Dr. Buzz0's 7 steps to Iraq Victory

[DRBUZZ0]

been meaning to post this, but since Saddam is dead, I figured it would be a good time:


I looked at the Iraq study group's report, or at least the abstract and I really didn't like what I saw. They basically said "we're up ◊◊◊◊ creek, and there's nothing we can do"

Well...I disagree, the situation is bad, but I don't think it's necessarily impossible to have a postivie outcome. It'll be expensive, and hard and probably there will be more casualties, but I don't think it's impossible. Having considered the history of Rome and other conquerers as well as wars of attrition and insurgencies throughout history, I have come up with 7 steps which, if carried out fully, will give the best chances of victory.

Personally, I don't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq, but there we are and if we leave it all fubared like it is, it's really going to be a massive problem for a long time.






#1. Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda – No Iraqi should be able to turn on a TV, pick up a newspaper or listen to the radio without seeing 100% well-crafted news, information and entertainment designed to reinforce the ideas that Iraq is improving, the insurgents are losing and the people are uniting against them. Infringing on freedom of the press? Perhaps. But although the free press is important in a democracy, what exists now is more of anarchy. Hold rallies, post signs, gloss things over. As much as we want to believe that people are too smart to be fooled by that, it’s actually scary what you can get a large population to do with enough propaganda. Get some advertising people in here. If we have propaganda, we don’t have enough. And you can never have too much!




#2. Provide Entertainment – People will be somewhat thankful if you give them freedoms and equality, but give them consumer products and they will love you. Iraq must be inundated with candy, soda, televisions, video games, movie theaters, concerts. Porn is already selling like crazy…but that may not be the best thing, given the culture. Why do you think the Romans built theaters and coliseums wherever they conquered?

#3. Cameras…EVERYWHERE – Every In Iraq should have thousands of video cameras, located on every rooftop, ally, streetcornor. Furthermore, there should be a huge team of actual humans, switching from camera to camera, looking for anything suspicious. This can be added with AI patern-reconition software. The cameras could range from armored pan-tilt-zoon night vision cameras to simple low-cost stationary cameras which are almost disposable.

Every major highway in Iraq should have small solar or infrastructure powered hidden cameras with simple packet modems which can send time laps pictures every second to every couple of minutes. If a convoy is moving down a road, they can connect to the cameras ahead and view the past day of cached images looking for suspicious activity or view a live medium-quality feed.

Additionally, there should always be a large number of UAV’s flying all over the country. Ranging from Global Hawk and Predator aircraft to simple, inexpensive UAV’s, which lack the high quality thermal and high resolution radars of the predator, but can be manufactured in huge numbers. Even high altitude balloons can come into play. Given the current troop number, it would not be a huge manpower effort to have several hundred troops scanning around video feeds.


#4. My own invention (unless it’s already been done) – The ROBOSNIPE – With a hand free of muscle tremor and the ability to fire rounds with enough power to knock any human’s arm out of the socket, the Robosnipe can be placed on rooftops or other strategic locations, especially within cities. It’s operator can aim the gun remotely using high prevision optics and range finding.

With lightning fast reflexes, the system can be set to follow an individuals head, waiting for the right time to fire. It can also be set so to abort a fire command, if another person walks into the line of fire the millisecond the trigger is pushed. Or to shoot as soon the instant an obstacle moves.

The result: Somebody is being kidnapped. The incident is detected by software or by the scream of the person. The response center zooms in via cameras and verifies what is happening. And as the assailants begin to get into the car, they all fall within one second, as blood pours from their temples. The shots coming from several robotic snipers in different directions. Nobody can even tell what direction they came from. That’d be scary in an almost god-like way.

Also can be modified with hellfire missiles.



#5. Train Iraqi Troops…Elsewhere – Before the Iraqi army can fight in the streets, they have to work together. It is important to continue recruiting troops, but take them to a controlled environment, such as an isolated base in the desert, or even to Fort Knox Kentucky, if you have to. Put them through basic training, drilling, some simulated combat and learning the military way of working. ONLY then, can they begin to undergo in-battle training. Hopefully it can be done in a couple of months with the help of more experienced Iraqis, interpreters and US officers.


