In a few hours President Bush will make explicit his plans for a new strategy for Iraq. Already many organizations are assuming they know what he will say.
Here are my predicitions.
35% Chance that he will command a "Surge" in troop strength in Iraq, but that he will put a flexible time limit on it. It will appear to be limited in duration, but be open ended enough that he can stretch it out to the multi-year surge that the creators of the stratagy suggest.
25% Chance that he will command a "Surge" that will be of short duration--3-6 Months. This is, of course, the worse option available. The creators of the surge say it will only work if its done in years, not months. However, it is the most likely to get the approval of Congress and the People.
15% President Bush will bite the bullet and command a "Surge" of several years as the strategists suggest. This is the policy the Surge backers believe is most likely to succeed, but its also the policy that is most likely to get slapped down by members of congress.
10% Chance that President Bush will not mention the Surge, but will push exclusively for a build of in Trainers of the Iraqi Army/police, while allowing the rest of our troops to begin coming home.
5% Chance that President Bush will say that militarily we must "Stay the Course" while politically he gathers allies to do the Surge thing.
3% Will be very vague and not say much useful.
2% Chance that the President will say that the Iraq Commision was completely right, and follow its suggestions.
2% Chance that the President will say the new direction in Iraq is straight through Iran.
2% Chance that the President will say the new direction on the War on Terror will be the detainment as an enemy combatant of any politician who opposes/questions the war.
1% Chance the the President will not show up.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"3% Will be very vague and not say much useful"
I give this one %50 chance, with a breakdown of the other half among the other choices.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
60% chance that I will clean my bathroom
On an ordinary day the chance that I will clean my bathroom approaches zero. There is something about presidential speeches these days, that makes me want to clean my bathroom. I try to take advantage of that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
75% it'll be this Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hmmm, there's a Mythbusters tonight on the Hindunberg disaster.
Hmmm.
--j_k
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do not understand the "the only way to lose is to quit" concept. It is as if I could stand here and flap my arms, stating that the only way to not fly is to stop flapping. Except I would just look silly instead of killing people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't understand that concept either, but then it's not a concept I hear bandied about much either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You haven't heard, "Defeat is not an option"? Or "we'll succeed unless we quit"?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
kmb, the bathroom comment was priceless. That takes the award for top funny of the day. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is more than one way to read those statements. "Defeat is not an option," for instance, usually does not mean, "Among the possibilities of things that could really happen, losing does not appear." It means, "The option of losing is unacceptable to us, so we're taking it off the table of resolutions we'll accept and work towards."
"We'll succeed unless we quit," does not mean, "All we have to do is not quit and we win," it means, "The only enemy who can defeat us here is ourselves." It's really not analagous at all to someone standing in a field doing something impossible and saying the only way he'll fail to do the impossible is to quit trying to do the impossible. I think you're aware of that, and I think you're probably also aware that those phrases have more than one interpretation...and that your interpretation (which I can guess at, due to your comparison to arm-flapping) isn't the one people mean when they say them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But as it has often meant in this context, "if we keep doing what we are doing we won't lose" - even though that has had no basis in reality. It has taken almost four years of this for the Adminstration to acknowleddge that what they are doing isn't working.
Saying we won't accept something doesn't have any bearing on whether it is true or not. The failure to accept that losing is indeed possible and is, in fact, what is happening keeps us from making good decisions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We have become such sissies when its comes to war. How long have we been in Iraq? Since 03? 3 years or so? The French and Indian war was a "short" war and its called The Seven Years war in Europe. Thats over twice as long as we have been there. 30 years war? Makes Iraq look like a weekend skirmish. The 100 years war? I believe at its onset it was called "Operation: Speedy Resolution"
I am all for this very critical approach to war, but geez I certainly hope the American public is not stupid enough to think, "If we were going to win we'd do it in 3 years." and then make a losing war a bitter defeat.
But hey Ill stop debating strategy and just say, I really think we need the surge + concerted training of Iraqi security forces. And we need to give the army at least 2-3 more years to work this all out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is the Army supposed to solve the generations-old conflicts in Iraq? How are they supposed to teach democracy?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"The only one who can beat us here (Iraq) is us." and we have been doing a darn good job of it too.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How is the Army supposed to solve the generations-old conflicts in Iraq? How are they supposed to teach democracy?
Neither of those can happen until there is a lot more stability in the country.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Given the voting turnout in the Iraqi elections, I don't see that the Army *needs* to teach them democracy. They got this voting thing down pat.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I used to believe that Muslims were as willing to be free as anyone else (the whole Democracy and everything). What Iraq taught me is that before we can solve the problems in the Middle East, Islam must be crushed to a point of political irrelavancy.
My own solution to the problems is send in an army of secular atheists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
ricree, okay. How are we going to achieve "stability"?
Will B, all that "voting" has yet to achieve any kind of government that people consider "theirs".
Occasional, by "crush" you mean what exactly?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think "the only way to lose is to quit" means that we have such extreme military power that we can't lose by military defeat. It's not as if our enemies can seize DC and ship us all off to re-education camps.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Kmb, I am currently working that out in my mind right now as to what exactly "crush" means. It is the closest word I could come up with to what I think needs to be done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Will, it seems that you and I have different concepts of "lose" when it comes to this conflict.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It's not as if our enemies can seize DC and ship us all off to re-education camps"
See, for me that is exactly what CAN happen if we lose this conflict. That doesn't mean overnight, but it does mean in the long run. Ever heard of Nukes? If we lose this then our enemies would be that less reluctant to use them against an enemy they see as spineless and, well, a bunch of pansy losers.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And its exactly what is more likely to happen if we bully and abuse the Islamic culture.
or
Korea could Nuke the US, while our troops are over-extended and exhausted in Iraq
or
As we spend our future, monetarily and militarilly, fighting a civil war in Iraq, the real terrorists are freer to plot more destructive acts of terrorism in the US, bringing down the food supply, or power supply next.
or
Iraq remains a recruiting theme for the Islamic Terrorists. Three or four more major acts of terrorism and a backlash sweeps this country leaving a petrified, re-education camp filled shadow of once was the Greatest country in the world.
or
More acts of terror, more deaths of our soldiers, and a Chrsitian America ermerges from the ashes just as fanatical, dangerous, and deadly as Iraq today.
