New RAND study says what many of us have been saying all along

[maineman]

Im not asking for their ideas. Im asking for your ideas. Clearly, handing keys to dems is as much a gamble as the 04 republicans have learned about Bush's ability to scrap RvW. I want to believe in Barack too. But, i'm not asking you to wear a team jersey, i'm asking for ideals about solutions intead of another 4 years of kicking the same ole dead horse.

I've posted my thought. have you?

often. just not on this thread.

 

[Shogun]

often. just not on this thread.

the perhaps you won't mind critically thinking about my posted solution while I do the same with yours if you post a link... you know, a useful mental exercise instead of kicking the shit out of that dead horse on the ground.

 

[CSM]

Three-step solution to solve the iraq quagmire:

1. build new modern cities out of secured settlements for Iraqis who want to step into the 21st century. Remove our troops from hostile zones and concentrate protecting modern city-states modeled after places like sparta. Im guessing it is tougher to plant an IED in a secured location than it is in a place like baghdad.

2. Grow democracy, a mix of capitolistic socialism, and education. Focus on the younger generation and make sure that their children are fed, clothed, and have the chance to see themselves through the eyes of the world rather than become violent and lashing out at the perceived threat of the west.

3. Create a market hooked on toilet paper and cable television and the internet. Build a peace offering that is a park facing mecca. Refocus on defending and supplying these location until a solid iraqi government can stock a viable military to patrol their own. Make sure that iraqis know that these locations are THERES and, through peacefully steeping into the modern age, they are working towards OWNING these modern locations.



A military presence never seems to change the hearts and minds of people. Our own history teaches us that we felt the same way. We need a way to filter those who are on board from those who are not on board and work on showing the rest what can be achieved out of this the carcass of this giant clusterfuck.

As with all things, the devil is in the details. I think your ideas have merit (surprise!!!) but they don't go far enough. Just of the top of my head and in line with your thinking:

1) Iraq's borders need to be secured to prevent intervention by partisan countries. Secured modern cities would soon find themselves hostile zones if that is not done. Logistics infrastructure needs to be in place as well that supports and sustains not only the welfare of the people but allows economic growth. This implies interaction with outside entities.

2) I was with you until you posted the word "socialism". I am not sure what you mean by that. Also, I do not know how you extract the ingrained religious doctrine which is part and parcel of the Muslim world. As has been pointed out many times on this board, the Sunnii-Shia are at odds and have been for the past few centuries.

3) What you describe is called "Westernization" (usually with a derogatory sneer) by some. Having said that, until such time as the country actually is secure, none of what you propose could possibly happen.

It is my opinion that until the country of Iraq can secure its borders (or some one does it for them), restore domestic tranquility and persuade its citizens to seek compromise on viable solutions for the good of all then there is no solution.

 

[Shogun]

As with all things, the devil is in the details. I think your ideas have merit (surprise!!!) but they don't go far enough. Just of the top of my head and in line with your thinking:

I'm not surprised at all. I realize that the shit talking is fun but unproductive. You asked about unity yesterday. This is the kind of excercise that would produce just that.

1) Iraq's borders need to be secured to prevent intervention by partisan countries. Secured modern cities would soon find themselves hostile zones if that is not done. Logistics infrastructure needs to be in place as well that supports and sustains not only the welfare of the people but allows economic growth. This implies interaction with outside entities.

Ill agree with a secure border and can see how it would be implemented into a second or third stage. However, I think that the absolute first step is in securing a location to build from. Think of the old west and the application of law in towns before they had a chance of extending into the rest of the old west. Indeed, the very point is to switch hostile zones from the current unsecured offensive in iraqi cities to a secured defensive position while investing in iraq's young government and infrastructure. I agree, they will need economic growth in order to achieve a modern standard of living and this growth can be sprouted in a secured city-state. I don't think that interaction with outside entities will be as much of a hazard inside a secured location as it currently is in open baghdad.


2) I was with you until you posted the word "socialism". I am not sure what you mean by that. Also, I do not know how you extract the ingrained religious doctrine which is part and parcel of the Muslim world. As has been pointed out many times on this board, the Sunnii-Shia are at odds and have been for the past few centuries.


