Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I dont know what either of you base your conclusions on, other than hope. The hatred between Shia and Sunni has been so inflamed by the results of our invasion, I think its unrealistic to expect the militias to disband or the civil to end on our departure. There are an estimated 20-30 different militias with allegiences to different sectarian leaders. As long as there is a power struggle within the government, the militias will continue to ac and civilians will be the targets. We have created a quagmire that is beyond short-term repair.
|
OMG! The civil war in Iraq has nothing to do with sectarian violence. It is violence against the invading US military. Some of that does spill over into violence against the security forces, as they appear to be puppets of the US, but almost all of it is to remove US troops from Iraq. I expect no one to disband, but I do expect that after we leave the government will have the brain cells to start concentrating on national pride and rebuilding Iraq for the good of Iraq instead of vengence or some other bullshit. Civilians aren't targets.
That's what my conclusions are based on. It's not 'cutting and running', it's realistic, responsible, and the only clear way to fix this horrible mess we created.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
To abandon Iraq completely and immediately is, as Mixmedia said, morally unacceptable. We broke Iraq, we have an obligation to try to fix it, as best we can.
|
Is it morally unacceptable to invade a country. It's morally unacceptable to rebuild it and put that country into massive debt. It's morally unacceptable to use our military to make violence grow in the country so that no one notices that perminant military bases are being built near oil pipes and oil fields. It's morally unacceptable to damn US soldiers, Iraqi security forces, and even insurgents to death because our government places no value on human life.
It's morally responsible to finally place value on human life, be it American or Iraqi, be it soldier or insurgent. It's morally responsible to actually admit that this whole thing is the type of diabolical scheme that is worthy of a Bond villan, except that this is real life and people have died and had their lives ruined by this, to the benifit of the very few in power. It's morally responsible to apologize, put out guns down, back out and ask, on the telephone, what they need to rebuild their country. It's obvious we have no clue how to put a country back together, and Japan was a fluke.
So to clairify the immediate withdrawl: all troops pull out and go home, US officials meet with Iraqi officials and they make a full plan on how to fix our mess, and we follow their lead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The best course that I see is Wills' option 3 - a slow withdrawal of US troops. But not until we can convince Iraq's moderate neighbors - Egyp, Jordan, Kuwait and`even Turkey (which will piss off the Kurds), Morocco, etc. - to replace our troops with some type of stabilization force to replace the US face of occupation, combined with forceful political pressures by the Arab League on the Iraqi government to disarm the militias. Easier said than done as the Arab League is predominately Sunni and the Iraqi government is not very trustful.
|
I'm not interested in asking what could still be called relatively radical Middle Eastern governments to step in to help what might not have to be a radical Middle Eastern government. I'd rather simply allow them to make their own way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Ok, we've been there what, for 3.5 years? And we have amassed what, 3,000 casualties?
How do you double the time and get 10x the casualties? Overestimate much?
|
Oh, I almost forgot, you can't read! Here's what I wrote, minus what you left out:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
If I had to guess I'd say 8-12 years, and maybe 30,000-45,000 American soldiers dead total (as when the insurgency really begins to shrink they will become more desperate and resort to desperate measures, this will lead to the end being more bloody).
|
Wars get worse at the end. Casualties usually get worse towards the end. Tell you what, why don't you estimate how many casualties we would absorb over 8-12 more years in Iraq and see how well that old "stay the course" rhetoric goes over with greaving mothers and fatherless children. Even if things go exactly the same, with no increase or decrease in the rate of deaths, we're still looking at 12,000 to 15,000 dead American soldiers. Also, not sure how you came up with that "10x" number. 30,000/12,000 = 2.5 and 45,000/15,000 = 3. So, it's closer to a factor of 2.75 than it is to 10. Underestimate much?