Yeah, having a good imagination, there are lots of ways to loose this war.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well we've already taught them that they had better get nukes if they want us to negotiate with them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I used to believe that Muslims were as willing to be free as anyone else (the whole Democracy and everything). What Iraq taught me is that before we can solve the problems in the Middle East, Islam must be crushed to a point of political irrelavancy.
My own solution to the problems is send in an army of secular atheists.
I've considered this option but I really don't think its the, "only way."
I mean look at Malaysia. Islam dominates their political systems and yet they have managed to secure a very stable democracy as well as a very pluralistic society. Not only that they used to be a colony of Great Britain! Take any country that blames colonialism for its woes and Malaysia just does not make any sense.
Iraq was never meant to be a country and I can understand why its hell to get the Sunni's/Shiites/and Kurds to live together. But they are no different, at least to me, then the legions of different religions and cultures that all exist in the US. The Protestants and Catholics did TERRIBLE things to each other, and both of them did worse to the Jews, and yet we all live in an acceptable peace, here in the US.
I think the chief enemies of Iraqi anarchy are education, financial stability, and effective law enforcement.
If we can get enough of all three, the ultimate result in Iraq will be favorable. I hate the fact that most of the insurgents doing the fighting are not even from Iraq. Its the exact same reason the Union realized it had to win the civil war before Great Britain sided with the confederacy. There is no shortage of men willing to walk into a war and add to the chaos.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: there are definitely many woes caused by colonialism (and in particular, how GB ended colonialism). One country that's not beset by colonialism woes does not a refutation make.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Where do you get that most of the insurgents aren't from Iraq? A study last year by the CSIS (I'll try to find a link) estimated that only about 4 - 10% were foreign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm skeptical of this troop surge being spread out over multiple years. Bush is also supposed to announce tonight that he wants Iraqi security forces to take over by the end of 2007. I don't see how he can surge troops into a country while claiming the Iraqis are the lead in security matters and not look like an utter fool.
I bet the 20,000 troops will be sent en masse to Baghdad and Anbar province in an attempt to break Al Sadr and restore total order to the city. Blanket them with manpower. The Democrats will approve it, but they'll scrutinize it good and plenty before they sign off, if for no other reason than to LOOK like they are scrutinizing it. They're already well into their 100 Hours agenda, or at least the House is, I doubt they'll pass this up entirely, and unless Bush says something monumentally stupid, Teddy Kennedy's bill will either fail or become moot.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Just finished a few minutes ago. I think you got everything he said, Lyr.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't watch the speech, I'll read the transcript when it becomes available, but I'll tell you what I'd like to see.
If we're sending twenty some odd thousand troops mostly to Baghdad they need a specific mission. Just sending them there is as useless as the Sunni scholars are saying, it'll just antagonize people and cause more gun fights. They need a purpose. The purpose I'd give them is to confiscate the gun of everyone in Baghdad. The only people with guns should be cops and soldiers, and their weapons should be numbered so we know who shot who with what (to help root out plants in the government security agencies).
Disarm al-Sadr, disarm the militias, disarm EVERYONE. Likely this will cause them all to go utterly crazy themselves and violence will ensue, but guess what, violence is already there! There's zero sign of calm ensuing any time soon. 101 bodies were discovered in and around Baghdad in the last two days, this after a 10 hour gun battle in the streets. It's already a bad situation, and it might have to get worse before it gets better, but it will never get better while Baghdad is an open arms bazaar. At some future date, maybe even a proscribed date, they can get their guns back, when they can be registered, but for now the city needs to be empty of non-government weapons.
First offer a turn in program, guns for money. Then start kicking in doors and taking them by force. It's either that, or we suffer through a few more years of this gritty fighting. If not this, then what are those 20,000 men and women going over there for? More target practice for insurgents?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well, the speech... Coulda been worse, I guess. I only occasionally winced. I kind of appreciated that he took some vague responsibility for things that have gone wrong in the current effort, and that he mentioned some sort of time by which he expected Iraq to be leading its own security.
I don't know if anyone will be able to hold him to that. And "losing the support of the American people" is plenty vague; one could make a case that the Iraqi government has already lost a good part of the support of the American people. Without some sort of firm benchmarks describing success, there's a ton of wiggle room, and having been told to expect more violence and more casualties leaves a far too ready ability to feed us the same nonsense about how well were doing in Iraq that we've been hearing for years now.
The real bottom line is that I don't think the Iraqi government has the will or the ability to truly root out sectarian violence originating from within. And a measely 15% troop increase isn't remotely sufficient to make up for that basic lack. For the sake of everyone involved, I'd love to be wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In January of 2004, the US had ~160,000 troops in Iraq. Right now, we have ~120,000 troops in Iraq.
So what I really want to know is how the presidents "surge" is substantially different from what we were doing in 2004.
To me, this sounds just like more of the same with some new political spin.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think my concept of "lose" is the same as both our government's *and* our enemies': the enemies' goal is to make us give up. Of course, that's not to say that's the best definition, but their goal is surely worth knowing.
I don't find any evidence that being nice and conciliatory to Islamic terrorists makes them less likely to nuke us -- but I would agree, we should continue to make nice with Islamic culture, as Dan proposed. It won't prevent us from getting nuked, but it's worth doing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the enemies' goal is to make us give up
If the goal of our enemies is to make us give up, then we should give up. If the goal of our enemies is to destroy us, then we shouldn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
On the bright side, I finally cleaned that nasty clump of junk out of my bathtub drain.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the enemies' goal is to make us give up
If the goal of our enemies is to make us give up, then we should give up. If the goal of our enemies is to destroy us, then we shouldn't.
