The army and the police are nothing more than a collection of units that have various loyalties to one side or the other. It does not matter how long we train them, Ender, because we cannot give them the one thing every army must have to function properly -- something worth fighting for.
You say that democracy in Iraq is worth fighting for? Sure, if you're a Shia. The Shiite units within the army are, in fact, fighting on behalf of the government they elected -- along with the Sadr militia. The Sunnis, on the other hand, see no reason to sign up to fight for the Shia government. In fact, there was a graduation recently of Sunni officers trained for the Army. Only a small percentage of them actually showed up for duty. The rest are probably using their new training fighting for the insurgents.
Ender, we trained the South Vietnamese army for more than a decade. Training does not ensure success.
So, what effect would there be if we withdrew now? The army would collapse as a national institution and divide into sectarian units. The civil war and ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods would intensify. Either the country would be partitioned de facto or there might be intervention by Iran.
Or, not having occupation forces around would remove a chief reason to continue the fight. If we had left a year or two ago, I think that might be the result, but things are so far gone now that there are two many scores to be settled.
You also seem to think that we are capable of controlling the situation if we just stay long enough. That's what the Russians thought in Afghanistan. But neither they nor we have devoted enough troops to accomplish that. Had Bush and Rumsfeld listened to Gen. Shinseki when he suggested we needed 300,000 troops, things would very likely be different today.
This is an ongoing disaster whether we stay or leave.
This is why I have suggested partitioning Iraq now. The presence of U.S. troops can facilitate such a partition with a lot fewer deaths than if it happens after we leave.
I suggest that Kurdistan become a nation (it's gonna happen eventually) and that American forces withdraw to bases in Kurdistan, where things are relatively calm and so that Turkey does not decide to intervene. There are a lot more elements to this suggestion but I won't go into them all again.
From Kurdistan, we could keep an eye on the rest of Iraq and intervene if necessary, as well as continue to provide a disincentive for Iran to intervene.
The alternative to partition or withdrawl is to stay in the meat grinder. Israel did that in Lebanon for 18 years, trying to prop up the South Lebanon Army to keep Hezbollah at bay. Where is the SLA today? Eventually, Sharon and Rabin both came to the conclusion that intervening in Lebanon was an incredibly bad idea. If either one of them were in charge today the current operation would not be taking place.
Do you really think that making deals with the Sunni insurgents is going to put a stop to all this? And why are you even suggesting that? Isn't that appeasing terrorists? Do you also support Israel making a deal with Hezbollah?
The Baathists' goal is pretty plain -- to make Iraq ungovernable and chaotic so that the Iraqi people are so desperate for security that they will turn to the people who ran the government before.
Maybe it is time to start considering a weak central government containing strong states consolidated along sectarian lines.
That's an anthema for me as a believer in the US type democracy. But I'm beginning to believe that older, more entrenched areas of this planet can't get over their collective pasts.
Same thing with some of the Israeli conflicts. How do you tell someone who has suffered grieviously, they have to forget the past in order to build a better future? Some people are capable of it. Many, it seems, can't.
are deep but I don't think they are insurmountable. The fact that we have a government in existence that is composed of all the various groups is a good sign in itself. The fact that same government is talking to the insurgent groups is a positive sign as well. Sunny insurgents are not the same as the foreign fighters of Al Qaeda. They are mostly much more interested in fighting the Allied Forces than suicide bombing civilians.
It is possible to reason with them, and I would not classify them as terrorists. If the Iraqi government works out a deal with those groups and brings them in, it will also help alleviate some of the sectarian violence.
Partitioning Iraq is a decent idea but imo only in case of a total failure. If our military and the Iraqi government decide that there is no possible future for unified Iraq then it might be the next best thing. I still believe we should wait and control the situation while letting Iraqi Government try to bring the warring factions in and give them a voice in the government.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you think being there is such a great idea...You aren't even willing to raise taxes to pay for the war, much less put your own skin in the game.
We royally screwed that country up. We took a D situation and made it F-. Don't pin that on Liberals. It was you Republicans that made this mess and have no plan to solve the problem. You were warned and went forward anyway. Take some responsibility.