#6. Iraqi Officers in Command of Troops – Having Iraqi troops keeping order is good, but if they’re answering to American commanders that can only do so much. A better and easier way of putting an “Iraqi Face” on operation is to have very visible Iraqi officers calling the shots of troops, even American troops. Obviously such officers would be the more trusted ones and would be, in reality, puppets, who’s command would be immediately annulled if their calls are not wanted. However, the important thing is the image it creates. If people see situations being commanded by confident local officers and American troops obeying the orders it creates a powerful message. “Iraqis are in charge. The Americans in this unit are working for Iraqis.” The more Iraqi officers and commanders people see, and the more authority appears in them, the more confidence they will have in their government.

#7. Close the borders – The borders are big, but it isn’t *that* hard with the proper technology. Put up a lot of signs written in English, Turkish, Arabic and in pictographs which communicate a clear message “If you want to come in go a few miles that way to the checkpoint. If you pass into this area, you will be blown up by a landmine or shot by one of our drones or robotic guns”

 

[Darth Rotor]

#7. Close the borders – The borders are big, but it isn’t *that* hard with the proper technology. Put up a lot of signs written in English, Turkish, Arabic and in pictographs which communicate a clear message “If you want to come in go a few miles that way to the checkpoint. If you pass into this area, you will be blown up by a landmine or shot by one of our drones or robotic guns”

All other points aside, I don't think you have a clue.

Border closure is as much a human undertaking as a physical one, and it is at the human level that the border seive problem has been undermined, regardless of force levels in Iraq. My own operational experience on the Iraq border problem is that General Abizaid's comments to reporters, circa August 2004, is the best short summary:

We can't even control the US-Mexico border.

DR

 

[DRBUZZ0]

All other points aside, I don't think you have a clue.

Border closure is as much a human undertaking as a physical one, and it is at the human level that the border seive problem has been undermined, regardless of force levels in Iraq. My own operational experience on the Iraq border problem is that General Abizaid's comments to reporters, circa August 2004, is the best short summary:



DR

It's not an issue of "can't" secure the border. There are ways of securing very large borders effeciently. Consider the Korean DMZ, the Soviet border between East and West Germany and the borders of israel.

First, landmines are cheap and amazingly effective. Dropping them over large areas by aircraft or ground is easy and effective. In the case of soviet border control, the option was simply to place watchposts every half mile or so. If anything is seen moving, or if someone thinks they saw something moving or if there is suspicion that something has moved, you drop several thousand rounds on it. A similar option is the idea of having observers placed at stratagic places and use of indirect fire. Anything seen moving is hit by a lot of artilary and/or many tons of bombs.

I also recal hearing something about the use of a high voltage electric fense using surplus submarine batteries used by the Japaneses to stop chinese resistance fighters from gaining teritory. Very fendish as there was the use of hidden wires dangling around, and if someone happened to come in contact with one, the batteries would discharge enough energy to literally make them explode in steam, before the wire length they touched melted, returning the system to an open state.

Then again there's the example of the stalemates in World War I. Charging was made from trenches, but it really only took a couple of machine guns to cut down a very long line of troops.

But above all else, I think remote triggered guns and land mines have proven historically to be the easiest and cheapest way of stoping an advance.

Do you really think that politically those could be put on the mexican border? I would doubt it.



No...physical measures alone cannot stop some from slipping through checkpoints or otherwise entering. But it can make a big dent

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not an issue of "can't" secure the border. There are ways of securing very large borders effeciently. Consider the Korean DMZ, the Soviet border between East and West Germany and the borders of israel.

Get out your tape measure. Compare N/S Korea (38th parallel) to Iraq's border. Measure also IGB.

First, landmines are cheap and amazingly effective.

Not politically saleable, given the immense anti land mine movement among the whack job left.

Dropping them over large areas by aircraft or ground is easy and effective.

Sure, it a tactical operation, but see my political point above.

In the case of soviet border control, the option was simply to place watchposts every half mile or so.

OK, is the political will around in the US led coalition to act like the Soviets, yes or no?

If anything is seen moving, or if someone thinks they saw something moving or if there is suspicion that something has moved, you drop several thousand rounds on it.

Spoken like a fool. That is not a politically acceptable RoE.

A similar option is the idea of having observers placed at stratagic places and use of indirect fire. Anything seen moving is hit by a lot of artilary and/or many tons of bombs.

In my, or your, wet dreams, sure, but not IRL. See political point above.