I think that would depend on which enemy in Iraq you ask.
--j_k
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The problem is not a lack of a definition of losing, to my mind, but a lack of definition of winning.
If we're still in Iraq in ten years "not losing"? All this incredibly macho rhetoric about flexing our muscles and showing the world our will is going to sound really, really stupid. To put it mildly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Going to?
Doesn't that imply future tense?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the enemies' goal is to make us give up
If the goal of our enemies is to make us give up, then we should give up.
That doesn't make sense. If they are enemies of ours, why should we follow their desires, unless they make the price of not doing so unbearably high? I don't think that's happened, and I don't think any such power exists among the insurgents.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Going to?
Doesn't that imply future tense?
I thought I'd leave it to someone else to say it. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Could Sterling (or someone) give a source for incredibly macho rhetoric about flexing our muscles and showing the world our will? I haven't heard it. I would agree that in this context rhetoric about flexing muscles would sound pretty stupid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If they are enemies of ours, why should we follow their desires...
Why shouldn't we? If it costs us to frustrate their desires, and their only desire is that we not frustrate their desires, why pay the cost?
If they have other desires that are more crucial to our own projects, we should address those. But if we're only staying because they don't want us to, it's rather silly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Why shouldn't we? If it costs us to frustrate their desires, and their only desire is that we not frustrate their desires, why pay the cost?
Well, that's why I said "If they are enemies of ours". I take that to mean that their desires are by definition inimical to us. If we can live together without friction just by the US pulling out of Iraq, and the pullout doesn't hurt us in any other way, then that's fine, we should by all means pull out. But I don't think either statement is true.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Defeat is not an option, especially when Victory has yet to be defined.
Three men run a race. No one looses. One man beats the others and declares victory. The second man beats his own previous best time, and declares victory. The third stumbles, falls, breaks his leg, goes to the hospital where he gets a kiss from a cute nurse. He too declares victory.
It is hard to defeat all of our enemies when they too are not defined. If you define "Enemy" as some one actively trying to destroy the US, then there are very few enemies in Iraq. The Sunni Insurgents want us to leave so they can take control of their country and wade in the luxury of the oil billions. The Shi'ite majority want us to stop interfering in their cleansing of Sunni enemies. The Iranians want us to leave so they can have a safe, weak, eternaly internaly self destuctive neighbor who is no threat. Only a few islamicists want to destroy the US, a vast minority of the people in Iraq who are presently actively trying to blow up US troops.
Its amazing that in a country with so few enemies, so many people are trying to kill our soldiers.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I mean look at Malaysia. Islam dominates their political systems and yet they have managed to secure a very stable democracy as well as a very pluralistic society. Not only that they used to be a colony of Great Britain! Take any country that blames colonialism for its woes and Malaysia just does not make any sense.
Iraq was never meant to be a country and I can understand why its hell to get the Sunni's/Shiites/and Kurds to live together. But they are no different, at least to me, then the legions of different religions and cultures that all exist in the US. The Protestants and Catholics did TERRIBLE things to each other, and both of them did worse to the Jews, and yet we all live in an acceptable peace, here in the US.
Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar eats you.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
In my opinion, Bush is doing the only thing he CAN do. If putting more troops into Iraq makes a difference and helps out the instability and "fixes" the problem, then it is not only a win in Iraq, but a win for the republicans that want to hang onto the White House in 2008.
If he does nothing and things keep going the way they are, he will continue to get attacked for not having a plan, and more soldiers will die. Easy win for the Democrats in 2008.
If he took the advice of Democrats in Congress and pulled out, and then everything collapses there or there is another terrorist attack here on United States soil, the Democrats will place the blame completely on Bush for making the decision and escape virtually unscathed. Again, easy win for the Democrats in 2008 or 2012.
He is doing the only thing he feels he CAN do, and is hoping it works. And he isnt doing it just for himself, he is doing it for his political party.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Defeat is not an option, especially when Victory has yet to be defined.
Three men run a race. No one looses. One man beats the others and declares victory. The second man beats his own previous best time, and declares victory. The third stumbles, falls, breaks his leg, goes to the hospital where he gets a kiss from a cute nurse. He too declares victory.
It is hard to defeat all of our enemies when they too are not defined. If you define "Enemy" as some one actively trying to destroy the US, then there are very few enemies in Iraq. The Sunni Insurgents want us to leave so they can take control of their country and wade in the luxury of the oil billions. The Shi'ite majority want us to stop interfering in their cleansing of Sunni enemies. The Iranians want us to leave so they can have a safe, weak, eternaly internaly self destuctive neighbor who is no threat. Only a few islamicists want to destroy the US, a vast minority of the people in Iraq who are presently actively trying to blow up US troops.
Its amazing that in a country with so few enemies, so many people are trying to kill our soldiers.
I agree with you for the most part, but the oil is another reason why we need a stable government in Iraq. If the Sunni insurgents take control of the oil, what do you think will happen to oil prices here in the US? I dont agree with those who believe that this is the ONLY reason why we are there, but it does play a part.
This is why we need alternate forms of energy. Or as an alternative the reason we need more refineries, and an increase domestic oil drilling.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:He is doing the only thing he feels he CAN do, and is hoping it works. And he isnt doing it just for himself, he is doing it for his political party.
Quite possibly. But that sounds like an awfully bad reason to put 20,000 more lives at risk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have learned the annoying way not to bother interacting with Geraine.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
True, it does sound like a bad reason to put 20,000 more lives at risk.
One life lost is a tragedy. I suppose only history will decide.
