*Alert!* Political thread *Alert!*Follow

Ok, now that we have scared away any curious FFXIers wanting to sell gil with the threat of boring politics, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject of the state of Iraq.

I was watching "Meet the Press" and there was a panel of guests which was comprised of three former generals and a military analyst. In short it was pretty much three on one, where the generals were supoporting each other, but toward the end of the show they reluctantly agreed with each other that things were reaching a critical point in Iraq.

It was the analyst's contention that our continued presence in Iraqw is adding to the insurgency problem by exacerbating the ever-present anti-American sentiment, regardless of the general support of Iraqi citizens happy that Hussein is no longer in power. He believed that in order to create an environment for success we need to reduce our troop strength rather than increase it as we are presently doing. He also believed that the US/Afganistan model is the only workable solution to the insurgency, wherein our military is sequestered away from urban areas and is deployed strictly as a quick reaction force.

The generals heartily disagreed and said that increased troop strength is the only viable answer to the insurgency, at least until the elections have passed and Iraqi police and military forces can be raised. They believed that to pull out of Iraq would leave other nations in the area vulnerable to insurgency due to a perceived disengagement by a "last day in Saigon" type of withdrawl.

Interestingly however, they forsee a dangerous time for the United States in 24 months. Based on Bosnia rotations of National Guard and Reservist units, they know that today's present combat rotations will cause a significant problem due to troop loss in two years. They believe that a 5:1 rotation schedule is the quickest that can be sustained and not adversely affect recruitment and retention. Today's rotation schedule is 3:1 resulting in a combat tour every 13-15 months.

This is important because it means the military which is highly productive and has high morale now, will suffer severe degradation in two years, leaving the US unable to satisfy its' commitments elsewhere in the event of a crisis due to a dulled combat ability and total strength numbers.

They also said that there are three areas which must be addressed: the Iraqi populace, the US populace, and the military. I have already mentioned the military, but they see the Iraqi citizenry as leaning more progressively away from the US due to the violence and decay in civil order. They see the US populace on the bubble right now, but wanting to see progress soon lest they withdraw their support for the Iraqi war and the separation of troops from their families.

I found myself listening keenly to the analyst and agreeing in principle with him, yet aware that we can't just pull out without having some semblance of order and having the Iraqi people in charge of their own destiny.

It was a very interesting segment.

Totem

Congrats, T, on 4k!

Totem

If this is true, there are only two realistic options. One is to get the elections done and overwith in Iraq, then pull out ASAP. The other, which W said would not happen, is a draft. Which seems more likely?

The problem lies in any kind of pullout where the situation is not tenable for the new Iraqi government. Everyone on Meet the Press agreed that the country must be able to stand on its' own two feet and have the capability to enforce order on the populace. And they all agreed that this January's elections, if boycotted by the Sunnis, will result in exactly what you just said, Noxxx: another election or a coup due to a dissatisfaction with the outcome.

One thing I have not seen put forward as a possibility is having the other Arab nations in the region-- including Iran -- come in as quasi-peacekeepers to oversee the elections and enforce order on the cities. This would aleviate the Christian vs Muslim mob-think and would promote (assuming the other countries didn't try to ***** the elections in their favor) a Pan-Arab peace which could go a long way in restoring Muslim/Arab credibility in the eyes of the world in that they can actually do something constructive for a change.

This would allow the US and Britain to leave under acceptable terms and would promote democracy by having other Arab nations partipate in the process.

Totem

DTP
More lasty stuff, I guess.

Totem

Edited, Mon Dec 13 03:05:09 2004 by Totem

Sounds like a good plan but finding a country that is willing to commit would be another thing. Some leaders might get backlash from the fundamentalist communites in the countries if they side with the United States and bring in forces.

Also you have to remember that while they are all Muslim they dont all get along. Iraq didnt get along with OPEC and the main reason they invaded Kuwait was because they felt that Kuwait was flooding the oil market and dropping the prices.

Iran would be a bad one to have though, a clear religious theocracy who have been shown to have been doing there best to stir up muslim fundamentalists into taking power in Iraq since the downfall of Hussein.

