Hello everybody!

It has been a while since we have focused on Iraq and couple of people have rightly complained that their non-Iraq threads were hijacked over Iraq.

What is your sense of what is going on over there? What should the US do now?

Oceans

they should retire to individual bases

stay there trian iraqs army

and let them clean the place up


but hey what do i know

The tactics we are using are ineffective. You don't win a war by fighting it on the enemy's terms. You win by making the enemy fight on your terms. We are using the same stupid aiti-insergent tactics that didn't work in in the jungles of Viet Nam and expecting them to work now because we moved them to the desert. When are we gong to learn that it is absolutely STUPID to do more of the same thing and expect different results. You win a war by driving the enemy out of the ground they occupy, occupying and controlling that ground and then continually expanding your base of operation and continually driving your enemy into a smaller and smaller area of influence until you have him surrounded or cornered. At that point your enemy either surrenders unconditionally or is eliminated.

We run in, pacify an area but as we are moving in, the enemy moves out. After we pacify the area, we move out and the enemy moves back in. You would think that one of those perfumed princes in the Pentagon would reach down between his legs, grab his ears and pull his head out of his rectum long enough to read Chariman Mao's handbook on warefare. It describes the tactis the insurgents are using to a T. You must take and hold an area in order to pacify it and restore order.

You also cannot have order when you have every dog and his brother running around in an armed malitia. Give them 3 days to lay down their weapons, after that, anyone not in a U.S. Army Uniform or an Iraqi army uniform is a target to be shot on sight.

Seal the borders with Syria and Iran and tell them that anything coming across either border is a target and will be fired upon as soon as it crosses.

Lastly give the tea sipping fence sitters in the Iraqi government definate deadlines to take over certain security details and insist that they accomplish them by the deadlines given or they will be dropped by parachute into downtown Tehran.

If we continue this 3 ring Cluster F*** in its present form will accomplish nothing. If we are not prepared to do it right, then we should turn the mess over to the Iraqi Government and leave. However, remember that Nature abhors a vacuum and we have created a termendous vacuum of power with the removal of Saddam Hussain, if that vacuum is not filled with something good, Nature will fill that vacuum with something a whole hell of a lot worse than Saddam ever thought of being. Casees in point Pot Pol in Cambodia, also when the Russians pulled out of Afganistan what filled the power vacuum, the Taliban.

Good points, gardenforge. I especially agree with your assesment of the Iraqi govt. officials. To my untrained eye, it seems that they're in no hurry to take control of their country. The U.S. military is doing a wonderful job there whether anyone agrees with why we're there or not. The way I see it is this. The mentality of a lot of Iraqis is as long as America is doing all the work, why should they make an effort? That's the reason I wanted a deadline imposed. Not to "cut-and-run", but to show the Iraqi govt. that they need to work at taking control of their own country. I realize we'll always have a military presence there(we still have one in Korea), but if more Iraqis(military, govt.,and civilian)would take more responsibility, maybe we could see at least a reduction of troops there.

why would the iraq govt d anything as long as the u s

is willing to do it

kinda like international welfare

and they are cheating the system

but hey what do i know

Hire all the unemployed males in the country between the ages of x and y, put them in uniform and march them to their borders to protect their country from Iran and Syria. Supplement their wages with oil revenues. Break the new employees into groups other than Sunni and Shia and enforce some form of ethnic bridge. Give them incomes and common causes.

Otherwise you can always watch everything go down in flames as it is now.

I hope nobody else asks this question.

kinda like that weapon martial law idea

and the border guard one to

What do you know,adj4u?

Well, you know what a lot of Americans are finding out. Iraq has, thanks to it's government, become a welfare state. And we're signing the welfare checks.

That's what makes even we libs mad. Hey, some of us do actually work for a living and earn our keep.

Good show,adj4u

you mean i can make an uninsulting intelligent post

on occasion




here to hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

something

I haven't given an opinion on this in a while.
But I think we must have a more diplomatic President who is willing to share the oil interest and responsibility with other countries and stop the domination. Other countries are only going to act if it is in their interest. If the freedom of Iraq is truly the goal, then why dominate the interest of their resources. I think we need world support and less deceit and America dominance. I am not sure if the other countries want any part of it at all but I always believed there needed to be more diplomacy and world equality and now we are in there and I still believe that is what we need. Cos it is a shame that we are in this situation and even have to consider the mess we have made there and it needs to be cleaned up and that America is going bankrupt but it is a reality. Bush was warned that this war was not worth the human life or the financial burden but he is just a selfish man. We must first have a less deceitful President with good diplomacy skills who actually cares about anything but himself and his own interest and legend. We don't want to go bankrupt but we don't have to be so dominating either.

Eloquent posts, thoughtful tones. Thank you.

Sexisweeti -- great to see you joining in!

A follow-up question....

1. The US military is in internal disagreement about troop levels. Having opposed Pres. Bush's 'surge' escalation, some are now saying that to accomplish the 'mission' they have to have even more troops.

Bush's political weakness now is leading critics who formerly kept quiet to speak out more. There is also within the US military a sense that its leadership failed to accurately present to the President and the Vice-President Cheney its real thoughts and concerns with the Iraq invasion and occupation. Regarding this, General Pace was recently dismissed because he was viewed as weak and lost the support of the military leadership.

What do you think? Should the US put more troops in if Bush once again says that that will 'bring victory'?

Oceans

More young men going to waste?????

you can't be serious.

Good morning Andrea Hope your much better today

I'm nearly my old self by now, thank you

Oh good!

Well, I can't have yet, but I'm sharing a bowl of milk with Katertots in Big G's place

LOL..Katers looks like she needs it today..I love that picture
Oh and sorry for the hijacking Lawry..but I wake every morning...just looking forward to hijacking one of your threads Thanks for you tolerance

At least he doesn't bite our heads off

No he probably just grumbles quietly

Hi ladies

Thanks Oceans!

<<<<<<Threadjacker!