And kmbboots, I respect your opinion. I hope your feeling about me change. I only express my beliefs and my opinion, and as blunt as I sound, I mean no disrespect to anyone else for their beliefs. If I have offended you in any way, I apologize.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, I have no idea what your opinions are. I thought your purpose on the other thread was to express opinions that you didn't hold so you could enjoy watching us jump through your hoops.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: I'd like to read any report that states that currently most of the insurgents are born and raised in Iraq.
fugu13: You are right, one exception does not prove colonialism does nothing bad, I am one of the first to admit that colonialism does terrible things, but people speak of it like its a universal evil that can accomplish nothing positive. I was merely indicating that Malaysia has all the cards stacked against it, and yet it thrives. Hong Kong is another example of a colony that was arguably better off for being a colony then part of the mother country. Singapore is ANOTHER example.
I agree that the fact Iraq is not a homogeneous culture that can agree on its basic needs makes creating a country out of it EXTREMELY hard. My best friend thinks its impossible to win this war, and I HATE that position. I hate the position that people take that its IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish good in a given scenario. There are just so many instances where people with just as many odds stacked against them managed to eek out a favorable outcome.
People (and I am not saying you are one of these) who think Iraq because it was a maltreated colony of Great Britain with a blood feud going on between its 3 biggest groups for centuries is therefore a lost cause have very little faith in what human beings are capable of.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the Sunni insurgents get control of the oil fields, which is far from a guarantee by the way, they'll join OPEC and continue producing their pre-war level oil. Oil production there is already ridiculously low, between destroyed capacity from terrorism and fuel being funneled off into the black market. Gas in Detroit just dipped to 1.99 a gallon. This tied to the fact that we don't really, as a percentage, get the majority of our oil from Iraq (it's like 10% maybe, if that) anyway leaves me skeptical of the need to stay in Iraq for oil purposes.
Either they will join the world in selling oil for the market value, or they will sell it for higher and no one will buy it. Or they won't sell it at all, which just won't happen. They want the money too much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know their political leanings, but their reports seem to use good data. The report of September 27, 2005 discussed the role of foreign fighters pretty extensively - often pulling the strings, but relatively few in number. More recent reports, like the one of December 14 of this year, seem to agree on this (see page 50/51).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Iraq Study Group Report, pp. 3-4:
quote:Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The insurgency comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals... It benefits from participants' detailed knowledge of Iraq's infrastructure, and arms and financing are supplied primarily from within Iraq...
...Al Qaeda is responsible for a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that includes some of the more spectacular acts... Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of Sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters- numbering an estimated 1,300- play a supporting role or carry out suicide operations.
quote:Could Sterling (or someone) give a source for incredibly macho rhetoric about flexing our muscles and showing the world our will? I haven't heard it. I would agree that in this context rhetoric about flexing muscles would sound pretty stupid.
The former was easier to find in the early stages of the war, particularly in neoconservative sites and op-ed pieces. For one literal version of such:
For the latter, you don't need to go any further than World Watch.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Basically Bush has no respect for the public, which overwhelmingly treated the November elections as a referendum on the war in Iraq, and strongly voted against it.
I believe throughout the Vietnam War the number of troops was increased as well, which obviously did not result in a victory at all. Bush is merely putting more lives at risk and more money into this pointless war. The Iraqi government needs to take control of what is happening in their own country, so our troops can leave. Instead, they support Bush's plan to increase troops ... so they can avoid taking on the responsibility of training their own Iraqi troops. They would rather US lives be put at risk.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm really of two minds about this. I don't think 20,000 is enough to be honest. We either need to utterly blanket the country with force, like half a million men, just totally cover them all, or we need to just get out. All we're doing is holding back the storm with no progress being made. 20,000 isn't going to do it. If we aren't willing to go all the way, then we aren't going to make the situation better, so we might as well leave rather than suffer the consequences paid for zero gain.
It's maybe an odd position to take, but I support sending in thousands upon thousands of more men, as I believe it is the only way to quickly and efficiently end the problem. And if we aren't willing to do that, we're stuck with the status quo, which isn't acceptable. So the third option is to leave.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: Disarm al-Sadr, disarm the militias, disarm EVERYONE.
I like your idea about blanket disarmament. I don't think the guns for money program would be especially effective, but it might make a good start.
Also, actually guarding the weapons after they're collected is a good idea too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The guns for money thing was just an idea. I figured poor people would be much more willing to give up their guns when someone is handing them cash rather than sticking yet another gun in their faces.
And we either need to guard the weapons, or just out and out destroy them rather than face the risk of them getting back into the hands of terrorists. I'm sure Russia wouldn't mind making more AKs. The government either needs to know who has the guns, specifically, or it needs to be the only one holding the guns, especially in this case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm really of two minds about this. I don't think 20,000 is enough to be honest. We either need to utterly blanket the country with force, like half a million men, just totally cover them all, or we need to just get out. All we're doing is holding back the storm with no progress being made. 20,000 isn't going to do it. If we aren't willing to go all the way, then we aren't going to make the situation better, so we might as well leave rather than suffer the consequences paid for zero gain.
It's maybe an odd position to take, but I support sending in thousands upon thousands of more men, as I believe it is the only way to quickly and efficiently end the problem. And if we aren't willing to do that, we're stuck with the status quo, which isn't acceptable. So the third option is to leave.
The only tenable solutions is politically impossible, the Democrats and moderate Republicans simply won't go for it. Its the asinine philosophy of, "Lets see how little we can spare and still get the victory." Its just so likely that you will send too little too late and then the opportunity for victory is gone, or has doubled in cost.
I say send the troops to Baghdad as planned, and then go to the UN hat in hand and beg for support from other countries. Take their verbal abuse about going without their consent, and admit that success rests with their support. Put the ball in their court because then we can say that at least we tried. Then do all we can to make this work with what we DO have regardless of what Europe and Asia does.