I mean that people who are fed and housed and able to work at an acceptable SOL (standard of living) are generally less interested in le revolucion as those who are alienated into mob-rule disattachement from a means of living or peaceful government. Some will see any investment like this as socialism on par with America's welfare. I'm more interested in solutions that solve this problem instead of hearing a lecture about william buckley's opinion of the best economic structure. There will be food lines. There will be public housing. There will be many aspects to a solution that smack of socialism yet I also left plenty of room for capitolism to take root. hell, I WANT iraqis to take ownership of property in order to understand the value of having something to lose. However, I'm pretty sure that insisting on free market capitolism would be mal-adaptive. Let's not take socialist flavoured policies off the table. Dont forget, we are trying to forge a modern mid easterner who has a sense of a common national struggle against radical islam... and, let's face it, socialists have a better track record of consolidating support from the population than do Individualist capitolists. Think about the difference between miami and cuba.



3) What you describe is called "Westernization" (usually with a derogatory sneer) by some. Having said that, until such time as the country actually is secure, none of what you propose could possibly happen.


Which is why I focus on securing points of interconnected city states created to grow this security rather than stretch a military thin trying to wrap itself around an entire nation and it's high desnity populations. Indeed, people sneer because we've not been the best exapmle of the benefits of weternization. This is why I specifically listed things like toilet paper, cable tv and the internet as the bait to lure them into the 21st century. Do you think Mohammed the goat farmer would rather wipe his ass with his left hand or take a baby steps by using TP? an entire American market could be CREATED by creating low cost manufactured residences to offer the beats the hell out of living in the squallor they experiecne already.

Again, think about why the old west chose Wyatt instead of perpetuating lawlessness...


It is my opinion that until the country of Iraq can secure its borders (or some one does it for them), restore domestic tranquility and persuade its citizens to seek compromise on viable solutions for the good of all then there is no solution.

I disagree. I think that there are plenty of viable solutions that take the insecurity of the border into consideration. We didn't need to secure the Arizona territory in order to bring law to Tombstone. In fact, by our own history, law grew from spotted locations of security, yes?

 

[CSM]

As with all things, the devil is in the details. I think your ideas have merit (surprise!!!) but they don't go far enough. Just of the top of my head and in line with your thinking:

I'm not surprised at all. I realize that the shit talking is fun but unproductive. You asked about unity yesterday. This is the kind of excercise that would produce just that.

1) Iraq's borders need to be secured to prevent intervention by partisan countries. Secured modern cities would soon find themselves hostile zones if that is not done. Logistics infrastructure needs to be in place as well that supports and sustains not only the welfare of the people but allows economic growth. This implies interaction with outside entities.

Ill agree with a secure border and can see how it would be implemented into a second or third stage. However, I think that the absolute first step is in securing a location to build from. Think of the old west and the application of law in towns before they had a chance of extending into the rest of the old west. Indeed, the very point is to switch hostile zones from the current unsecured offensive in iraqi cities to a secured defensive position while investing in iraq's young government and infrastructure. I agree, they will need economic growth in order to achieve a modern standard of living and this growth can be sprouted in a secured city-state. I don't think that interaction with outside entities will be as much of a hazard inside a secured location as it currently is in open baghdad.


2) I was with you until you posted the word "socialism". I am not sure what you mean by that. Also, I do not know how you extract the ingrained religious doctrine which is part and parcel of the Muslim world. As has been pointed out many times on this board, the Sunnii-Shia are at odds and have been for the past few centuries.


I mean that people who are fed and housed and able to work at an acceptable SOL (standard of living) are generally less interested in le revolucion as those who are alienated into mob-rule disattachement from a means of living or peaceful government. Some will see any investment like this as socialism on par with America's welfare. I'm more interested in solutions that solve this problem instead of hearing a lecture about william buckley's opinion of the best economic structure. There will be food lines. There will be public housing. There will be many aspects to a solution that smack of socialism yet I also left plenty of room for capitolism to take root. hell, I WANT iraqis to take ownership of property in order to understand the value of having something to lose. However, I'm pretty sure that insisting on free market capitolism would be mal-adaptive. Let's not take socialist flavoured policies off the table. Dont forget, we are trying to forge a modern mid easterner who has a sense of a common national struggle against radical islam... and, let's face it, socialists have a better track record of consolidating support from the population than do Individualist capitolists. Think about the difference between miami and cuba.



3) What you describe is called "Westernization" (usually with a derogatory sneer) by some. Having said that, until such time as the country actually is secure, none of what you propose could possibly happen.