It would never happen though because for all the talk about WMD, getting rid of a dictator or brining liberty the reason that the United States went is as follows:

1. Oil.
2. Permanent US military bases that are not on foreign territory and at the whim of local government.
3.Military bases in Iraq with friendly local government means that the US is within striking distance of every country in the Nile/Oxus Basin (Middle East)

You're onto an idea there Totem, but the simple fact is that the Bush Administration would be incapable of just handing Iraq over to someone else.

I just dont see Bush allowing an international force, be it Muslim, Europe or United Nations to come in and take the reins. It will be the US in charge all the way, not an equal partner and not part of a group.

It will always be US and Co. not the other way around.

The answer is simple, and I'm convinced it's been the strategy all along by the Bush Administration. The draft.

You can't win an election by talking about invoking a draft but you also can't be impeached for implementing one after your second term.

Grady

I think we are here for good, I do not see us able to pull out anytime soon. My fiance says that recruitment of Iraqi forces is rapidly declinning, due to the death toll. Not only on the Forces but their families are being targetted also.
He told us it is not unuasual for an Iraqi Police officer to have his entire family killed once it is know he has signed up. It only takes a few of these instances for the message to get out.

Many of the insurgents they are fighting aren't even Iraqi, they are imported terrprists that have no real fear, because dying is an honor! I don't know how you communicate with a force that feels death in the path of the cause is a righteous end.

I think whether the Bush administration wants to face it or not, increasing our military forces is going to be critical. I too see the draft returnning for not only men but also women.

Without a doubt there are risks associated with such an idea, but perhaps in some cases actual troops on the ground might not be used so much as applying diplomatic or religious pressure on the various religious sects that gravitate towards one faction or another.

Granted, Iran can be trouble we have seen. Yet there is a reform movement that is growing inside that country to push the theocracy from the Ayatolla days towards a more open society like when the Shah was in power. So dismissing them, especially since they are neighbors cannnot be entirely an option-- particularly since there is such a large Shiite contingent.

Totem

This is a very complicated situation that has no easy way out. Whether or not the US reduces or increases its troop sizes, there isn't going to be any end the insurgency. It's a catch 22. If the Americans stay, a certain sect of the insurgency will continue to do anything and everything it can to cause chaos on as wide of a scale as it is capable of doing, all in the hopes of having the Americans move out of the country. If the Americans leave the country, it will plunge into a civil war that could have a number of different outcomes, some of which would give rise to a regime very hostile to the United States.

In order to be able to decide what course of action is best to take, it is vital to understand the insurgency itself. There is a certain brand of insurgents that have done everything they possibly can to be accurately labeled as fundamentalist Islamic extremists. These types are not unlike bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization; in fact, many of them are most certainly either directly or ideologically affiliated with Al-Qaeda. These types of been trying, for some time now, to stir up a revolution of sorts within the Islamic or Arab world. It is there goal to create an Islamic state, or "Caliphate", that is based on medieval, conservative, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. They have been trying to do so, but without much luck due to a significant lack of popular support for their cause among the masses in the Islamic and Arab world. If these groups did enjoy a broader appeal, it would most likely have been much more clearly demonstrated by much larger numbers of people protesting and revolting against their totalitarian Arab monarchies and Islamic theocracies.

Then came 9-11. What 9-11 represented was a shift in strategy. Yes, this strategy can most certainly be traced back further than this, but 9-11 was a real turning point for the obvious reason that such an attack would compel the United States to take drastic action. bin Laden is no fool. He and his top officers knew full well that 9-11 would mean one thing: American invasion into the Islamic world. As the theory goes, this would potentially create an atmosphere where a significant shift could occur in the popular support received by Al-Qaeda and other like-minded organizations in the Islamic world. Having the Americans invade an Islamic country would undoubtedly stir up anti-Americanism, and would push many of those who had not supported Al-Qaeda in the past into their arms where they would be welcomed and embraced. With this sort of sentiment spreading across the region, there would be an increased possibility of an Al-Qaeda-type revolution occurring in a number of countries, with Saudi Arabia perhaps being the gem in the entire lot.

As we can see, anti-Americanism in the Islamic world is drastically increasing. I'm not so sure bin Laden and his men had hoped for an invasion into Iraq, although this is only helping out his support, especially with the way the situation is going now.

