State of the occupation, part II

[jegs2]

My mistake -- I just realized you were being sarcastic when you suggested a wholesale pullout.

Nobody could be that naive (slaps forehead)

[Defiant]

What would be the downside of doing just that?

It would demonstrate to our enemies that they need only kill enough Americans and they will get what they want. It would further demonstrate to the world that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged fight with any significant casualties. If you are an enemy of the United States, then US forces simply pulling out would be a dream come true and a mission accomplished.

That's just it. I don't think a lot of people do have the stomach for this fight because it was entered into under questionable circumstances. I'm not talking about Afganistan, but Iraq.

Anyway, are you saying that we should keep troops there until hostilities cease?

[Darth Wong]

What would be the downside of doing just that?

It would demonstrate to our enemies that they need only kill enough Americans and they will get what they want.

Good point; the Somali warlord Aidid used precisely that logic against the US.

It would further demonstrate to the world that the United States has no stomach for a prolonged fight with any significant casualties. If you are an enemy of the United States, then US forces simply pulling out would be a dream come true and a mission accomplished.

What if the US occupation force held a referendum asking Iraqis to vote in secret ballots whether they should stay or go or maintain reduced forces? If they want US forces to stay in a particular region, they stay. If they want them to go from a particular region, they go and it's because of democracy, not cowardice. And blow up Al-Sadr just to make that point

And then watch as the regions left to the Islamic fundies go to shit

[Aaron]

What if the US occupation force held a referendum asking Iraqis to vote in secret ballots whether they should stay or go or maintain reduced forces? If they want US forces to stay in a particular region, they stay. If they want them to go from a particular region, they go and it's because of democracy, not cowardice. And blow up Al-Sadr just to make that point

I like the referendum idea, they said they wanted to bring democracy to Iraq why not exercise it? And I thought they had declared that they were going to arrest Al-Sadr? What the hell is taking so long, either arrest him or assissinate him but get it over with.

[jegs2]

What I would like to see is a turning over of trouble spots to the Iraqi army, like we did in Fallusia. That would have to be delicately handled, but then we did intend to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis. So far as the civilian side of the house is concerned with government and whatnot, I'll leave that to you diplomats, for I'm no civilian. As much as I'd hate to see it, maybe Iraq needs another iron-fisted strongman. I really want to see democracy work there, but I'm beginning to believe it simply isn't possible in that area of the world.

[Aaron]

What I would like to see is a turning over of trouble spots to the Iraqi army, like we did in Fallusia. That would have to be delicately handled, but then we did intend to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis. So far as the civilian side of the house is concerned with government and whatnot, I'll leave that to you diplomats, for I'm no civilian. As much as I'd hate to see it, maybe Iraq needs another iron-fisted strongman. I really want to see democracy work there, but I'm beginning to believe it simply isn't possible in that area of the world.

Yes but the Iraqi Army has already demonstrated that they won't fight, so what good will they do?

[Durandal]

I like the referendum idea, they said they wanted to bring democracy to Iraq why not exercise it? And I thought they had declared that they were going to arrest Al-Sadr? What the hell is taking so long, either arrest him or assissinate him but get it over with.

It's probably for political reasons. Al Sadr could've had his head blown off about 500 times by now if we really wanted it to happen. Our snipers are very good.

I assume that they're waiting to see if the guy "runs his course," so to speak. Killing him now would (as with just about any prominent person in the Muslim world) make him a martyr and ignite passions. If people simply lose interest in him after a while, things will go a lot more smoothly. Of course, I think that that's just a little bit naive, especially given the religious devotion of Muslims in the Middle East.

[Aaron]

It's probably for political reasons. Al Sadr could've had his head blown off about 500 times by now if we really wanted it to happen. Our snipers are very good.

I assume that they're waiting to see if the guy "runs his course," so to speak. Killing him now would (as with just about any prominent person in the Muslim world) make him a martyr and ignite passions. If people simply lose interest in him after a while, things will go a lot more smoothly. Of course, I think that that's just a little bit naive, especially given the religious devotion of Muslims in the Middle East.

It may turn him into a martyr but it will also cut the head of the snake. It may be hard for his militia to continue with their campaign if the leader is dead. Besides killing or arresting him would put an end to these ridiculous anouncements about keeping female soldiers as slaves and putting bounties on troops heads.

[jegs2]

Yes but the Iraqi Army has already demonstrated that they won't fight, so what good will they do?

Placed under command of a former Iraqi general and some capable officers, perhaps they can at least hold down a restive population and kill some insurgents. Perhaps we can "look the other way" while the Iraqi army deals with them in "the old way," although that presents political risks. Since it would eventually be their problem anyway, it appears as though recreating a capable Iraqi army/police force is the best option. Fallusia seems to be doing okay. It certainly beats garrisoning the country with US troops for the foreseeable future.

[Aaron]

Yes but the Iraqi Army has already demonstrated that they won't fight, so what good will they do?

