Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

War In Iraq

Rate this topic


stillremains

Recommended Posts

What are your opinions? Should we be there, to destroy a dictatorship and free the people of Iraq, or should we pull out now, possibly leaving the region in chaos, but saving American troops?

1. destroy dictatorship: we did that but we chose the wrong one.

2. free the people of iraq. This does not advance American security, and as currently structured, the liberation actually may reverse the course of Amercian security.

3. Region in Chaos: I don't much care about the region unless it threatens our interests.

Howzat?

No strategy articulated by the current administration will acheive any additional goals toward U.S. security. Leaving troops there to hope Iran provokes us is sacrificial.

Go big or go home. That's the kind of decision this is. The middle ground is the most sacrificial of U.S. intrests. By "go big" I mean wop the everloving s**t out of Iran.

Note: Rand's article "The Roots of War" and especially "The Wreckage of the Concensus" really helped me turn my back on the current Republican course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Region in Chaos: I don't much care about the region unless it threatens our interests.

But an unstable region does threaten our interests. If we leave Iraq right now, it descends into total chaos. Then a number of bad things happen...Iran gets a stronger foothold, all the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda are free to establish stronger bases of operation, they can filter into other countries and begin to destabilize moderate nations. Then there's the Shiite militias...don't know what they would do, but it won't be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But an unstable region does threaten our interests. If we leave Iraq right now, it descends into total chaos. Then a number of bad things happen...Iran gets a stronger foothold, all the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda are free to establish stronger bases of operation, they can filter into other countries and begin to destabilize moderate nations. Then there's the Shiite militias...don't know what they would do, but it won't be good.

In general and in the long term, I think there is a threat.

In the short term is internal power struggles. How Sunnis, Shiites and al Queda all establish stronger footholds in the same region sort of implies internal power struggles. Struggles such as these limit focus, and distract. When we left Lebanon, the state descended into internal conflict.

Let me ask you this. What does staying there do other than keep stasis and waste lives? What does the middle road accomplish? Nothing that we're doing today will allow us to leave a stable region in place. We've already committed the fundamental errors (the biggest of which is forcing an islamic coalition government) and just sitting here isn't going to correct them. So unless we do something different than what is claimed we simply buy insurance fo the time that we're there.

We've already spent an entire 9/11's worth of cost and lives to get here. Last time I checked when your "insurance policy" costs as much as the damange you're trying to protect against it cannot be called effective insurance.

I know this is tempting to want to hope that we can stick it out. The question is what must we do to warrant continued presence? This is what noone who favors staying can clearly articulate for me. If we are not doing those things, then the ONLY other option is to go home. I don't like going home any better than anyone else. It simply tables a problem that we will have to deal with again in another 5-10 years.

If someone can articluate that for me, the 2nd question I have is do we (meaning this small group of Objectivists who know the right path) have any hope of effectively influencing the current conservative party in power to take such actions - in a reasonable amount of time? I'll argue even more forcefully that in the long term maybe; in the short term not a chance.

I podcast a few radio shows like Medved and Rush, just to keep a ear to the general popular mood. Yesterday someone called into Medved advocating a pull out, for fear that the "war-mongers" would now want to risk more American lives in Iran. Medved said "I know of no-one on the right who is advocating direct confrontration with Iran in a serious manner." That is a pretty clear indication to me of our level of near term influence on the discussion.

I know the emotional temptation to keep hoping. BUt if this is really a decision that has the "go big or go home" sort of structure, then misplaced hope is dangerous. We can debate my assessment of the type of decision this is, but if you agree with the assessment, then you will eventually come to the conclusion that the middle road is the most dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we leave Iraq right now, it descends into total chaos.
It descends into total chaos, anyhow. The only way to stop the Shites and the Sunnies from spending the next 200 years slowly slaughtering each other in religious civil way is if we actually extinguish all traces of Islam in the region, or keep nuclear bombers circling the area 24 hours a day with order to level the playing field at the first sign of rudeness. Short of that, we might be able to contain the violence a bit better by partitioning the country into Shitistan and Sunnistan (oh, then there is the problem that the turkeys in Turkey will go ballistic if the Kurds are cut loose from this festering mess), which might cut the violence in half. Since there is no rational goal that we are working towards, it is not sensible to destroy thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars for nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It descends into total chaos, anyhow. The only way to stop the Shites and the Sunnies from spending the next 200 years slowly slaughtering each other in religious civil way is if we actually extinguish all traces of Islam in the region, or keep nuclear bombers circling the area 24 hours a day with order to level the playing field at the first sign of rudeness.

