Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Non-binding resolution

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Perhaps somebody could help me with this, but what are some other practical, workable options then as opposed to the troop surge? Let's look at this in sequence. We invade Iraq, an insurgency begins, it escalates, we have big problems, it's labeled a civil war, the administration is admonished for not having put in enough troops to control the situation that was bore from the initial invasion, which I might add militarily in no way shape or form required a stronger troop presence as this was one of the most broad and decisive military success's in our history (read initial invasion and removal of Saddam).

The whole time in the middle people on both sides of the aisle are politicking with the insurgency/"civil war", most notably I would say democrats has all they have done consistently is voice dissent to the war and its operation with pretty much a policy that only has breadth in-so-far as they point out that the current strategy isn't working. I don't really consider benchmarks or complete withdrawal, the main ideas I've heard as the least bit practical in helping the situation.

So now we find ourselves here, with a "quagmire", now the administration is finally putting in more troops that were apperently necessary, and for some reason its a bad idea; and all the while the democrats are still politicking with the situation putting non-binding resolutions that most certainly only reinforce the enemy.

People are talking about removal of the American presence gradually, followed with a replacement of international troops. On the one hand its a decent idea it gets our troops out of there, but by and large I would call it stupid, for a few reasons. To start militarily it is possibly the most perposterous option out there. I don't know if this point serves as a basis of the argument, but I get the impression that people think that by a multinational force, as opposed to an American force, the insurgency will die down. Right... I'm sure Al Qaeda, foreign insurgents, Sunni/Ex-baathists, or the Shiite militias brokering for power will lay down their arms if we leave.

Practically speaking militarily, our forces are retarded by our rules of engagement where it seems almost necessary to embed lawyers with them so as to not arouse suspicion or problems. You do realize any UN force would have way more retarded (the actual meaning of the word, impeded and slowed) then ours, their military capacity is vastly inferior to that of our military is both forces/training/resources/options.

Then you consider what would happen if you get the bureaucratic UN involved in managing this country. Hell people the world round, even here on this forum are bothered by the fact that our presence in Iraq is meant to serve our own purposes; I cannot even fathom how much of a cluster fuck it would become if you let countries like China, Russia, France in the mix and how much more that would slow any practical and desired outcome; at least with our presence we are cohesive and decisive, and it serves our purposes, throwing more countries into the mix would only compound the problems.

DC made mention of other options such as redployment; while isn't that what this essentially is? We are bolstering our forces in the most volatile active regions, coupled with what I reckon is an actual corporeal Iraqi military presence.

On diplomacy and political options, it just isn't practical say that is a viable option, 110% it is not. You can't bring Iraqi factions to the table while there is so much infighting; the only way you will get them to talk is to beat them into submission and disrupt any operational capacity they have to operate with. Why the hell would they talk when they have other options? As noted you then have regional influences to consider, most noteable Iran, where it is abundantly clear they are operating in Iraq against America and our interests, whether it is through their own agents or through support of various Shiite factions. Anyway you cut it, making any compromise with them is peace with out victory and is frankly unacceptable as it defeats the purpose of what we have been tryring to do in IRaq for the last 4 years.

02-20-2007, 02:07 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Perhaps somebody could help me with this, but what are some other practical, workable options then as opposed to the troop surge? Let's look at this in sequence. We invade Iraq, an insurgency begins, it escalates, we have big problems, it's labeled a civil war, the administration is admonished for not having put in enough troops to control the situation that was bore from the initial invasion, which I might add militarily in no way shape or form required a stronger troop presence as this was one of the most broad and decisive military success's in our history (read initial invasion and removal of Saddam). The whole time in the middle people on both sides of the aisle are politicking with the insurgency/"civil war", most notably I would say democrats has all they have done consistently is voice dissent to the war and its operation with pretty much a policy that only has breadth in-so-far as they point out that the current strategy isn't working. I don't really consider benchmarks or complete withdrawal, the main ideas I've heard as the least bit practical in helping the situation. So now we find ourselves here, with a "quagmire", now the administration is finally putting in more troops that were apperently necessary, and for some reason its a bad idea; and all the while the democrats are still politicking with the situation putting non-binding resolutions that most certainly only reinforce the enemy. People are talking about removal of the American presence gradually, followed with a replacement of international troops. On the one hand its a decent idea it gets our troops out of there, but by and large I would call it stupid, for a few reasons. To start militarily it is possibly the most perposterous option out there. I don't know if this point serves as a basis of the argument, but I get the impression that people think that by a multinational force, as opposed to an American force, the insurgency will die down. Right... I'm sure Al Qaeda, foreign insurgents, Sunni/Ex-baathists, or the Shiite militias brokering for power will lay down their arms if we leave. Practically speaking militarily, our forces are retarded by our rules of engagement where it seems almost necessary to embed lawyers with them so as to not arouse suspicion or problems. You do realize any UN force would have way more retarded (the actual meaning of the word, impeded and slowed) then ours, their military capacity is vastly inferior to that of our military is both forces/training/resources/options. Then you consider what would happen if you get the bureaucratic UN involved in managing this country. Hell people the world round, even here on this forum are bothered by the fact that our presence in Iraq is meant to serve our own purposes; I cannot even fathom how much of a cluster fuck it would become if you let countries like China, Russia, France in the mix and how much more that would slow any practical and desired outcome; at least with our presence we are cohesive and decisive, and it serves our purposes, throwing more countries into the mix would only compound the problems. DC made mention of other options such as redployment; while isn't that what this essentially is? We are bolstering our forces in the most volatile active regions, coupled with what I reckon is an actual corporeal Iraqi military presence. On diplomacy and political options, it just isn't practical say that is a viable option, 110% it is not. You can't bring Iraqi factions to the table while there is so much infighting; the only way you will get them to talk is to beat them into submission and disrupt any operational capacity they have to operate with. Why the hell would they talk when they have other options? As noted you then have regional influences to consider, most noteable Iran, where it is abundantly clear they are operating in Iraq against America and our interests, whether it is through their own agents or through support of various Shiite factions. Anyway you cut it, making any compromise with them is peace with out victory and is frankly unacceptable as it defeats the purpose of what we have been tryring to do in IRaq for the last 4 years. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.