Placed under command of a former Iraqi general and some capable officers, perhaps they can at least hold down a restive population and kill some insurgents. Perhaps we can "look the other way" while the Iraqi army deals with them in "the old way," although that presents political risks. Since it would eventually be their problem anyway, it appears as though recreating a capable Iraqi army/police force is the best option. Fallusia seems to be doing okay. It certainly beats garrisoning the country with US troops for the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong, I support the recreation of an Iraqi army and police force, preferably one that will do it's job. I still believe that the army shouldn't have been disbanded in the first place.

[jegs2]

From a Q&A with GEN John Abizaid:

[Arabs] are an enormously proud people who have a culture that is much different from ours. And we need to understand how to translate things that happen in our culture and things that happen in our culture.

We've been talking past each other for many years culturally. To the extent that my understanding the language and understanding the culture helps me to bridge that gap, all the better.

But on the other hand, I'm an American military officer in their eyes and we shouldn't underestimate that. We need to go from occupation to partnership. … I am very anxious to make this partnership work. And the partnership will be rocky at times. … But at the end I think a combination of American and Iraqi and international efforts to hold Iraq together, especially with the good will of the Iraqi people, most of whom want to hold Iraq together, will be successful.
And at some point the Iraqis will say to us either, "Thank you very much, we've got it now. And we appreciate it" or they'll say, "Thank you very much, you didn't get us to where we want to go and we want you guys out of here." And I think we'll find out, when push comes to shove, their history will say that this was a turning point. And we'll all look back and be proud that we were part of it if we don't just lose our patience and our courage.

Despite what happened in Abu Ghraib (prison), the average, hard working young 18- and 19-year-old soldier or marine on the ground out there … is courageous, compassionate and patient. They know what they are doing. They are confident about that they're doing. And when they come back from this mission and you talk to them about what they're doing, about whether it was worthwhile, they will answer "absolutely."

Is this a worthwhile endeavor? I would say absolutely. It's one that we can't let our own innate skepticism, (that) of our own information institutions, the press, and the hostile inclinations of the Arab press lead us to believe we're failing, because we're not. We need to stick with it, we need to help the Iraqi people through it.

[Vympel]

I don't give a fuck, I do condone pulling out wholeheartedly.

And here's why.

The 'wrong message' argument, much like the domino theory [Vietnam] with which it shares many assumptions, assumes that x will cause y which will inevitably cause z. In this case, bringing forward troop withdrawals will embolden terrorists and cause them to commit more acts of terrorism because they perceive that their change through violence modus operandi is achieving outcomes.

The first problem with this set of assumptions is that they contain at best unproven, chains of cause and effect. Supporters of the Vietnam War argued that defeat in the Vietnam War for the United States would embolden communist forces, causing a succession of South East Asian states to fall under communist regimes in what was described as a domino effect. The problem with this argument was that it greatly exaggerated the importance of intention as a cause of political action, ignoring the basic constrictions imposed by the existence, or lack their of, of capabilities.

In much the same way the argument that we should not bring forward the withdrawal of troops from Iraq because it sends the 'wrong message' to terrorist organisations, ignores the question of the capabilities possessed by terrorist organisations and the best way states can deploy their own defences to counter those capabilities. Intention, motivation and morale are important factors in the decision making processes of all organisations, and should be considered when making strategic decisions. However in making decisions about the deployment of military defences against terrorism states, one should not exaggerate the importance of these message susceptible factors, to the point of ignoring capabilities and the defensive strategy to counter them.

Also by making decisions based on the 'message' they will send the message to terrorist organisations that states are valuing the position that they don't want to send the wrong message to terrorist organisations, over the more fundamental interest, which is the defence of Australia [or America] from terrorist attacks and the eradication of terrorist organisations.

By allowing the 'message' to become the foundation upon which a decision is made, decision makers would be forced to ignore a raft of key factors that must be included in any decision regarding the deployment of military forces. Obvious factors that must be considered include the capabilities of terrorist organisations and the best way to counter those capabilities, as well as the resources we are willing to dedicate to the eradication of terrorist organisations and the best way to deploy those resources.

More difficult questions include the broader foreign policy issues surrounding the impact of our decision and the fundamental moral and ethical debate surrounding our involvement in the war in the first place. These factors cannot and will not be ignored.

In recognition of that fact, the 'message' our actions send should not be positioned as the cornerstone on which our decision is based.

In short, fuck the message it sends.

[jegs2]

Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it is my sincere hope that the leadership of these United States do not share it.

[Vympel]

Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it is my sincere hope that the leadership of these United States do not share it.

A country should only deploy military forces in pursuit of strategic interests, and should withdraw those forces if it has no hope of achieving those strategic interests. Worrying about subjective, unproven assumptions about the 'message' it sends and hoping to appear strong rather than weak in the eyes of the enemy is foolish, and achieves nothing but wasted lives and resources. IMO, there is no hope of success in Iraq. The inevitable conclusion from that premise is withdrawal.

Seriously, let's assume I'm right for a second- that there is no hope for success- would you advocate staying for eternity, just so as not to send the wrong message?

[jegs2]

Seriously, let's assume I'm right for a second- that there is no hope for success- would you advocate staying for eternity, just so as not to send the wrong message?

If there were no hope of completing stated mission objectives, I would support installing our own iron-fisted dictator with a military designed to crush internal revolt who was friendly to US interests, vice just up and leaving.