Poll: Go Big, Go Long or Go Home?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KingSuper20 @ Nov 21 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]352444[/snapback]</div>

I voted "go big". That's what should have happened if this had been done correctly from the beginning. It was Rumsfeld's and Bush's incompentence that got us there with 10X less the amount of troops it would have required. Subcontracting the rest, at great expense, to Halliburton, CACI and Titan.

 

It SHOULD have started... well, it shouldn't have started at all. But assuming it was inevitable, it should have started with option one.

As soon as things started looking ugly (right after we got Saddam), it should have switched to option two.

Now things are totally FUBAR. Since it's now a Vietnam-style all-out civil war, let's learn our lesson from that and realize the sooner we get out, the less of our troops will be killed. So I voted option three.

 

Unfortunately, our typical shortsightedness has created a need for a long-term solution. GW destabilized the country with the fear of WMD - now we need fix it. A quick pullout (oops, sorry guys, we made a mistake - you're on your own now - see ya!) will leave the country in greater chaos than when we started.

 

"Go Big" was how L.B.J. got us deeper and deeper into a war we could not win in Vietnam. The only thing "bigger" would have been to nuke the entire country, something that, fortunately, even Nixon was not savage enough to do.

We have the military capacity to kill a lot more Iraqis, at the cost of more American lives and dollars, but we do not have the ability to win this war. Henry Kissinger came to this conclusion recently and said so publically. Just one more conservative rat who's jumped ship.

 

I'm not sure...how's that for an answer?

And what's victory, btw? I don't think I have a good concept of what "victory" is...I mean, wasn't the intent the overthrow of Saddam? And haven't we done that?

I'm not being obtuse here. I know we want to stabilize the country. I know (for some weird reason) that Dubya wants to spread democracy to the middle east (even though our form of government wouldn't take there).

So, if I could get a better idea of what we would consider actual "victory," I would have a better idea of how to respond.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 21 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]352515[/snapback]</div>

I say - wait until Saddam is executed, declare victory and go home.

These people are living in the 12th Century. Blood feuds and revenge are their main currency. They see us as "infidels" and, therefore, sub-human. There are passages in the Bible (mostly the old Testament) that call for and allow unspeakable acts, by our current morality. There are no sane Christian or Jewish religious leaders that propose or condon any of these behaviors. And yet, we see innocent people being murdered in the streets, at the behest of Muslim "holy men", for a supposed insulting cartoon of their Prophet. Ill treatment of their holy book, the Koran has also resulted in brutal murders. Yet in Saudi Arabia (one of our "allies") possession of a bible is a punishable offense.

If we leave and the civil war intensifies - so be it.

There actually may be a scientific explanation for this behavior in the Mid-eastern world. It is defined an a condition called Bicameralism. Without going into a long explanation, here is a pretty good description in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of..._Bicameral_Mind

 

The hypocrisy of the left is astounding.

"Go Big",

YEAH, NO SH***T, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SINCE DAY ONE. But NOOOOOO, we couldn't fire into Mosques, had to tap dance around Falluja and give advance notice we were going in, and for whatever reason, the absolute "horror" of Abu-Ghraib, all these factors, the ultimate result of liberal forces, is why we're in this situation in the FIRST place.

Exactly what happens when something is half-assed.

Might as well pull out. Seriously, the leftists within the gov. aren't going to allow a "go big" scenario, or at least, allow what THEY think is a "go big" scenario, "go long" is still somewhat half assed, although likely the best choice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Nov 21 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]352515[/snapback]</div>

I think you are the only one with the correct answer - nobody is sure.

Basic assumptions can be made - if we withdraw too quickly Iran will move in and that would be a disaster of untold proportions especially if they join the nuclear club. Then Kuwait and other neighboring countries will be at risk - those same countries are pressing for us not to withdraw for reasons like this. If we continue along this pathway there is no final answer in sight.

What I think is best is reframing the question. By looking at it in the narrow context of Iraq we do ourselves a huge disservice. The Iraq war is but a small part of this conflict. We need to bring into the equation Iran, Syria, Islamic terror groups like Hezbollah. The equation is how do we fight this War on Terror - NOT the Iraq War. That allows us to bring in other assets into the picture like moderate and progressive Arabs, local non-Muslim groups, other countries, etc... Trying to define "victory" requires the proper set of questions - what will be victory in the Iraq war I would say is not the proper question

And spreading democracy was not a "w" thing - it was an FDR and Truman thing as well and JFK and LBJ thing too. In 1770 there were no true representative democracies - today over 50% of the planet is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 21 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]352536[/snapback]</div>

The correct answer would have been to leave Saddam in place. For the following reasons:

!. There were fewer Iraqi's dying on a daily basis than there were under his regime.