I also recal hearing something about the use of a high voltage electric fense using surplus submarine batteries used by the Japaneses to stop chinese resistance fighters from gaining teritory.

And the counter to it is? And the counter to the counter? Back to eyes on target, and rounds on target, and back to my political point.

Then again there's the example of the stalemates in World War I. Charging was made from trenches, but it really only took a couple of machine guns to cut down a very long line of troops.

What does that have to do with border control. Get out your tape measure again, count troops, and then go back to another plan, please.

But above all else, I think remote triggered guns and land mines have proven historically to be the easiest and cheapest way of stoping an advance.

Sure, if the political will were there to draw the lines in blood.

Do you really think that politically those could be put on the mexican border? I would doubt it.

Right. So, why the rest of your post?

DR

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Get out your tape measure. Compare N/S Korea (38th parallel) to Iraq's border. Measure also IGB.

Not politically saleable, given the immense anti land mine movement among the whack job left.

I do not need a tape measure. The continuous land border of iraq is roughly 2000 miles. Of couse, much of that is nearly impassable, but the point stands. At the very least many hundreds of miles.

Sure, it a tactical operation, but see my political point above.

OK, is the political will around in the US led coalition to act like the Soviets, yes or no?

To act like the Soviets? If one is to consider it a necessity to insure security, then why not? It's obvious that certain steps can be taken, which would be beyond those of normal times, when all other options for security have failed.

Spoken like a fool. That is not a politically acceptable RoE.

Perhaps an over-exadgeration, but spoken like a fool? Well it sounds like someone has never tried to escape North Korea. There are many stories of how "Trigger Happy" the observation posts are. Hence, those who have managed to make it across the DMZ are almost universally doing so by bribing insiders or going though unguarded areas.

In my, or your, wet dreams, sure, but not IRL. See political point above.

And the counter to it is? And the counter to the counter? Back to eyes on target, and rounds on target, and back to my political point.

What does that have to do with border control. Get out your tape measure again, count troops, and then go back to another plan, please.

Sure, if the political will were there to draw the lines in blood.

Right. So, why the rest of your post?

DR

Yes, I realize that the borders are huge. We've gone over this before. No you could not make an electric fence go over the entire border. No you could not have manned machine guns covering the entire border. However, if you've ever opened a history book, you might realize that YES it is VERY possible to stop the crossing of very large areas of land by using manned and unmanned systems, determinants and such.

I will point you to more examples if you care: During the Vietnam war, one of the most effective tactics of the US was to keep orbiting bombers and or A/C-130 aircraft, waiting for a spotter to see someone coming down the Ho Chi Mein trail and then blow the hell out of the whole area. YES IT WORKED, infact it was called the most terrifying weapon by the Vietcong and was a HUGE dent in moral. So why didn't it work? Primarly because of political reasons and because that only addressed one aspect of the war. Also such tactics were not used from the beginning and were severely limited (NOT BY THE MILITARY BUT BY POLITICIANS).


I can point to you time after time where through the use of remote and indirect fire, manned outposts, landmines, security systems, fenses and otherwise very large areas of lad have successfully been secured.

Do you realize how much money we are spending to begin with? Most of the systems I have given as examples are given because they are ideally suited to economically be deployed over extremely large areas.



So it's politics? Well, I'm not addressing the most popular tactics, but rather the ones which work.

 

[davefoc]

I like Dr. Buzz0's thinking, if not his ideas.

He's approaching the problem like an engineer might. Let's think out of the box and get some options on the table and then analyze them and test them to see which ones are the best.

Still, I think, the problem here might be that the problem is not as straightforward as Dr. Buzz0 assumes.

1. The Iraqi insurgency seems to be multifaceted and a simplistic idea of supporting one group over all others might not achieve much. There seem to be a significant contingent of Shiites who want to savage the Sunnis. It is not completely clear that the particular group of Shiites that we happen to be siding with isn't fairly closely aligned to that group of Shiites.

2. There seems to be a significant amount of cross border trading in the area and stopping cross border shipments of arms might entail the stopping of trade which might really piss people off and that alone has the potential to undermine any automated border systems.

