16 intell groups report on Iarq

[ReillyT]

Remember we already won the war , we are just ending the occupation when we leave and not losing a damn thing.

I don't think that I agree with that. I think there is a risk that we stand to lose a lot by leaving Iraq in its current state, but we also stand to lose a lot by staying. I think hindsight has shown that the mistake was invading in the first place (although I supported the decision at the time).

 

[ReillyT]

You win, meaning the US will be out of there. On the other hand, do you truly doubt the US could 'win' there, meaning bring the factions under control and let them take over? The first will prevail, the second will become 'what if' and our kids will pay the price.

I do truly doubt that the US could 'win' there, meaning bring the factions under control and let them take over.

 

[ReillyT]

We agree, we are going to bail and our children will pay the price. They may still lose, but many will die then.

Our children may pay the price, but there is reason to think that the price may not be just as steep if we stay.

 

[Annie]

I do truly doubt that the US could 'win' there, meaning bring the factions under control and let them take over.

Well I can guarantee you, your kids or grandkids will have to figure it out.

 

[Annie]

Our children may pay the price, but there is reason to think that the price may not be just as steep if we stay.

Now that would be cool, explain.

 

[Truthmatters]

I do truly doubt that the US could 'win' there, meaning bring the factions under control and let them take over.

Leaving will let them take over,if they want to fight its their business.

its what they have always wanted

 

[maineman]

Well I can guarantee you, your kids or grandkids will have to figure it out.

how can you guarantee anything? got a crystal ball?

 

[Gunny]

GunnyL Wrote:


Gunny, what, in your opinion, does the military need to do that will ensure victory in Iraq?

At this point? Deploy everything we have "for the duration," seal the borders with mostly our troops, and take the Iraqi troops on OJT and clear and sweep every city and burg In Iraq until any-and-everyone that even remotely resembles a religious radical insurgent is driven out into the open. Once there, all the branches have air assets to destroy them.

And force Iraqi's to choose. Either you're in the Iraqi security forces or you're suspect. Force the government to get off their asses and take care of their country. Make THEM choose. One cannot be nationalist AND radical Islam.

Lastly, let the professionals run the damned thing and tell the politicians to shut up. Politics is what has put us in the position we're in.

 

[ReillyT]

Now that would be cool, explain.

Well, I assume that when you state that our children will pay the price for our withdrawal, you are referring to the effects of increased instability in the Middle East, with all of its attendent problems, both economic and in terms of security.

However, its is quite possible that even if we were to stay (for who knows how long?), we still may be unable to bring stability to Iraq, we may inflame opinion against us to an even further extent, and our children will still pay a price for the increased instability in the Middle East.

By withdrawing in the near future, the only thing we would be able to say with some assurance is that fewer American soldiers will die on Iraqi soil.

 

[Annie]

how can you guarantee anything? got a crystal ball?

see the post by TM.

 

[Gunny]

That assumes that we can win. If however, no application of military power would be sufficient to resolve the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites and prevent further Iraqi loss of life, then we shouldn't continue our presence in Iraq, hoping that the next strategy might do the trick. I think if people truly believed that we had the means to bring stability to Iraq, they would be inclined to continue the mission. Unfortunately, there is precious little to support this belief.

Again, it isn't a matter of whether or not we are capable of stopping the fighting ... it's a matter of the will to do it.

As it stands, we may as well leave, since I don't foresee a sudden clarity of vision on the part of those blinded by politics and unrealistic ideology. We didn't need a handful of more troops to change the tide. We needed a change in resolve and tactics; which, we don't have. No amount of "surge" is going to make a difference without the will to win.

 

[Annie]

Well, I assume that when you state that our children will pay the price for our withdrawal, you are referring to the effects of increased instability in the Middle East, with all of its attendent problems, both economic and in terms of security.

However, its is quite possible that even if we were to stay (for who knows how long?), we still may be unable to bring stability to Iraq, we may inflame opinion against us to an even further extent, and our children will still pay a price for the increased instability in the Middle East.

By withdrawing in the near future, the only thing we would be able to say with some assurance is that fewer American soldiers will die on Iraqi soil.

Actually, I was referring to those instable regimes of the ME taking their discontent here. Staying there is now seemingly a moot point. As I said, you win.

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, I was referring to those instable regimes of the ME taking their discontent here.

I understood. I was as well.

 

[maineman]

see the post by TM.

"he made an unsupportable wildass claim so I can too"?

impressive

 

[Gunny]

We agree, we are going to bail and our children will pay the price. They may still lose, but many will die then.

Oh yeah ... this will bite us in the ass down the road. No doubt in my military mind. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but it IS coming. Wonder what all the wimps are going to do THEN?

 

[ReillyT]

Again, it isn't a matter of whether or not we are capable of stopping the fighting ... it's a matter of the will to do it.

I have seen nothing to support the notion that stability could be brought to the country if we just had a greater committment. Perhaps your right, but I don't see it.

What level of "will" would you support? If the present military is not adequately large to do the trick, would you re-institute the draft?

 

[Annie]

Oh yeah ... this will bite us in the ass down the road. No doubt in my military mind. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but it IS coming. Wonder what all the wimps are going to do THEN?

Agreed, and they are winning. Funny thing, we are NOT pulling out of Iraq unless the Congress grows the gonads to. At the same time, not willing to do what is necessary to 'win.'

 

[ReillyT]

Agreed, and they are winning. Funny thing, we are NOT pulling out of Iraq unless the Congress grows the gonads to. At the same time, not willing to do what is necessary to 'win.'

What evidence is there to suggest that a greater application of troops would be able to reconcile the different religious groups and deal with the militias and terrorists?

It is easy enough to say, but...

 

[Annie]

What evidence is there to suggest that a greater application of troops would be able to reconcile the different religious groups and deal with the militias and terrorists?

It is easy enough to say, but...

In this discussion, where was that brought up?

 

[ReillyT]

In this discussion, where was that brought up?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but when you wrote "At the same time, not willing to do what is necessary to 'win,'" I assumed you were referring to the US government (or people or Congress) not being willing to do what is necessary, which I took to mean more troops. If not a greater military presence, what were you referring to?