PDA

View Full Version : It is time to wean Iraq from the Military Teat...!!!!


Logical
08-03-2007, 04:45 PM
We let them have the time to set up a government.

We worked at training their military.

We helped them establish a new police force.

They rewarded us by taking a vacation. So it is time to start weaning them from our military teat by slowly withdrawing our troops.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 04:59 PM
We let them have the time to set up a government.

We worked at training their military.

We helped them establish a new police force.

They rewarded us by taking a vacation. So it is time to start weaning them from our military teat by slowly withdrawing our troops.

You have my vote. I agree.

ClevelandBronco
08-03-2007, 05:06 PM
We let them have the time to set up a government.

We worked at training their military.

We helped them establish a new police force.

They rewarded us by taking a vacation. So it is time to start weaning them from our military teat by slowly withdrawing our troops.

What an original thought. I'm glad you started a thread.

Direckshun
08-03-2007, 06:08 PM
We let them have the time to set up a government.
But we have done a particularly poor job facilitating any kind of incentive for the two parties to compromise.

The million dollar question is whether the Iraqi government would become more willing to compromise in the wake of a US withdrawal of forces, or if it would result in a deeper intrenchment in the civil war taking place there.

What do you think? I'm not sold either way.
We worked at training their military.
We did, but we again did a poor job. We totally disbanded the military that was in place for reasons that are either completely beyond my understanding, or for the 5th grader's reasoning that since Saddam was bad, the entire military structure that he had in place must have been bad as well.

The military we have been training, only a fraction of them can do their own fighting.
We helped them establish a new police force.
Another example of the Bush administration's incompetence.

Iraqis have turned out in pretty good numbers to serve in their own police force, but they have fared poorly thus far policing unless they are guaranteed to police their own people. The US doesn't make any such guarantees to those signing up, and in a couple occasions assigned Shi'ite units to Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa, causing entire brigades to quit.
They rewarded us by taking a vacation. So it is time to start weaning them from our military teat by slowly withdrawing our troops.
To be fair, things are changing at the grassroots level, and that initiative needs to be fostered.

It's the occupier's main job to facilitate that kind of independence, sure, and by remaining for the time being, that's what we're doing. But the Iraqis at the top of the political structure have been fairly worthless in helping that, but change comes from the bottom up in these kinds of situations, and eventually it's possible the politicians can turn around.

Right now I believe a solid case can be made either way, as to pull out or remain in Iraq. I was solidly in the "pull out" camp for about 6 months after being a "stay the course" guy since the invasion. But the past couple months I've wavered both ways.

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:40 PM
What an original thought. I'm glad you started a thread.Like it is so much better to start threads where you use other peoples articles instead of your own opinions. That is what is wrong with this place now, people spend all their time posting other peoples articles instead of their own thoughts. That is ok some of the time but latelyit seems like that is all that people do in DC for thread starters.

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:44 PM
I don't like really long posts so I will break my response to you up into sections.But we have done a particularly poor job facilitating any kind of incentive for the two parties to compromise.

The million dollar question is whether the Iraqi government would become more willing to compromise in the wake of a US withdrawal of forces, or if it would result in a deeper intrenchment in the civil war taking place there.

What do you think? I'm not sold either way....

I don't think it was our responsibility to bring about compromise, if they want a unified country that is their responsibility.

I don't think their is or ever was anything short of leaving Saddam in power to avoid the civil war.

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:49 PM
...
We did, but we again did a poor job. We totally disbanded the military that was in place for reasons that are either completely beyond my understanding, or for the 5th grader's reasoning that since Saddam was bad, the entire military structure that he had in place must have been bad as well.

The military we have been training, only a fraction of them can do their own fighting.

Another example of the Bush administration's incompetence....
.These are the same men that taught our own troops how to be soldiers so I am unconvinced they are doing a bad job. I am convinced the Iraqies don't have enough desire. As to the disbanding that was a case of going overboard. Most of their military probably did have loyalties to Saddam and had to be disbanded, the mistake was in not attempting to discover those who would have been loyal to a new government. In the end many of them had to be taken back into the military anyway but now they were disgruntled and did not trust the US.