I'm not sure there is a way forward here starting from the mess your boys made. If we'd had International support for nation building including an agreement from the local players to get involved on a positive basis, maybe. As it is, the goals of Turkey, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait and Syria pretty much ensure a failed state and dismemberment. Cutting your losses is sometimes the only way left.
Please give us a nice diary showing how the reverse domino effect is working out such that the Mid East is turning into fertile ground for democracy. Maybe the Brothers Grimm will help you write it.
What do you think is going to control the situation? We've been there for more than three years and have yet to control the situation. More of the same doesn't seem like a real good plan to me.
Do you think that injecting 5,000 troops into an urban environment is going to calm Baghdad? What it's going to do is create a target-rich environment for the insurgents because the only way you defeat insurgents in an urban area is to start with a zone of control and work your way outwards going house to house and making sure you leave troops behind to control what you have already cleared.
In a sprawling city like Baghdad, that's going to take a lot more than 5,000 troops. They will certainly have some effect, but they will probably also end up flattening a lot of buildings and killing a lot of civilians.
And remember, it's not the anti-American al Qaeda insurgents that are driving this fiesta of murder. It's ad hoc militias backed up by sympathetic Iraqi troops and police. Gonna be awful hard for our guys to figure out who the real bad guys are.
BTW, what are "Sunny insurgents?" Are those the happy ones?
You think 5000 more troops in Bagdad will help. Seriously. If you really want to solve the insurgency problem you need more than that.
What I think we need is a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new way of doing this and Rumsfeld is not cutting it. We need input from ME experts who know the people and the culture.
What will happen if US leaves? There will be a civil war and Shiites will win because there is just more of them. Iran is already the clear winner when we toppled Saddam.
Al Queda is a Sunni group--wahabbis-- so there is no danger that they will rule Iraq.
We have a legitimate governmentin Iraq. We also have the Iraqi people optimistic about their near future. Iraqis have 240,000 troops who are increasingly more in control of various combat missions (if not actual areas of Iraq).
Violence flaring up in Baghdad is not the end of the world or "total failure". Times like these I am glad we have a president who is not panicking and making rash decisions like withdrawing our troops at the first sight of trouble.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the country but the time has not yet come yet. The government of Iraq is hopeful so why should we be disrupting what was just created. Give them some time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This is the conclusion of an essay written by a disillusioned American officer whose job it was to train the Iraqi Army. It was published this month in American Conservative magazine:
I returned home in September 2005, grateful and safe, but stripped of the illusions I had taken with me. My experience proved that contrary to countless official pronouncements, the Bush administration has no interest in the Iraqi army training program. We were fighting a war to establish permanent bases in Iraq to better manipulate the flow of Middle East oil. For if this war was about human rights, why were we not in Rwanda? If our mission was about bringing democracy to a region, then why were we not in Cuba? And if the intelligence leading up to this war was merely faulty, why was no one fired?
I believed in my mission, and I wanted the Iraqis I was training to run their own country. But this wasn’t an American priority, and I left Mosul feeling that my efforts were either erased or ignored.
That’s not to say that the men who died in Iraq died for nothing. They were doing their jobs. But the Bush administration disgraces their memories by stating that our only option is to prolong a losing policy. If I learned anything from the lessons I was charged with teaching, it’s that a good military leader examines costs and benefits and adjusts his course accordingly. Yet this administration refuses to learn from its mistakes, level with the soldiers fighting its war, and bring the sad American chapter called Iraq to a close.
After all the justifications (terrorists, WMDs, democracy) have been proven false we are left with the pathetic justification that it might be even worse if we left.
We have already killed over 50,000 and probably over 100,000 civilians, 2,600 U.S. soldiers, spent over $400 billion (maybe $1-2 trillion including indirect costs), alienated our allies, and increased terrorist recruiting. What are the chances of having an outcome in Iraq that is worth the costs?
I am glad we have a president who is not panicking and making rash decisions like withdrawing our troops at the first sight of trouble.