On a facetious note, it seems only fair that the insurgency now announce their strategy for fighting in Iraq. Since ours is laid bare for all to see.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those pesky terrorists never do have a sense of fair play do they?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Geraine, I have no idea what your opinions are. I thought your purpose on the other thread was to express opinions that you didn't hold so you could enjoy watching us jump through your hoops.
I apologize again for the misunderstanding. This was not my intention at all. Like I stated before, I hope you can forgive me and that we can share our ideas and opinions with each other in the future without confusion.
Back on topic....
Bush is doing what he believes to be the right thing to do. The American people may disagree with him (66% in the last poll) but he continues to do what he believes we have to do to win in Iraq.
Many do not think it will work, some do. However it should be said that many of those Congressman and Representatives that are now opposing it supported it months ago. Now they are going back on what they said and are now opposing it. Republicans and Democrats alike.
Its an interesting time in the country, and I think the 2008 election will be one of the most heated ones yet.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am unclear on one thing.
The President announced on world-wide television exactly how many troops were being sent to Iraq, and where they would be stationed.
Didn't Geraldo get into a lot of trouble for doing something similar in Afghanistan?
He just gave away vital military intelligence, unless, of course, this was misinformation to confuse the enemy. Or is this the result of politicians (on both sides) willing to sacrifice the troops in Iraq in order to gain a victory in political wars in the US?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Those pesky terrorists never do have a sense of fair play do they?
Nope, and it really gauls me! Then again if the insurgency said,
"Our goal is to phase in 20,000 more troops and focus them on disrupting law enforcement in Baghdad I'd probably wet my pants."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My fear is that this will expand into Iran.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My fear is that this will expand into Iran.
It will if the Iranian government keeps meddling in this whole affair. They seemed determined to keep us bogged down in Iraq so they can continue with their nuclear program development. They just might take a step too far and commit Pearl Harbor 2 and goad us into going there.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Bush may think that what he is doing is right, but it's not just about him. He is the face of America to the rest of the world, and he is supposed to represent the American people and its position. Bush has been told by military personnel, Congress, and the general people that this war needs to end. He just doesn't care. If Bush decides to go into Iran or Syria, I do believe I will go crazy. How many more lives and how much more money will go into another pointless invasion? Bush needs to build diplomatic ties with Iran and Syria and obtain their aid in helping to stabilize Iraq, where the civil war seems to be going out of control. Other countries have already stated that if the civil war continues to escalate, they may have to intervene. The new government in Iraq needs to gain credibility among the world's nations and among Iraqis themselves, and bungled up their first opportunity by rushing to hang Saddam and allowing ridicule of him in the chamber. It turned very ugly very fast, and now Saddam is seen by some as a martyr who went out with dignity while those who assassinated him have been criticized. The US has no place in Iraq; the government itself needs to gain credibility with the people by representation from the Shiites and the Sunnis, train a military and police, and reach out diplomatically to surrounding countries.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My fear is that this will expand into Iran.
It will if the Iranian government keeps meddling in this whole affair. They seemed determined to keep us bogged down in Iraq so they can continue with their nuclear program development. They just might take a step too far and commit Pearl Harbor 2 and goad us into going there.
Why does Iran have less justification for "meddling" than we do?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However it should be said that many of those Congressman and Representatives that are now opposing it supported it months ago. Now they are going back on what they said and are now opposing it. Republicans and Democrats alike.
You say that like this is something that they are doing wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why does Iran have less justification for "meddling" than we do?
For one, the internationally recognized sovereign government of Iraq want us there right now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Bush is doing what he believes to be the right thing to do.
I don't think that this is true. I think he's gotten himself (and us) into a big old mess and he doesn't have any idea how to get us out. I think he's playing for time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why does Iran have less justification for "meddling" than we do?
For one, the internationally recognized sovereign government of Iraq want us there right now.
I should have said "than we did ".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I say send the troops to Baghdad as planned, and then go to the UN hat in hand and beg for support from other countries. Take their verbal abuse about going without their consent, and admit that success rests with their support. Put the ball in their court because then we can say that at least we tried. Then do all we can to make this work with what we DO have regardless of what Europe and Asia does.
Won't happen with Bush in the White House. I'll GLADLY be proved wrong, but it won't happen under this president.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:I am unclear on one thing.
The President announced on world-wide television exactly how many troops were being sent to Iraq, and where they would be stationed.
Didn't Geraldo get into a lot of trouble for doing something similar in Afghanistan?
He just gave away vital military intelligence, unless, of course, this was misinformation to confuse the enemy. Or is this the result of politicians (on both sides) willing to sacrifice the troops in Iraq in order to gain a victory in political wars in the US?
Yes, but IIRC the President can say whatever he wants about this plan deployment information was public even before the speech, whereas Geraldo's sand-sketches were not. Call it a perk of being CIC. Geraldo, on the other hand, violated a Pentagon rule specifically for embedded reporters (and, incidentally, blamed MSNBC).
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why does Iran have less justification for "meddling" than we do?
For one, the internationally recognized sovereign government of Iraq want us there right now.
I should have said "than we did ".
I'm not interested in justification. Iran is clearly not trying to "positively" effect the situation for the Iraqi people. They are financing Shiite AND Suni militias so that they can continue causing disarray and bog the US down in Iraq. It stops us from putting pressure on their nuclear agenda at the cost of 0 Iranian lives but thousands of Iraqi and American lives.
They were not invited there, and even if we disregard that and say America was not INVITED to Iraq, Iran's presence is certainly not desired by the internationally recognized government. As much as you may agree or disagree with American presence in Iraq in the first place, we are there and we have been asked to perform a task while we are there by the elected government. Iran is directly interfering with the US and Iraq's joint goal of stabilizing the country. Our arrest of some of Iran's military officials in Iraq at consulates and other places they shouldn't "officially" be at demonstrates this. The Iraqi government gave us license to do it.
