Getting a strange error message when I try to leave a trackback. I linked to this post and the Donald Sensing post (and earlier to Uncle Jimbo Hanson's related post) from Choosing Victory In Iraq

Going big for what?

If the goal is to make Baghdad an armed camp, er, prison, er peaceful, er "open city" (insert favorite phrase here), then sounds good to me, as long as we commit to that goal, let the rest of Iraq go if necessary, and the surge is just for the initial clearing operations.

But if we're continuously going to be shifting troops around playing whack-a-mole, then no, I am not for it. I am not for holding and clearing Baghdad unless we (and the Iraqis) have the political will to keep it secure once it is cleared.

In my opinion, the generals are betting if we clear Baghdad very thoroughly one time, it will discourage the insurgents enough to break them. I call BS on this idea. We must assume that in clearing Baghdad, while having a great long-term impact, will just make things worse in the short term. I'm okay with that -- as long as other folks are too.

But just announcing the tactic (going big) without coupling that to some goal we're trying to achieve? How is anybody supposed to judge a tactic without knowing specifically what it's supposed to be accomplishing?

But just announcing the tactic (going big) without coupling that to some goal we're trying to achieve? How is anybody supposed to judge a tactic without knowing specifically what it's supposed to be accomplishing?

Kagen's plan "accomplishes" the "clearing" of Sunni insurgents from Baghdad. Once that is accomplished, he expects the various Shia militias to give up their weapons voluntarily.

Right now, Iraq is in the process of partitioning itself Part of that process is happening in miniature in Baghdad itself, with Sunnis taking over the west side of the city, and the Shia the east--with the Tigris the de facto dividing line.

(Kevin Drum posted a military map showing the overall situation in Baghdad -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,374645,00.jpg ).

Much the violence going on in Iraq right now --especially the violence aimed at civilians, is aimed at claiming territory/establishing secure enclaves. (This is turning much of Iraq into hell on earth -- and creating a huge refugee problem that the US government is virtually ignoring. )

US policy is aimed at a unified, non-partitioned Iraq. The US is saying "you all have to live together in peace and harmony". And both the Sunni and the Shia understand THAT isn't going to be happening, and that a "unified" Iraq means that one side dominates, and the other side is suppressed. Thus we have a civil war going on in Iraq -- because the Bush regime goals at at odds with reality.

The apparent intent of the "surge" is to set up the conditions under which the "unified" government of Iraq can function, mostly by "securing" Baghdad.

and its not going to work. We might kill a whole bunch of Iraqis, create a million more refugees, and level half of Baghdad --- but its not going to make Iraq any more "unified" or governable.

"and its not going to work. We might kill a whole bunch of Iraqis, create a million more refugees, and level half of Baghdad --- but its not going to make Iraq any more "unified" or governable."

Sure it will. Simply reduce the Sunni areas inside Shia ones, make it clear they lost, and any continued fighting will simply result in total destruction.

People stop fighting when they are totally whipped. Curtis LeMay reducing ever city in Germany and Japan had a result: every German and Japanese knew they were whipped, and there was no use in fighting. They'd just get everyone killed.

DO THIS FAST and the results end up with fewer deaths. Drum is like other libs, lives in a fantasy land where conflicts are solved by talking. NO CONFLICT EVER has been solved by talking. EVER. It merely cements the desire to stop fighting after one side is whipped.

Iraq in separate ethnic/tribal/religious cantons is at least as governable as the US circa, say, 1866.

Simply reduce the Sunni areas inside Shia ones, make it clear they lost, and any continued fighting will simply result in total destruction.

the words you are looking for here are "ethnic cleansing through violence and intimdation."

It really is no different than the methods used by Saddam in suppressing the Kurdish and Shia insurgencies.

Of course, any ethnic cleansing campaign of the Sunnis taken on behalf of the Shia's isn't going to sit well with the rest of the Sunni world.... and the US could find itself being targeted throughout the Sunni - dominated Islamic world....

The most important questions are I think these:

1. How much longer can we wait before concluding that a unitary state is not likely to sustain itself?

2. Would the Shia Arabs in Iraq be satisfied with partition? Should we facilitate it or spin our wheels and let the various factions redraw the map by force?

3. If the Sunnis (and/or the Shias) do not accept partition, do we take sides in a war by one side to suppress the other? If we take one side or remain neutral, can we deter neighboring countries from intervening on behalf of the other side?

4. If one side does not accept partition and we do not take sides, or if we take one side but cannot keep neighbors from joining in, and a wider regional war follows (between Sunnis led by Saudi Arabia and Shias led by Iran), can we stay out of the regional war if the fighting is confined to Iraqi territory?

5. In the event of a regional war in which one side launches missile attacks against the oil facilities of the other, can we limit ourselves to defending the ground and airspace of the Arab states and the sea lanes in and out of the Gulf? Could we provide this defense without entering Iranian airspace, without attacking Iranian ground targets, and without blockading Iranian merchant shipping?

