So, what should we do?

[Marc L]

Having read the thread regarding US troop deaths, and how Iraq is a quagmire, I've been curious, does anyone have a realistic plan of what we should do? Personally, I don't. I am not a tactician. My job is to type up charge sheets for morons drinking under the age of 21 while on restriction. I'm not attempting to start a flame war, I'm just curious what people think.

Marc

 

[Darth Rotor]

Having read the thread regarding US troop deaths, and how Iraq is a quagmire, I've been curious, does anyone have a realistic plan of what we should do? Personally, I don't. I am not a tactician. My job is to type up charge sheets for morons drinking under the age of 21 while on restriction. I'm not attempting to start a flame war, I'm just curious what people think.

Marc

The million dollar question, somewhat like the one asked when the first bomb went off at Hiroshima: can we put that genii back into the bottle?

If I have any good ideas, I'll send them to General Pace. As of right now, I can only suggest a more ruthless application of violence against selected militias in the Bagdad area. That is a band aid, as the core problem, loss of faith in the allegedly new and better idea, democratic process, has already occurred.

As of now, the way ahead, politically, is to negotiate and make deals with -- which means to give as well as demand -- about 20 factions.

Cat herding.

DR

 

[zenith-nadir]

Nothing. We can do nothing but stay to help the Iraqis police the joint until they have enough troops to do the job themselves. The sunni/shia split in Islam predates America by centuries and we ain't gonna fix it this year, or the next, or even the one after that.

 

[FireGarden]

Iraq didn't fall apart into sects in the long war against Iran. Anyone who believes the current violence wasn't sparked by America's destruction of the country must wonder why Shia Iraqis fought alongside Sunni Iraqis against Shia Iranians.

Get out. Iraq will pull itself together just like Vietnam did. It's not as if America's name will sink any lower when you abandon them.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Iraq didn't fall apart into sects in the long war against Iran.

Because Saddam torchured, imprisoned and killed anyone who didn't tow the party line[SIZE=-1]. If you didn't want to go to the Iranian front you were buried in the desert. If you didn't like working for Saddam [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]you were buried in the desert. There was no dissent, no freedom, no opposition to Saddam. Iraq was a harsh dictatorship. It didn't matter if you were sunni or shia or kurd.[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Once Saddam was removed the [/SIZE]sunni/shia split was free to run it's course.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

Anyone who believes the current violence wasn't sparked by America's destruction of the country must wonder why Shia Iraqis fought alongside Sunni Iraqis against Shia Iranians.

I am curious. How is America responsible for a Sunni suicide bomber blowing himself up at a funeral ceremony at a Shia mosque in Mosul? (such as on Friday March 11, 2005)

 

[Zep]

Idea: Throw a big party and invite all would-be and actual suicide bombers. Make the location somewhere WAY out in the desert, away from everybody. Then have a competition: A Bomb Competition! Whoever makes the biggest BANG! when someone says "GO!" and they all explode is the winner. For added gaiety, someone can hug Saddam while they press their trigger.

...and when that is all done, bury the remains with a bulldozer, then the US can leave quietly, and perhaps Iraqis can get back to trying to make something out of their own country.

 

[FireGarden]

The sectarian violence didn't erupt immediately after Saddam's fall. It had to be stoked up. And, who-ever did that, the hate wasn't there at the beginning.

And you live in a strange world if you believe that Sunni/Shia rivalry could be used to force Shia to fight Shia. Iraqi Shia have an Iraqi identity. They see themselves as Iraqis. That's why they didn't swap sides and fight with Iranian Shia.

America tore the country to pieces. No law. No order. They call it "constructive chaos". And I've begun to believe that was the plan all along. Bush wants Iraq cut up into 3 pieces. And a very long and bloody war.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The sectarian violence didn't erupt immediately after Saddam's fall. It had to be stoked up.

By whom? America? Sunnis? Shias? Rastafarians?

And, who-ever did that, the hate wasn't there at the beginning.

You're kidding right? I looked up the history of the sunni/shia split and the sunni/shia split occurred around 632. There has been violence[SIZE=-1] between Sunni and Shia factions in Pakistan, Nigeria and elsewhere. Iraq isn't an anomaly.[/SIZE]

And you live in a strange world if you believe that Sunni/Shia rivalry could be used to force Shia to fight Shia.

Not what I said. I didn't say Sunni/Shia rivalry could be used to force Shia to fight Shia. What I said was that it didn't matter if you were sunni or shia to Saddam. You went to fight no matter what.

America tore the country to pieces. No law. No order. They call it "constructive chaos". And I've begun to believe that was the plan all along. Bush wants Iraq cut up into 3 pieces. And a very long and bloody war.

So the "plan" was to make sunnis suicide bomb shias and shias to drive car bombs into sunnis. How was that accomplished exactly? Who is funding and training these puppets of America?

 

[Demigorgon]

This thread is hilariously small.

Come on! All you people that sit on this forum all day complaining about the current situation racking up your 5k+ post count surely have come up with some good ideas by now.

O I forgot, complaining is easy, solutions are not.

 

[daredelvis]

This thread is hilariously small.

Come on! All you people that sit on this forum all day complaining about the current situation racking up your 5k+ post count surely have come up with some good ideas by now.