I am upset that we don't have a president that did not make the rash decision to invade Iraq under false pretenses in the first place. General Odum called Bush's war the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history. Being stubborn is a poor substitute for being smart.
The whole entire strategy in Iraq has been a miserable failure enabling suicide bombers and now death squads.
The lesson should be elections without government are foolish. No government, no laws, no courts, no order.
The whole of the simplisitc idealistic philsophophy of conquering through force and throw money at the problem so business can thrive has gone bankrupt.
You can't beat someone to death and then tell them they are free. You have to support the conditions that allow them to work and send their children to school, safely.
Theses simplistic notions of don't talk to the enemy, just bomb him will not work in this new world.
Will the fear of looking weak has caused us to use brute force to establish that the US way is best, we have undermined our argument. By being purely militant we are not standing on a mountain, we are being pushed aside by desparate people who see no hope. The lack of hope we have created in the Middle East will only breed more problems.
What we are failing to see, is that trying to be tough and strong using only force, we are in fact becoming weaker in the eyes of the world by popular demand.
We are runnning around in the Middle East with guns, while the Russians and Chinese are running around the world with briefcases, making business deals and friends of other countries, while we are distracted by a burning Middle East.
Iraqi forces will NEVER be able to "secure their own country" because those forces are mad up primarily of militias... which are promoting the sectarian strife you describe.
JeezuzHKrist...
It's the dog chasing its own tail, Ender.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
maybe we'll have to split the country but the time has not yet come yet
WE? We will have to split a 'sovereign' country with a 'legitimate' elected government?
You want to rephrase this one? I'm sure you can back out with a "I meant that THEY might want to split and we could help them" but this is part and parcel with the conservative idea that the can remake the Middle East through force (supporting cast: some guys who live in the Middle East)
While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.
Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration=s strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.
Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.
In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.
Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.
This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.
We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.
Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq=s reconstruction and rebuild its economy.
Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.
Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Comments :
Iraq's army cannot do the job
Now or in the distant future.
The army and the police are nothing more than a collection of units that have various loyalties to one side or the other. It does not matter how long we train them, Ender, because we cannot give them the one thing every army must have to function properly -- something worth fighting for.
You say that democracy in Iraq is worth fighting for? Sure, if you're a Shia. The Shiite units within the army are, in fact, fighting on behalf of the government they elected -- along with the Sadr militia. The Sunnis, on the other hand, see no reason to sign up to fight for the Shia government. In fact, there was a graduation recently of Sunni officers trained for the Army. Only a small percentage of them actually showed up for duty. The rest are probably using their new training fighting for the insurgents.
Ender, we trained the South Vietnamese army for more than a decade. Training does not ensure success.
So, what effect would there be if we withdrew now? The army would collapse as a national institution and divide into sectarian units. The civil war and ethnic cleansing of Baghdad neighborhoods would intensify. Either the country would be partitioned de facto or there might be intervention by Iran.
Or, not having occupation forces around would remove a chief reason to continue the fight. If we had left a year or two ago, I think that might be the result, but things are so far gone now that there are two many scores to be settled.
You also seem to think that we are capable of controlling the situation if we just stay long enough. That's what the Russians thought in Afghanistan. But neither they nor we have devoted enough troops to accomplish that. Had Bush and Rumsfeld listened to Gen. Shinseki when he suggested we needed 300,000 troops, things would very likely be different today.
This is an ongoing disaster whether we stay or leave.
This is why I have suggested partitioning Iraq now. The presence of U.S. troops can facilitate such a partition with a lot fewer deaths than if it happens after we leave.
I suggest that Kurdistan become a nation (it's gonna happen eventually) and that American forces withdraw to bases in Kurdistan, where things are relatively calm and so that Turkey does not decide to intervene. There are a lot more elements to this suggestion but I won't go into them all again.
From Kurdistan, we could keep an eye on the rest of Iraq and intervene if necessary, as well as continue to provide a disincentive for Iran to intervene.