I applaud the Kurds for trying to take the side of diplomatic propriety, but I am giving Iran a pretty dirty look right now. Its just too bad the government owned press in Iran can't tell the people what its leaders are doing to mess up the entire region.
In conclusion, and I apologize for ranting again. If the US has shady or outright wrong motives for having gone to Iraq in the first place, Iran has even WORSE rationale for doing what it does. It isn't even backing one group against another. It is arming EVERYONE (except the kurds) and empowering them to kill each other.
Certainly you can agree that if the US did not INVADE Iraq per se but instead just started indiscriminately but systematically handing out vehicles and weapons to the common Iraqi people and teaching them to use them, we would have to accept full responsibility for the mass slaughter that would ensue from the inevitable civil war.
America's motives in Iraq are suspect at worst, but Iran's are evil at best.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I very much doubt that the Kurds would be fretting, or even have allowed an Iranian consulate, if there weren't some sort of baksheesh being spread in the right places, as well as a large Kurdish population in Iran.
Besides, the longer the Shi'ites and Sunnis continue killing and maiming each other, the longer the Kurds remain an effectively autonomous state. The more killing and maiming poisons future political relations between the two sides, the stronger the Kurdish position as the swing vote in any future Iraqi government. So if Iran wants to provide the means for violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites...
...it also provides a distraction which allows Kurds to quietly (in comparison to the cacophony of civil war) reoccupy the oil-rich territory from which they were driven away by Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.
Nationalistic fervor knows no bounds. It would be a mistake to assume that leaders who desire a Kurdistan would have the same regional goals as the US. Coincidence in purpose doesn't imply similar long-term goals. Look at the US and Russia: they became ColdWar enemies almost immediately after their successful alliance to defeat the Nazis. While the US provided bulwark against Saddam-forced reabsorption into Iraq, the Kurdish leadership had little cause to disagree. But now that the US favors a reunited Iraq, that coincidence in purpose may no longer hold true.
Dubya and many other Americans have already been fooled by "flowers in the street" pre-war rhetoric. It would be a shame to allow the US to be blindsided again.
[ January 12, 2007, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Leader (Member # 9951) on :
I think 20,000 more troops is just a drop in the bucket. Iraq and Afghanistan need 500,000 to a million troops each to pacify and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and we should station that many over there.
We need to expand the military to at least 20 million active-duty personnel and the National Gaurd and Reserve to tens of millions. I also believe we need to implement universal military training, mandatory national service as well as bring back the military draft.
Finally, we need to formally annex Afghanistan and Iraq as US Territories and put them on the path to US Statehood. That is what we should have done with Cuba, Mexico, the Phillipines, Liberia, Germany, Japan, Korea, Haiti, and any other place that American GIs had occupied and rebuilt.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh Leader, how you tell funny jokes . Americans don't want to annex Afghanistan or anywhere else. Sure we'd probably take Canada, and we might CONSIDER Mexico, and some of the Caribbean islands, but that's it. Annexing either of them is such a wildly unlikely idea as to convince me you're either kidding or trolling. Americans aren't conquerors and we have no will to empire. Those facts are more or less borne out by history.
As for the rest, Geraldo I'm pretty sure showed the position of their unit as the invasion of Iraq was still taking place. We already have thousands of troops in Iraq, telling anyone over there who watched the speech that we were sending them to Baghdad, especially after the media has been talking about it for days is really a rather moot point to me. Besides, what difference would it have made? From what I've read on insurgent reactions to the presence of US troops, it's more likely to scare them off than to get them to pool resources there.
Democratic senators and reps told Bush flat out yesterday that he would NOT be going into Iran. They said his mandate cannot be construed to include Iran, they won't approve it, and they will yank his funding if he tries to do it. And on that one, I think they actually could pull off cutting Bush's purse strings. Bush will pay the price for that if he tries something without Congressional okay.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
"We can only lose if we quit", that may be true but we can only win if we fight. We can only win if we fight with the unfailing determination and will to win an absolute and crushing victory. Take a clue from Ender.
Word War I and World War II (the Great Wars) were fought and WON, not fought and fought and fought and fought and fought. WWI lasted five years and WWII lasted six, though WWII was actually two wars in one; Europe and Asia.
Notice, it is not War that last, it is 'Police Actions'. While Korea was only active for three years, it is still going on decades after the fact. The Vietman War (police action) went from 1959 to 1975 (16 years). Why? Because we were not determined to win. What we were determined to do is perpetuate war to eternity.
To win in Iraq, we must be willing to totally crush any resistance we face regardless of which side that resistance claims to be on. Shoot at me and you die. simple as that. IF, and that is a big IF, Bush intends to send 20,000 more troop, troop that have a clear unresticted mandate to win, then maybe I would support him. But I really suspect, that his alledge plan and policy is to perpetuate war without end. Perhaps not consciously, but certainly, in my mind, functionally. You simply can not act as a 'police action' and expect to win.
OK, send more troops, but let the job of those troop be to seek out and destroy the enemy. Not to wander up and down roads at random waiting to be blown up.
Further, OUR troops get at most 16 weeks of training; 8 weeks of basic and 8 weeks of advanced Infantry, and then we send them out onto the front lines. We have been training the Iraq army for years. Enough is enough, either they take control and restore the rule of law or they die trying. No other choice is acceptable. They either contribute to saving their country or they are responsible for destroying it, and I think that point should be repeatedly made painfully clear to them.
I also think there should be a brutal PR campaign going on in Iraq. One that dumps the responsibility for every bad thing that happens squarely in the laps of each and every ordinary citizen in the country. If the water plant is blown up, it is because YOU blew it up, because YOU allowed it to be blown up. If a Mosque is attack, it is because TYOU (the everyday people) attacked it. YOU attacked it by sitting on the fense.
