My New, Simplified Plan For Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 20, 2006.

  1. I heard today that the U.S. military command has basically admitted that their plan to stablize Iraq by moving troops into Baghdad in an effort to stop the violence there has been a big failure. Violence has increased, and our troops were basically engaged in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They would go into an area and stabilize it, but violence would flare elsewhere. All the while our troops were both exposed to hostile fire and also subject to complaints they were using excessive force.

    I predicted this plan would fail, and in an attempt to assist our apparently clueless planners at the Pentagon, I even posted my own plan.

    Now that they have wasted several months in pursuing the fruitless Baghdad plan, I find it necessary to amend my plan. It is now more simplified but far more bold.

    1. As a first step we must recognize that the democracy experiment is going nowhere. The Iraqi government is riddled with corruption, and various insurgent factions have infiltrated key ministries. In the current state of lawlessness, establishing security must be the first order of business.

    2. Accordingly, Baghdad must be put under military control. A U. S. General should be put in command, but an effort should be made to locate former general officers from Saddam's military and give them the greenlight to control various sectors of Baghdad. They would be given significant freedom to establish their commands, with troops coming from the current Iraqi army and former Iraqi soldiers. No doubt many would come from the ranks of the insurgencies, but that is not totally a bad thing. Instead of creating chaotic violence, they would be part of a force that answers to us. In addition, every insurgent who joined would be one less out planting IED's.

    In effect, the Iraqi commanders would be like warlords who would answer to us. Over time, the more efficient would grow in stature and the less efficient would be replaced, either by the U.S. commander or by their own troops. Obviously, their first order of business would be to eliminate the various private militias. We would provide air and artillery support.

    The benefits of this structure would be obvious. They are in a far better position than we are to develop intelligence, and to act ruthlessly to eliminate insurgents. The Iraqi commanders would have an enormous incentive to suceed, since they would be in a position to act as mini-dictators and control all activites, licit and illicit, in their areas.

    3. U.S. troops should be redeployed to border security with Syria and Iran and to protect the critical oil field infrastructure. Such redeployment would cut off or severely curtail the resupply of insurgents from Iran and Syria. Our troops massed on their borders would also focus the attention of those two countries on the risks of continued troublemaking, and in addition give us opportunities to supply insurgent movements in those ocuntries.

    4. Because of the massive corruption in the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum, it would have to be disbanded and U. S. contractors would operate the oil business, with proceeds directed to meeting our expenses, rebuilding infrastruture and supplying the Iraqi commanders. Uncooperative Iraqi commanders would be starved of funds, their commands weakened and made vulnerable to takeover by rival commands. The benefits of cooperation would be obvious.

    5. The current Iraqi government could be retained as a figurehead, but they would have no power. They would over time devolve into the typical civil government in middle eastern countries, responsible for low level municipal functions.

    I believe this plan would accomplish our major objectives, which should be to minimize U. S. casualties, prevent the creation of a failed state in Iraq that would serve as a terrorist haven and prevent the resumption of WMD programs. The Iraqi people would welcome it, first because they would see an immediate increase in security and second because they are conditioned to respond to strong military style leadership. It would marginalize the radical clerics and greatly reduce their ability to foment unrest.
  2. So, why are we in Iraq?

    1. To find and destroy Saddam's WMDs.

    2. To establish democracy.

    3. To fight terrorists.

    4. To steal Iraqi oil.

    In my mind, 4 is the correct answer. So, a thief will have to withstand some lynching and he/she can't help but just endure that pain so that he/she can go and steal again.
  3. Yet another one of the "steal the oil" idiots.

    Think about it for even 30 seconds.

    Think about how much th US has, and will spend on the war. You could pump flat out, and take every drop of it, and it wouldn't come close to covering the cost of the war.

    Was this war about oil? Of course. But not about "stealing" a drop. Its about establishing a democracy in a major OPEC/ Mideast country, and hoping that spreads so that the region will be more USA friendly.

    HUGE backfire as the region, and the World, hates the US for it, but that was the plan.

    The stealing oil theory is one of the most simplified and idiotic explanations possible. Its mind boggling how many people believe this. Same with the belief that the Repubs can some how control the price of crude going into the election. Its completely out of their hands. The only thing they can do is stop additions to the strategic reserve, which does not even dent the global price.
  4. Too little, too late triple A. It's over! We lost another one and a quote from your post above is why.

    "I believe this plan would accomplish our major objectives, which should be to minimize U. S. casualties"

    That mindset is how wars are lost, not won. The absolute major objective is to "maximize" the casualties of the enemy. Instead we're still stuck in the "winning the hearts and minds" non-sense that has resulted in losses in Korea, Nam and now Iraq.
    A nations morality is judged by how they treat the people AFTER the war is over. During the war, that nation must not only sink to the primal level of the enemy, they must go lower. That is the paradox we fail to comprehend as a nation. During combat...absolute savagery. After combat...absolute compassion. It's the only path to victory!
  5. Another chicken shit klan idiot... Go hide in your bunkers if you are that scared of arabs.
  6. better plan:
    . hand over to NATO, they can implement ink spots, u can't... and abandon all hope of controlling iraqi oil
    . get the fuck off
  7. I don't disagree, but I look at it differently. The war phase is over. We are now in the occupation phase. Clearly you are correct that we have been distracted by "winning hearts and minds" and nation-building (apparently there are major curriculum issues at our military colleges, since we seem to have an officer corps composed of confused PC-addled liberals.) A big part of the problem is that the US leadership is prepared to use harsh tactics during actual warfare, but not during occupation. So we get the spectcle of private militias, large street demonstrations, uncheclked chaos, etc.

    The beauty of my plan is that we use private sector incentives to combat this. Iraqi generals commanding Iraqi forces can do whatever they need to do to suppress insurgents. The world press would go nuts if we did the same thing. The generals would be incentivized to be ruthlessly efficient because their support would be coming from us, and if they appeared weak, they would be vulnerable to being picked off, mafia style, by rival factions.

    My plan also is far more culturally sensitive than the administration's. The Arab street understands, respects and responds to strong military leaders. Weak-kneed "hearts and minds " projects make us look like women to them.
  8. Absolute savagery is easier to inspire in the troops and easier to sell to the people when there is something to be absolutely savage about, like Hitler.

    The current effort in Iraq has become quixotic, clearly, vis-a-vis the war on terror and the protection of US citizens on US soil. Perhaps it always was.
  9. maybe it was more about keeping that oil off the mkt
  10. I couldn't agree more. Had it been sold that way from the beginning and stayed that way, we'd have been in and out already. When there were no WMD's, we should have said to the terrorists, and those that provide them safe harbor/support, OK you fooled us, and this is what happens to people that try to fool us after an event like 9/11. The message would have been clear enough...we ain't playin' anymore.
    Instead, Bush switched to the whole Iraqi freedom sales pitch and it's been downhill ever since.
    #10     Oct 20, 2006