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

[Pu-239]

Ideally, a LOT more troops, tighten rules on weapons and such like Chrostas said, shooting mosques if necessary(shouldn't be if you search everyone going in and out, since you have more troops to do so), and funding repairs if it is, and bribing key nations such as Russia, for political support and some military supports, and/or go to the UN for "political support" to "legitimize" the occupation. Also, maybe replace Bremer. Then again, all this will cost boatloads of money...
If things get too bad, just surround problem areas and restrict stuff coming in and out, and avoid fighting inside.

[Icehawk]

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).

This is interesting because didnt the Iraqi council already say they would have an "Islamic constitution" thus completly removing any possibility of a "secular gov't" the US supposedly wants? The US was doing JACK SHIT to push secular gov't in Iraq, thats what pisses me off so much about this whole thing. The US military is there and they don't seem to be pushing for anysort of secular gov't to take over and they were so lax that they actually let themselves get duped by these recent uprisings. The whole situation is just bullshit and its because the US wasnt doing enough IMO.

[SirNitram]

The problem lies in the fundamental stupidity of those in charge. Bush wants a Western-style democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, his moronic interpretation of this is a religious 'democracy', where religious law can intervene wherever it goddamn pleases. Since he's as thick as two short planks, he doesn't get the problem, or see the inevitable results.

[Icehawk]

The problem lies in the fundamental stupidity of those in charge. Bush wants a Western-style democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, his moronic interpretation of this is a religious 'democracy', where religious law can intervene wherever it goddamn pleases. Since he's as thick as two short planks, he doesn't get the problem, or see the inevitable results.

Exactly, Shrubbery Fuck NEVER wanted nor would have wanted a secular democracy in Iraq because it would be completely contrary to his idiot fundie christian views.

[TrailerParkJawa]

When the Germans bombed the shit out of the British, did the will of England break? No.

When the Americans and British bombed the shit out of the Germans, did the will of the Germans break? No.

How about the Pacific theatre? Did the Japanese give up? The Chinese?

Massive retaliation against the Iraqi's would only harden resolve and create more enemies than we have now. We cant win a "total war" like WW2 cause the situation is so different.

I'm of a mind to give another 3-6 months and if things don't improve we leave and let them be in their squalid shithole.

[Pu-239]

What about whatever tactics were used to put down the rebellion in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war? Then again, in this case you have the possibilty of foreign fighters coming in, not just local Iraqis, it is unacceptable to be brutal, and the public cannot stomach 50k+ casualties. However it is an example that rebellions can be put down (at a cost).

[Vympel]

Fuck this, I'll lay it out:

Fuck it. Leave. I *used* to say "you broke it, you bought it" (meaning stay and fix the place)- but they relaly don't want foreigners there. They don't want to be occupied. Leave them to their own devices.

As the situation deteriorates, the True Believers are going to ever more shrilly call for "more force! more troops! we gotta win! more force! boots on the ground! we've got to destroy 'them'!", while more normal people realise what a dead-end situation this is.

And when it all collapses in a heap (or in a bigger heap than it already is) you know who's they're going to say it is? Anti-war advocates and the media. And democrats. Yeah.

[Icehawk]

You are correct in that sense, but dont forget, the big problem with just leaving (again) is that a lot of them will certainly turn around and cry: "SEE! the US left us alone again!! they lied!! they said they would stay!!, look at the mess they left us with!!"

The US will be shunned and criticized regardless of what they do, if they stay at least they will be sticking to their claim (even though it still wont work out in the long run because they will not push for a secular democracy and will allow an islamic based gov't). Its a completly fucked up situation that happened under the command of worst US president possible for the job.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

What about whatever tactics were used to put down the rebellion in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war? Then again, in this case you have the possibilty of foreign fighters coming in, not just local Iraqis, it is unacceptable to be brutal, and the public cannot stomach 50k+ casualties. However it is an example that rebellions can be put down (at a cost).

The tactic was to slaughter tens of thousands of people, many of them noncombatant civilians, to deter insurgence in the short term, and take over the school system completely and have it be taught completely in English so that the new generation knows nothing of the slaughter and thinks the Spanish did those things and America was some great savior.

Aside from the abomidable morality, the short term solution would unite the entire world against the US, and the long term solution is completely unworkable. They already have extensive indoctrination in the guise of education, and it's in Arabic.

So, no, the Phillipines' solution won't work.

[Vympel]

The Phillipene insurgents also didn't have the plentiful amount of arms the Iraqis had, according to an article I read on the subject a few days ago.

[Patrick Degan]

Mark Twain's bitter essays on our colonial war in the Philippines can be found in the collection titled On The Damned Human Race.

