up with all the Iraqi Wealth, their is going to be a big thirst for vengence from the Ba'athist decades of rule. 

There are no good answers - the least bad is to re-install Saddam Hussien. Honestly, knowing everything we know today (or even working the assumptions of what we knew then) ...  if we could enter the 'Way Back' machine and reset it to 2002 ... would you push the button? 

I would.


----------



## jazkiljok (Jan 11, 2007)

back in the 60s the word was that if we left vietnam-- the world would cave in and the commies would overrun the southeast asian world.

well. did it?

doomday predictions are not guarantors of future events.

the world is full of potential terrorists-- there will be no more or less of them if we leave.  but i believe that alqueda will suffer if the US leaves-- iraqi's are not afghan mullahs in need of their help and funding. in fact the insurgents  use them as cannon fodder or suicide bombers. iraqi's prefer NOT blowing themselves up but foreign arabs seem to come with this radical religious fervor that even the Sadr supporters don't display. after the US leaves, there's no point to them really. 

so, what's left over? oil. and oil needs to be extracted and sold to make money-- and all iraqi parties are focused on the oil as we are.

we need to buy oil and so do europe and the chinese. they need to sell it.

so, whatever takes place-- be sure that deals will eventually be made and commerce will go on.

if not, well-- maybe we'll all be driving electric cars in the next 10 years and the mideast will look more like Dafur to us by then; something to pity,  bemoan and then forget about.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2007)

But where would the electricity come from?  My town, like many others, generates electricity from petroleum, spec. diesel fuel.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4464286.html


 
O.K.... I know what you are saying. I thought you meant in excess (that the additional 20K troops would cost 100bil) which isn't the case. We are looking at another 5.6bil for the troop increase, and 1.2bil for rebuilding efforts in addition to the 99bil that we have already budgeted for the war. That 100 bil you talk about is already in the defense budget for 07'. Page 3 talks about additional costs:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/


As to a couple of other things:

1. I don't agree that they are fighting because we are occupying them. They are fighting because factions are philosophically opposed very drastically in ways that encourage violence as a solution, and the only thing that stopped sectarian violence before was a tyrannical and violent leader. They only seem to know how to behave through violence or complete submission; and at the moment they just don't seem to know another way. Because of this, I think that without our occupation, more fighting would be happening with thousands more deaths.

2. Even if we managed to have good diplomacy with the surrounding nations, I don't think that they would be able to keep the different factions from crossing the border (with us not occupying the areas to hinder it) and getting involved in Iraq if they wanted too. Most of these nations have virtually no border security, and the people of these nations identify more with their religious/tribal identities then their countries of origin. So the Sunni's from places like Saudi Arabia will still get involved, as will the Shia' from places like Iran and Syria, and so on.

3. Oil, unfortunatily, is a huge factor here. Not just for "big oil" interests, but for the country and people of Iraq itself. Oil is about the only thing they really have to offer at the moment on the international trade side of things. Without it, there is no chance of economic stability in the region. Because of oil, there is potential for economic stability in Iraq and a rebuilding effort, if they could just stop killing each other for a second to realize it. Without oil, there chances are even dimmer. So, in my opinion, anyone interested in that country becoming stablized at some point had better be greatly interested in securing oil their resources.

4. Because these factions seem to have no abilities to behave themselves, and because Iraq's ordinary people have been beaten down and are so afraid to stand up for themselves, Maliki might just have to institute a form of martial law with strict rules on curfews, insurgent/terrorist aiding and abetting, weapon ownership, and so forth, in the region in order to secure it. This doesn't have to be the rape and torture rooms of the Saddam days, but it should be very strict. I am sure that the families who are just trying to live their lives would welcome such a strict rule.

In fact, part of the reason for the increase in violence is Maliki had restricted US troops from operating in certain Shia area's, so Insurgents and foreign terrorists increased in those areas. That kind of stuff has to stop. There needs to be a strict rule on everyone, regardless of faction. They need to earn their freedoms, because they have so far demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with them.

Supposedly, this is one of the things that is going to change with the new plan. Well, we'll see.

5. I think that we all agree on this, however: it seems that there is no good solution, at least in the immediate. It is like we have the choice between a knee injury, a back injury, a neck injury, or a rotator cuff injury. It's like, none of our choices are really any good. So, I guess we just have to do what we can and hope for the best.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> O.K.... I know what you are saying. I thought you meant in excess (that the additional 20K troops would cost 100bil) which isn't the case. We are looking at another 5.6bil for the troop increase, and 1.2bil for rebuilding efforts in addition to the 99bil that we have already budgeted for the war. That 100 bil you talk about is already in the defense budget for 07'. Page 3 talks about additional costs:


 
No. The 100 Billion dollars to fight the war in Iraq is definately *not* included in the defense budget. This money is requested under a 'Supplemental' - which by definition is outside the normal budget process. 

It has been one of my major arguments for the past four years is that this entire war is being fought outside the budget process. The defense department gets their budget on the military appropriations bill - but they never request money to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan in those budgets.

The Bush Administration treats this war as 'Emergency Funding' - ala Katrina or Tsunami. 

This article is rather outdated - but the premise remains - and the author is credible, even while I disagree with just about everything he stands for. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200407201413.asp


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> But where would the electricity come from? My town, like many others, generates electricity from petroleum, spec. diesel fuel.


 
Carol, there is a tremendous amount of coal in the Appalachians. While still a fossil fuel, with associated difficulties, North America, I believe, has more coal than the middle east has oil.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2007)

Yet we are importing record quantities of coal as it is.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 11, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> No. The 100 Billion dollars to fight the war in Iraq is definately *not* included in the defense budget. This money is requested under a 'Supplemental' - which by definition is outside the normal budget process.
> 
> It has been one of my major arguments for the past four years is that this entire war is being fought outside the budget process. The defense department gets their budget on the military appropriations bill - but they never request money to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan in those budgets.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, you are correct. 