John Lewis' article in The Objective Standard "No option but victory" I think it was drew a very nice comparison to the post WWII Japan occupation. One of the stated objectives of the occupation was to exterminate any vestige of Shinto-ism, but only in politics. In other words, Shintoism outside of politics did not have to be touched, but it had to be completely expunged from the political sphere.

We have not done that, and are on no path to do that in Iraq. (not that I'm sure it would work there) Doing that would mean dismantling the constitution and coallition government that is already in place. This is one of the reasons I said that we have already committed the errors that will cause us to ultiamtely fail. Unless we are willing to undo some of that (or try again by confronting Iran) I don't see how any path could succeed.

I'm willing to entertain concrete ideas for consideration, but until I see something, I'm in the "let's go home" camp.

The ARI Epstein article was also helpful in thinking this through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It descends into total chaos, anyhow.

Not necessarily. Iraq is the only Middle Eastern state that is completely unstable. Yemen and Algeria aren't doing so hot, but they aren't nearly as bad as Iraq. I'm not suggesting that we want to let it become another Iran, in order to stabilize it, but it is not a foregone conclusion that Iraq winds up in a permanent state of anarchy.

By the way, people seem to take my position as one of "stay the course." While I don't think we should pull out, I don't think "stay the course" is an appropriate strategy either. We need a drastic rethinking of the strategy. Bush's recent proposals are an improvement, but still not good enough.

The only way to stop the Shites and the Sunnies from spending the next 200 years slowly slaughtering each other in religious civil way is if we actually extinguish all traces of Islam in the region, or keep nuclear bombers circling the area 24 hours a day with order to level the playing field at the first sign of rudeness.
You don't have to extinguish Islam to stop the violence...look at Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE. They're pretty much completely Muslim, but they're not bad at all. In fact, they're pretty darn moder, as far as that are of the world goes. The problem is not that there are different factions of Islam. The problem is that one side (Sunnis) have totally divested themselves from the government because they're sore over the fact that they lost power. The problem is also that the other side (Shiites) control the government...not to mention that Shiite militias are in control of several key ministries.

Short of that, we might be able to contain the violence a bit better by partitioning the country into Shitistan and Sunnistan (oh, then there is the problem that the turkeys in Turkey will go ballistic if the Kurds are cut loose from this festering mess), which might cut the violence in half.

Not to mention that partitioning the country would leave the Sunnis with no access to oil fields.

Since there is no rational goal that we are working towards, it is not sensible to destroy thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars for nothing.

While our goal of a "stable Iraq" may be misconceived, anything is better than what we've got right now. We're going about it in completely the wrong way, but leaving and giving up on stabilizing is not the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyday I grow more convinced that we should withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Let's examine what is happening geopolitically in this region. As we all know, Iraq is situated between Saudia Arabia, who are predominately Sunni, and Iran, who are predominately Shiite. King Abdullah has already pledged to support the Iraq Sunnis. Many Saudi citizens are already supporting the Sunni insurgency. There is also a plethora of evidence that Iranian politicians and extremist groups are lending their support to Shiite militias. All of this is indicative that we are going to see a power struggle between Saudia Arabia and Iran over the next eight to ten years that will be fought indirectly in Iraq. To leave our troops in Iraq will be to leave them in the crossfire of a battle between two of the most powerful nations in the Middle East. This conflict will last for many years and the price will be significant in terms of American lives, government funds and opportunity cost.

I do not see any reasons why we should have our troops stationed in the middle of all of this, especially since their stated objective (to my understanding) is to secure the region. Strategically, I cannot see how this can be done by just having more troops deployed to Iraq given that the violence on both sides is being fueled externally.

I would also like to reiterate the other arguments I have relayed from Jackson Diehl and Retired General Wesley Clark here and from Charles Krauthammer here.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, read "The Wreckage of the Consensus". It was eye opening to me. Replace VietNam with Iraq, and you'd think she wrote it about today's situation.