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:52 PM
...
Iraqis have turned out in pretty good numbers to serve in their own police force, but they have fared poorly thus far policing unless they are guaranteed to police their own people. The US doesn't make any such guarantees to those signing up, and in a couple occasions assigned Shi'ite units to Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa, causing entire brigades to quit.

To be fair, things are changing at the grassroots level, and that initiative needs to be fostered.

.....Not starting a slow withdrawal is not going to fix that problem.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:53 PM
These are the same men that taught our own troops how to be soldiers so I am unconvinced they are doing a bad job. I am convinced the Iraqies don't have enough desire. As to the disbanding that was a case of going overboard. Most of their military probably did have loyalties to Saddam and had to be disbanded, the mistake was in not attempting to discover those who would have been loyal to a new government. In the end many of them had to be taken back into the military anyway but now they were disgruntled and did not trust the US.

They were already distrustful Jim. Remember how Bush 41' left the Shia to be effed over by SoDamn after GW1? They staged an uprising with the understanding that our air cover would help them and 41 opted out resulting in the slaughter of a LOT of Shia. Kinda leaves our integrity flapping in the breeze dunnit?

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:54 PM
...

It's the occupier's main job to facilitate that kind of independence, sure, and by remaining for the time being, that's what we're doing. But the Iraqis at the top of the political structure have been fairly worthless in helping that, but change comes from the bottom up in these kinds of situations, and eventually it's possible the politicians can turn around.

Right now I believe a solid case can be made either way, as to pull out or remain in Iraq. I was solidly in the "pull out" camp for about 6 months after being a "stay the course" guy since the invasion. But the past couple months I've wavered both ways.

Not sure why you would believe that keeping all our troops their and overextended is going to make their political situation better, can you explain why you believe that?

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:55 PM
They were already distrustful Jim. Remember how Bush 41' left the Shia to be effed over by SoDamn after GW1? They staged an uprising with the understanding that our air cover would help them and 41 opted out resulting in the slaughter of a LOT of Shia. Kinda leaves our integrity flapping in the breeze dunnit?

This is a good point, but dismissing them all from the military had to be the final straw.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:59 PM
This is a good point, but dismissing them all from the military had to be the final straw.

My understanding is (I may be wrong) that Baathists were excluded from military service. The disbanding of the military itself was only temporary and many volunteered and were accepted back IIRC. Still, we have a long row to hoe if we want them to trust us again.

SBK
08-03-2007, 08:46 PM
Speaking of gov't teets, I think it's long since overdue to ween American's off that teet too.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Speaking of gov't teets, I think it's long since overdue to ween American's off that teet too.

<center>*Clicky*
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8"><img src="http://www.wkrn.com/files/images/ap/politics/2007/08/ron_paul.jpg"></a><br>*clicky*</center>

Ugly Duck
08-03-2007, 09:51 PM
You have my vote. I agree.

I'm voting for him too.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 10:02 PM
We let them have the time to set up a government.

We worked at training their military.

We helped them establish a new police force.

They rewarded us by taking a vacation. So it is time to start weaning them from our military teat by slowly withdrawing our troops.
And if they don't start withdrawing troops, at the very least, when the Iraqis take a vacation, our troops should take one, too! That'll learn 'em!

Ugly Duck
08-03-2007, 11:59 PM
when the Iraqis take a vacation, our troops should take one, too! That'll learn 'em!

I'm voting for Nightwish too...

SBK
08-04-2007, 12:43 AM
<center>*Clicky*
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8"><img src="http://www.wkrn.com/files/images/ap/politics/2007/08/ron_paul.jpg"></a><br>*clicky*</center>

I thought you were an Obama guy, but I haven't been around here for quite some time so I may have missed something......

Logical
08-04-2007, 01:24 PM
I thought you were an Obama guy, but I haven't been around here for quite some time so I may have missed something......Nah TJ has definitely become a Ron Paul supporter.

SBK
08-04-2007, 01:40 PM
Nah TJ has definitely become a Ron Paul supporter.