The Iraq situation is not amenable to sheer brute force. Applying a Philippine solution —or even a Carthaginian one— will, as has been observed, only unite the Arab world against us if not the whole world. And America's inept greedhead conduct of the occupation is what brought on this uprising even before the idiotic decision to shut down an opposition newspaper and arrest its publisher was made. The Iraqi people already don't trust us and any brutal suppression measures we undertake will destroy any distinction between us and the dictatorship we deposed last year.

We can win every battle. We can kill far many more of their people than they can kill ours in any engagement. But we have now made it impossible that we will ever win hearts-and-minds. The Iraqis will now never accept American Brand™ democracy and no government we install there will survive without a screen of American tanks protecting its very existence. And the day those tanks go, civil war begins. Under these conditions, the mission we set out to accomplish —whatever that mission truly was— is foredoomed to failure.

We won every battle. We can probably win every battle coming up. But upon the terms that count, we have already lost the war.

[theski]

Patrick Degan wrote

We won every battle. We can probably win every battle coming up. But upon the terms that count, we have already lost the war

I would only disagree on the point.. that its not written in stone (failure) I think if we can make it through the next 6 months things will start coming around. This is a very long term process..

BTW: well written post Patrick

[Knife]

Fuck this, I'll lay it out:

Fuck it. Leave. I *used* to say "you broke it, you bought it" (meaning stay and fix the place)- but they relaly don't want foreigners there. They don't want to be occupied. Leave them to their own devices.

As the situation deteriorates, the True Believers are going to ever more shrilly call for "more force! more troops! we gotta win! more force! boots on the ground! we've got to destroy 'them'!", while more normal people realise what a dead-end situation this is.

And when it all collapses in a heap (or in a bigger heap than it already is) you know who's they're going to say it is? Anti-war advocates and the media. And democrats. Yeah.

The only problem I see with this is the large chunks of population that do not want to be either Iran Jr. or a return to Iraq via Saddam. My last ditch plan as mentioned in my post earlier was to split Iraq into the three wannabe states if absolutely necessary.

I don't see why the Kurds need to suffer because the Sunni's and Shites want to go shitnuts. Set up a new state (I don't know where but some where. Hell have the UN in on this one) go for the democracy there.

The plans a little rough but basicly there it is.

[Alferd Packer]

Well, if you want a Western, secular democracy, wouldn't it make sense to start importing western secular culture? T.A.I.F.s (Thank Allah It's Friday), strip malls, McDonalds, Hollywood, the full nine. Set up western-style state education and ban prayer in schools. Give foreign companies further incentives to invest Iraqi infrastructure.

How do you get there from here? Well, more troops is the first step. Ideally, you bolster all deployments by 25-50%. Rather than reprisals for Americans killed, you institute a reward system for turning in insurgents, and make it a large one. $50,000 USD (in U.S. currency, if possible) for a positive capture of one or more insurgents who can verifiably be shown to have been planning imminent attacks, and furthermore, the snitch can be shown to not have any affiliation with the insurgents (so we don't wind up funding the people who hate us). You could also offer it as a bounty to anyone in the world, so U.S. troops don't have to as much of the legwork, but I am not sure of the legality of such a tactic. The point would be to postively reinforce positive behavior, rather than punish bad behavior only.

Getting all hard-assed probably wouldn't work. If you allow summary executions of captured insurgents, you'd be facing a war crimes trial. Civilian reprisals, the same thing. You could conceivably re-declare war, but against whom? The Iraqi people? The state which you've just helped create? You might be better off to find a few pro-U.S. Iraqi judges and throw the captured insurgents to them. If they're acting in the name of the Iraqi government, you might get more moderate people to support the government and public sentiment against it to decrease. Of course, one can never be sure how people will react under the influence of religous mania, but such is life.

Were personally in charge, I'd probably turn the place into a police state, but that's why I'm not in charge.

[Montcalm]

Strategic retreat with bringing out every Iraqi who aren't retards,then carpet bomb the whole country.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I would only disagree on the point.. that its not written in stone (failure) I think if we can make it through the next 6 months things will start coming around. This is a very long term process..

And why exactly do you think things will get better the longer it goes on rather than worse? All signs are pointing to the latter. Iraqis are getting more pissed off, and the insurgents are getting stronger and more successful. What makes you think this trend will reverse itself inside the next year?

Personally, I have a nagging dread that there will be some kind of massive, countrywide counter-attack before this is over if we stay too long. Something like the Tet Offensive.

[Ma Deuce]

Personally, I have a nagging dread that there will be some kind of massive, countrywide counter-attack before this is over if we stay too long. Something like the Tet Offensive.