There were all sorts of "oh what will happen if we leave" predictions about that war, but I did not see her advocating a middle road. All In or All Out.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing that would mean dismantling the constitution and coallition government that is already in place. This is one of the reasons I said that we have already committed the errors that will cause us to ultiamtely fail. Unless we are willing to undo some of that (or try again by confronting Iran) I don't see how any path could succeed.
Beyond simply undoing the new constitution and dissolving the current regime, we would apparently have to write a new and essentially immutable constitution (since they've proven themselves incapable of doing it), and worse, we'd have to enforce the policy for many years. In all of our years in dealing with Iraq or the Mideast in general, we have not presented a clear unambiguous policy that lasted more than a fraction of an administration. What we would need is a policy that all presidents legislatures for the next 50 years would support by more than a begrudging majority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond simply undoing the new constitution and dissolving the current regime, we would apparently have to write a new and essentially immutable constitution (since they've proven themselves incapable of doing it), and worse, we'd have to enforce the policy for many years. In all of our years in dealing with Iraq or the Mideast in general, we have not presented a clear unambiguous policy that lasted more than a fraction of an administration. What we would need is a policy that all presidents legislatures for the next 50 years would support by more than a begrudging majority.

Exactly. This is the dreaded (by most) "colonization" option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia Claims President Bush “Do Not Burn Baghdad to Ashes! Stop Violence in Iraq Another Way, Use the UN Authority in The World and Move Forward to Another Political Strategy in Iraq!”

The main idea coming from Russia to US Government and President Bush, to Chief of Stuff Gen. Peter Pace and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates these days is straight clear and simple - Stop pretending in such difficult circumstances that somebody in the US Government is trying to create a sort of "market democratic Soviet Union” on the place of authoritarian Iraq! This is a roofless and rootless Utopian Idea. And it does not fit the reality in violent, divided and transitional Iraq. Central Government of Iraq cannot keep its promises simply because security in divided Iraq territories and towns does not depend on good will or wishes of Federal Government of Iraq. Like security in splitting Soviet Union did not depend on the will of the Government of Gorbachev’s – Government of the USSR at the time of rising republican and provincial governments, separatism and violence in former Soviet Union. Than, at the time of transitional split of the Soviet Union, shaman claims for unity and reconciliation of beautiful Soviet people did not work. And similar slogans and claims will never going to work in decomposing, violent and mistrustful Iraq in these difficult days.

It looks like nobody in the US Government understands and takes to account that simple idea - that there are at least 3 different communities in Iraq - dangerous to each other – and there is no such an ethnic phenomena – ethnic nation - one Iraqi people. There are Arabs and Kurds. And historically contradictions between Arabs Shiites and Arab Sunnis are so deep that there are no any grounds for the American people and the US Government to sacrifice everything for such a sacred goal - to send troops to the Middle East to recon ciliate and unite Sunnis and Shiites by force and at the expenses of 3000 and more!!! American lives. So the real goal and historical duty of US troops in former Iraq is to divide Sunnis and Shiites in the disputed territories so that they won't be able to contact and kill each other on the battle grounds and on the level of town and city districts. And in this case very often you will need not many troops but many trucks and minimum compensation money for refugees. It was in former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia and Croatia. And it will be necessary in Baghdad very soon.

So there are must be a US emergency plan and hundreds of big trucks available under the emblem of the UN for a life saving international humanitarian operation in Baghdad. And we must be realistic about amount of different people that may be taken with their possessions and moved and brought to safety from Shiites districts of Baghdad. It must be predicted and calculated before and not after rebel Shiites’ militia starts its last fighting. That may be fighting with no rules and no ceasefire.

These utopian beautiful prayers about reconciliation of Iraqi people, like similar slogans and prayers in 1980-s for reconciliation of the Soviet people! Those shaman tricks must not take us from a real task and the most important human rights on the plan - rights of the civil population of Baghdad – rights to live through military conflict and survive! So thousands of citizens of Baghdad must be protected by one thing – by their concrete ability to pack and go, and go not only on foot but on UN and US trucks to the better places of safety - until confronting sides will be divided and will be disarmed once and forever.