6. Can we win a conventional war with Iran if it comes to that? What would be a definition of victory and the costs of achieving it? What could go wrong?

The situation could level off before stages 5 or 6. But all of these questions look reachable to me if a unitary and stable Iraq cannot be achieved, or at least cannot be achieved in a timeframe that the American people are willing to support.

"NO CONFLICT EVER has been solved by talking. EVER"

Wasn't the bosnian war solved by the TAIF agreement (altough I am unfamiliar with the events leading up to the agreement)? Although far from ideal (and not officially an end to war) the North/South Korea ceasefire has lasted 50 years. Again, far from ideal (and probably not a dependable option), but could be a slightly better option than genocide or full scale civil war.

The Bosnian war was ended by an accord, but it essentially did nothing but codify the status quo of the time - a status quo that was the result of the efforts of the armies.

The Korean armistice did not "solve" anything as the border remains the most heavily fortified border in the world. The current tension over the North Korean nuclear weapon program would hardly be evidence of a "solution".

Alchemist may wish to refresh that memory re: the role of the American/NATO military in Yugoslavia/Bosnia. Not to mention the German military, who took sides and quietly trained /equipped the Croats until they started beating the Serbs. Whereupon the Serbs suddenly discovered that they might be willing to talk seriously instead of just jerking negotiators around.

I'll add that what ended up happening is Kosovo as a result of NATO intervention is more or less the ethnic cleansing of its Serbs to Serbia proper. I personally don't shed a ton of tears for the Serbs, who behaved themselves right into it over a long period of time all around Yugoslavia, and made it clear that peaceful coexistence was impossible. So they got war, defeat, and non-coexistence instead.

Going Big is part of the solution. The easy part. But also it is the indespensible part. Its easy to say let the Iraqis do it, but that is simply an impossibility. We can either whine about the unfairness of it and lose in Iraq, or accept the reality of it and roll up our sleeves.

Nothing of any substance can be done in Iraq when dozens of people are brazenly murdered on the streets on a daily basis. Until the chaos in Baghdad is brought under a semblance of control, the Iraqi security forces have about as much hope of improving the situation as the captain of the Titanic had of bailing out his ship. Again- it doesnt matter who's fault or responsibility it is, all that matters is that the Iraqi government cant have its act gotten together (by themslves or by us per force) until Bahgdad is secure. Its a catch 22 for the Iraqis.

The army cant secure the capital until the government is fixed, and the government cant be fixed until the capital is secured. All this talk of making the Iraqis 'want' to fix Iraq is beside the point- you cant make a skydiver fly by taking his parachute away.

"NO CONFLICT EVER has been solved by talking. EVER"

Hmm. Breakup of Czechoslovakia? Russo-Japanese War? It sort of depends on what you mean by conflict and talking, but the truth is that total military victory is not the only end status out there.

Agreed.

The problem with 'go big' as a strategy is we simply don't have the boots in our scaled back post cold war military to do it right and sufficient to make a difference. And GWB never had the 'nads to demand the government domestic spending cutbacks needed to go back to 15 division army, and worse added alot of new entitlement programs which made that economically unfeasible.

In the mean time, as I've always said, 'going big' half-way will just end up increasing the friction on the ground as our bootprint on the Iraqi public increases but no measurable increases in security accompany it.

Sure, if we could afford to put 400k troops in Iraq on a rotating indefinate basis, 'go big' might work. But that's just not a real option.

There are a few things we can do realistically going a little bigger. We can put more trainers on the ground. But that's not enough to enforce a solution to the problem, so in the end we will end up with a military victory which does not achieve most of the political and cultural goals we desired. That means the best we can manage out of this is a marginal victory (which Austin Bay prophetically foretold early after the fall of Baghdad when WMD's didn't materialize), but then the question becomes how much the perception of defeat the American public is likely to have will deter American intervention in the region when it becomes needed in the near future - as seems all too likely.

Of course, that was an issue even before the war, as the post-Vietnam perception that if the victory isn't overwhelming and without cost then its not really a victory has been coloring every US military action since then with or without this little slog in the sand box.

You guys bring up a great point.

"Go Big" is really just a slogan. Nobody is really talking about going big. Sure, maybe another 40K troops in Baghdad for a few months, but that's not big.

Maybe it should be called "Go a little bigger"

Nobody is calling for activation 5-10 divisions, so nobody is really talking about going big. It's "let's do what we were already doing, we'll just make it hurt more and give it a new name"

I love groupthink.

but then the question becomes how much the perception of defeat the American public is likely to have will deter American intervention in the region when it becomes needed in the near future - as seems all too likely.

its not "the perception of defeat" that changes Americans attitutdes toward war --- its the "perception of futility." Defeat means you withdraw, learn from experience, and regroup. It means that there will be support next time -- as long as you acknowledge "lessons learned."

But the refusal to admit defeat, and the insistance upon pouring more and more resources into the same bottomless pit in order to avoid admitting defeat --- now that is going to make Americans extremely cautious about supporting another war, even when it is necessary.

