War in Iraq - The Coming Escalation

[CoryKS]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Link broken; try this one.

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

. . . .. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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