No military solution...

[Bullypulpit]

<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.

 

[Annie]

<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.

That echoes Bush when appointing Petraeus. So, what are you saying?

 

[Bullypulpit]

That echoes Bush when appointing Petraeus. So, what are you saying?

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

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.

 

[William Joyce]

Seriously, neocons, if you had superpowers, militarily, what exactly would you do to "fix" Iraq?

 

[manu1959]

Seriously, neocons, if you had superpowers, militarily, what exactly would you do to "fix" Iraq?

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Why you bastard !!! You totally left out New Orleans !!!!

 

[manu1959]

Why you bastard !!! You totally left out New Orleans !!!!

well it used to be in america....did ray suceed NO when he renamed it chocolate city?

 

[dilloduck]

well it used to be in america....did ray suceed NO when he renamed it chocolate city?

we can hope !~