Things have fallen apart in Iraq--its a lost cause. We are a year or two from having them fall apart in Afghanistan, and have that become a lost cause as well. We need to get out of Iraq, and concentrate on getting it right in Afghanistan before it is too late there as well.

I do think we should be careful with our assumptions. We could truly go big, its not physically impossible. In WWI, The United States went from basically 1 deployable division to fielding 25,000 troops a week across the Atlantic within a year. It's possible.

Is it plausible? In this context, of course not. But my point is we should clarify what is politically likely and what is simply metaphysically impossible to do (surprisingly few things in this context actually).

Everything we agree needs to be done to have a chance to win in Iraq is entirely possible for the US to do, and do very quickly. We could deploy an arbitrary amount of men to the streets of Baghdad, ramp up our industry on a war footing to repair the Iraqi infastructure, hermetically seel all the borders with landmines, barbed wire, berms, and machine gun pits, and basically lock the country down and fix the infastructure and corrupt government.

That is possible, physically. It is not possible politically, under the current parameters. So instead of looking at the shape of our square peg and assuming the shape of the Iraqi hole, I suggest we need to decide exactly what we need to do in Iraq and then create the political conditions necessary to execute those things. In other words, excercize leadership instead of playing to the least common denominator. The American people might respect that.

Or if we judge the effort required too great to ask, the peacenicks are absolutley correct, we should pack up and leave as soon as possible.

To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The biggest reason we are where we are today is those in positions of leadership insist on projecting solutions in Iraq to what tools are easily at hand. Obviously that's insane. Somebody needs to grow up in a hurry and figure out whats going to work and how to get it. In a big hurry.

So instead of looking at the shape of our square peg and assuming the shape of the Iraqi hole, I suggest we need to decide exactly what we need to do in Iraq and then create the political conditions necessary to execute those things. In other words, excercize leadership instead of playing to the least common denominator. The American people might respect that.

Mark...
While its undoubtably true that we could do whatever we wanted to in Iraq (as long as we did seal the borders), the question remains...."what happens when we leave?"

Obviously, in order to pacify Iraq, we'd have to be pretty authoritarian, and not worry about niceties like free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Now, we can impose within that authoritarian framework a "democratic" government structure --- but everyone will know where the power really lies (kind of like Iran, actually).

But, how long do we have to keep our boot on the neck of the Iraqi people before they accept the wonderfulness of the democratic captialist system that we are providing them with for their own benefit?

Three years? A decade? Forever?

luka -

Familiar with the history of Taiwan? Korea?

A.L.

Luka may be unsurprised to find that I do not agree with the "lost cause" analysis... but then our causes may be different. I do question whether the US can currently win with the tactics, procedures, and overall concept of operations it is displaying. If those are the key gaps preventing US troops from achieving success, it doesn't matter how many more you add unless your plan includes fixes for those issues as well.

If that isn't a serious problem or fixes are included, more troops could be an answer that makes sense. In which case, the plan for using them should be able to answer the rest of the questions above and provide a reasonable chain of explanation and set of options for the US effort that takes us from more troops inserted plus various supporting options as needed to changes X, Y and Z among the key players in Iraq, leading to an improved security situation there that will last beyond the span of those troop deployments and provide the basis for desirable outcomes A, B, C or D.

The Baker Commission tried to be that, but was guaranteed to be seen as hostile by Iraqis because of its leader (what a dumb political choice). Worse, its causal chains of here's how we get from here to there were/are (correctly) seen as weak.

It should be obvious that if a chain of explanation isn't convincing, many other options exist besides withdrawal.

For instance, I'll grant that even the ISG Report could be a viable basis for a going-forward strategy if you added other supporting elements to fit it into the larger war, and made sure the levers designed to be used as punishments for those who chose to fight really were punishments (Baker's 'things to threaten' would mostly be seen as benefits by the people he was trying to influence - remind me again why they call these folks 'realists'?).

But at a minimum, I submit that the overall strategy for conducting war in the Iraqi theater and the Gulf region needs to reflect the realities on the ground illustrated by the answers to the questions above. This isn't about blame, it's about a credible underpinning for the fight US troops are in.

If Plan A + procedure set A doesn't fit the realities on the ground, then better keep bringing plans and re-thinking the way one operates until something that does fit is found.

If Plan A + procedure set A doesn't fit the realities on the ground, then better keep bringing plans and re-thinking the way one operates until something that does fit is found.

this isn't rubik's cube, Joe. If the lives of American soldiers, and the Iraqi people --- not to mention tax dollars, America's reputation in the world, the fact that radical islamic fundamentalists have taken over Mogadishu in Somalia, a couple of provinces in Pakistan, and seem to have the momentum in Afghanistan....

Grow up. Learn to admit that you were wrong, that Bush was wrong, that we failed in Iraq, and that you've learned a lesson --- because there is too much at stake in the REST of the world to let Bush's (and apparently, your) ego control the situation.

