What is the strategy for Winning the Iraq war?

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

Either the people here have little common sense or you could not plan a trip to the local bank. The plan is simple. The heart of the plan is to keep it simple. It is also key not to tell it to the historically leaky Senate (Dems tend to sell their info to the highest bidder).

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

That isn't a plan. It is a broad description of what is going to happen before we leave, but it doesn't mention anything about how we bring those things about. It simply glosses over the most important aspect...getting the Iraqi government "in place". This means more than holding elections, the government needs to have the support of all Iraqis and have the ability to defend the majority against the remains of the insurgency. I'll admit that the first seems to be slowly happening, but as far as I can tell, NO progress has been made in the latter catagory. And nobody has said anything about how to fix that.

Well the plan is happening infront of your eyes, even if you choose not to see it. I will agree the training the new Iraqi has been too slow, but it is happening and they now have 80,000 soldiers in the new army. While only a handful of units are able to operate without US help, they are still very much aiding the US military. As of right now iraqi units are holding the ground cleared by the US military. To ignore this does a great disservice to the new iraqi army and their goverment. It is now only a matter of time before the Iraqi goverment can stand on its own.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

Either the people here have little common sense or you could not plan a trip to the local bank. The plan is simple. The heart of the plan is to keep it simple. It is also key not to tell it to the historically leaky Senate (Dems tend to sell their info to the highest bidder).

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

That isn't a plan. It is a broad description of what is going to happen before we leave, but it doesn't mention anything about how we bring those things about. It simply glosses over the most important aspect...getting the Iraqi government "in place". This means more than holding elections, the government needs to have the support of all Iraqis and have the ability to defend the majority against the remains of the insurgency. I'll admit that the first seems to be slowly happening, but as far as I can tell, NO progress has been made in the latter catagory. And nobody has said anything about how to fix that.

Well the plan is happening infront of your eyes, even if you choose not to see it. I will the training the new Iraqi has been too slow, but it is happening and they now have 80,000 soldiers in the new army. While only a handful of unit are able to operate without US help, they are still very much aiding the US military. As of right now iraqi units are holding the ground cleared by the US military. To ignore this does a great disservice to the new iraqi army and their goverment. It is now only a matter of time before the Iraq can stand on its own.

You might want to tell the Iraqis that. Remember the story around the end of September? Washington Post Story. The evidence would seem to suggest that we are farther from the goal of transfering military and police duties to Iraqis than ever. The problem, IMHO, is that we are not at the stage where we can simply fight a holding action until Iraqi forces can take over the job...things need to settle down before we can really make any headway there.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

Either the people here have little common sense or you could not plan a trip to the local bank. The plan is simple. The heart of the plan is to keep it simple. It is also key not to tell it to the historically leaky Senate (Dems tend to sell their info to the highest bidder).

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

That isn't a plan. It is a broad description of what is going to happen before we leave, but it doesn't mention anything about how we bring those things about. It simply glosses over the most important aspect...getting the Iraqi government "in place". This means more than holding elections, the government needs to have the support of all Iraqis and have the ability to defend the majority against the remains of the insurgency. I'll admit that the first seems to be slowly happening, but as far as I can tell, NO progress has been made in the latter catagory. And nobody has said anything about how to fix that.

Well the plan is happening infront of your eyes, even if you choose not to see it. I will the training the new Iraqi has been too slow, but it is happening and they now have 80,000 soldiers in the new army. While only a handful of unit are able to operate without US help, they are still very much aiding the US military. As of right now iraqi units are holding the ground cleared by the US military. To ignore this does a great disservice to the new iraqi army and their goverment. It is now only a matter of time before the Iraq can stand on its own.

You might want to tell the Iraqis that. Remember the story around the end of September? Washington Post Story. The evidence would seem to suggest that we are farther from the goal of transfering military and police duties to Iraqis than ever. The problem, IMHO, is that we are not at the stage where we can simply fight a holding action until Iraqi forces can take over the job...things need to settle down before we can really make any headway there.

Agreed, using the United States Military as a police force is just a plain bad idea, it's even worse when your troops can't even say "Hello" in the countries native language.