I didn't know anything about him, so I looked into him a little last night. I don't know much about all his views yet, but I do like his desire to make DC smaller. But best thing I think is that he practices what he preaches. No student loans for his kids, not part of the gov't pension plan etc.

Long shot for sure, but he may end up being the guy I support.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 02:20 PM
i'd love to see dr. paul take over as the secretary of state and secretary of defense...

there would be some major changes in our foreign policy...

and mostly good ones...

Nightwish
08-04-2007, 02:23 PM
I didn't know anything about him, so I looked into him a little last night. I don't know much about all his views yet, but I do like his desire to make DC smaller. But best thing I think is that he practices what he preaches. No student loans for his kids, not part of the gov't pension plan etc.

Long shot for sure, but he may end up being the guy I support.
Considering how tired people are already becoming of the early intensity in the race, being the long shot might actually work in his favor. Think back to '04 when a longshot named John Kerry came from out of nowhere to beat all the front runners. Could happen again, just on the other side. After looking into him, he's probably the GOP candidate I like the best, followed by Romney.

go bowe
08-04-2007, 04:39 PM
i really like obama's positions on things like he never voted for the war...

and using diplomacy with a willingness to negotiate directly with our advesaries (and reach some kind of accomadation)...

summits with other governments who are more or less hostile to the u.s. makes a lot of sense to me...

and it's always better to talk than to fight...

(except for north korea)

Logical
08-04-2007, 05:41 PM
i really like obama's positions on things like he never voted for the war...

and using diplomacy with a willingness to negotiate directly with our advesaries (and reach some kind of accomadation)...

summits with other governments who are more or less hostile to the u.s. makes a lot of sense to me...

and it's always better to talk than to fight...

(except for north korea)

Eventually we are even going to have to make accomodations with N. Korea.

Sully
08-04-2007, 08:25 PM
i really like obama's positions on things like he never voted for the war...

and using diplomacy with a willingness to negotiate directly with our advesaries (and reach some kind of accomadation)...

summits with other governments who are more or less hostile to the u.s. makes a lot of sense to me...

and it's always better to talk than to fight...

(except for north korea)
Well said.
I couldn't agreemore.

Logical
08-06-2007, 12:11 AM
Considering how tired people are already becoming of the early intensity in the race, being the long shot might actually work in his favor. Think back to '04 when a longshot named John Kerry came from out of nowhere to beat all the front runners. Could happen again, just on the other side. After looking into him, he's probably the GOP candidate I like the best, followed by Romney.I am hoping that it is too early and a decent candidate will emerge for both parties. Unlikely I admit.

patteeu
08-06-2007, 01:39 AM
Considering how tired people are already becoming of the early intensity in the race, being the long shot might actually work in his favor. Think back to '04 when a longshot named John Kerry came from out of nowhere to beat all the front runners. Could happen again, just on the other side. After looking into him, he's probably the GOP candidate I like the best, followed by Romney.

John Kerry was nowhere near the longshot that Ron Paul is. John Kerry was solidly in the mainstream of democrat politics. Ron Paul is almost as far out of step with Republican foreign policy views as a black man at a Ku Klux Klan rally and he's a small government extremist when it comes to domestic issues (which should earn him considerable appreciation in Republican circles, as it does with me, but would kill him with those who consider electability to be important and in any event would torpedo any chance he'd have to beat an anti-war democrat in the general election).

SBK
08-06-2007, 07:48 AM
John Kerry was nowhere near the longshot that Ron Paul is. John Kerry was solidly in the mainstream of democrat politics. Ron Paul is almost as far out of step with Republican foreign policy views as a black man at a Ku Klux Klan rally and he's a small government extremist when it comes to domestic issues (which should earn him considerable appreciation in Republican circles, as it does with me, but would kill him with those who consider electability to be important and in any event would torpedo any chance he'd have to beat an anti-war democrat in the general election).

Well his cut taxes message might go well against a dem touting a significant tax hike.....
:)

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:24 AM
Well his cut taxes message might go well against a dem touting a significant tax hike.....
:)

He's definitely the best candidate on either side when it comes to spending and taxes. Even compared to the other Republicans who favor something like the FAIR tax, he's the only one who can be trusted to really pursue it.