You're in charge in Iraq; what do you do?

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-04-09 12:59pm

First of all sit down and decide what the overall objective is, we should never have gone in, in my opion but we are there now, and we have a moral obligation to leave a stable nation behind.

So Thats the prime objective to secure the state, and keep the various groups from killing each other, while remaining there only as peacekeepers. To do this I think a Civilian leadership needs to be found, and drawn from the population, and the various Military forces in Iraq made to answer to them, with only exceptions based on human rights needs.

Order must be maintained but the soldiers must be seen as not being instigators or an occupying force, hence being answerable to a local civilian government, the matter must be opened to the international community, with full access to any nation regardless of if they actually supported the war or not. If a nation wants to help, they should be able to help, again what you are trying to acheive here as feeling that the forces there are not Occupation forces, after that I don't know. Getting Medievil or any other option will acheieve jack and shit, except make more countries in the area get angry, draw more insurgents into the area, and recruit more people to go kill more soldiers.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-09 01:24pm

Twenty-five kilotons at optimum burst height directly over the center of some random city under insurgent control, followed up with the broadcast of surrender terms to the other cities and a 60 minute countdown. If the insurgents don't surrender, the civilians will throw them out on their own. This would be an effective solution. It is also politically impossible and beyond morally reprehensible, so it's not a realistic one. An airburst over some uninhabited part of the desert close enough to Baghdad for everyone to see the flash isn't useful because nobody would believe we'd actually hit a city.

You can substitute carpet bombing with B-52s or a house by house sweep of the entire city followed by mass executions for nuclear strike and get the same results. The fact is, Roman methods aren't viable in the modern world, at least by the United States, and I don't think many Americans would be able to live with a government that did that, all "nuke the bastards" talk aside.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2004-04-09 01:54pm

First, ask the government of Iran for help to calm down the fighting (if they don´t do that, they condem thousands of their brothers to death, if they do that, they have reason to make the action a success and it would give the Saudis something to think about).

As soon as the fighting has ceased pull out and

1) let sunnits and shiits fight it out,
2) let them have their fundamentalistic state were Allah´s will is the law,
3) let them join Iran if they want to (arabs and farsi don´t like each other)

Wait twenty years.

Until then they should have found out, that a state ruled by devine law isn´t paradise on earth and the population in the streets will demonstrate for reforms and more freedom. Use that time to get good relations with them, make business (on your conditions - force them to decide between their culture and what they want), in short, try to corrupt them.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-04-09 02:33pm

I'd actually be tempted to either
a)- Make them wish Saddam was still in charge, and order all troops to shot to kill
b)- Tell the Iraqi citizens they have 1 week to bring the insurrectionists in, or I pull out.
Then pull out if they don't.
Period

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-04-09 02:57pm

I honestly don't know what I'd do now. Although it isn't a nationwide uprising, it is getting worse.

On the one hand I want to pull out and leave them to it (but that'd make us look like idiots, leave a nice load of oil and potential industry behind and one ruined nation with a civil war). On the other hand I want to boost forces and bring a martial law in that will hopefully quell these riots and seek out those that cause them whilst rebuilding the nation in a good light.

It's your typical Catch-22.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-09 03:22pm

Btw, I noticed that you didn't answer the question you posed Mike. What would you do if you were in charge?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-09 04:43pm

Shove in a bit more troops, bring on the RAH-66 prototypes, ask for
every little military toy that DARPA has been playing with, including
the crowd control weapons that use sound to make people shit themselves,
ask for assloads of 40mm CS gas grenades, and basically do what
we're doing now, put down this insurgency by simply killing anyone who
shoots at us until no one is shooting at us anymore.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-04-09 05:17pm

I'm for more of a "wait and see" attitude myself. Let the Marines and Soldiers do their jobs, and put it down (I am confident they will do so) then let the Marines go about their original method of trying to win Iraqi trust, and see what happens.

I'm no ground pounder, so I'm willing to give the Corps the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-09 05:17pm

I think Shep has the best solution which is actually realistic and gets stuff done (nix the DoD fellatio and the RAH-66).

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-09 05:30pm

Let it be known that being seen in posession of a weapon is a shoot on sight offence. If you carry one, you die. Any place that shooting comes from is blasted, no exceptions, be it a hospital, holy sight, or orphanage. If one round comes from it, it's gone. Make it so, and do it, no exceptions.
That and what Shep suggested as well.
House to house, no one gets to keep ANY weapons, not even knives.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-04-09 05:37pm

I would make it perfectly blunt to the Iraqi "interim council" and too the public through whatever information distribution means possible, that if they truly want us to leave, THE ONUS IS ON THEM, just as it was on the Japanese after WW2, to prove TO US BEFORE we leave that they can handle running a SECULAR democratic government. This is the ONLY CHOICE the Iraqi's will have that would lead to forces being withdrawn. If they refuse to conform to this request that is too fucking bad for them.

On top of this I would employ EmperorChrostas the Cruel and MKSheppard's policies minus the fancy helicopters.[/quote]

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-09 05:38pm

I forgot to add, wearing a mask or hood in public is a shoot on sight thing as well.
You will NOT hide you identity.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-04-09 05:39pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Let it be known that being seen in posession of a weapon is a shoot on sight offence. If you carry one, you die. Any place that shooting comes from is blasted, no exceptions, be it a hospital, holy sight, or orphanage. If one round comes from it, it's gone. Make it so, and do it, no exceptions.
That and what Shep suggested as well.
House to house, no one gets to keep ANY weapons, not even knives.