We need a police force who know and understand the people of Iraq, we don't need or want a bunch of eighteen year olds with M-16s patrolling the streets.

 

[her209]

When you listen to the administration officials talk about withdrawl, you'll hear "Oh, if we leave, then Iraq will turn into a terrorist safe haven". So does that mean they finally acknowledge that Iraq was not a terrorist safe haven pre-invasion?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

Either the people here have little common sense or you could not plan a trip to the local bank. The plan is simple. The heart of the plan is to keep it simple. It is also key not to tell it to the historically leaky Senate (Dems tend to sell their info to the highest bidder).

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

That isn't a plan. It is a broad description of what is going to happen before we leave, but it doesn't mention anything about how we bring those things about. It simply glosses over the most important aspect...getting the Iraqi government "in place". This means more than holding elections, the government needs to have the support of all Iraqis and have the ability to defend the majority against the remains of the insurgency. I'll admit that the first seems to be slowly happening, but as far as I can tell, NO progress has been made in the latter catagory. And nobody has said anything about how to fix that.

Well the plan is happening infront of your eyes, even if you choose not to see it. I will the training the new Iraqi has been too slow, but it is happening and they now have 80,000 soldiers in the new army. While only a handful of unit are able to operate without US help, they are still very much aiding the US military. As of right now iraqi units are holding the ground cleared by the US military. To ignore this does a great disservice to the new iraqi army and their goverment. It is now only a matter of time before the Iraq can stand on its own.

You might want to tell the Iraqis that. Remember the story around the end of September? Washington Post Story. The evidence would seem to suggest that we are farther from the goal of transfering military and police duties to Iraqis than ever. The problem, IMHO, is that we are not at the stage where we can simply fight a holding action until Iraqi forces can take over the job...things need to settle down before we can really make any headway there.

Agreed, using the United States Military as a police force is just a plain bad idea, it's even worse when your troops can't even say "Hello" in the countries native language.

We need a police force who know and understand the people of Iraq, we don't need or want a bunch of eighteen year olds with M-16s patrolling the streets.

Exactly. I have nothing but respect for the military, and they are very good at what they do, but they are not police. They don't have the training, and frankly it's not their job. And beyond that, I don't think any people are really comfortable with being policed by foreigners. Getting Iraqis doing that job should be our first priority, the progress we have made is way too little.

 

[Detayned1447]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

{Irwincur's usual stupidity snipped}

So far, we have one battalion ready to stand on its own. Just one. We need over 100. So, we'll be there for the next 300 years with your plan. Nice job!

While more people are being trained, that creates more trainers, so the process speeds up. Yes we will be there for several years but they will be advancing quicker.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur
The plan is simple. Fight a low level conflict until the Iraqi government is in place. At this point, American troops will re-locate to bases outside of the major cities. At this point in the conflict the US is at a adelicate position. We need to provide as much defense as possible while at the same time allowing the Iraqi people and government the most freedom to make their own decisions.

Either the people here have little common sense or you could not plan a trip to the local bank. The plan is simple. The heart of the plan is to keep it simple. It is also key not to tell it to the historically leaky Senate (Dems tend to sell their info to the highest bidder).

If I was creating the plan for war I would never tell Congress. As a matter of fact it is none of their business and hardly in their line of work.

That isn't a plan. It is a broad description of what is going to happen before we leave, but it doesn't mention anything about how we bring those things about. It simply glosses over the most important aspect...getting the Iraqi government "in place". This means more than holding elections, the government needs to have the support of all Iraqis and have the ability to defend the majority against the remains of the insurgency. I'll admit that the first seems to be slowly happening, but as far as I can tell, NO progress has been made in the latter catagory. And nobody has said anything about how to fix that.

Well the plan is happening infront of your eyes, even if you choose not to see it. I will the training the new Iraqi has been too slow, but it is happening and they now have 80,000 soldiers in the new army. While only a handful of unit are able to operate without US help, they are still very much aiding the US military. As of right now iraqi units are holding the ground cleared by the US military. To ignore this does a great disservice to the new iraqi army and their goverment. It is now only a matter of time before the Iraq can stand on its own.