My point, which I did not properly articulate, is that the new plan of sending 20 thousand troops and putting pressure on the Maliki government to do their job is not going to cost an additional 100 billion added to what was already benchmarked for the war prior to his speech Wednesday evening. The new plan is an estimated additional 5.6 + 1.2 (or 6.8) billion to what has already been benchmarked.

I just don't want people to be mislead about the new plan, and how much it will cost.

I agree with you that the cost of the war, to put it simply, sucks ***. The cost of the war (all money that could all have gone to health care, education, environmental aid, economic growth, and so on, but is now basically gone forever) has been my problem with the way Iraq has been handled from the beginning. I knew before we went in when approval ratings were much higher for an Iraq occupation that the price tag for this thing was going to be huge. But as usualy, no one ****ing listens to me. Ah well...

Since we don't have that time machine, I am not sure what we can do now that we are there, and now that we are in this mix up that we in part are responsible for, other then try to end this thing with Iraq as secure as we can make it.

Sure, that means more money in the toilet and more dead, but I am thinking that the consequences of not engaging this new plan and pulling out too early could be worse in the long run.

One critique I have about the new plan is that we aren't able to deploy more forces on the ground then 20,000 of our own. We could use a hell of a lot more, even if they were UN or allied forces at this point. But that, as we all know is not a possibility.

I know one thing is for sure; I'd rather send 20,000 to at least help those already there then pull out troops gradually, leaving the troops that remain with less help on the ground while the number of insurgence and terrorists pile up. We can't pull out troops gradually until the Iraqi government can police their own; that I do know for sure...

That would cost us more deaths then if we boost troop levels, I would think.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> One critique I have about the new plan is that we aren't able to deploy more forces on the ground then 20,000 of our own. We could use a hell of a lot more, even if they were UN or allied forces at this point. _But that, as we all know is not a possibility._


 
I get scolded by some here when I suggest our military has been "broken" by this war. But, if we can't field more than the population of a small town, what would you call it. 



Tulisan said:


> I know one thing is for sure; I'd rather send 20,000 to at least help those already there then pull out troops gradually, leaving the troops that remain with less help on the ground while the number of insurgence and terrorists pile up. We can't pull out troops gradually until the Iraqi government can police their own; that I do know for sure...


 
This assumes there is such a thing as an 'Iraqi government'. I don't believe there is. If you remove the US Military, any semblence of a government in Iraq will disintegrate. Today, only Sadr's seats in the Parliment provide the majority required for Maliki to rule. Without the US Military counterbalancing Sadr, the Mahdi Army would be the strength in the country, but they may not choose to participate in the government. 

We lost any chance for success in this mis-adventure when we refused to understand the power of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. When we were unwilling or unable to work with him - because Pearl, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz thought Chalabi (Government in Exile) was a better idea - we blocked allowing the 'Iraqi's to govern themselves'. Recall that before the invasion, the President never made any statements about what Iraq would look like after Saddam was gone - because, he said, the Iraqi's could govern themselves. 

I believe it comes down to this: 

If - POOF - the US Military was gone from Iraq, chaos would follow, leading to an eventual strongman leading the region. Iraq would splinter into two, or three smaller countryettes.

If - POOF - 20,000 more troops are placed into Iraq (165,000 total), we are just delaying the transition to chaos. Eventually, those troops are going to have to come out, (or be deployed in Iran), when they do, the splintering will take place. All we get from the investment, is more debt and more dead.

Sistani has removed himself from the political arena. 
And Sadr has not shown a willingness to be political.
We are not going to be able to put in a new 'puppet' regime.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 12, 2007)

I think its a sound military strategy. I think that its weaknesses are the timing; should have been done from the "get go" and the number of troops. We should have signifigantly increased the size of our military over the past few years and sent a lot more than 20k troops.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Michael, much of this, I too, believe to be axiomatic.
> 
> The down side to this truth, is that when we leave, the fighting is not going to stop. It is going to continue while the region attempts to find an equalibrium between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds in the Nation formerly known as Iraq. The possible horror, is that the Shi'ite exact genocide upon the Sunni. Can we just sit by, and watch that happen? That is not a question anyone is making, nor an argument anyone is putting forward.


 
This is exactly where the problem lies.  Our being there makes it worse.  Our leaving will leave a void and opportunity for other atrocities to take place.  No matter how we look at it, it looks like an unwinable situation.  We really really screwed up terribly on this one, and hundreds of thousands of people have paid, and will continue to pay the price for our arrogance and foolishness.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This is exactly where the problem lies. Our being there makes it worse. Our leaving will leave a void and opportunity for other atrocities to take place. No matter how we look at it, it looks like an unwinable situation. We really really screwed up terribly on this one, and hundreds of thousands of people have paid, and will continue to pay the price for our arrogance and foolishness.


 

Hmmm... SSDD just gave me a negative rep over this comment.  Not sure who that is.

To SSDD:  If you have a problem with this comment, why not elaborate a bit and join the conversation?  At least aire your position.  Personally, I think it's childish to give negative rep, esp. in the Study, as the very nature of the discussions are such that there is a lot of disagreement.  If we gave negative rep to everyone who disagreed with us in the Study, it would never end.


----------



## rutherford (Jan 12, 2007)

I like your comment.

SSDD stands for "same ****, different day."


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2007)

rutherford said:


> SSDD stands for "same ****, different day."


 
A-ha.  I was trying to figure out what that might be.  Didn't quite put that one together.


----------