They either need to set up on a daily basis and accept responsibility for saving their country, or they need to accept the responsibility for its ruin. There are only two choices - Chaos and Misery, or Stability and Prosperity. To make no choice is to chose Chaos and Misery.
What happens happens because they allow it. By not opposing it, regardless of the risk, they are supporting it, and thereby guaranteeing that their country will be buried in endless decades of misery, oppression, and destruction.
When I say a brutal PR campaign, I mean brutal. That seems to be the only language these people understand. You can't speak to them with quiet logic and reason. You need to smash them in the face again and again with the hard cold brutal realities. The people of Iraq need to be bombarded with this message of responsibility so hard, so long, and so often that they want to run screaming from the room when they hear it one more time. Even if the Iraq people can not accept the physical burden of saving their country; they need to be crushed under the moral burden of letting chaos, misery, and destruction continue.
The Iraq people need to understand that we are not trying to steal their country, we are trying to give them their country to rule in a fair, just, and stable manner. If they reject that, then they are overwhelmingly voting for prepetual misery and destruction. There are no other choices, and they need to have that drummed into them in blunt and brutal terms. Put the responsibility for Iraq, not on the government, not on the soldiers, not on the religoius sects, but squarely on the shoulders of each and every citizen of the country. They take the credit for stability, and they take the full and brutal blame for chaos.
Just one man's slightly hostile opinion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I also think there should be a brutal PR campaign going on in Iraq. One that dumps the responsibility for every bad thing that happens squarely in the laps of each and every ordinary citizen in the country. If the water plant is blown up, it is because YOU blew it up, because YOU allowed it to be blown up. If a Mosque is attack, it is because TYOU (the everyday people) attacked it. YOU attacked it by sitting on the fense.
I think that would have absolutely disasterous results.
-pH
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
BlueWizard said -
I also think there should be a brutal PR campaign going on in Iraq....
To which pH replied -
I think that would have absolutely disasterous results.
Pardon my snarky reply, but aren't the results already disasterous?
Like it on not, this is all on the people of Iraq.
It is not a question of 'you are either for US or against US'. The real 'thing' is 'you are either for YOU or you are against YOU'. The people of Iraq either band together and form a stable collective country and government, or they except perpetual misery, chaos, oppression, and destruction. That is the harsh brutal reality of the situation, and no polictical posturing or 'policy' announcement is going to change that. They will end up with the country they choose to create, and when they create a country of instable oppressive misery, it will be on their own heads, not ours. We gave them the chance, and they refused it.
The people of Iraq, each and every citizen from each and every faction, are in control of their own destiny. No one in any way shape or for, no one under any circumstances can be neutral. They are either fighting to create one country under God, or they are allowing perpetual destruction. That's it. And the soon the people of Iraq accept this, the better off we will all be.
The people of Iraq can whine and cry all they want, but in the end, they get the country they create. THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT. And the sooner they accept both physical and moral responsibility for their country, the better off we will all be.
Again, you are either for YOU or you are against YOU, and in the end, the full responsibility falls on YOU, the people of Iraq.
That is a blunt and brutal truth, but it is the absolute truth, and anything else simply perpetuates war, and that is not acceptable.
I also find it odd that after all the blunt and hostile things I said, this was the thing that was objected to.
Still, I can't deny that the results might be disasterous, but it is a blunt and brutal truth that the people of Iraq MUST face regardless of how much they would like to avoid it. Until they accept that degree of responsibility for their own fate, then their fate can never be anything but perpetual war.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So basically you're saying it's time to get off their butts and join the civil war?
Can't say I blame you for thinking that. On the other hand, I also don't blame them for wanting to not get killed. But on the third hand, sitting in their homes and going to the market isn't keeping them any safer.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Lyrhawn said (though I'm not sure how seriously)-
So basically you're saying it's time to get off their butts and join the civil war?
No, I'm saying the need to get off their fat lazy arses and oppose any and all forces that seek to destablize thier country. They need to oppose by any means necessary any and all forces that get in the way of forming a fair, just, unified, and stable government.
Personally, I'm not even sure they want, need, or can handle democracy. They can elect a new dictator for all I care, as long as he is fair, benevolent, and keeps all the factions in line. As I said, the path to prosperity is stability. The path to misery is chaos. The people of Iraq need to oppose with their very lives anything and everything that seeks to destablize their country.
If they weren't such pathetic children, all they would have to do is look around the region. The countries that are doing well are the countries that maintain a sense of justice and rule of law as well as general stability. It's a simple formula, create a stable country, and everything goes fine. Perpetuate misery and chaos, and all you have is perpetual misery and chaos. In the end, which path they chose is up to them. But, as I said, we need to make it brutally clear, that THEY are indeed the people making the choice.
Steve/bboyminn
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah well, shiny words and all but we're both basically saying the same thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If they weren't such pathetic children, all they would have to do is look around the region.
In all fairness, it's hard to feel like more than "pathetic children," or believe for a moment that you're "making a choice," when your country is occupied by a foreign military.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There is a lot of talk about "Them" and "They". Has anyone ever taken the time to list who each of "they" are and what "their" goals may or may not be, and then determine how to handle them?
1) US Soldiers. Goal, stay alive, bring peace. Professional, but rarely they get overstressed and add to the violence. Tactics of warfare for which they were trained may not be the best for promoting peace, self-reliance, and trust in those civilians that look like, and sometimes hide the enemy.
2) US Generals. Goal--Victory in Iraq as determined by the Politicians. At present Victory is limiting US Soldier casualties while routinely defeating insurggeant armies. Problems: Fighting a war while being directed by politicians is a General's worse nightmare. It either stiffels good tactical thinking or encourages political generals.