"Obviously, in order to pacify Iraq, we'd have to be pretty authoritarian, and not worry about niceties like free speech, freedom of religion, etc."

That isn't obvious to me at all. Just putting a 'cop' on every corner would go a long way to settling Baghdad down. If you bother to look at the eb and flow of violence in Iraq you can chart with a pen the levels of violence depending on where the US masses its troops (hint- its not where they are for very long, its where they arent). This game of wack-i-mole is ludicrious. Indigenous forces cant be trained to be effective in the midst of this any more than honest cops could be trained to control Capone era Chicago. So you bring in outsiders to settle things down, IE, Untouchables.

"But, how long do we have to keep our boot on the neck of the Iraqi people before they accept the wonderfulness of the democratic captialist system that we are providing them with for their own benefit? "

I don't know Luca, why don't you leave it to those of use who actually believe in the wonderfullness of the Democratic capitalist system to debate?

Joe, good points, but I think we have a bigger, fundamental problem to face as I said above. Its a problem that may be inherint in fighting a war via committee. We cant even diagnose what is going on without masses of political noise interfering. Small wonder all our conclusions are so suspect.

Until we break ourselves of the habit of trying to develop a strategic overview of Iraq predicated upon what resources we are willing to commit to it, we are going to predictably find ourselves more and more detached from the reality of the situation (whatever that may be).

This is worse than assuming a ladder. This is assuming your ladder is tall enough half way up the thing.

Mark B.

I think you are being uncharicteristically unrealistic. Just putting a 'cop' on every corner would NOT go a long way to settling Baghdad down. Surely it is much more a matter or rooting out and capturing the terrorists, insurgents, militiamen. This will take a very active and energetic role by US military...house to house, checkpoints, searches. And in doing so, of course,--and this is the central dillema--we would alienate more and more citizens.

Keep in mind, we have captured or killed tens of thousands. The violence continues unabated. In fact, it grows. The only way we could stop it is to take very severe, draconian measures. Martial law, really. But this risks backfiring by creating further hostility.

We are truly damned if we do, and damned if we don't. There is no easy, no-risk solution.

Mark B said "Until we break ourselves of the habit of trying to develop a strategic overview of Iraq predicated upon what resources we are willing to commit to it, we are going to predictably find ourselves more and more detached from the reality of the situation (whatever that may be)."

This is absolutely correct in my opinion. Add to that the problem of agreeing on intermediate goals without partisan bickering and you've got a real mess. When I ran an article a few days ago asking what goals the ISG was trying to accomplish and whether we could agree with them, commenters (luka specifically) were determined to wander off into attacking the current administration. It seems impossible for some folks on all sides to step away and answer the simple question: what would you like to accomplish in measurable terms in the next three years and what specific tactics do you recommend for us to get there?

So we know the long-term problem, but we can't agree on medium-term goals or the current situation. The Department Of Defense (which should be renamed the War Department for their own good) isn't making things happen with their force posture, so instead of fixing that problem, they want to do the wrong thing even faster.

No measurable goals, no ability to talk dispassionately, no agreement on tactics, and unwillingness from the establishment to provide the resources the nation requires.

It'd be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.

_"I think you are being uncharicteristically unrealistic. Just putting a 'cop' on every corner would NOT go a long way to settling Baghdad down. _"

I think you are underestimating the effect of total lawlessness is having on Baghdad. On one point the AP story is telling- people do get dragged out into the street and murdered in broad daylight. Multiple cars packed with explosives do get detonated in crowded areas. Until that ends nothing else is particularly worth talking about.

"Surely it is much more a matter or rooting out and capturing the terrorists, insurgents, militiamen."

Eventually, yes. But in an attitude of total lawlessness, gang-land rule, etc, the indigenous Iraqis can be counted on for nothing but corruption and ineptitude. If we can establish at least the pretext of calm, we may be able to address these other things, ideally by getting Iraqis on the street under our eyes to do it themselves. Without establishing some semblence of the rule of law that is currently impossible.

"The only way we could stop it is to take very severe, draconian measures."

I dont think that is a given. Right now there is essentially no law and no security. Why dont we try establishing even a basic level before we worry about the other?

"We are truly damned if we do, and damned if we don't. There is no easy, no-risk solution."

On that we agree. But at some point I would think we'd be tired of diagnosing just how wet our feet are and start bailing out the boat.

Luka,

Grow up yourself, and grasp the fact that ALL war is a Rubik's Cube (and the enemy get to lay hands on it too). That's its fundamental nature.

As such, yes you do keep bringing ideas, precedents, analysis, actions and results to bear until a plan is found that makes deeper sense. The Western Way of War has historically been more successful precisely because its underlying structure makes it more likely to undergo such rethinks mid-stride.

luka writes: "Grow up. Learn to admit that you were wrong, that Bush was wrong, that we failed in Iraq, and that you've learned a lesson --- because there is too much at stake in the REST of the world to let Bush's (and apparently, your) ego control the situation."