2. He was a cheap and effective counterforce to Iran.

3. It was relatively easy and militarily cheap to keep him in check.

4. We could have used the troops to go into Afghanistan, ferret out Osama and destroy the Taliban.

Maybe we should release him from prison, brush him off and tell him to behave himself. Now there is a comeuppance that the Iraqi feuding factions truly deserve. (Just kidding?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 21 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]352502[/snapback]</div>

I vote for daniels plan. Let's do Iran while we're in town too..

Not really, I just wanted to see how far out of context I could go with the whole nuke the entire country statement.

I think we need to GO BIG after these guys who we know are pulling the strings on the radicals. I don't care if it's the cleric or who they are. If the Sunni's are killing the shiites under the control of some guy named bob, then we wack bob and continue to chop off the guy at the top. Eventually we run out of guys wanting to run the show.

Same on the vice-versa side of the sectarian violence. They show these guys on TV and explain how that guy is the head of the radical whatever segment of the population... Let's have that guy show up dead just like we get the brother of the energy leader showing up dead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 21 2006, 12:53 PM) [snapback]352534[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, that wasn't the left. That was Rumsfeld and Bush who ignored and FIRED general Shanseki [sp].

 

I would have voted "Go big" except I've heard that we simply don't have the troops to do that.

I won't vote "Go long" because I think the only reason for doing this is to save face for the U.S. Much of the violence there against Iraqis is incited by the very fact that we are there. Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves want us out.

So, I voted "Go home".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]352589[/snapback]</div>

The violence there is secterian hatred - sunni vs shia - and has little to do with us and more with the lack of a check and balance system whether it be autocratic rule or the rule of law. If we were to leave tomorrow the level of violence there would escalate exponentially.

The Iraqi's do not want us out - some do a lot do not. In fact I would bet that Iran does not want us our or even Syria and for sure not Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We leave... the vacuum that would be created would have the potential to suck the entire region into a mult-factional conflict the likes of which we have not witnessed in decades. Imagine the Kurds all of a sudden seeing an opportunity to form a country with their breathern in Turkey and other nearby regions? Imagine the 90% of Syria (sunni) resisting a shia controlled Iran. Imagine the level of forces needed to separate the sunni and shia in iraq when we leave - the kurds the sunni and shia all fighting for "space" and oil. Imagine the level of stress Iran would feel with their own sunni shia issues.

So yes some iraqi's want us out - but in reality most do not including other regional countries. And then you can expropolate beyond to china, japan and russia - the potential of a nuclear iran controlling iraq and the worlds oil supply and shipping routes....

not so simple i am affraid

there is no easy answer -

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov, 10:35 AM) [snapback]352596[/snapback]</div>

You challenged my on my statement. Now back up your claim that most Iraqis do not want us out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Nov 21 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]352534[/snapback]</div>

Blaming this mess on the "left". That's the best laugh I've had in days. Thanks!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 21 2006, 12:42 PM) [snapback]352601[/snapback]</div>

On this one, I defer to the newly elected president of Iraq standing in Washington with your (and my) leader stating that they didn't want us to leave.

Once the democratically elected president of Iraq says they want us to leave, then I will say that I think the Iraqi's want us to leave.

On a side note.. Americans want us to stay in Iraq too. We voted on that in 2004 and chose the guy who said we should stay there.

And now, may I remind you that your President is George W. Bush!!! <clap> <clap> <clap>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Nov, 10:47 AM) [snapback]352606[/snapback]</div>

Neither dbermanmd or I are referring to the Iraqi leadership. We are referring to the Iraqi people.

Did the 2006 elections slip your mind?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 21 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]352502[/snapback]</div>

You aptly display your ignorance regarding the Vietnam War if you think going nuclear was “the only thing bigger,” or that it was a war we could not win.

Late in the war, Operation Linebacker II – the massive bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong brought the North Vietnamese back to the bargaining table . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II
. . .which ultimately resulted in the US doing a “face saving” pull-out of the war. AKA cut and run.

The Vietnam War should have started with a quick escalation to an Operation Linebacker II style assault on North Vietnam.
99% of the bombs dropped in the war should have been dropped in the north to stop their war fighting capabilities and morale to fight . . . at the source. <_<

If the US Military is used, it should go big and then get the hell out. Vietnam was not a “go big” war. The US Military was fighting the war with both its hands politically tied behind its back . . .”bomb here, don't bomb there (cities), use the same flight paths day after day at the same time of day (and make yourselves a big target) on your way to carefully selected non-strategic 'targets' . . .”

 

So glad I drive a hybrid. Can't wait to go 100% gas free so we can leave the entire Middle East in the dust. No doubt the US "liberation" has fueled the fire alarmingly, but they are the only ones who can solve their problems. And I think it has to do with catching up to the rest of the world and leaving their raggedy old beliefs behind. I hate to say it, but unless the rest of the modern world is ready to get involved on the ground, we should leave. Then when things go completely to hell, maybe a global effort can be made. How could lil' w not see this.