But we all know how the Tet Offensive ended...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Hmm...clampdown on civilian life, loose RoE including the usage of heavy firepower in civilian urban environments, assination of rebel leaders, retaliation against the civilian population...

Interesting. I wonder why they don't try this in Isreal.




Oh. Wait.

[Lonestar]

I would do what should have been done the day Baghdad fell...convene an international conference consisting of the major Coalition countries, and every single nation that Borders Iraq. Lay out what our plan for the occupation is. Ask for, and if good ideas, take suggestions. Ask Neighboring countries to help maintain peace by policing their borders better. (Although Foriegners are not as big a player as intially thought).

Ask for nation builders, not peacekeepers, ask everyone; even Iran and Syria, to send professional civil servants to help in the rebuilding.

Suck it up and say "we screwed up on the WMD claim. We're sure they had some at some point, but it's now obvious that there wasn't enough in quanitity to find evidence. We apologize to the world for being able to back up the cornerstone of our reasons to invade. We were wrong to be especially vindicative against our allies who chose to opt out of this action. We request any support, whether it be troops, humanitarian aid, or just plain old advice."

Finally, what everyone else has been echoing; we can't start killing people randomly. The only other option is to dramatically increase the number of troops in Iraq, and I don't mean getting Honduras to send anohter 500. After this (current) uprisising has been put down, use the extra troops the same way police departments use cops. By having a lot of them walk the beat, not just drive around in Humvees all day. Much, much more dangerous to be sure, but if you don't interact with the population (in a nice way, and consistantly) the stituation is just going to get worse from here on out.

[HemlockGrey]

If our goal in Iraq is to convert it into a stable democracy friendly to the US and open to use as a staging point for American forces and interests in the Middle East, without the controversy of Israel, we must accomplish several things.

First, Shrub must be booted out of power, simply because his Administration carries with it too much emotional baggage. Nothing can be accomplished unless his Administration is overthrown because nothing coming from his Adminstration, even if it's remotely competant (unlikely) will be generally accepted. It must be made clear that a new power is shaping American policy.

Second, the insurgency must be destroyed, root and branch. Pump in troops from Europe, from anywhere. But at the same time import teachers, construction corporations, etc. The only way to ensure that there are no more insurgencies is to make Iraq prosperous. Turn over control of the oil regions to Iraqi corporations and the Iraqi government while paying for the laying of Iraqi infrastructure.

[Darth Yoshi]

I'd get more aggressive against the insurgents, and probably implement Packer's idea about rewarding informants who turn in insurgents. And definitely bring in help.

[Lonestar]

First, Shrub must be booted out of power, simply because his Administration carries with it too much emotional baggage. Nothing can be accomplished unless his Administration is overthrown because nothing coming from his Adminstration,

I can't fucking believed you used that word. Surely you mean "voted out of office"?

[The Aliens]

"Hello, United Nations? Look, we're really fucking sorry. We'll give you full military and economic backing to clean up our mess. We'll bring in food and water from the First World, deck out our troops with the blue armbands, and get suppotr from local governments to give them power in the Iraqi government, possibly with local leaders being given free reign over their provinces, except where that would contradict basic human rights, in which case we would deploy peacekeepers to defend the populace. Look, it'll never happen again."

[0.1]

Hey, where is the option that says flood the country with pornography, playboy channel, etc.

Let's face it, that's what the middle east really needs, let's face it, if you dump the playboy channel on 24 hour replay on jumbotrons everywhere, most of the people will stop thinking about shooting each other... well, at least, not with guns. (wait, they'll just loot the jumbotrons... never mind)

Seriously, if you come right down to it. Give the Iraqi people the choice, do you want the Americans to go or stay? If the latter, there need to be some negotiated points on issues such as the ability to intervene when people are getting dragged through the streets, if those negotiated rules don't work out, we leave.

I still think the best option to the war would've been to make a deal with Saddam. On one side, the U.S. help to lift the sanctions, supply the dictator with arms, and the ability needed to keep himself in power. In return, he buys U.S. weapons, promises to not even talk about Israel, and give us oil. Overall, the Iraqi people (except those who happened to be non Sunni) would've been better off. That would've been most beneficial to the U.S., it removes the need for war, and probably put in a check to the Russians and the French. No need to waste billions deploying troops, fighting a conventional war, etc, etc. The UN resolution wasn't doing much anyway other than starving Saddam's people, so lift the sanctions, and support him as only America can.

Oh well, so much for the alternate reality.

[HemlockGrey]

I can't fucking believed you used that word. Surely you mean "voted out of office"?

"Overthrown" gets my point across with a bit more strength than "voted out of office".