There is too much at stake to continue to tolerate your style of "debate" which is to make no contribution other than a continual greek chorus of anti-Bush bleating. It is precisely that which has undermined the war on terrorism far more mortally than any particular operational or strategic error.

"Things have fallen apart in Iraq--its a lost cause. We are a year or two from having them fall apart in Afghanistan, and have that become a lost cause as well. We need to get out of Iraq, and concentrate on getting it right in Afghanistan before it is too late there as well."

For two years now I've been saying that things are going worse in Afghanistan than they are in Iraq, and that Afghanistan had far more in common with Vietnam than Iraq ever could. For two years now I've been predicting that by the time that the liberal idiots understand that, they'll have drawn all the wrong conclusions. Sooner or latter some idiot is going to do all the wrong things LBJ did in Vietnam, and in an interesting twist of irony folks like Luka are going to cheer him or more likely her on.

It seems impossible for some folks on all sides to step away and answer the simple question: what would you like to accomplish in measurable terms in the next three years and what specific tactics do you recommend for us to get there?

when you frame the question in a way that assumes a minimum three year commitment, you preclude the solutions favored by the vast majority of americans. It is "impossible" to talk about what we need to do in the next three years in Iraq when the answer is "get out in one year."

If you want to restrict your discussions to the small minority of Americans who favor an indefinite commitment of US troops and treasure to Iraq, you should say so up front "Sorry, we don't want to know what the vast majority of Americans think"

As to your accusation that all i did was Bush-bash, go back and read the thread. I offered a comprehensive strategy for withdraw in 12 months. I explained the goals and rationale for it.

Winds of Change is supposedly a "centrist" blog --- but whenever anyone offers a solution favored by the majority of americans they are vilified as "Bush bashers", of "wanting the terrorists to win", etc. etc.

************************

Just putting a 'cop' on every corner would go a long way to settling Baghdad down.

this is not a serious proposal. It is little more than asking individual american soldiers to make themselves targets.

If you bother to look at the eb and flow of violence in Iraq you can chart with a pen the levels of violence depending on where the US masses its troops (hint- its not where they are for very long, its where they arent). This game of wack-i-mole is ludicrious.

This would explain why attacks against US forces are at an all time high. Apparently the insurgents are attacking US troops in "masses".

You are right about the failure of the "whack a mole" strategy. The question is, especially as it concerns Baghdad, how do you "clear" it of insurgents? If "an american soldier on every corner" is your answer, just how many of those soldiers to you think will be coming home in body bags?

Indigenous forces cant be trained to be effective in the midst of this any more than honest cops could be trained to control Capone era Chicago. So you bring in outsiders to settle things down, IE, Untouchables.

except for one thing.... 61% of Iraqis (and since that includes Kurds, the percentage in Baghdad is probably higher) think its legitimate to shoot at Eliot Ness and his gang. And of course in Chicago, the cops were part of a unified system of corruption --- in Iraq, they are targets.

There comes a point in any battle where its obvious that "fighting on" will only result in more slaughter, and that reinforcements that might be available in the short term will be insufficient to turn the tide. Sure you can continue to fight the losing battle almost indefinitely -- but it remains pointless.

There is no draft coming, so army of 300,000 raw recruits who will show up in 18 months and save the day.

This is the position of the vast majority of Americans -- people who were told that this war was necessary because of a threat that didn't exist, people who were told that we would be little or no resistance once Baghdad fell, people who were told that the initial insurgency was a bunch of "dead enders", people who were told that killing Saddam's sons would turn the corner, that capturing Saddam would turn the corner, that turning over sovereignty would turn the corner, that levelling Fallujah would turn the corner, that purple fingers would turn the corner, that forming a government would turn the corner....

Too many corners have turned, too many "next six months will be crucial" have passed, and too many dollars and lives have been wasted in an effort whose result is a situation that is "grave and deteriorating".

This is a democracy -- and the American people have lost faith in the leadership of this war. That is the most critical fact you have to deal with....

You can blame the press, blame the "leftists", blame the Iraqis -- blame whoever you want to besides yourself for supporting this pointless war in the first place.

But the time has come to recognize that the battle is lost, and to think about an orderly withdraw of your forces. There are other battles to fight, and squandering resources on a hopeless cause makes no sense.

There is too much at stake to continue to tolerate your style of "debate" which is to make no contribution other than a continual greek chorus of anti-Bush bleating. It is precisely that which has undermined the war on terrorism far more mortally than any particular operational or strategic error.

HOW DARE YOU!?!? BLAMING SOMEONE LIKE ME, WHEN YOU ARE WALLOWING IN THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT IRAQIS AND AMERICAN TROOPS. IS THAT HOW YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT? BY BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE FOR THE CARNAGE THAT YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED?

For four years George W. Bush was given everything he wanted to fight the "war on terror" by a Rubber Stamp congress -- and rode roughshod over the constitution to take even more.