You might want to tell the Iraqis that. Remember the story around the end of September? Washington Post Story. The evidence would seem to suggest that we are farther from the goal of transfering military and police duties to Iraqis than ever. The problem, IMHO, is that we are not at the stage where we can simply fight a holding action until Iraqi forces can take over the job...things need to settle down before we can really make any headway there.

I guess you missed this part in the article you quoted.

"Over the past 18 months, we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them," Casey said. Military figures show that there are about three dozen army and special police battalions rated at Level 2 or above, meaning they are taking the lead in combat as long as they have support from coalition forces.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Go on vacation in Texas and hope everything is resolved when you come back.

That made me laugh. :laugh:

 

[Tab]

Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: eilute
What is the underlying strategy for winning the Iraq war? Does the military have a plan to ultimately crush the insurgency? Do they have a plan to establish a strong Iraqi security force?

lol! Sorry, not going tp happen. They had a relatively competant military by which to keep the "insurgents" in check (despite the fact that these insurgents didn't exist before we invaded,) it was their entire military. We disbanded it because we were mad they fought us during our invasion.

And besides, I'm sure whoever told you it was winnable offered a DEFINITION of victory. Something like, "oust the evil Saddam, liberate the Iraqi's, return to them their war torn country, mission accomplished, return home proud of our noble victory." That's at least what we were fed BEFORE the war, based on that I'd say we've failed miserably and there's littereally no chance for future success.

Unless of course the Iraqi insurgents suddenly realize the follies of their ways and embrace us as liberators... and the Sunni's abondon their plans to politically annex Iraq in order to pose a more serious threat to Sudi Arabia... and either the kurds will abandon their pursuit of an independant state or the shiites will decide to co-exist peacefully with and let them run of with a nice large chunk of Iraq...

Yes, I can begin to see how this will all work out in our favor. EVERYTHING is lined up for "victory."

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

I think it's reaonable to expect that the vast majority of these Iraqi recruits will perform at the absolute MINIMUM possible to not get fired. Unempployment is 60% in Iraq, therefore it stands to reason that these guys are not "true believers" but are jsut interested in gettting a regular paycheck for their families. Not very encouraging, eh?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

I think it's reaonable to expect that the vast majority of these Iraqi recruits will perform at the absolute MINIMUM possible to not get fired. Unempployment is 60% in Iraq, therefore it stands to reason that these guys are not "true believers" but are jsut interested in gettting a regular paycheck for their families. Not very encouraging, eh?

Well you are wrong on two accounts, the unemployment in iraq is high, but nowhere near 60%. Sencond the iraqi army has been taking quite a few casualties, so i think it would be quite stupid to classify these guys as slackers.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

I think it's reaonable to expect that the vast majority of these Iraqi recruits will perform at the absolute MINIMUM possible to not get fired. Unempployment is 60% in Iraq, therefore it stands to reason that these guys are not "true believers" but are jsut interested in gettting a regular paycheck for their families. Not very encouraging, eh?

Well you are wrong on two accounts, the unemployment in iraq is high, but nowhere near 60%. Sencond the iraqi army has been taking quite a few casualties, so i think it would be quite stupid to classify these guys as slackers.

I heard two days ago on FNC (infallable) that the unemplyoment rate was nearing 60%, so that's my source.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

I think it's reaonable to expect that the vast majority of these Iraqi recruits will perform at the absolute MINIMUM possible to not get fired. Unempployment is 60% in Iraq, therefore it stands to reason that these guys are not "true believers" but are jsut interested in gettting a regular paycheck for their families. Not very encouraging, eh?

Well you are wrong on two accounts, the unemployment in iraq is high, but nowhere near 60%. Sencond the iraqi army has been taking quite a few casualties, so i think it would be quite stupid to classify these guys as slackers.

I heard two days ago on FNC (infallable) that the unemplyoment rate was nearing 60%, so that's my source.

27% and dropping...

