No military solution...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <a href=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=034f84d3-a1db-42cf-8e04-d4c81c8b3815&k=79332>General David Petraeus' words</a> regarding the Iraqi insurgency. And this echoes the views of commanders on the ground in Iraq as far back as 2005. He did state that military forces can help improve security on the ground, but in and of themselves are not adequate to the task of quelling the violence.

    Like it or not, the Bush administration is going to have to pressure the government of Nuri al Maliki to sit down with those members of the insurgency amenable to negotiation, Sunni and Shi'ia alike, and hammer out an agreement that is fair and equitable to all parties. Once this is done, they can then work together to bring to heel those parties which will not accept a government monopoly on the use of force. Politics MUST play as great, if not a greater role in bringing peace to Iraq, and than political solution may not even be the Jeffersonian democracy that inhabits Dubbyuh's fever dreams.

    Since Iraq is already partitioning itself, a confederation may be the best solution that can be expected, provided that the oil revenues are equitably distributed. Key to it all, however, is the monopoly on the use of force by a central authority, and a political solution is the only way that can be achieved.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    That echoes Bush when appointing Petraeus. So, what are you saying?
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Actually, it doesn't. The Bush administration strategy, if that's what you wish to call it, has been little more than repeated admonitions to 'stay the course', and little else of substance. The only reason he may be changing his tune is, as with every other change of heart, is because he is shamed into it. Which proves he's not a shameless bastard after all. There, I said something good about Bush.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Untrue Bully. They are saying, have said, that the 'low impact' was not working. They need stronger, be it Iraqi or US. That is intrinsic with the surge.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    With the focus being on a military solution and some vague undefined "victory" in Iraq. The Bush administration hasn't yet pressured al Maliki's government to enter into negotiations with those insurgent groups, Sunnis and Shi'ias both, that are willing to do so. Without that political solution there will be no solution. American lacks the military force needed to enforce a peace in Iraq. This was clearly stated before the invasion, by then Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. But since his estimates didn't jive with administration policy, he was sacked.

    <blockquote>SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

    GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

    SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

    GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- <b>something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers</b> are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.</blockquote>

    General Shinseki has since been proven right. But the Bush administration thought they could wage war on the cheap, in terms of both blood and treasure. The invasion went off spectacularly well. The occupation has, to date, been a failure. And that was due to piss poor planning and political posturing on the part of teh Bush administration.

    With Iraqi military and police units heavily infiltrated by Shi'ite militiamen intent on settling scores with minority Sunnis, those forces can be of little use in restoring order until those militia members are purged or brought to heel. And even then, the numbers will be insufficient to do the job.

    The solution, dear lady, is political not military. We haven't the force of arms to make it otherwise.
     
  6. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Seriously, neocons, if you had superpowers, militarily, what exactly would you do to "fix" Iraq?
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    if i had supper powers .... all the criminals, freedom fighters, insurgents, plain cloths bathists, murderous religious zelots, and foriegn mercenaries would all die.....

    then i would bring all foriegn troops home and defend the southern border and arrest all the criminals.....

    then i would cut off all foreign aid

    then i would take all the money and re-build america.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Why you bastard !!! You totally left out New Orleans !!!!
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    well it used to be in america....did ray suceed NO when he renamed it chocolate city?
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    we can hope !~
     

Share This Page