But its all Bush's American critics fault that Iraq is "grave and deteriorating", that the situation in Afghanistan is looking worse and worse, that the Pakistani government has been forced to cede provinces bordering Afghanistan to pro-Taliban forces, that Somalia is now being effectively run by radical islamic fundamentalists -- and that their influence is spreading. Its all Bush's American critics fault that we can get no international support in Iraq, and that America is more and more despised throughout the globe every day.

Believe me, no one has paid the slightest bit of attention to those of us who have been critical of Bush and this war from the start. There were no opponents on the ISG. And even though we were right, our voices are still a rarity in the media -- except for those of us who say "well we shouldn't have gone in, but we can't leave now."

Luka,

"BLAMING SOMEONE LIKE ME, WHEN YOU ARE WALLOWING IN THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT IRAQIS AND AMERICAN TROOPS."

The blood of innocent Iraqis, guilty Iraqis, American troops, and a lot more are on all of our hands as citizens. As long as you live in the United States of America, you support the system of government that has caused these deaths, whether you actually supported the war or not. If you want to feel truly guiltless, you should move to some nation that has policies that hurt noone. BTW, that place does not exist.

Your opinions are your moral choice. You have every right to be outraged. However, if you feel the war and the recent activity to be immoral, be aware that you are a willing participant in the whole thing. Nobody gets off the hook. So go look in a mirror. After you get through with your right to be outraged, protest, and otherwise enjoy your emotional life, self righteousness, and self-congratualations, you're still a citizen. And that carries responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that you are a citizen even if things don't go your way. You don't get a card that says "Citizen only for things I like". It doesn't work like that.

"this is not a serious proposal. It is little more than asking individual american soldiers to make themselves targets."

Im getting real tired of you telling me which of my proposals are serious or not. All of our soldiers are targets. Its a function of their job. Any one of them will tell you they would prefer being targets while making strides towards stabalizing Iraq than being targets while the nation crumbles around their ears do to our ineffective policies.

"This would explain why attacks against US forces are at an all time high. Apparently the insurgents are attacking US troops in "masses"."

Again, you dont premise your military strategy based on keeping your soldiers out of harms way. The logical conclusion to that thinking is to keep them home in the first place. I understand that that is your personal preference but if you cant debate in the context that everyone else shares, what exactly are you doing wasting your (not to mention everyone elses) time here?

"The question is, especially as it concerns Baghdad, how do you "clear" it of insurgents?"

If you had bothered to read my nonserious post you would know that the first priority is not to 'clear' insurgents. It is to prevent them from operating freely in Baghdad. Until that is done nothing else is of much importance.

"If "an american soldier on every corner" is your answer, just how many of those soldiers to you think will be coming home in body bags? "

Again, I dont premise my strategy on minimizing casualties. Its obviously a concern, but not the overriding one. That kind of thinking is idiotic. If our number one priority was zero casualties we would disband our military and declare total victory.

"except for one thing.... 61% of Iraqis (and since that includes Kurds, the percentage in Baghdad is probably higher) think its legitimate to shoot at Eliot Ness and his gang."

We havent given them much reason of late to feel differently. Until we are perceived by the Iraqis as benefitting them in some way, why should they care if we get shot at either way?

And it seems to me they are spending the bulk of their efforts shooting at each other, which suggests we are not their overriding priority, which further suggests that if we can provide for their true priorities we might find some common ground. But not until we have secured Baghdad at the least.

"There comes a point in any battle where its obvious that "fighting on" will only result in more slaughter"

Perhaps, but i have the distinct feeling that for you that moment occured about when the first shot was fired, so you will excuse me if i dont take your judgement very seriously.

It is also a truism in war that the side that decides it has lost ends up being correct, no matter the objective reality of the situation. That is the tragedy of war- it is very difficult to know the difference between percevierance and futility.

Personally i take much more seriously critics that want to shut down the war and point to the track record of this administration as evidence that we arent dedicated or competent enough to win. Those that claim it is simply physically impossible... well, we have those in every war. And although a stopped clock is right twice a day, i dont like those odds.

We need some new ideas/tactics to change what is happening in Iraq and the war on terror.
I know that I am just a crazyman from a crazy city
but here are a few ideas.

a) Change Bagdad with a bulldozer. Killing Al-Sadr will not change much but what would change if Al-Sadr city was seriously changed like what happened in Jenin (though we don't necessiarly need to have a crazyman running the bulldozer like what happened in Jenin but who knows)

b) Turn the way that people look at things around via a natural disaster or made up one. ex: what would happen if it was declared that everybody needs to evacuate because of a clorine gas truck having an acident. Moving a large amount of the city to a tent city outside of bagdad for 3 days making sure that you remove guns and making sure that different groups have to work together.

c) Do a reglious attack
1) funding the creation and the spread of a new sect that was moderate that took in both shia and sunni

2) do the V methodology of shipping everybody in Bagdad a book and memorabilia so that they can appear to be both sunni and shia.

Bill Roggio once again provides invaluable insight that actually gives us some useful information on Iraq for strategizing.