Wouldn't they just hide weapons then? Or transport weapons from houses to be searched to houses already searched? Etc, etc... more discontent...

All the other stuff is good though.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2004-04-09 05:44pm

Pu-239 wrote:
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Let it be known that being seen in posession of a weapon is a shoot on sight offence. If you carry one, you die. Any place that shooting comes from is blasted, no exceptions, be it a hospital, holy sight, or orphanage. If one round comes from it, it's gone. Make it so, and do it, no exceptions.
That and what Shep suggested as well.
House to house, no one gets to keep ANY weapons, not even knives.
Wouldn't they just hide weapons then? Or transport weapons from houses to be searched to houses already searched? Etc, etc... more discontent...

All the other stuff is good though.

Make the searches as random as possible and at completely random times whether its night or day. It won't be perfect but im sure it could be done to a point where resistance is pretty much crushed into relative obscurity.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-04-09 05:45pm

If they hide them, they aren't shooting them, are they?
I mean brandishing them. Even over the shoulder on the sling.
Demonstrations like the burning bodies incident gets the whole crowd killed, with a big bomb, or a brace of hellfires from ever vigilant Predators.
Don't do it, and if you see it, run away, don't join in. Your very presence at such an event is a kill on sight offence.

NO WARNINGS! Just immediate death.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-09 05:54pm

Hmm. It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that the only thing Fundies respond well to is violence of action. They revere it, they emulate it. Who was it that said "Show the enemy no mercy, for you shall recieve none."? The kill on sight of suspicious activities should get the message across. after all, the reason for not attacking holy sites is becuause they are SUPPOSED to be places of solace and safety for the innocent, not bunkers for the enemy. I'm all for Dresden MkII

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-09 06:38pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I think Shep has the best solution which is actually realistic and gets stuff done (nix the DoD fellatio and the RAH-66).

Uhm, why not battletest a lot of these experimental toys? And also the
RAH 66 prototypes?

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-04-09 07:00pm

This is a no win scenario. Every decision or course of action will backfire, so I'd cut my losses and pull out.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-09 07:15pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:I think Shep has the best solution which is actually realistic and gets stuff done (nix the DoD fellatio and the RAH-66).
Uhm, why not battletest a lot of these experimental toys? And also the
RAH 66 prototypes?

I don't think the RAH-66s would give you anything in fighting geurillas that Apaches and Super Cobras don't already. Also, many of the other new toys in development are designed to be used against assets that the geurillas don't have (like tanks and aircraft).

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-09 07:17pm

Ma Deuce wrote:Also, many of the other new toys in development are designed to be used against assets that the geurillas don't have (like tanks and aircraft).

We've been having lots of fun with non-lethal weapons lately in DARPA.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-09 07:20pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:Also, many of the other new toys in development are designed to be used against assets that the geurillas don't have (like tanks and aircraft).

We've been having lots of fun with non-lethal weapons lately in DARPA.

I said many, not all

.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-09 10:12pm

The question "what do you do" entails the question: "what do you want?"

So what does America want to accomplish long-term? From what I have gathered, America wants western-style secular democracy throughout the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq is somehow supposed to make this happen (Condi Rice even reiterated this domino-theory concept during her recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission).

How to achieve this? Well, America wants Iraq to become secular and democratic, obviously in the hope that their positive example will make neighbouring countries more amenable to American influence. Leaving aside the fact that I view this as a rather naive pipe dream, this is nevertheless the goal. And this is also where we hit a major roadblock. Iraq right now is not sending a lot of positive messages about American influence.

However, with that in mind, the "get medieval on their asses" option is simply unacceptable. Even if we don't get as ridiculous as some of the wild-eyed "carpet-bomb their cities" suggestions, a harsher approach will suppress the violence, but it will hardly accomplish any movement toward the long-term goals of this invasion. It will ultimately assure failure in all long-term goals and make this invasion even more of a disaster than it has been so far. The suggestions so far are designed to limit American military casualties, and while I can certainly understand our desire to do that, the harsh truth is that these schemes limit American military casualties by greatly increasing Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in turn, sabotages the long-term objectives of this mission.

So, the question becomes: do you want to do whatever it takes to minimize American military casualties, or do you want to utterly fail in your mission and set back American interests in the region for decades?

I voted for status quo, but with more troops. Try and kill insurgents wherever they appear, but reprisals against civilians and general oppression will assure the failure of the mission.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-09 10:32pm

Darth Wong wrote: So, the question becomes: do you want to do whatever it takes to minimize American military casualties

We could take about 29,000 before the geeral public starts wildly agitating
in the streets.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2004-04-09 10:48pm

How many troops do we have in Germany? IIRC, it's still in the tens of thousands. It's not like there's some big bad Soviet Union ready to invade Europe. Why don't we pull some troops from there?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-09 11:11pm

Hmmmm. Let's ask Iran to come in and help.

They'll say no. This will cause the Iraqis to start wanting to hurt the Iranians as much as they want to hurt us.

Or they'll say yes, and we'll have a big nasty state scaring the shit out of SA (and one, I might add, that has become markedly less hostile to the USA - how are the mullahs going to paint us in a bad light when we apologize to the Iraqi people and ask the Iranians to help us out?). Big nasty state will liberalize over the next few decades.

Either way, we don't lose much.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You're in charge in Iraq; what do you do?

What do you do?