What would you do now? (thread inspired by jj)

[Chief]

Please refrain from a litiny of your views about decisions made to this point and look from this day forward. If you were elected President today, what would you do about the war in Iraq?

From what I've seen there are basically 3 solutions that have been voiced:

1. Immediate troop withdrawal.
2. Setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
3. Setting an event goal for troop withdrawal. (the event being the Iraq government being able to control it's internal security)

Are there other solutions? Which of these has the most merit?

I believe that we must have achieved our event goal before withdrawal.

[Roswell]

Withdrawl most of our troops with in a year.
OR
Stay until they see that our way of life is the best, OUR Govt. is the only way to go, realise their Religion and way of life doesn't really matter, hand over control of your countries oil supply, etc... or we'll stay there and bomb until you do! That way we can liberate the Iraqi people in to what they really want, to be like us! Once we're done with Iraq, we can find another country that has oil and bomb them until those people see it our way. Then we can just say that we are liberating them! We can go around the world, bombing countries, liberating people, until the world get's sick of it, and then numerous countries can bomb us, so we can be liberated.

[George O Well]

Give the Iraqis 6 months to fish or cut bait. They could step up right now, but they're waiting to see which way the wind blows. No Iraqi wants to be seen as having sided with the Americans when the Sunnis are back in power.

[gangsta9]

Originally Posted by Chief

Please refrain from a litiny of your views about decisions made to this point and look from this day forward. If you were elected President today, what would you do about the war in Iraq?

From what I've seen there are basically 3 solutions that have been voiced:

1. Immediate troop withdrawal.
2. Setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
3. Setting an event goal for troop withdrawal. (the event being the Iraq government being able to control it's internal security)

Are there other solutions? Which of these has the most merit?

I believe that we must have achieved our event goal before withdrawal.

now it is simple.... i would have not started a war, but if it came to this is would agree with what you have said

[Cordelier]

You know what? Love him or hate him - and I think most people are on the hate side - you've got to hand it to him, Saddam knew what he was doing while he was in power... he was able to stay in power for about 30 years and rule a ethnically and religiously diverse country with an iron hand. Let's face it - Iraq is an artificial country in the first place... it's borders only came about because that's where a bunch of British officials happened to draw the line on the maps when they were carving up the remains of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are all just looking out for themselves - they've all got their own agendas. So how do you get them working together and keeping the country together? That's the question you've got to answer before you can make any progress there.

We've tried parliamentary democracy there and it isn't working - the country is degenerating under their feet and all the democratically-elected representatives can do is quibble about who gets what share of power. Maybe the best course of action is to take a lesson from Saddam... find someone who can grasp the reins and power and give all Iraqis someone to rally around. What Iraq needs is someone like Chung Hee Park, the President/Dictator of South Korea in the 60's and 70's. Park ruled with an iron hand and marshalled the country to his cause - he managed to oversee the industrialization of South Korea and transformed the country from an agrarian land devasted by occupation and war into Asian Tiger it is today. Sure, he did abuse human rights and democracy was an afterthought to him, but by making the country prosperous, what he did was to set the stage for true democracy to take root. That's what Iraq needs.

Security and prosperity are the fertile ground that democracy needs to take root. Hell, even during the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers waited until the fighting was over before they set about writing a Constitution and electing their Government. So why are we putting the cart before the horse in Iraq?

Let's face it.. if Iraq isn't going to degenerate into Civil War and totally fall apart into ethnic divisions, it is going to need a dictator. It's inevitable. What's the alternative? What we have now? Give me a break.... what's going on there now is akin to the French Directory waiting for Napoleon, the post-revolution Russian coalition government waiting for Lenin, or the Weimar Republic waiting for Hitler. In times of crisis and insecurity, people demand leadership from their Government - if that leadership isn't forthcoming and if their Government is just a limp-wristed hobbled-together coalition, then someone will step forward and take control. And in Iraq today, power is just lying there in the street, waiting to be picked up. About all the US can do is try and steer them toward a benevolent dicatator... if not, and if they keep going down the road they're on now, sooner or later a malevolent dictator like the ones I cited earlier will come forward. Just history repeating.

[jimmyjude]

Originally Posted by George O Well

Give the Iraqis 6 months to fish or cut bait. They could step up right now, but they're waiting to see which way the wind blows. No Iraqi wants to be seen as having sided with the Americans when the Sunnis are back in power.

I think that this is very true. I was hopeful that with the SecState and the Foriegn Sec visiting awhile back and telling the Shia party that Jaafari was unacceptable would jump start the process of finding a good compromise candidate, but that was dashed when the Shias decided to stay with him.

I think that looking backward here can help us look forward. What happened when we stopped suppporting Afghanistan once the Russkies were expelled?

What happened in SE Asia after the Democratic congress refused to fund the South Vietnamese, even though it was promised?

[jimmyjude]

[quote=Cordelier]

You know what? Love him or hate him - and I think most people are on the hate side - you've got to hand it to him, Saddam knew what he was doing while he was in power...

So the path would be brutal oppression?

he was able to stay in power for about 30 years and rule a ethnically and religiously diverse country with an iron hand

.

I guess so.

Let's face it - Iraq is an artificial country in the first place...

ALL countries are artificial/political constructs.

it's borders only came about because that's where a bunch of British officials happened to draw the line on the maps

Sounds like America's northern border.

The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are all just looking out for themselves - they've all got their own agendas. So how do you get them working together and keeping the country together?

Whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, secularists, enviro-theists, fundamentalist Christians all have their own agendas. Many of them don't care if their wants would violate the rights of others.

So how do we keep going? How do we stay together?

We've tried parliamentary democracy there and it isn't working

-

Are you from the school of thought that postulates that the Arab/Muslim people are not able to effectuate represetentative republics/parliamentary democracies?

the country is degenerating under their feet and all the democratically-elected representatives can do is quibble about who gets what share of power

.