"Logistics. The IA logistical system is broken at the battalion, brigade, division and Ministry of Defense levels. Requests for equipment such as batteries, air conditioners, heaters, vests, helmets, building materials are mostly ignored. Soldiers in some units share helmets or vests to go out on patrol."

This is exactly the kind of thing im talking about. The IA is an empty well at the moment, not because of anything inherintly wrong with the IA, but because the Iraqi Government is fundamentaly screwed up on every level. Did Baker and his crew even really touch on this? Of course not. Just hand everything over to the IA, no problem right? Wrong.

IA troops arent getting paid, their equipment is being withheld, and basically their is a negative leadership vacuum from the top down. This is not an effective military force. Roggio points out that US embedded advisors are spending all their time securing basic logistics for their units. We've turned trainers into clerks per force. Every one is one less soldier teaching Iraqis to shoot or manning a checkpoint in Baghdad. Under such conditions, the IA is a net liability at the moment.

Thats why the Iraqi government needs to be reformed before anything useful will be done by the IA. And i dont think that can happen until Baghdad is secured.

Thus the impetus for Go Big. We secure Baghdad, basically overhaul the defense ministry (somehow, there's another thread), and eventually turn over the city to the Iraqis block by block as the IA reforms. Our leverage is the lid we put on the violence. If the Iraqi government doesnt take our 'suggestions' re: the defense ministry, we walk away and good luck to them.

luka: What a wonderful solution. I just won't support anything and then I won't be accountable for it. Hey, just don't blame me.

Bah. Blame me. I want blame. It doesn't stick in my craw when anyone blames me.

I tell you what. I'll be responcible for the deaths America has caused, if you be responcible for the deaths America's enemies have caused. Not taking that offer? No, I didn't imagine so. Of course, I wouldn't either, but not at all for the reasons you wouldn't.

You know, one of the few things I like about Bush is that he has great taste in enemies. Most of the people in this world that I detest, most of the people's whose judgment in the past I've had call to question, detest Bush. The bizarre irony of your behavior luka, is that every time I meet someone like you, it increases my respect for Bush. It reminds me what the options are. It reminds me of the mindset of the sort of people that loathe Bush. Clearly, if luka hates him, he can't be all bad.

If I was the sort inclined to believe in grand conspiracies, I'd believe the existance of people like luka was arranged so as to make all of Bush's critics look bad.

Again, I dont premise my strategy on minimizing casualties. Its obviously a concern, but not the overriding one. That kind of thinking is idiotic. If our number one priority was zero casualties we would disband our military and declare total victory.

Joe, putting an American soldier on every street corner makes them targets -- a sniper shoots, kills, and gets away. Inundating a neighborhood with teams of Americans on foot patrols would make more sense -- except that we probably don't have enough troops to not have this become "Whack a Mole". (It also makes them extremely vulnerable to IEDs).

The question is, will this strategy be effective --- and the answer is "almost definitely not". This is urban guerilla warfare in a hostile environment --- and its a losing battle.

And it seems to me they are spending the bulk of their efforts shooting at each other, which suggests we are not their overriding priority, which further suggests that if we can provide for their true priorities we might find some common ground. But not until we have secured Baghdad at the least.

actually, anti-US attacks far outnumber attacks on Iraqi security forces, or on civilians -- and anti-US attacks continue to rise.

And quite frankly, I don't see how you secure baghdad without clearing at least half of it... More patrols just means more whack a mole. And more patrols means more opportunities to kill Americans...

Now, put yourself in the place of an insurgent. The first thing you do is take some pot shots at US patrols, and then watch how the US responds. It won't take long to establish a pattern -- and once you understand what the response is likely to be, its easy to set up ambushes and IEDs to kill even more US soldiers when they respond to an initial "sniper" attack....

Personally i take much more seriously critics that want to shut down the war and point to the track record of this administration as evidence that we arent dedicated or competent enough to win. Those that claim it is simply physically impossible... well, we have those in every war.

hey's I've already said we can win this war....just nuke the whole damned country back to the stone age--and kill anything that continues to move after the nuke attack. We win. And it doesn't cost us much, and has very low American casualties.

But short of that kind of scorched-earth strategy, we've lost the Battle of Iraq. The battle was lost the day that Bush decided to invade without UN approval --- "not enough troops", "no postwar planning", etc, etc, are not the reasons we failed, they're symptoms. With international support, we could have gotten "peacekeeping" troops from all over the world. With international support, we could have had the expertise of hundreds of people who have dealt with similar situations -- and knew how to prioritize, and gain the confidence of local groups.

This may explain why Bush was so unconcerned with "enough troops" and "post-war planning" --- he'd just overthrown the Taliban, and handed the post-war problems over to NATO and international aid agencies. And maybe he figured he could do the same in Iraq.... while he went and invaded another country.

Unfortunately, the power associated with Bush's personal sense of entitlement ends at the borders of the USA.

You know, one of the few things I like about Bush is that he has great taste in enemies.

Saddam was the enemy. He was a bad guy.