And only after this first priority job for US Army – only after establishing ‘corridors of security’ and secure one-party districts in Iraqi towns and secure borders between fighting parties – US Army and Political Leadership should continue special and constructive dialog with political, ethnic and military leadership of new Sunnis. And at the same time US must continue negotiations along with political and military leaders of new Arab Shiites in the South of former Iraq. And do the same job with already autonomous leaders of Kurds. Inside of each of those communities it is possible to create market and more or less democratic predictable system, corresponding with each other on administrative level. This is a new US policy in former Iraq and it is more productive, acceptable for American people. And it may immediately eliminate amount of violence between counter standing groups in Iraq. This selective and exactly to particular group’ addressed US policy inside Iraq will create chain of American allies along the Syrian and Iranian border.

This is a clear another suitable strategy for a new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Bush. If these decision makers want to look realistic and not dangerous for American people, for Arab world and for all international community. No use and no sense for them to express unbelievable illusions and support utopian political constructions, like communist shamans did. Stop claiming for a Criminal Utopia someone wants to involve American people to!

During the last US Congress Hearings on Iraq it become clear that The US Chief of Stuff Peter Pace does not know exactly how many Shiites and how many Sunnis were trained by US military instructors and how many of each group actually participate in patrolling Iraqi territory. At the same time almost 20 % of all trained by US Army Iraqi soldiers from total 325 000 are gone home with pay checks and disappeared or were dismissed and fired for belonging to group violence and rebel activity. It makes amount of such potential rebels on the level at least 60 000 people trained by US military personal and may be used like an extra force and extra source of military knowledge for terrorists and extremists for any kind, even for Al Kaida, who knows?!

Such lack of the professional knowledge and high rank ignorance on the highest level of Command of US troops is not acceptable anymore. The US Army command must separate new trained armed Iraqi forces on units, at least those of Sunnis separately and Shiites separately, and do it immediately now, before “Police Battle for Baghdad!” started! And only after that minimum job will be done there will be a chance to use these units very delicately, each unit precisely, in particular operation. Otherwise there is a clear risk for innocent victims of such irresponsible policy – concrete American soldiers and officers in Iraq. Just think about it – today in Baghdad and tomorrow at the moment for a new battle for cleaning Baghdad from aggressive Shiite militia in certain districts of Iraq capital – at this very moment US Command still does not know what concrete Iraqi soldier belongs to what concrete believe system!!! US Command does not know exactly how many Shiite thinking and Sunni thinking personal in police and in the army right now! Although technically and professionally American instructors should train those Iraqi groups separately and isolated from local political leaders, of cause. Until today this is a time bomb, it is a dangerous spreading of confident information about mining and de-mining, police and street battle tactics. This is a total irresponsibility under the banner of ‘Friendship among the Nations”. This is a real havoc instead of predictable and constructive, very selective personally, predictable order.

Although even in “recon ciliated” mix military and police patrols those Shiite and Sunni soldiers have each one – his own different Arab scarf. Why?! What for?! That happens everyday in divided Baghdad with special purpose – such Iraqi soldier wants to look different from his comrades in battle so that hidden rebels will target and shoot anybody but not him with the certain scarf.

You must divide them, and divide seeds from weeds also. If that necessary work will not be done in the nearest future than in the street fighting on the streets of Baghdad American soldiers will be put in unnecessary risk to be targeted by any of those mix personal Iraqi units and will be defendless against such ‘friendly fire’ in absolute havoc in the middle of vital police operation in Baghdad. Who will be responsible when those mix and hardly predictable Iraqi units will not be able to do the job – come and disarm rebel Shiites’ districts in Baghdad?! That is going to be a mess and another, Arab Stalingrad and another Groznyy for US Army. US Army Command has to make immediate corrections, according to everything, line by line, upper written. Otherwise groundless illusions in the State Department, lack of political realism among top decision-makers and uncountable mixture of mosaic Iraqi troops on the ground instead of compact, predictable, only under US command, one-tribe each, local, pro-American special forces, up to each individual soldier or policeman known and had taken to account by US Army Intelligence (why this is still has not been done?!!!)…

Those changes must be done before any so called operation started. By not doing any of these necessary corrections powers will put American soldiers in Baghdad into Hell of additional risk and danger of loosing tens and hundreds lives of American soldiers with miserable results at the end of the planning massive and may be very destructive operation in 2007.