Now, I am of the opinion that these types must be fought and crushed. But doing so will only rid us of those now that we hit. It does nothing; I repeat NOTHING to address the underlying issues that are increasing recruitment into these types of groups. The Americans, as much as they may be trying to "stabilize" the situation in Iraq, are not making ANY friends through their actions. Maybe they have been or will be successful in stabilizing Falluja from the insurgents held up there, but the way they are going about it by bombarding the city with bombs from above, and killing thousands of people in the process, isn't doing anything to decrease the number of people that will be fighting the American occupation in the future. The only way this will be done is through intelligence, groundwork police work, etc. It is necessary to conduct military operations, however I do not think the Americans are winning any hearts over in the way they are doing things. Yes, they are saving American lives in the process, but this only seeks to harden attitudes and create increases in future recruitment into both of what can be termed legitimate and illegitimate resistance.

When I say legitimate resistance I speak of those who now resist the American occupation for a number of very real and painful reasons. Those that have had family members beaten, tortured and/or killed by the Americans. The innocent that have lost everything they had from American bombs and military operations and have received no sorts of reparations for the crimes committed against them. These are very real and systematic problems within the US military and have been present for as long as I can think back. Think School of the Americas. Don't know what it is? Do some research.

In sum, the Americans are doing a terrible job at trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I believe that they should stay; they must stay and help out those that need it most: the people of Iraq. Although I did agree with the war, I did not agree in the way it has been fought, I do not agree with how the Americans have dismantled so many public institutions in the country, and I do not agree with the Bush administration’s obsession with putting corporate bower and business interests ahead of those of actual people. They do it to their own country and to others. Even if the Americans were not facing an insurgency in Iraq it will still be a sad state of affairs; not due to the Iraqi people, but due to the corporate interests championed by Washington at home and all around the world. We need not look too far beyond the state of economies that have gone through the IMF-imposed structural reform policies to see this. History repeatedly shows us that the way to prosperity is not through quick privatization schemes and buy-outs from foreign transnationals, but through the building of strong institutions and regulations at home, which help to empower the people and the country.

Finally, if Americans really are interested in defeating the moods and attitudes that help spawn and recruit anti-American terrorism, aside from perhaps the endeavor into Iraq at the moment, the single largest and most important grievance that must be addressed by the American government is it’s unrelenting and abhorrently slanted support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prior to the Iraq war, this is quite possibly the single largest grievance given by many of these Islamic fundamentalists of their “hatred” for the United States. To believe that these groups hate America for it’s own freedoms is quite absurd and is nothing short of self-destructive disillusionment. Although many of these types believe in a system of rule quite contrary to the American one, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that Osama bin Laden woke up one day, read the American Bill of Rights and suddenly declared war on America. It is due to American meddling in the Islamic world in ways that the bin Laden types do not agree with. Bin Laden may use America’s unrelenting support for Israel over the Palestinians as a grievance and justification for many of his actions. But the theory I laid out earlier coupled with the fact that so many disapprove of American policies in this reason is a much more plausible scenario as to what bin Laden is actually thinking. Bin laden may not stop his war against America if the US were to take a more balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What this would almost certainly do, however, is erode a massive proportion of the attitudes that foment in people in which the bin Ladens are able to exploit for recruiting purposes. The Palestinian people have been occupied militarily for over 35 years. Such desperation and lack of hope creates a breeding ground for radical and fundamentalist attitudes.

Has anyone read this far? I will not be responding to any defamatory or derogatory comments. I will be happy to debate and discuss these issues in a civilized manner. I welcome the opportunity. Rant off.

I do find it amusing that after 6 months of arguments about how we should increase our military presense in Iraq, now we've got an analyst arguing the exact opposite. Is there any wonder the Pentagon never seems to be able to do the "right thing"?

I tend to agree in principle to the conclusions the guys on the show came to. We need to maintain a strong military presense at least until the elections. We need to make sure that all the factions of Iraq are involved and vested in those elections. Assuming we can accomplish that, then we need to gradually decrease our direct presense in populated areas and allow the Iraqi government to take over day to day security in the nation.


It's workable as it is, but the vestment in the comming election is by far the most critical bit. It's 100 times more important then any other issue right now. To throw a topical spin on this, all the Humvee armor in the world wont matter if we don't get an election process in place that all Iraqi's feel vested in. That's where we should focus our efforts.

Holy ****, Deloused!!

That made my eyes bleed.

Short posts.. The key to success.

Abbreviation is your friend.