Whenever you want to provide links of 60% go ahead..

Less statel data...10-18% depending on how you count...

 

[irwincur]

It's never easy to form a nation. Even the US went through a Civil War that was essentially the conclusion of the Revolution. Technically, Iraq is doing pretty good. The concept is to get them going. A nation in good form is less likely to fracture. If we leave before the military or government are prepared we are just inviting disaster.

When will they be prepared? Well, it is impossible to predict these things - hence the relatively open ended plan. Setting dates and timelines that are too strict either invite disaster or signal to the enemy element when the 'go' date is.

Apparently the left seemed to have no issues with this broad planning paradigm being used in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. Not a single one of these conflicts set a solid patthway for success. The fact that we still have tens of thousands of troops playing police man in Eastern Europe attests to this. Where are the cries about this waste of resources? Hell, Somalia wasn't even planned from the start - the soldiers didn't even know why they were there.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

it was foolish to go into Iraq with absolutely no plan to win the peace. you must have an exit strategy, otherwise it is not worth it to stay any longer. mark my words, we will not be in Iraq for much longer. the wheels have been set in motion, Congress is now discussing pulling out and it won't be much longer till we are completely out of Iraq. sorry Dub, you failed, just like you have everything else in your life. oh well at least your good for something, losing.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
it was foolish to go into Iraq with absolutely no plan to win the peace. you must have an exit strategy, otherwise it is not worth it to stay any longer. mark my words, we will not be in Iraq for much longer. the wheels have been set in motion, Congress is now discussing pulling out and it won't be much longer till we are completely out of Iraq. sorry Dub, you failed, just like you have everything else in your life. oh well at least your good for something, losing.

I'll bet any amount of money we will still be in Iraq a year from now, and probably a year after that too.

 

[Lemon law]

Actually, I fear ndtz may well be right. As I recall the British were in, occupying Iraq, from about 1921-1936 and made zero progress back in the good old days when the mid east was not the center of oil production. By 1936 the British people had had enough and voted the government out.

But I am also tired of hearing people say Rummy had no plan to win the peace---we were going to be
greeted with flowers and candy and thats a plan if I ever heard one-----just because the Iraqie people can't read the script, its still a plan.

The next brillant plan is likely to be that we can simply withdraw and things will not get worse in a hell of a hurry-----as in a civil war spilling across many borders.--that plan is likely to come from congress to quell the restless voters in this upcoming election.-----its a plan equally valid and may prove even more costly and stupid than going in in the first place.

But this Iraq war is like a lot of things-----be careful of what you wish for--- you may get it.

Anyone ever read the monkey's paw.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eilute
Topic Title: What is the strategy for Winning the Iraq war?

What is the underlying strategy for winning the Iraq war? Does the military have a plan to ultimately crush the insurgency? Do they have a plan to establish a strong Iraqi security force?

Awwww welcome to P&N newbie.

It has nothing to do with "winnning". The Oil Baron friends of Cheney, Bush et all have secured the oil for their personal gain.

You saw Exxon and the other 4 Oil Barons made record profits, mission accomplished.

Where have you've been???

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tab
Charrison, you're missing the point. Our goals are not being a meant in Iraq concerning Iraqi police forces. The number of Iraq Police "Squads" or what not that can actually work without U.S Support is pathetically low.

I dont disagree with that, but those that a capable of working with US forces is on the rise.

It is only a matter of time before these forces mature.

It's on the rise, but it's not at rate that we need for the future security of Iraq.

We're kept being told that the Iraqi Security Forces will be ready, it keeps getting delayed.

When is enough, enough?

 

[NeoV]

how about a current unemployment figure from somewhere? I'm curious.

I fear the return of our troops will be tied to elections in 06 - perhaps by chance in states with senatorial elections?

 

[Lemon law]

This war is not about the oil and if you don't believe me just listen to the President.

But since Iraq oil production is not yet even up to pre-war levels, we must redouble our efforts so the Iraqie people have freedom from their natural resources. If we can steal all the oil, no future greedy
men will again trouble Iraq.------there is a silver lining in every cloud.