Shortly speaking the US Plan for Iraq for 2007 may look so:

1. President Bush in his offers for a new 2007 should concentrate attention on new mission for the US Army on territory of former Iraq - establishing and showing for Iraqi people concrete possibilities of successful dividing conflicting groups on territory of former Iraq. This is a new mission for American Army for 2007 - establishing “corridors of security" on the territory of "Zone of International War on Terror."

2. President Bush should declare a concrete task for US forces in former Iraq - By US military force to close the border with Syria and Iran for everybody. Until now those borders, especially the border with Iran is too transparent for terrorists and everybody can see it.

3. Prison in Guantanamo should be closed except the room for future Cubans - those members of Castro administration who used torches and other repressions against democrats in Cuba.

4. On the other hand UN quarantine camps should be established in all areas of Iraq as it was in postwar Germany so that everyone who participates in terror and violence in former Iraq should be immediately deported for minimum 6 months for quarantine isolation and no matters should be acknowledged for immediate release such temporary prisoners with the help of irresponsible calls and orders of any local Iraqi powers. UN quarantine camps must be established on the territory of former Iraq according International Law and under a flag of the UN.

5. UN flag and UN emblems must start protect and save lives of American soldiers on the territory of former Iraq in any place. US flag of American troops on all the territory of former Iraq should be exchanged for the UN flag, except US military bases, on the territory of those bases. And the special US forces in Iraq must always have emblems and big letters of the UN and no other signs in any situations. And all police and patrolling operations of the US forces in the cities of former Iraq must be managed the way that at least 50 % of the patrolling unit must be not the American soldiers but that of Arab league and NATO, other members of the UN and all of them must have UN letters on their uniform always when local population see them.

6. " Divorce, Full of Dignity”. This political formula saved millions of lives in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia and all the Soviet Union at the moment of split. US mission in the Middle East is not to glue artificial states when this state can be kept only by force and uncountable amount of victims but to offer an administrative technology to keep each separate one-party part in adequate condition and peace. You may call it later a Confederation of Iraq but the matter should be clear - To stop the violence NATO had to take hard arms of Yugoslavian Army from the hills of Sarajevo. And the Serbian population NATO had to take out from town too. Baghdad’s military Shiites militia must be disarmed and brought to separate region ones and forever and the population must be divided and moved, where it is necessary even on trucks. Moved and divided by corridors of security how it was done in former Yugoslavia once and forever.

7. In 2007 US should not train any - any! - new military personal for conflicting groups and clangs on former Iraqi territory. Those new military technicians, trained by Americans, become a cause and a real fuel for an escalation of a new violence between conflicting groups. This is not only sectarian violence. This is a huge pragmatic and cynical war for power and just religion can not explain all the cases during this war. So stop supply region with new sophisticated and technologically educated killers trained by US Army personal on the money of US taxpayers!!! This is a crazy policy of provoking more and more violence among the local population. For a while police forces on separated territories should be controlled and motivated for actions only by UN command. Any other military and police activity on divided and separated from each other Sunni and Shiite territories should be prohibited and the UN quarantine camps must be functional in those areas as the tool of establishing concrete order in all the levels.

8. Secretary of State Condolisa Rice must take all the responsibility for all the political bloomers in Iraq and she must offer to President Bush her own, Condolisa's Rice, unconditional resignation. The King is what the Court is. American Army is not guilty in failures on former Iraq territory. All the guilt is on the political sector of President's Administration and clear misleading President Bush, done for years!!! by Condolisa Rice. Like she was failing and misleading America and President Bush with the situation with Byelorussia! for example. There were minimum affective political technologies implemented by sweat speaking Condolisa Rice to stop dictator Lukashenko for years and years too!!!

9. Collin Powell should be invited for an effective administrative role in seeking for a methodological way out from this curable and temporarily painful political situation.

10. In 2007 American people should be better informed about American mission in the Middle East. People should be better informed about different successful possibilities for the US and the world in this conflict. It is former Iraq territory like that was territory of the former Soviet Union. It is a Zone of International War on Terror. What peaceful states will be organized on the territory of former Iraq is a practical issue for American Administration in 2007. Utopian One United Iraq with one army and one police unit should not be a sacred goal for Administration of President Bush/ He is not a magician to restore united empires and order absolutely different people to love, obey and follow each other. This is actually a crucial mislead of the President of the United States - to ask American people to sacrifice their lives for so called "unity of Iraq", "United Democratic Iraq". This is a Criminal Utopia that costs American people too many innocent lives. Peace on former territory of former Iraq is a totally another story and President Bush may offer an affective administrative plan to divide confronting groups and political clans on territory of former Iraq and with all the responsibility of the UN and NATO experience to restore visual and functional order on those different territories in their transitional periods toward future democracy.