3. Even if the US managed to secure some kind of momentary stability before it leaves the only real test of a stable solution will be for the US to leave and see how stuff goes. It is still far from clear, at least to me, that the US is accomplishing anything with regard to the establishment of a long term peace. Dr. Buzz0's ideas seem most directed at creating a short term peace with the hope that this is more likely to lead to long term stability than if the US leaves with the country in significant turmoil. This may or may not be true.

What scares me is that the issue of whether the US should stay or go and what it should do if it stays looks to be a very difficult calculation that requires great skill to make well. I do not believe that Bushco has shown the slightest instance of great skill with the making of any Iraq decisions. And now Bushco is hampered by the biases of choosing the best action from a list that includes many which will require the candid admission of Bushco screwups and some which require diplomatic efforts that Bushco seems to be completely incapable of.

My own cut at this is that the new congress will constrain Bushco from it's worst excesses but basically the US will limp along for the next two years headed by an individual that is highly unskilled in the job of POTUS.

It may be that the best opportunity to improve the situation in Iraq using Dr. Buzz0's out of the box thinking style is to figure out how to get somebody else besides Bushco in charge of the effort.

 

[a_unique_person]

Crickey, have you been reading "1984", Dr Buzzo? I thought they were supposed to be given Freedom. Now it appears the object is victory.

 

[tkingdoll]

Send in Nichelle Nichols to do an erotic fan dance.

 

[kittynh]

microchip people. You know that GPS stuff....like in James Bond.

Take away the guns from everyone. Oh no! Can't do that! Not with a Texan in office. Sure, only the criminals will have guns. That way we'll know they are criminals.

Someone recently suggested that Saddam be put back in power, but I guess it is too late for the excellent suggestion.

Needed, one miliatary dictator....not a religious fruitcake please.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Crickey, have you been reading "1984", Dr Buzzo? I thought they were supposed to be given Freedom. Now it appears the object is victory.

the objective is always victory. You can't have freedom if you are so unsafe and in an area so unstable that you can't leave your home.

Are the measures I've proposed extreme? Perhaps. Something we would want to do? No. They might even be considered heavy-handed.

However I think that extreme measures may be required. We have an EXTREME mess. Whether or not such tactics are really within the spirit of democracy is an accidental question when you really have something that has no resemblance's to a democracy.


I really think that it's about time that someone looks at the situation differently. It's not a question of "Do we belong here." It's not a question of "Should this have started in the first place."

Keep it simple "What are out problems and what are the most effective potential solutions."

The problems: Insurgency caused by a combination of foreign fighters and locals. Iraqi government is seen by many as US controlled. People lack faith in the Iraqi government. US is losing support from Iraqis. Iraqis see US/Iraq government failing. This intern, causes more to support the insurgency.

The goal of the insurgency is to delegitimized the coalition government. They say that the US is an invader/is making things worse/is not in control. People see things that reinforces this.

It's a cycle more violence -> less support for government ->more sympathizers for insurgency->insurgency grows->more unrest ->citizens see need to take things into their own hands->more violence.



WHERE THE HELL IS GENE KRANZ WHEN YOU NEED HIM???

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Oops I fotgot to put a rendering of "my invention" the robosnipe.


Actually it has been demonstrated before in wars and otherwise that there is a very powerful psycological effect of having death come out of nowhere, having insurgents struck down immediately sends a very very powerful message.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I do not need a tape measure. The continuous land border of iraq is roughly 2000 miles. Of couse, much of that is nearly impassable, but the point stands. At the very least many hundreds of miles.

Then you don't understand how people cross the border.

To act like the Soviets? If one is to consider it a necessity to insure security, then why not? It's obvious that certain steps can be taken, which would be beyond those of normal times, when all other options for security have failed.

You can't propose a military activity in isolation from the political context, at least not when US forces are involved, nor NATO forces. Sorry, your idea is a Hollywood version of a Rambo style wet dream. l

Perhaps an over-exadgeration, but spoken like a fool? Well it sounds like someone has never tried to escape North Korea.

We are not North Korea, are we?

Yes, I realize that the borders are huge. We've gone over However, if you've ever opened a history book, you might realize that YES it is VERY possible to stop the crossing of very large areas of land by using manned and unmanned systems, determinants and such.

If you have the political will to shoot first, ask later, and allow the sort of RoE that I suggest in my previous post was your or my wet dream. Not available, we are talking the US and the West here. I am willing to bet I've opened a few more history books than you have, DrB, unless you pare a history professor. I have probably read more detailed professional treatises on the political military interface than you have. (I even wrote a few papers on it, but nothing earthshaking, and nothing that will change how anyone thinks as far as I can tell.)

