"A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options — injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday."
"he Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials."
I know Iraq isn't a laughing matter and I mourn the loss of American and Iraqi lives. But does anybody else find this hilarious (in that almost hysterical way)?
I mean would you really need a study that outlines those three options to be secret? Aren't they completely obvious?
And yet:
"The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate."
----------- Oh, jeez. It gets worse. Here's another line from the story:
"That combination plan, which one defense official called 'Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long,' could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward."
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pentagon has already ruled out the first and third options. They said there will be no huge, permanant boost in troops, because the troops aren't there (Enter Charles Rangel), and we won't leave all at once, because it leaves the region in civil war.
So that leaves us with temporary boost and then dropping down to 60K or so soldiers sometime in the next year.
I'm puzzled, as to how we really thought we could invade Iraq with less than half the forces that were considered necessary to push them out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, KNOWING that this would involve at least some degree of occupation.
How are we going to get a coalition together on this? Europe is out. Even Britain is pulling out. Asia no, Africa no, South America no. That leaves the ME, and if you look at our buddies from the first Gulf War, Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't seem super keen on sending in troops to help, and do you really think we're going to buddy up with Iran's troops on this one?
To borrow Santorum's LOTR analogy, the only Rohan we had was Britain, and I'd say we strained the Oath of Eorl pretty good. So Gondor stands alone. There will be no black ships sailing to our rescue.
I think it's time to put up, or shut up. Send in another hundred thousand troops to pacify the region, or get out entirely and see what happens. Otherwise we're just the boy with his finger in the dike, waiting for the whole thing to come toppling down on us. Right now we're just prolonging the inevitable, and the ones who are suffering are the Iraqis.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and the ones who are suffering are the Iraqis."
That have nothing to do with the United States as of now. Once the United States leaves, Iraq will be safe for no one. Not saying allowing that is out of the question. I guess if no one cares about Iraq there is no reason to try and help them.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my point was, that there's no end in sight right now. And if we spent another five years doing exactly what we're doing now, the end still won't be in sight, and another hundred thousand Iraqis will have died, for nothing.
So maybe we should let them decide things on their own terms, instead of deciding for them that dying is the best thing for them. We shouldn't be playing God in Iraq.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Playing God I dont think we are. As we train more Iraqies on how to defend their country we lower the number of forces we have stationed there. If the thinking is completely leaving Iraq someday it wont be for a hundred years we have to much invested. Insurgents are the problem that American soldiers are having problem dealing with, if we are able to cut our forces down to say 10-20 thousand and get enough Iraq police/troops to patrol the streets I would consider that a win. As long as the U.S and not the new goverment is seen as the governing force terrorist and jihadist will continue to swarm in to kill U.S soldiers.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the thinking is completely leaving Iraq someday it wont be for a hundred years we have to much invested.
Thinking like that is exactly why the insurgents have such popular support. Because the Iraqi people don't think we'll be leaving for a hundred years and they're pretty upset about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I don't think you understand what I am saying. Leaving or staying doesn't make a difference. A hundered thousand Iraqis will die for nothing with or without the United States present. They have simply shown themselves hell-bent to kill each other.
At this point I don't even see them attacking the U.S. military except as colateral damage or trophies. Most of the dead have been Iraqis by Iraqis, and only a few U.S. military. We must decide if anyone over there wants our help. If they don't want our help, then perhaps it is time to slowly back away. If someone comes out of the mess attacking the United States, perhaps it will give us incentive to REALLY come knocking out their lights.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iraqie people do not want us to leave the U.S people want our troops out. The support the insurgents are getting are from the countries or factions outside of Iraq who's position in the region is threathened by a U.S presence. Insurgents want a weak Iraq so they can come in and destroy the demacracy we gave the Iraqie people a chance to achieve. Thats why I favor the second solution the pentagon came out with.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considerably lower, for the Iraqi side. They want us out, but in a phased withdrawel that ends by this time next year. They want a responsible hand over to Iraqi authorities, which is ironic, because polls also show that the only security forces in Iraq that they trust implicitly are Americans. There's a mishmash of opinion for you.
Occ -
We really don't know what will happen when we leave. With no US troops to blame things on, it might stop being a one sided battle. Maybe a civil war will break out, and maybe Free Iraq will win the war faster than we would. Maybe support for the insurgency will evaporate when we leave. Maybe Kurdistan will break away, maybe they won't. Maybe the Shiites will ethnically cleanse the Sunnis, maybe they won't. And maybe Saudi Arabia will step in to save them and maybe not, and same for Iran.
Other than hypotheticals and guesses, no one knows what will happen when we leave, but we're fairly sure what will happen if we stay, more Iraqi deaths when we're supposed to be protecting them, or making sure the Iraqis are equipped to protect themselves. So we ARE playing God, and have been since we first stepped foot in their country. If we leave, and civil war erupts, then they aren't dying for nothing. If we stay, and they die, it's death for the sake of death.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considerably lower, for the Iraqi side. They want us out, but in a phased withdrawel that ends by this time next year. They want a responsible hand over to Iraqi authorities, which is ironic, because polls also show that the only security forces in Iraq that they trust implicitly are Americans.
Really? I'd be interested to see your source for that.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't. It makes perfect sense. Soldiers have nothing invested in Iraq at this point other than keeping the Iraqi civilians safe and staying alive. When the soldiers leave, and the Iraqis have to trust other Iraqis with questionable agendas to keep them safe, they get uncomfortable.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considerably lower, for the Iraqi side. They want us out, but in a phased withdrawel that ends by this time next year. They want a responsible hand over to Iraqi authorities, which is ironic, because polls also show that the only security forces in Iraq that they trust implicitly are Americans.
Really? I'd be interested to see your source for that.
Well maybe not trust "implicitly," but we're the only ones they trust.
quote: Before the revelation of the abuses of Iraqi prisoners, a USA Today/CNN poll conducted throughout Iraq found that 57 percent of Iraqis said that American and British troops should leave Iraq immediately, even though 53 percent said that they would feel less safe.
That partially backs up what I said earlier, and I can't find the polling data immediately, though I only looked for a minute. But I've heard it multiple times on the news, and I've read it before.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am amused, in a really sad way, that the reason some American's give for having our troops over there is the same reason the terrorists have for wanting us to stay--P.E.T.--Politically Expendable Targets.
As long as our troops are there, Al Queda and other terror groups have a call and a target and protection from any other group of terrorists (the Sunni's are protected somewhat from the Shiites as the Shiites are protected somewhat from the Sunnis)
As long as our troops are there, Al Queda and other terror groups kill mostly Iraqi's and only the occasional soldier or American Worker. They don't show up on our doorstep to explode their suicide bombs.
Meanwhile our PETs, the American Soldier and Iraqi civilian, is getting tired, fed up, and more violent in responce.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
