Iraq surge a failure

[Bogie]

No matter what happens - if all the guerilla fighters stepped up this afternoon, said they didn't wanna do it anymore, that there'd be peace in the middle east, the Democrats would find something wrong with it, and blame Republicans.

Personally, I'm leaning toward a bugout right now. Then after they get gnarsty again, and launch another attack on our soil, and they will do that, we go in and carpetbomb them until there's nothing left. They don't understand "nice." They do understand "carpet bomb." They just haven't seen it.
 

 

[lupinus]

as it stands I don't see a peaceful Iraq.  As said Suni and Shia hate each other.  It owuld be like sticking a group of black panthers and kk on an Island, telling them to select a government, and to play nice.  Just aint gonna happen.

The Kurds already have an area so they aren't an issue.  But go to the leaders of the Shia and the leaders of the Suni tell them to sit down shut up draw some lines i nthe sand for each side to get, and if they don't we will lay the smack down on them like they have nver felt before and turn the country into a parking lot. 

Once they have some lines drawn either A) Let them be three totaly seperate independant countries, or B) A loose republic of nations, maybe something similar to the origional American republic in that the central power was very limited and the states took care of msot everything for themselves.  You have a Kurdish state, a Suni state, and a Shia state.  We already basically have that now in that there is a Kurdish state, there just is the other half where the Shia and Suni have to live together and coexist. 

Worked pretty good for Yugoslavia.

[280plus]

Wow, the only input I can offer is to say good read. I greatly appreciate the efforts of all you active duty folks, you all make me proud to be an American. PS,  eff the loser Demorats...

[griz]

Thanks for the answer PW.  And since you asked I will not thank you for being there, but I will thank you for your service.  We need a salute smiley here

[wmenorr67]

To counter Rabbi, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq and has been for a couple of weeks now. 

And Phantom Warrior hit the nail on the head.  Thankfully the mission my unit has doesn't have us out there doing all the things his unit is doing.  Our unit has been lucky, knock on wood, that we have had no major incidents with IED's or even SAF attacks.  We have had a few close calls but no injuries from combat, and no major damage to vehicles.

[Paddy]

To counter Rabbi, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq and has been for a couple of weeks now. 

  Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

[wmenorr67]

To counter Rabbi, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq and has been for a couple of weeks now. 

  Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

Because he actually brings some stability to the situation.  He is actually trying to get JAM to work with the GOI because he realizes the sooner that happens the sooner we are gone.

[Ron]

Just watched "Frontline" on PBS this evening. The show is titled endgame and is all about the various strategies employed in trying to get out of Iraq.

While it isn't flattering of the administration as you can imagine, PBS reporting on Iraq, I wouldn't call it a hit piece either.

I would call it a damn good synopsis of the situation from the beginning until present. 
 
It is available online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/

[roo_ster]

Glen Beck does the best Frontline parody.

[grampster]

I started to watch it and then noticed most of the civilians being interviewed were MSM types from left wing media outlets like the NYT and Washington Post.  I figured it would wind up being a slanted propaganda piece, so I turned it off.

Wouldn't you just love it if for once, the media just reported stuff as it happens, good, bad or indifferent?

[RevDisk]

Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war.  Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences.  First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.


The only two possible ways to stabilize Iraq are to either Balkanize Iraq into three nations or to be more brutal than Saddam or Tito. 

Problem with the Balkanization is that it'd cause one, possibly two, additional wars.  Turkey would invade Kurdistan, they already have and they will again.  Actually, they're currently building up force levels along the border to crush the Turkish Kurds.   Also to show that they can and will strike into Iraqi Kurdistan if things don't calm down.  Funny how you don't see that kind of information on the news.  The second would be yet another *expletive deleted*it-Sunni war.  The oil is mainly in Kurdish and *expletive deleted*it areas.  The Sunni aren't exactly going respond well to being left without a cut of the oil revenue.

[Paddy]

Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war.  Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences.  First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.

Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict.  To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable.

[De Selby]

Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war.  Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences.  First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.

Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict.  To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable.

Think about this: are the most stable governments in the world those that are the most violent, brutal, and unpredictable?

If you want people to have confidence in a government and accept it, you have to be as stable, predictable, and unintrusive as possible. 

An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.

[Paddy]

An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.

That is a description of the current situation which arose out of limited and 'politically correct' so-called 'warfare'.   We are most certainly outbrutalized and should our young men (and women) step out of line they are prosecuted by their own government.  This (Iraq) is no 'war', it is simply a ruse, or a pastime for the American government headed up by a complete fool.  The radical Islamic world already has an unlimited number of recruits, ready, able and wiling to die.   You seem to think that a 'genteel' approach will win a war.  You are naive to the 'nth' degree young man. 

[jnojr]

Let's quit squandering lives and money in this endless black hole cesspool.

+1

Iraq is going to dissolve into civil war the day after we leave, whether that's tomorrow or ten years from now.  Let's let them get to it.  The illusion of "peace in the Middle East" isn't worth a single American life or dollar.

[De Selby]

An occupation government that tries to kill the resistence out of people will quickly find itself outbrutalized and facing an enemy with unlimited numbers of recruits.

That is a description of the current situation which arose out of limited and 'politically correct' so-called 'warfare'.   We are most certainly outbrutalized and should our young men (and women) step out of line they are prosecuted by their own government.  This (Iraq) is no 'war', it is simply a ruse, or a pastime for the American government headed up by a complete fool.  The radical Islamic world already has an unlimited number of recruits, ready, able and wiling to die.   You seem to think that a 'genteel' approach will win a war.  You are naive to the 'nth' degree young man. 

So what's your plan? Kill everyone with a name and suddenly the Iraqis will what....drop their arms and accept whatever's coming to them?

Try this: flesh out a scenario with a few details on how the ultra violence is going to get the Iraqis to stop shooting at Americans.  That should illustrate nicely for you that the real fantasy is "we can just kill them into submission."

Out-killing popular opposition as a strategy ended with worldwide monarchies. It does not and never has worked in the post-colonial world.

[Paddy]

So what's your plan? Kill everyone with a name and suddenly the Iraqis will what....drop their arms and accept whatever's coming to them?

  My 'plan' (if I were calling the shots) is to immediately withdraw all troops and assets of the United States from the entire region.  There is no U.S. national security interest served by the continuing occupation of Iraq.

[RevDisk]

Why is he still alive??   He would be an excellent use of a Hellfire missle.

Only if your intention is very probably triggering a full scale civil war.  Assassinating him would cause many unintended consequences.  First would be that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani would be pretty much obligated to side against the US.

Bullcrap. It's that kind of appeasement thinking that prolongs the conflict.  To 'win' you must be violent, brutal and unpredictable.

Yes, foreign occupation troops killing local religious leaders historically never causes the indigenous folks to get upset.  Sigh.

If we were occupying Iraq with the purpose of annexation of its resources, I'd agree that massacring the population would work.  Except the current official reason for our occupation is that we're bringing democracy to Iraq.