I will point you to more examples if you care: During the Vietnam war, one of the most effective tactics of the US was to keep orbiting bombers and or A/C-130 aircraft, waiting for a spotter to see someone coming down the Ho Chi Mein trail and then blow the hell out of the whole area.

Ho Chi Minh. So, tell me DrB, was the sensor to shooter link a 100% proposition? Was the RoE permissive? How many squadrons of fighter bombers does it take to keep a 24/7 orbit for on call CAS for a confined area like a small section of the Ho Chi Minh trail? How many squadrons of fighter bombers are available, and on task, on any given day in Iraq? (I know the answer to that for the year 2004, and can guess it is the same today . . . do you? Do you know how much of Iraq that covers? I do. )

YES IT WORKED, in fact it was called the most terrifying weapon by the Vietcong and was a HUGE dent in moral. So why didn't it work? Primarly because of political reasons and because that only addressed one aspect of the war.

Firebombing Tokyo also worked against morale, as did two atomic bombs. We don't do that anymore.

We do use AC-130's still, and to good effect. If the sole mission in Iraq were border security, they could be diverted there, and perhaps make border security more effective. But that isn't the sole mission. The AC-130's are a low density, high demand platform.

Also such tactics were not used from the beginning and were severely limited (NOT BY THE MILITARY BUT BY POLITICIANS).

See my previous political point, yet again, in the previous post and this one.

I can point to you time after time where through the use of remote and indirect fire, manned outposts, landmines, security systems, fenses and otherwise very large areas of lad have successfully been secured.

Short or long term? Under what RoE? With what force levels?

Do you realize how much money we are spending to begin with?

Yes.

Most of the systems I have given as examples are given because they are ideally suited to economically be deployed over extremely large areas.

We don't have enough AC-130's in the inventory to cover the entire Iraq border during all hours of darkness to seal it. However, if all I had to do was border security, I could probably give you a draft op plan for it in a few days, with a few annexes. (Were I completely starved for things to do.) I'd sure as hell want as much air support as the NCA would allow me to have, AC-130's and some other special purpose forces being high on my list of desires. As I am retired, and you aren't a general, you don't get no stinking op plan for a masturbatory non-mission.

So it's politics? Well, I'm not addressing the most popular tactics, but rather the ones which work.

Perhaps work a bit better than now, as the border mission is an economy of force. Doctrinally, it fits in along the lines of a Screen or Guard category of mission orders. Again, you cannot divorce the tactical from the political, no matter how you wish you could.

The year is 2006.

DR

 

[fuelair]

the objective is always victory. /QUOTE]

And if it is not, you are wasting your time and other people's lives and money.
I would not have been nearly so annoyed and unsupportive of the war in VietNam (yes, for those who have paid attention, I was there - Army, Long Binh - never said I supported it) had we been there to win. I have no use for wars to hold an area or make a point - drop a small nuke and see if they are smart enough to get the message. If not, repeat dose as necessary or patient irretrievable.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Then you don't understand how people cross the border.

I do not know the entirety of the terain and would have to study a topographic map. that is an estimate. There are roughly 2000 miles of border, therefore the maximum distance to secure is 2000 miles.

You can't propose a military activity in isolation from the political context, at least not when US forces are involved, nor NATO forces. Sorry, your idea is a Hollywood version of a Rambo style wet dream. l

Perhaps not. In which case the tactics would have to be sold to politicians and citizens. Again, I have not said that it would be done and I think it probably won't be done

We are not North Korea, are we?

No. But do you realize the situation? Extreme problems demand extreme solutions. The famous example is "

"Q: You have a suspect who you know for a fact has a child hidden somewhere in a chamber with limited air supply and who will die in a matter of hours. What do you do to make him talk

A: Anything you have to."