The alternative to partition or withdrawl is to stay in the meat grinder. Israel did that in Lebanon for 18 years, trying to prop up the South Lebanon Army to keep Hezbollah at bay. Where is the SLA today? Eventually, Sharon and Rabin both came to the conclusion that intervening in Lebanon was an incredibly bad idea. If either one of them were in charge today the current operation would not be taking place.
Do you really think that making deals with the Sunni insurgents is going to put a stop to all this? And why are you even suggesting that? Isn't that appeasing terrorists? Do you also support Israel making a deal with Hezbollah?
The Baathists' goal is pretty plain -- to make Iraq ungovernable and chaotic so that the Iraqi people are so desperate for security that they will turn to the people who ran the government before.
They're delusional, of course.
qui tacet consentire
A Confederation.
Maybe it is time to start considering a weak central government containing strong states consolidated along sectarian lines.
That's an anthema for me as a believer in the US type democracy. But I'm beginning to believe that older, more entrenched areas of this planet can't get over their collective pasts.
Same thing with some of the Israeli conflicts. How do you tell someone who has suffered grieviously, they have to forget the past in order to build a better future? Some people are capable of it. Many, it seems, can't.
the sectarian divisions
are deep but I don't think they are insurmountable. The fact that we have a government in existence that is composed of all the various groups is a good sign in itself. The fact that same government is talking to the insurgent groups is a positive sign as well. Sunny insurgents are not the same as the foreign fighters of Al Qaeda. They are mostly much more interested in fighting the Allied Forces than suicide bombing civilians.
It is possible to reason with them, and I would not classify them as terrorists. If the Iraqi government works out a deal with those groups and brings them in, it will also help alleviate some of the sectarian violence.
Partitioning Iraq is a decent idea but imo only in case of a total failure. If our military and the Iraqi government decide that there is no possible future for unified Iraq then it might be the next best thing. I still believe we should wait and control the situation while letting Iraqi Government try to bring the warring factions in and give them a voice in the government.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
still time to convert from AF reserve to Army
If you think being there is such a great idea...You aren't even willing to raise taxes to pay for the war, much less put your own skin in the game.
We royally screwed that country up. We took a D situation and made it F-. Don't pin that on Liberals. It was you Republicans that made this mess and have no plan to solve the problem. You were warned and went forward anyway. Take some responsibility.
I'm not sure there is a way forward here starting from the mess your boys made. If we'd had International support for nation building including an agreement from the local players to get involved on a positive basis, maybe. As it is, the goals of Turkey, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait and Syria pretty much ensure a failed state and dismemberment. Cutting your losses is sometimes the only way left.
Please give us a nice diary showing how the reverse domino effect is working out such that the Mid East is turning into fertile ground for democracy. Maybe the Brothers Grimm will help you write it.
Maybe we should consider
stablization, before we hold the next purple fingered elections in Iraq.
The troops in Iraq are there for the coming war with Iran and Syria.
They will not be withdrawn ever.
I think we should stop calling it the Iraq War and starting calling it
the Forever War.
I'm only half stupid
We have already arrived at total failure
Next stop is total anarchy.
What do you think is going to control the situation? We've been there for more than three years and have yet to control the situation. More of the same doesn't seem like a real good plan to me.
Do you think that injecting 5,000 troops into an urban environment is going to calm Baghdad? What it's going to do is create a target-rich environment for the insurgents because the only way you defeat insurgents in an urban area is to start with a zone of control and work your way outwards going house to house and making sure you leave troops behind to control what you have already cleared.
In a sprawling city like Baghdad, that's going to take a lot more than 5,000 troops. They will certainly have some effect, but they will probably also end up flattening a lot of buildings and killing a lot of civilians.
And remember, it's not the anti-American al Qaeda insurgents that are driving this fiesta of murder. It's ad hoc militias backed up by sympathetic Iraqi troops and police. Gonna be awful hard for our guys to figure out who the real bad guys are.
BTW, what are "Sunny insurgents?" Are those the happy ones?
qui tacet consentire
Half hearted solutions
You think 5000 more troops in Bagdad will help. Seriously. If you really want to solve the insurgency problem you need more than that.