O I forgot, complaining is easy, solutions are not.

Breaking a plate is easy, gluing it back together is not. It's a cluster ◊◊◊◊.

Daredelvis

 

[Solitaire]

The sectarian violence didn't erupt immediately after Saddam's fall. It had to be stoked up. And, who-ever did that, the hate wasn't there at the beginning.

And you live in a strange world if you believe that Sunni/Shia rivalry could be used to force Shia to fight Shia. Iraqi Shia have an Iraqi identity. They see themselves as Iraqis. That's why they didn't swap sides and fight with Iranian Shia.

America tore the country to pieces. No law. No order. They call it "constructive chaos". And I've begun to believe that was the plan all along. Bush wants Iraq cut up into 3 pieces. And a very long and bloody war.

I thought Strategic Incompetence explained Bush's actions, but after dumping Rumsfeld, who served as chief punching bag, I'm now back to the old Divine Incompetence theory - he just doesn't know what he's doing.

As I said, cleaning up Iraq requires 500,000 more troops on the ground, closing off sectors and getting the guns off the streets, and dividing the country into three parts. But the politicians have no desire to win, I too now think we should declare a cheap victory and get out.

 

[hammegk]

...and when that is all done, bury the remains with a bulldozer, then the US can leave quietly, and perhaps Iraqis can get back to trying to make something out of their own country.

Maybe we could send 'em all someplace, like, say, Australia. They could slaughter the existing locals and start a real country.

 

[Garrette]

O I forgot, complaining is easy, solutions are not.

Absolutely true. It does not make complaining illegitimate.

When my pediatrician fails to effectively treat my son's sinus pain, it is not being petty or hypocritical to complain, loudly, about it. Even if I have no idea what the correct treatment should be.

 

[Crossbow]

Having read the thread regarding US troop deaths, and how Iraq is a quagmire, I've been curious, does anyone have a realistic plan of what we should do? Personally, I don't. I am not a tactician. My job is to type up charge sheets for morons drinking under the age of 21 while on restriction. I'm not attempting to start a flame war, I'm just curious what people think.

Marc

Well sir, you are quite right!

Being consistently anti-war will not do anything to solve the terrible problems all of those stupid pro-war people have caused.

However, if you want my thoughts on a solution ...

In brief, I would say that an honest, straight-forward, multi-lateral, multi-national, multi-cultural approach would be best.

First, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war lot apologize for this war.
Second, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war and anti-war people commit to rebuilding Iraq.
Third, bring all the nations concerned to the table (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al) and work out a plan for rebuilding Iraq.

Then, execute the plan!

 

[Garrette]

Maybe we could send 'em all someplace, like, say, Australia. They could slaughter the existing locals and start a real country.

We can put them all on a spaceship named "Botany Bay."

I claim 20% literary, cinematic, and ancillary rights in perpetuity.

 

[Crossbow]

We can put them all on a spaceship named "Botany Bay."

I claim 20% literary, cinematic, and ancillary rights in perpetuity.

And if such a plan is actually executed, I sure hope you get your 20%!

However, if your plan is actually executed, then do you realize that you have elevated 'hammegk' to the status of Captian Kirk?

 

[Garrette]

To the OP, it probably won't surprise you to learn that I share the spirit of Darth Rotor's post.

There is no guaranteed plan for success. There are probably numerous plans that would maximize the possibility for success. There are probably legitimate plans for saying it's no longer worth it and leaving.

Saying what should be done as if it is a clinical wargame in which the pieces all act as intended is one thing. Saying what should be done given the multiplicity of actors, many or most of whom do not act or respond in predictable rational fashion, is another.

 

[Garrette]

And if such a plan is actually executed, I sure hope you get your 20%!

However, if your plan is actually executed, then do you realize that you have elevated 'hammegk' to the status of Captian Kirk?

That's okay. Kirk himself predicted he'd die alone. Which he sort of did. Except he died a second time, too, with Picard as his witness.

 

[wastepanel]

First off, we could start giving small pieces of Iraq back to its residents. We have been in charge of everything since demolishing the country. My opinion is "Why fight to protect or improve on the American's property/responsibility?". If piece by piece is given back, you would see more citizens taking charge of the situation instead of screaming for the US to protect them.

Secondly, I'd stop trying to push my government on them. America's democracy survived because we were seperate from the rest of the world at the time. For some reason, it seems like we're entering Iraq with Bob and Bob, consultants (from Office Space).

Finally, I'd tuck my tail between my legs and say "Guys. We messed up. Here's how we're fixing it." Whichever political party says that first, is going to rule in 2008.

 

[Gurdur]

This thread is hilariously small.

You hilarity is more than misplaced.

The OP was posted at 12:20 AM
Your post comes at 03.21 AM.

So the thread is "hilariously small" ? It's ridiculous to say that about a 3-hour old thread.

O I forgot, complaining is easy, solutions are not.

Strawman again.

You want a viable solution? Get out of Iraq NOW, and publically announce that you're handing over security to the Iraqi government, and that you devoutly hope that Iran and Syria will help securitywise.

This is eventually what will happen anyway -- except that it will take a longer time of bleeding before the Bush admin gives way to the inevitable. But it will.