Ho Chi Minh. So, tell me DrB, was the sensor to shooter link a 100% proposition? Was the RoE permissive? How many squadrons of fighter bombers does it take to keep a 24/7 orbit for on call CAS for a confined area like a small section of the Ho Chi Minh trail? How many squadrons of fighter bombers are available, and on task, on any given day in Iraq? (I know the answer to that for the year 2004, and can guess it is the same today . . . do you? Do you know how much of Iraq that covers? I do. )

Wow... well obviously you know everything because I can only give you estimates and you know the number. Let me check for you. Okay. The united states has at least 600 C-130's in current service, but that does not include the reserve or ones which are not directly involved in military operations. Plus there are quite a few mothballed in Scottsdale. I'm not sure how long a conversion process to AC-130 takes, but I know it has been done in under a month, although it would require some retooling. So if we are to estimate that there are roughly 1000 C-130s and if half could be used..

Lets see.. what else.. we've got 98 B-52's in service. I will have to check up on the B-1b. And yes...they can effectively be kept in the air all the tiem...it was done for decades.

Then the A-10's would probably be effective + cobras + Apaches + armed Blackhawks. Lets see. Then there are f-15's and f-16s and f-18's...

No... I do not know the number. However I am quite confident a large enough number of aircraft can be put together.

And don't quote for me the current production rate. When you are in an extreme situation you make it happen, even if it requires using Treasury silver to make wire windings or to use old tank barrels to make bomb casings...

Firebombing Tokyo also worked against morale, as did two atomic bombs. We don't do that anymore.

If firebombing and using nukes were necessary to secure critical objectives and secure national security, then do you doubt we would do so? Need I remind you that there are over 4,000 nuclear weapons in the active stockpile and many more in the "enduring stockpile." They are there incase they are needed. We don't want to use them, but if it came down to it, we would.

We do use AC-130's still, and to good effect. If the sole mission in Iraq were border security, they could be diverted there, and perhaps make border security more effective. But that isn't the sole mission. The AC-130's are a low density, high demand platform.

Once again you have shown that one of the solutions I propose to border security, all by itself would not get the job done. I have not proposed this. But rather have proposed it could be part of a much larger system, using aircraft, drones (yes I know we don't currently have enough), fences, manned and unmanned stations, indirect fire, electric fences, sensors, remote weapons.

See my previous political point, yet again, in the previous post and this one.

Short or long term? Under what RoE? With what force levels?

I do not know the force levels or the exact rules of engagement other than there is posted warning and possibly audio warnings. Short term or long term would depend primarily on how things progressed.

Force levels will have to be calculated. There! You have me. I cannot give you exact numbers and to do so will take me some effort, even then they could be subject to change.

Lets think about how things get designed/built/created. When you want to do something, don't you think you ought to propose the general idea before getting the details?

For example: Lets say you want to send a man to the moon... you propose a method, such as: Large rocket carries two craft, a lunar module and a command module to return to earth in. You send it into orbit and then have a trans-lunar injection and then...

Now, once you establish that is the idea, then you start working out the details.

Now, if you had approached Warner Von Braun in 1964 and asked him how RPM's the auxilary fuel pump on his proposed saturn 5 would run at, do you think he could tell you? Probably not, because it had not been designed yet.

If a politician proposes that a bill be drafted, is he supposed to know, what the third subclause of the second section is going to say? Doubtful.

If you want me to write an entire report on how this can be implimented, then I will have to get a group of statisticians, geographers, historians, engineers, politicians, scientists together and begin crunching numbers. I do not care to do that. This is the initial proposal.



So lets finish here.... of the 7 steps I have proposed, you have managed to find that one of the 7, which has several possible proposed methods of working, cannot work with one of those methods.

Furthermore, you have demonstrated that the proposal is not perfect and could probably not eliminate 100% of the problem.


Lastly, you have demonstrated how the workings would cause diplomatic problems and that the idea that there could be a mixed-message or that it might not adhere to the purist interpertation of philosophies is clearly MUCH WORST then the alternative which would be: Additional destabalization of the region, complete loss of control in Iraq, an all out civil war, loss of credibility, a political victory for insurgents.

Also, since this is not good politics, it clearly is not worth proposing or attempting to sell to politicians or even writing about in a forum online as a brainstorm of what needs to be done...

 

[DRBUZZ0]

the objective is always victory. /QUOTE]

And if it is not, you are wasting your time and other people's lives and money.
I would not have been nearly so annoyed and unsupportive of the war in VietNam (yes, for those who have paid attention, I was there - Army, Long Binh - never said I supported it) had we been there to win. I have no use for wars to hold an area or make a point - drop a small nuke and see if they are smart enough to get the message. If not, repeat dose as necessary or patient irretrievable.