3) Shi'ite Civilians: Goal--Remain alive. Keep holy sites in tact. Keep property and neighborhoods from Sunni conquest. Follow the clan leader's orders. Have a voice in politics appropriate to their numbers. Problems: Easy source of troops for various other players (Sadr, crimminals, Al Queda)
4) Shi'Ite Politicians: Goals--varied. Power grab. Shi'ite state, but mostly, grab oil. If you own the oil, you can buy the rest. Problems, to remain in power means selling oneself to various corporate, violent, or corrupt groups--such as Sadr, Al-Queda, Corrupt bearuocrats, clan leaders.
5)Sadr: Goals--be the new Sadaam, with a religious backing. He wants to conquer Iraq by leading the Shi'ites in a bloody conquest of the Sunni Iraqi's, and then scare the Khurds into surrendering all their power and oil to him. Problems: If we kill him he may be a martyr. He needs to be killed anyway. He has an army of poor Shi'ites that outnumber and may outgun the Iraqi army. He is behind the ethnic cleansing of Sunni's and the annexation of their property and goods by Shi'ites loyal to him. He has fought US troops on two occasions. He is of a religious family, and claims religious leadership mostly by right of lineage (certainly not by saintly behavior). There is a warrant for his arrest for personally killing another religious leader, also a Shi'ite, but nobody is willing to serve it. He is, by my opinion, the greatest threat to Iraq that exists.
6) Sunni Civilians: Goal--survive the day. Maintain some of the power and advantages that were given in the Sadaam days. Regain some of the money from the Oil rich areas. Problem: Mainy of the most qualified civil serveants were Sunni's who had to join the Ba'thist party in order to be employed. Others were in the military, doing their duty only. They were all dismissed by the US Govt's De-Bathification process as soon as the war was over. This left tens of thousands of unemployed and unemployable middle class men with nothing left to loose. They have been a great source of troops for Insurgeants and crimminal groups as well as others.
7) Sunni Insurgents: Goals--Regain power through fear, stop Shi'it advances, revenge killings. Problems--see goals. We have spent most of our resources attacking this one group, when they are far from the only people with bombs and guns out there.
8) Al Qeda: Goals--attack the West and impose strict Islamic law in the creation of the next Islamic State. Problems: Small and silent until they cause chaos and death. Very well informed, well trained, and dedicated.
9) Other foreign fighters: Goals--fight for the cause. Defeat the devil. PROBLEMS: Thinly guarded borders allow these folks dedicated to violence to enter too easily. However reports show that they are not as numerous as some would have us believe.
10) Crimminals and Corruption: Much of the violence is desparate people seeking money who have little cause to respect the lives of others. Many if not most of the kidnappings are based not on terror, but on a cash basis. The police and army and officials everywhere have made Iraq the second most corrupt government in the world, by one recent poll. (Haiti being #1). Problems: Corruption equates to inefficiancy. This is not a military problem. Its a problem for a policing unit able to arrest and convict the highest level of government and the companies that do business there.
OTHERS I'LL GET INTO LATER:
Contractors, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Isreal/Palestine, Oil Companies, The State Department.
Other suggestions to add?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
good synopsis dan how about adding syria and the kurds to that list. the kurds always seem so under mentioned in this whole shabang.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kurds and Baathists.
Also US government, Iraqi government.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lyr, I put off adding those two since they are both multiple entities in themselves. The US Government is the State Dept, President Bush, The Neo Cons, Various Factions in the Senate and House. The Iraqi Govt is the various Political groups (multiple Shi'ite, Sunni and Khurdish groups at that) and the corrupt officials looking to make a fast buck off their service.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think if we need to give the people of Iraq one single unifying rallying cry, it should be 'one nation under God'. Any faction that is against that, 'one nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all', has LOST the Mandate of Heaven (which works metaphorically, but is actually a 'buzz word' from China) and the Will of God.
No Muslim of any conscience can justify attacking and destroying a Mosque. No true Muslin can accept an attack on God's most holy house as being perpetrated by true believing Muslims.
No Muslim of any conscience can justify attacking another Muslim whether they be Kurd, Sunni, or Shitte. There is one nation of Islam and there is one 'People of the Book' (which includes Christian, Muslim, and Jews). To be against 'One Nation Under God' is to be against God himself, and that road leads to eternal damnation.
This is a context that I think the people of Iraq can understand. This presents a context in which the petty infighting and power grabbing goes completely against the teachings of Muhammad.
This is also part of the reason why I feel the USA has completely and utterly failed in the Public Relations campaign in this war. We need to rally the people of Iraq, and we need to rally them in a context they can understand and relate to.
They need to understand that one nation unified toward one collective cooperative goal, is the only acceptable solution to 'God'.
They also need to understand it from a practical perspective, as I said, all they have to do is look around the region and they will see that countries that have consistent and fair rule of law, and stable governments, also have stable economies, and stable economies means prosperity for everyone.
So, under this rallying cry, and in this context, I think America needs to do a much much MUCH better job of persuading the people of Iraq as to what the right course of action is.
I repeat, that I think this PR campaign needs to be blunt and brutal in it's honesty; no soft pedaling, quiet logic, or polite diplomacy.
Every single event falls on the shoulders of each and every person in Iraq regarless of which faction they are associated with. They have a choice, and again, those choices are Stability and Prosperity, or endless perpetual misery, death, poverty, and chaos. Every single minute of every single day, each and every person in Iraq decides which of these to they prefer to live with.
'One nation under God, or death'; make sure you make a choice you can live with.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Lyr, I put off adding those two since they are both multiple entities in themselves. The US Government is the State Dept, President Bush, The Neo Cons, Various Factions in the Senate and House. The Iraqi Govt is the various Political groups (multiple Shi'ite, Sunni and Khurdish groups at that) and the corrupt officials looking to make a fast buck off their service.
I meant the PM specifically, sorry. And Bush, specifically. The HEADS of their respective governments.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)