But the Iraqi people were supposedly not the enemy. They were going to greet us as liberators. It was just a few "dead enders" that opposed the occupation after "Mission Accomplished", and they would be wiped up soon enough....right?

Yes, here we are four years on in Iraq... and except for the Kurds, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are now our "enemy" --- they have no problem with attacks on US forces, and want us gone as soon as possible.

Now, Bush never told us that the people of Iraq were the enemy. In fact, he told us that the people of Iraq would be our friends.

Bush didn't choose this enemy. This enemy chose him. So don't give him any credit for having good taste in enemies....

"The battle was lost the day that Bush decided to invade without UN approval --- "not enough troops", "no postwar planning", etc, etc, are not the reasons we failed, they're symptoms. With international support, we could have gotten "peacekeeping" troops from all over the world. With international support, we could have had the expertise of hundreds of people who have dealt with similar situations -- and knew how to prioritize, and gain the confidence of local groups."

Ok, I think we can dispense with you now. You are either a complete fool, or else you are a parody, a mere sock puppet by some malacious Hawk trying to make the left seem utterly ridiculous.

Of all the claims I've ever heard, yours luka is the most utterly ridiculous. Not only is it the most extreme example I've ever scene of claiming that the problem in Iraq is simple, even easy, and that 'if only' some one thing was done differently that the outcome would have been entirely different, but of all those claims it is the one founded on the most ignorance of the real world. I had previously thought the 'if only they didn't disband the Iraqi army' was nearly the height of this sort of ignorance of reality, but you have managed to go several levels beyond that in your delusion.

I cannot imagine any geo-political expert of any political stripe who holds or would hold that ridiculous view of the world. Saying that there are not enough US boots to obtain the peace as things stand is one thing, but to claim that these boots could be provided from somewhere else is ludicrous. Look how well assemblying the 'peace keeping' force in Lebanon went despite universal support for the mission, and it went in to do literal peace keeping after both sides basically tired or the war. But its doing nothing to preserve security in the country (the government could collapse and the country fall into civil war any time now), nothing to prevent rearming by Hizb'allah, and is despite the whole worlds approval barely able to assemble a division strength force to be mere observers.

How many troops do you think Europe could deploy to Europe? Are you aware how long they've been trying unsuccessfully to develop a rapid reaction force of just 60,000 troops (maybe enough for 4 brigades in Iraq)? Are you aware how dependent the NATO force in Afghanistan is on US logistical support? Are you aware just how much even this small NATO action is straining the enfeebled militaries of NATO? Have you any notion of the problems which beset UN peace keeping missions relying on barely trained 3rd world troops even when they aren't deployed in combat zones? Where in the last 50 years has a UN peace keeping force shown ANY fortitude under fire, any courage to resist violence whatsoever, even when the stakes are genocide and massacre?

You claim I'm 'bathing in blood' because I supported a war in Iraq. If you are supporting 'international action', then may I suggest that this is like trying to remove the sawdust from my eye while a plank is sticking out of yours. The difference is, I'm aware of the consequences of my support, where as you are blissfully ignorant of the consequences of yours.

Certainly, citing a supposed "lack" of international support is among the more vacuous of arguments. Good luck finding an example where "international support" created a successful intervention.

But are you really aware of the consequences of your support, Celebrim, like you claim?

In a previous thread, you made a spectacle of yourself by asserting that you were confident, and still are, that the major presidential alternatives to Bush would certainly (not maybe) be worse than he has been.

I would suggest you retire that crystal ball, although I must imagine that it is likely lodged in some bodily orifice and can no longer be extracted without doing serious harm to the patient.

As if there wasn't enough evidence already to close the book on This Idiot President accumulated just over the last 3 years, now we are treated to Bush the Armchair General who thinks escalating the war by sending in more troops (which involves subjecting them to even deeper levels of abuse and disrespect than they have already needed to endure) is they way to go, AGAINST THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE JOINT CHIEFS.

Once again, I don't think there has yet been a level of contrition invented that could begin to undue the derision, shame and scorn those of you who voted for Bush, and continue to support him even as we speak (by way of your continually shifting rationalization for supporting him and his war), deserve from history.

You're right to pronounce judgment on luka's suggestions was forfeited in the voting booth in November 2004 when you pulled the lever FOR Bush.

I suggest you confine your commentary to matters relating to role-playing fantasy gaming in the future unless you think you are gaining some digitary muscle tone by typing out lengthy and meaningless attacks on rational liberal commenters.

Believe me when I say to you that I'm not the one making a spectacle of myself. You are right now quite good for a laugh. At least you have that.

Going Big? C'mon, another 20k troops still leaves us with A/ Too few troops by the hundreds of thousands and B/ an attempt to solve a long term problem with short term hype. This is a political, not military problem. Do people not understand the difference?

#26

There is no GWoT. That there is conflict outside of our borders is true. But we make the same mistake here we made with communism. It's not monlithic, it is local and territorial.

Five years and counting since 911... where is the war? Seems really peaceful here to me.