I realize it sounds oversimplistic when one says "The objective is always victory."

War is not a pleasant thing. It should be avoided if possible. However, once you are in it, your options are limited.

I do not want to take you on about Vietnam. I very much appreciate your service and I don't care to have an accidemic debate about the war.

My contention is this: We are in Iraq. We have a bad situation in Iraq. Perhaps we should have never gone there... well, too late. We really need to win this one. I mean...REALLY. IMHO, the implications of loss in Iraq are much worse for national security than Vietnam.

What you have experienced in Vietnam is beyond my realm of experience, and beyond that of anyone who was not there. I don't want to come off in any way as disrespectful of those who are in the field. They have a unique perspective and doubtless their opinions should be listened to closely.

However, my general contentions are that radical thinking is needed and that this is really a matter of practice rather than theory




I am very concerned about the general additude that we should do whatever possible to leave and cut our losses and reduce the investment in lives and dollars. It's too late to avoid it. This has got to be licked.. Yes, it will be expensive and yes it won't be easy, but it's got to happen.

 

[davefoc]

the objective is always victory. /QUOTE]

And if it is not, you are wasting your time and other people's lives and money.
I would not have been nearly so annoyed and unsupportive of the war in VietNam (yes, for those who have paid attention, I was there - Army, Long Binh - never said I supported it) had we been there to win. I have no use for wars to hold an area or make a point - drop a small nuke and see if they are smart enough to get the message. If not, repeat dose as necessary or patient irretrievable.

I think victory may not be achievable at this point by any means if victory is defined as the establishment of a democratic, secular government that is supported by the strong majority of all factions and that is not significantly controlled by Iran.

For one thing, this American disaster is a significant victory for the Iranian leadership that has been listening to Bushco sabre rattling for three or four years now. They have undoubtedly won. The Bushco sabre rattling helped cement the fundamentalist leadership and the Iraq disasters for the US has eliminated the political capital that Bushco would have needed to act militarily against Iran.

It's a pretty big win for the Syrians also.

But if victory could be scaled back to mean only that the US leaves Iraq with a chance that a brutal civil war might be avoided and some kind of roughly humanitarian government evolves then it seems like victory might be possible. It is conceivable, that if the Iranians could be convinced that the US wasn't going to attack them that they might decide to help prevent a major humanitarian disaster in Iraq. There would be two incentives:
1. Humanitarian - I doubt that the Iranians really want to see hundred's of thousands of Iraqis killed in chaotic civil war.
2. Practical - Up to now American disasters have been to the Iranians benefit. Total chaos won't be and could involve the region in disastrous conflict.

In this scenario, which as a practical matter could not happen with the Bushco chickenhawks in charge, the Iranians would work to encourage the most extreme Shiites from starting a holy war against the Sunnis and the Sunnis would be given some options that might placate most of their resistance.

Unfortunately, far and away the most likely outcome here is that Bush stays the course for the next two years, thousands more Americans die and tens of thousands more Iraqis are killed and the new American president will be left to solve the problem which will entail pulling the US troops out and hoping the Iranians can see the benefit of working to prevent the chaotic collapse of Iraq on their own. For better or worse, Iran will be the strongest power in the middle east by far and the neocon dream of controlling the middle east through military coercion will be dead, at least for a generation or so.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I think victory may not be achievable at this point by any means if victory is defined as the establishment of a democratic, secular government that is supported by the strong majority of all factions and that is not significantly controlled by Iran.

It may not be achievable. It may be achievable. Would you like to propose a shift which could achieve victory? Or are you basically saying you have given up entirely?

Ever heard the phrase "Failure is not an option"

As long as there is no plan for victory, there won't be victory. We need a plan to fix the situation. We do not need to say "Well, we can't gaurentee that any given strategy will turn out how we want, so lets not try"

 

[davefoc]

It may not be achievable. It may be achievable. Would you like to propose a shift which could achieve victory? Or are you basically saying you have given up entirely?

Ever heard the phrase "Failure is not an option"

As long as there is no plan for victory, there won't be victory. We need a plan to fix the situation. We do not need to say "Well, we can't gaurentee that any given strategy will turn out how we want, so lets not try"

First let me express some humility here. I am not an expert on this situation. I probably know less about the situation than many of the posters here.