January 2007.

Alexander Bogdanov,

Saint-Petersburg,

Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who said that we have no reason to be there, what about the people in Iraq, even though there may be few, who do want freedom, and aren't interested in the sectarian violence. Don't they matter? Ayn Rand surely believed that there was nothing more important than individual freedom, so why doesn't theirs matter? Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand also believed that you should never sacrifice yourself for another person. If it would be in this country's best interests to leave, then we should do so without consideration of its impact on Iraqi civilians. I, personally, believe it is not in our interest to leave, but my opinion has nothing to do with the welfare of Iraqi civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand believed that you should never live for another person, but dying for the cause of freedom is not sacrifice. You are dying to protect something that you love. I agree with you that it is not in our best interest to leave. I have another thought, as well. If the Iraqi people want to be free so much, why are they not doing more to help accomplish it? Anyway, I see your point, but I just don't think it is right or logical that we would leave for any reason, when ultimately it would probably hurt us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand believed that you should never live for another person, but dying for the cause of freedom is not sacrifice. You are dying to protect something that you love.

whose freedom?

but I just don't think it is right or logical that we would leave for any reason, when ultimately it would probably hurt us.

Now, if it would ultimately hurt us to leave, more than it would hurt us to stay under any arbitrary set of objectives, then that is certainly a reason to stay. But I haven't heard that argument articulated. If we stay, but the manner in which we are prosecuting this war is all wrong as Moose says, then how does this play out that the impact to us of staying (perpetually it seems) is better than of leaving now?

I am first for staying under a very specific set of objectives, or for leaving now - but not for the middle ground. I have not heard the middle ground articulated very well by any who favor it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a few days old but fortunately the al-Maliki government has been making some quiet progress in extinguishing al-Sadr's Mehdi army. Unfortunately, I cannot see al-Sadr's influence truly ending as long as he has loyalists in at least 30 of the 235 seats in the Iraqi Legislative Branch and six loyalists of the 37 members in the Iraqi Cabinet.

I would be open to extending our troop's stay in Iraq if there was a clearly defined, realistic plan to squash al-Sadr's political and military influence. Although given the present regional zeitgeist, it would not be difficult for someone else to just take his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

The United States should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, just as the US should never have sent ground troops into Vietnam, but the argument is academic its happened and we can't rewind time what matters is what we do now and I for one do not agree with leaving.

Firstly the middle east sits upon vast reserves of oil which is the lifeblood of our economy, without which the western economies would collapse. It is therefore in America's interest to establish pro-western regimes. When I say pro-western I'm not very much concerned with their human rights records but whether or not they are hostile or not to western interests. Saddam's regime so long as it was applied with a mixture of carrots and sticks would have been a good client. (He was before the 1st Gulf War - was our proxy against Iran and ruthlessly suppressed any Islamic terrorists within his borders). Instead we opted for regime change and opened up a can of worms.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly it will be seen around the world as a defeat for the west and will only encourage islamic radicalism among the muslim population within the west. And it is terrorists operating within our borders rather than some rogue tinpot regimes which may or may not be developing weapons of mass destruction that are the real threat to our security. They must not be given a morale boost by leaving in Iraq.

Personally I think the most probable outcome if things continue as they are is a humiliating failure. The much touted Iraqi security forces who are supposed to hand over control will probably disintegrate once the coalition troops leave and the new regime which will emerge will be much more hostile to western interests.

If the coalition is to prevail it will require new leadership one that is prepared to admit that the counter-insurgency cannot depend solely upon volunteer soldiers but must resort to conscription to rapidly expand the numbers of troops on the ground. It must then prepare the public for heavy casualties because these troops will have to leave their bases and aggressively patrol Iraq. Once the average Iraqi is confident that the Coalition is here to stay he will start to collaborate with it as most Iraqi are sure the Coalition will leave and they don't want to be tagged as collaborators when the local miltia come knocking at their door to settle a few scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...