What I think we need is a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new way of doing this and Rumsfeld is not cutting it. We need input from ME experts who know the people and the culture.
What will happen if US leaves? There will be a civil war and Shiites will win because there is just more of them. Iran is already the clear winner when we toppled Saddam.
Al Queda is a Sunni group--wahabbis-- so there is no danger that they will rule Iraq.
you are exaggerating the situation
We have a legitimate governmentin Iraq. We also have the Iraqi people optimistic about their near future. Iraqis have 240,000 troops who are increasingly more in control of various combat missions (if not actual areas of Iraq).
Violence flaring up in Baghdad is not the end of the world or "total failure". Times like these I am glad we have a president who is not panicking and making rash decisions like withdrawing our troops at the first sight of trouble.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that's not a bad idea
saving them in Iraq for attacking Iran and Syria. Somehow I doubt it. I don't think anyone is seriously thinking about a ground assault on Iran.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
why is it so obvious
that Shiites will win? Under Saddam Sunnis were controlling things just fine. Numbers are not everything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
maybe we'll have to split
the country but the time has not yet come yet. The government of Iraq is hopeful so why should we be disrupting what was just created. Give them some time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not a ground assualt no.
As a buffer zone to keep Iranians out, and help prevent the fabled Shia crescent, and the more legendary caliphate.
I'm only half stupid
Shiites are now more organized and in govt
And Iran is there to support the Shiites. Sunnis dont have that power, wealth, oil anymore.
And Saddam gained power from a coup.
Put down the rose-colored glasses
and take a cold, hard look at reality.
This is the conclusion of an essay written by a disillusioned American officer whose job it was to train the Iraqi Army. It was published this month in American Conservative magazine:
http://www.amconmag....
qui tacet consentire
What is the best likely outcome?
After all the justifications (terrorists, WMDs, democracy) have been proven false we are left with the pathetic justification that it might be even worse if we left.
We have already killed over 50,000 and probably over 100,000 civilians, 2,600 U.S. soldiers, spent over $400 billion (maybe $1-2 trillion including indirect costs), alienated our allies, and increased terrorist recruiting. What are the chances of having an outcome in Iraq that is worth the costs?
Greatest Strategic disaster in U.S. history
I am upset that we don't have a president that did not make the rash decision to invade Iraq under false pretenses in the first place. General Odum called Bush's war the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history. Being stubborn is a poor substitute for being smart.
Numbers are not everything
unless it comes to taxes.
The whole entire strategy in Iraq has been a miserable failure enabling suicide bombers and now death squads.
The lesson should be elections without government are foolish. No government, no laws, no courts, no order.
The whole of the simplisitc idealistic philsophophy of conquering through force and throw money at the problem so business can thrive has gone bankrupt.
You can't beat someone to death and then tell them they are free. You have to support the conditions that allow them to work and send their children to school, safely.
Theses simplistic notions of don't talk to the enemy, just bomb him will not work in this new world.
Will the fear of looking weak has caused us to use brute force to establish that the US way is best, we have undermined our argument. By being purely militant we are not standing on a mountain, we are being pushed aside by desparate people who see no hope. The lack of hope we have created in the Middle East will only breed more problems.
What we are failing to see, is that trying to be tough and strong using only force, we are in fact becoming weaker in the eyes of the world by popular demand.
We are runnning around in the Middle East with guns, while the Russians and Chinese are running around the world with briefcases, making business deals and friends of other countries, while we are distracted by a burning Middle East.
I'm only half stupid
Newsflash...
Iraqi forces will NEVER be able to "secure their own country" because those forces are mad up primarily of militias... which are promoting the sectarian strife you describe.
JeezuzHKrist...
It's the dog chasing its own tail, Ender.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
What towering arrogance is in this sentence
WE? We will have to split a 'sovereign' country with a 'legitimate' elected government?
You want to rephrase this one? I'm sure you can back out with a "I meant that THEY might want to split and we could help them" but this is part and parcel with the conservative idea that the can remake the Middle East through force (supporting cast: some guys who live in the Middle East)
nah
what we make, we can unmake.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Democrats letter to George Bush