But from my perspective, talk of "victory" when "victory" isn't defined sounds more like discussion by using feel good ambiguities than discussion by using logic. "Victory" in WWII obviously meant something and there wasn't much need to define it. "Victory" with respect to Iraq doesn't obviously mean anything, so it needs to be defined if one is going to discuss the possibility of it.

If ones' definition of victory requires a middle east not dominated by Iran at the end of it then, barring a massive use of force against Iran where millions of people are killed, I think we have reached the point where victory is not achievable.

If ones' definition of victory requires a democratically elected secular government accepted throughout Iraq then I think we have reached the point where victory is not possible. The Iraqis seem to be voting in completely sectarian ways and that does not bode well for the widespread acceptance of any particular democratically elected government. In addition, the majority sect seems to contain elements who expect to take vengeance against the Sunnis. It might not be possible for a Shiite government to have enough political capital to rein in their most violent buddies.

So my idea here is to define victory as something that is probably achievable and then attempt to achieve it. Any solutions that don't involve cooperation from outside powers, most notably the Iranians are probably non-starters. The Iranians already have more influence in Iraq than the Americans according to some accounts and they will absolutely have more influence when the Americans leave. So neocon dreams of isolating Iran and fomenting regime change from Iraq are over. If the goal is to give Iraq the pretense of stability, a la Vietnam, and then get the hell out and allow the Iranians to take control then Bushco is possibly on the right path. I just think we might be able to get a little better deal than that right now and we could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars in so doing.

 

[SezMe]

Dr. B., I think you have a one-dimensional (read, military) solution that cannot achieve "victory" because, as davefoc says, that is a long-gone goal.

Iraq is a complex situation that more brute force will not solve. I have no grand plan for a solution but here is where I would start.

Many (~40%) Iraqis don't have jobs which means there is a lot of testosterone-laden young men with nothing to do but create havoc. The middle class is leaving by the thousands every month. And the infrastructure is a gawdawful mess.

So a key element of MY solution would be built around a HUGE works program like the CCC in the Depression. I'd spend the money we're wasting over there on infrastructure building and maintenance jobs. Electricity. Water. Roads. Sanitation. Housing. Schools. And on, and on, and on. EVERY job would have to filled by an Iraqi and not some damn Haliburton contractor. The work week would be 6 days a week, 10 hours per day. And the pay would be good. Very good.

The US would provide security for a while.

I'll bet such a program would have a better economic, political, and PR outcome than your narrow focus on killing people.

 

[davefoc]

Many (~40%) Iraqis don't have jobs which means there is a lot of testosterone-laden young men with nothing to do but create havoc. The middle class is leaving by the thousands every month. And the infrastructure is a gawdawful mess.

So a key element of MY solution would be built around a HUGE works program like the CCC in the Depression. I'd spend the money we're wasting over there on infrastructure building and maintenance jobs. Electricity. Water. Roads. Sanitation. Housing. Schools. And on, and on, and on. EVERY job would have to filled by an Iraqi and not some damn Haliburton contractor. The work week would be 6 days a week, 10 hours per day. And the pay would be good. Very good.

This it seems to me is just about as close to a smoking gun as it gets when one is looking at how Bushco is blinded by corruption. It would have taken a complete moron to not understand that a whole lot of Iraqis were not going to be happy sitting on their asses while highly paid foreigners "fixed" their country. Even if one was so stupid so as to not have figured this out initially, it was really obvious right away that this was the case. But Bushco didn't slow down for years. Part of the point of this war seems to have been to reward corporate chronies and even if the lives of American soldiers and Iraqis in general were to be risked the corporate chronies were to get their money. On the surface, it seems like evidence of the most corrupt behavior by any American administration in my life. But there is also the possibility that Bushco is led by people who are just incredibly stupid.

ETA: I meant to make it clear that I think the idea of a widespread public works program is a good one. It is another idea that I suspect that Bushco will not make a significant effort to implement. I am very pessimistic at this point in time about the next two years. I think any significant new directions will be avoided partially to prevent admitting old mistakes and partly because these guys are unlikely to start doing anything just because it is good for the country or good for the Iraqis. The sense of entitlement and the sense of infallibility is deeply ingrained in these folks and I just don't see anything changing that.