Which is why I focus on securing points of interconnected city states created to grow this security rather than stretch a military thin trying to wrap itself around an entire nation and it's high desnity populations. Indeed, people sneer because we've not been the best exapmle of the benefits of weternization. This is why I specifically listed things like toilet paper, cable tv and the internet as the bait to lure them into the 21st century. Do you think Mohammed the goat farmer would rather wipe his ass with his left hand or take a baby steps by using TP? an entire American market could be CREATED by creating low cost manufactured residences to offer the beats the hell out of living in the squallor they experiecne already.

Again, think about why the old west chose Wyatt instead of perpetuating lawlessness...


It is my opinion that until the country of Iraq can secure its borders (or some one does it for them), restore domestic tranquility and persuade its citizens to seek compromise on viable solutions for the good of all then there is no solution.

I disagree. I think that there are plenty of viable solutions that take the insecurity of the border into consideration. We didn't need to secure the Arizona territory in order to bring law to Tombstone. In fact, by our own history, law grew from spotted locations of security, yes?

We are not that far apart, it seems to me.

I suppose that in essence you are correct and that a country can form (eventually) from a few secure locations.

However, Iraq is already a country. We already know that dividing Iraq along Kurd/Sunii/Shia lines is unacceptable to the Iraqii people themselves (the very idea causes even more strife) and now we propose to divide the country based on "good Iraqiis" and "bad Iraqiis'. How do you address that?

Not only are we proposing here to discriminate among the Iraqiis but also abandone the idea of sovereignty for Iraqiis. Sounds like a pretty hard pill to swallow for anyone, nevermind a country whose citizens are engage in armed struggle among themselves.

 

[Shogun]

We are not that far apart, it seems to me.

I suppose that in essence you are correct and that a country can form (eventually) from a few secure locations.

However, Iraq is already a country. We already know that dividing Iraq along Kurd/Sunii/Shia lines is unacceptable to the Iraqii people themselves (the very idea causes even more strife) and now we propose to divide the country based on "good Iraqiis" and "bad Iraqiis'. How do you address that?

Not only are we proposing here to discriminate among the Iraqiis but also abandone the idea of sovereignty for Iraqiis. Sounds like a pretty hard pill to swallow for anyone, nevermind a country whose citizens are engage in armed struggle among themselves.

Im not trying to divide the country anymore than Wyatt Earp tried to divide the Arizona territory. Im not filtering according to religious denomination; i'm filtering those who want to step in a modern direction from those who are too blinded by radicalism to see what the west is trying to offer this side of removing Saddam. This is why I added a park facinig mecca, the guarentee of iraqi ownership, and investing in infrastructures like the economy. We could point to these places every time the oil issue comes up and say, "look, see what we've done to prove that our actions were benevolent" while taking our troops out of a more dangerous circumstance. I am not military man so maybe you can tell me: which is easier to secure, a city on patrol or a base location? it's a win, win, win.

Again, what is soverign about what we are doing in Baghdad? With my idea, we would have tangible proof of a valuable investment, the city-states, that would be the political playground of iraqis who can practice a western democracy without having to wonder if the election hall are going to blow up with an undetected IED. After ten years, I predict, many of those who have been radical may very well come to realize, via the example of iraqis enjoying the TP, what they are missing out on and hop on board and facilitate a lawful mid-eastern Tombstone. Remember, I'm taking out the necessity of jihad by making anobvious effort in respecting their dogma: a central park, if you will, facing mecca.


see, wasn't this little exercise a bit more interesting than wasting 20 more pages spitting at each other? Yes, i am quite sure that we ALL could discover a rational compromise and find unity through a common ground. I believe this could be done with most controversial issues if it were not the case that calling RGS a toad licking bastard was so much fun.

 

[CSM]

Im not trying to divide the country anymore than Wyatt Earp tried to divide the Arizona territory. Im not filtering according to religious denomination; i'm filtering those who want to step in a modern direction from those who are too blinded by radicalism to see what the west is trying to offer this side of removing Saddam. This is why I added a park facinig mecca, the guarentee of iraqi ownership, and investing in infrastructures like the economy. We could point to these places every time the oil issue comes up and say, "look, see what we've done to prove that our actions were benevolent" while taking our troops out of a more dangerous circumstance. I am not military man so maybe you can tell me: which is easier to secure, a city on patrol or a base location? it's a win, win, win.