Hurricane Katrina smashed an area the size of England (including Wales and Scotland), schools are crap, healthcare is prohibitively expensive often, illegal immigration is rampant, the murder rate in the "progressive" cities are skyrockteting again, &c

And all Harry Reid and Bill Frist can do is quibble about who gets what share of power.

Maybe the best course of action is to take a lesson from Saddam... find someone who can grasp the reins and power and give all Iraqis someone to rally around

.

You might be slightly confused. The people weren't rallying around Sodom when they voted him into his last presidency with 99% of the poll,

NO, they were AFRAID of him. His support was shallow at best and centered around his tribe in Tikrit, and the people that were his toadies.

What Iraq needs is someone like Chung Hee Park, the President/Dictator of South Korea in the 60's and 70's.

Park was not a great leader in the sense that most Americans would think of great leaders. But he didn't gas entire villages, cut out the tongues of Shia for almost no reason, set up rape rooms, torture soccer players who didn't win etc.

Park ruled with an iron hand and marshalled the country to his cause - he managed to oversee the industrialization of South Korea and transformed the country from an agrarian land devasted by occupation and war into Asian Tiger it is today.

It is true that South Korea is one of the Asian Tigers economicially but that doesn't have that much to do with Park as you are making it out.

There are 4 other recognized Asian Tigers and they didn't have iron-handed dictatorial rule.

How do you explain their success?

Hell, even during the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers waited until the fighting was over before they set about writing a Constitution and electing their Government.

I guess you are forgetting the Articles of Confederation?

So why are we putting the cart before the horse in Iraq?

Should the Israelis wait until the Arab/Muslims stop attacking them to wait for electing a government?

Let's face it.. if Iraq isn't going to degenerate into Civil War and totally fall apart into ethnic divisions, it is going to need a dictator.

I thought you just bemoaned the arbitrary construct of Iraq's borders?

Why shouldn't Iraq break up?

Yugoslavia did.

It's inevitable. What's the alternative? What we have now? Give me a break....

Well, that is pessimistic. The alternative goal IS a peaceful representative republic.

what's going on there now is akin to the French Directory waiting for Napoleon

,

How so?

the post-revolution Russian coalition government waiting for Lenin,

What?

or the Weimar Republic waiting for Hitler.

Again, what? The Weimar Republic weren't waiting for Hitler.

And also all of the examples you cite turned out really bad. Why would you use those as what should be hoped for in Iraq?

In times of crisis and insecurity, people demand leadership from their Government - if that leadership isn't forthcoming and if their Government is just a limp-wristed hobbled-together coalition, then someone will step forward and take control.

Do you have a single example that illustrates this point?

And in Iraq today, power is just lying there in the street, waiting to be picked up. About all the US can do is try and steer them toward a benevolent dicatator...

Ridiculous.

if not, and if they keep going down the road they're on now, sooner or later a malevolent dictator like the ones I cited earlier will come forward. Just history repeating.

Nonsense.

[gratefuldawg77]

Originally Posted by Chief

Please refrain from a litiny of your views about decisions made to this point and look from this day forward. If you were elected President today, what would you do about the war in Iraq?

From what I've seen there are basically 3 solutions that have been voiced:

1. Immediate troop withdrawal.
2. Setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
3. Setting an event goal for troop withdrawal. (the event being the Iraq government being able to control it's internal security)

Are there other solutions? Which of these has the most merit?

I believe that we must have achieved our event goal before withdrawal.

For the most satisfactory results I have three:

1. Get a coalition of Muslim countries in there as a peacekeeping force, and begin a slow withdrawal of our trrops. As long as Christians occupy Iraq, opportunists like Zarquawi will call for Jihad. let's get saudi Arabia, UAE jordan, Turkey and the like in there. It will require some diplomacy, but a stable Iraq is in thier best interests more than its in ours.

2. Three state solution. OIf course this might create more problems than it solves, but it is an idea.

3. Go to the UN and eat a little crow. Admit that we screwed up, and ask for some money and troops so we can afford to stay there until the job gets done.



Go ahead, jimmyjude: tear me a new one.

[jimmyjude]

[quote=gratefuldawg77]For the most satisfactory results I have three:

1. Get a coalition of Muslim countries in there as a peacekeeping force, and begin a slow withdrawal of our trrops. As long as Christians occupy Iraq, opportunists like Zarquawi will call for Jihad. let's get saudi Arabia, UAE jordan, Turkey and the like in there. It will require some diplomacy, but a stable Iraq is in thier best interests more than its in ours.[quote]

This is a good point. It would neutralize the irrational West-haters. The only problem is that no Arab/Muslim country is trained/able, or has ever demonstrated the ability to fight.

2. Three state solution. OIf course this might create more problems than it solves, but it is an idea.

Why not? Yugoslavia was broken up to give usurpers land that they stole.

3. Go to the UN and eat a little crow. Admit that we screwed up, and ask for some money and troops so we can afford to stay there until the job gets done.

See the "Great Job United Nations" thread to see how much I disagree with the UN's ability to do anything other than extort more money from Japan, the US, and the European Union.

Go ahead, jimmyjude: tear me a new one.

Naaa, just to be contrary? No, you made good points. I don't agree with the UN thing, but that is something we could debate. The other points are valid, if unworkable.

I especially like the three-state solution. Cordelier is right about the artificial construction. The British have been great at messing up the world.

Iraq. India/Pakistan. Israel. Iran. Palestine/Israel. They are the reason that there is SOOOO many problems in the middle east.

[George O Well]

I just don't see 3 GIs getting blown up each day to prop up a bunch of folks who won't commit. You KNOW that army and police force are in it for the paycheck only.