Again, what is soverign about what we are doing in Baghdad? With my idea, we would have tangible proof of a valuable investment, the city-states, that would be the political playground of iraqis who can practice a western democracy without having to wonder if the election hall are going to blow up with an undetected IED. After ten years, I predict, many of those who have been radical may very well come to realize, via the example of iraqis enjoying the TP, what they are missing out on and hop on board and facilitate a lawful mid-eastern Tombstone. Remember, I'm taking out the necessity of jihad by making anobvious effort in respecting their dogma: a central park, if you will, facing mecca.


see, wasn't this little exercise a bit more interesting than wasting 20 more pages spitting at each other? Yes, i am quite sure that we ALL could discover a rational compromise and find unity through a common ground. I believe this could be done with most controversial issues if it were not the case that calling RGS a toad licking bastard was so much fun.

Well, in all fairness to Wyatt Earp, he was dealing with folks more akin to his way of thinking than the indigenous people of those territories. Iraqiis are not American settlers and sure as heck view things a lot differently than you and I. Therefore, I submit that any speculation on what you and I think would be a reasonable approach would have a very reception from the various factions in Iraq.

As for military tactics, it is very situational dependent. If we build these modern cities with tens of thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousand of inhabitants then the security of those cities becomes every bit as complex as providing security for existing cities. Providing security for bases is another (using the term base with it's military conotation) especilly if you consider that on a military base, the majority of its inhabitants are trained to react ... even their families have procedures to follow in various emergencies and particularly in overseaslocations.

Interestingly enough, I believe that the very Westernization you propose is fuel for the Islamic extremists hatred for the US. They have even stated as much. So how does this plan reduce the terrorist activity any more than US military presence currently in place?

LOL, I understand completely. I have my favorite targets as well. By the way, I have had lots of reasonable discussions with "the other side" on this board and enjoy them very much. I have even come to respect some of you liberal thinkng, no working, SoBs and value their opinions.

Unfortunately, such repartee is not the norm here and most 'discussions" quickly degrade into some sort of schoolyard shouting match.

 

[maineman]

Shogun...I like parts two and three, but see part one as being unfeasible.

I think that we should partition Iraq into three autonomous segments of a loosely knit federation, whose only purpose is to divvy up the profits of the oil industry.

I think that American forces should get to the border immediately and begin interdicting munitions supply from all Iraq's neighbors.

...that's a start.

 

[CSM]

Shogun...I like parts two and three, but see part one as being unfeasible.

I think that we should partition Iraq into three autonomous segments of a loosely knit federation, whose only purpose is to divvy up the profits of the oil industry.

I think that American forces should get to the border immediately and begin interdicting munitions supply from all Iraq's neighbors.

...that's a start.

MM with your experience in the ME, would you say that the various Iraqii factions would accept westernization efforts? Or would it fuel more resentment, be more divisive and give cause for even more violence?

Serious question.

 

[maineman]

MM with your experience in the ME, would you say that the various Iraqii factions would accept westernization efforts? Or would it fuel more resentment, be more divisive and give cause for even more violence?

Serious question.

that depends on what you mean by westernization. Conveniences and gadgets in the marketplace are already there and fairly well accepted. I still have about a hundred bootleg cassettes of all sorts of western musicians - bands, singers, etc...as well as arab music - that I bought from a variety of vendors in Lebanon.... knock off designer jeans, walkmans... I think they have a problem with adapting western (American) forms of government... they all got a charge out of getting purple fingers, but they don't really know how to or seemingly care to really learn how to actually make democracy work. IOW... they are businessmen..they understand the marketplace... they enjoy the marketplace and buying and selling what their customers want...they don't understand our governance.

 

[Alpha1]

Shogun...your ideas are commendable....did you consider a timeframe....?

from where I sit, I'd guess 100 to 150 years might be required to achieve the goals....with car bombs and IED's pretty much a way of life...

-----------

What about the Rand Corps. ideas ? Do they have no merit....
They are just about identical to what Bush is trying to do right now....can they be fined tuned to achieve more results.....?

Bitching is easy...brainstorming is quite a different matter, isn't it...

 

[rayboyusmc]

Even the surrender monkey Democrats must see the danger sooner or later....and conclude that running and hiding will not bring us safety...
and before the morons suggest it....converting to Islam is not an option...

No but converting from stupid might be an option.

Please tell your drivel about surrender monkey democrats to those democrats who have served and are currently serving. And then just for the hell of it please also tell it to those famous patriotic republicans who ran away from military service such as Cheney, Limbaugh, Feith, etc.

I bet there would have been the same shit in Germany if they had the internet and anyone was against invading Poland.

Please point out where anyone but you said we need to run and hide. What has been said, and you apparently can't or won't deal with it, is that the War in Iraq was not needed and hasn't made the world one fukking bit safer.

If, anything, and this is from our intelligence surrender monkeys, it has made it more dangerous and has aided terrorist recruiting. It has also made US the enemy in more peoples' eyes in the Mideast. More than before. It has also somehow just ingnored the fact that all but one of the attackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabians. But a true patriot will just keep backing the plan no matter how bad it is if Bushy says it will work. What the hell, they all look alike those towel heads, right?

I guess you don't get the concept of defeating them through police and intelligence work. That is not surrender. That will bring success.

I realize I probably wasted all this font on you based on the tone of your threads, but fukk it. Even the blind may someday see.

 

[CSM]

that depends on what you mean by westernization. Conveniences and gadgets in the marketplace are already there and fairly well accepted. I still have about a hundred bootleg cassettes of all sorts of western musicians - bands, singers, etc...as well as arab music - that I bought from a variety of vendors in Lebanon.... knock off designer jeans, walkmans... I think they have a problem with adapting western (American) forms of government... they all got a charge out of getting purple fingers, but they don't really know how to or seemingly care to really learn how to actually make democracy work. IOW... they are businessmen..they understand the marketplace... they enjoy the marketplace and buying and selling what their customers want...they don't understand our governance.

Hmmm...given then that they are at least partially westernized, then I suppose we can scrap the idea of providing toilet paper (oversimplification here).

 

[Shogun]

Thank you CSM, Mainman and Alpha1 for giving my idea critical thinking time. I probably should have created it's own thread but I think you all get my point about moving past the dead horse and finding common ground while figuring out a viable solution.

CSM,
Yes, you are right.. there will still be an element of perceived encroachment and I have no doubt that what I've proposed sounds an awfully lot like manifest destiny and giving injuns shoes and expecting them to hop on board. Trust me, I am quite aware of the parallels. As you said, the devil is in the details and I would be willing to iron these things out and toss around some contingency plans. I am optimistic that there is a solution that America can agree on beyond getting stuck on the last 20 years of politics. You never know, such an effort in bipartisan brainstorming would probably be very popular on digg.com.



Maineman,
I've considered splitting the nation according to sect too but then, in my opinion, we'd be accused of favoring a particular flavor of their dogma while alienating 2/3 of the population. When suggesting a fortified city-state i'm reminded of Troy in particular. Troy was completely defendable and I'm sure our military can secure a similar patch of land; protect a concentrated population of iraqis that want to move forward and expand outward from there. However, I won't allow my giant ego to convince me that these ideas are infallable and welcome any input you can offer in the details.


Alpha1,
To be honest, I'm thinking that we'd see tangible results in less than 25-50 years. I think that this kind of change is very capable in such a short time given the evidence of our own nation. Yes, there will always be a fringe crowd that refuses to play ball regardless; we still have homegrown examples of that today. But, who can deny that strong opinions of yesteryear have become a small flame of opposition? I'm thinking specifically of race relations that have been a thorn for more than half of our nations history. I use this same type of strategy when suggesting solutions for palestine and israel too, by the way. I honestly believe that conflict could be settled in less than a decade if the main motivation were peace instead of ethnic identity. In iraq, we have the benefit of a common ethnic identity and I'm willing to roll the dice and bet that the average iraqi would hop on board as long as we were producing tangible results in their living standard. Not to mention, concentrating our military in order to reduce their risk of harm instead of using them like wrapping tin foil around a watermelon.

 

[Shogun]

Hmmm...given then that they are at least partially westernized, then I suppose we can scrap the idea of providing toilet paper (oversimplification here).

Indeed, maybe the TP was a little too easy. I guess I'm thinking of the very dirt poor who have been disenfranchised by what have you. But, I'm betting jacks, joes and dominoes that their kids will enjoy video games just like ours do. I just heard on the radio that Disco music is has started becoming popular somewhere over there. Cell phones. Ipods. Opportunity. These are all things that seperate our venture from that of manifest destiny, I think. We wanted the US to expand west. Here, we don't want their land.

Basically, I agree with another of Missouri's masterful minds:

"Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed."
Mark Twain




bonus Twain quotes.. I couldn't resist

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."...The Mysterious Stranger

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. -- Notebook, 1898

"Citizenship should be placed above everything else, even learning. Is there in any college of the land a chair of citizenship where good citizenship and all that it implies is taught? There is not one -- that is, not one where sane citizenship is taught. There are some which teach insane citizenship, bastard citizenship, but that is all. Patriotism! Yes; but patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest."-- speech, 5/14/1908

If any of you ever get the chance, Hannibal Missouri is a beautiful destination