Originally Posted by 03USMC

In order to get them to believe it. You need to tell them "Look on such and such date such and such Brigade is withdrawing from Province X.You need to take responsibilty there." And then do it.

That's what we haven't been doing. We've let them drag their feet. We need to stop.

Amazing you can I actually agree on something.

Why do you think this hasn't happened? This is similar to the game plan we had in Vietnam, the fact we didn't have one. The problem IMHO is not with the Military, its has to do with, (as usual)...Washington DC politics.

One of the biggest differences between the Obama and McCain plans for Iraq is that Bush/McCain both privately feel that their needs to be a permanent military presence in Iraq. An Army/Air Force base to keep tabs on countries like Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia is too politically hot to maintain a continued militarily presence so basically the US is looking for new Real Estate in the Middle East. It goes back to the old cold war military philsophy of power projection.

So when McCain talks about withdrawl hes means only of occupational forces (the people who patrol the streets) he does not mean to remove US troops completly. This is what irks me about his plan because the Arabs are very nationalistic, they will not tolerate any foreign troops on their soil for long in any capacity. Espicially when it as seen as helping Israel. There is bound to be violence, I bet my hat on it.

Its an election year so the GOP doesnt like talking about this, but that is what McCain meant about "staying in Iraq 100 years". McCain will of course not confirm this now (although he has said this in the past), but he wont deny it either.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

In order to get them to believe it. You need to tell them "Look on such and such date such and such Brigade is withdrawing from Province X.You need to take responsibilty there." And then do it.

That's what we haven't been doing. We've let them drag their feet. We need to stop.

Just out of interest what happens if you do say that and they don't take responsibility or the forces they send are simply not up to it, is it going to be a case of tough luck its all yours or do you trundle back in again and revert to square one?

I think it is the right idea but it still requires them to actually take responsibility.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Just out of interest what happens if you do say that and they don't take responsibility or the forces they send are simply not up to it, is it going to be a case of tough luck its all yours or do you trundle back in again and revert to square one?

I think it is the right idea but it still requires them to actually take responsibility.

Thats the real issue isn't it?

How committed are they ? Are they willing to step up and carry the ball and are they going to be allowed to?

IMO give them the support and tools they need within reason. Give them a reasonable time table. If the world goes side ways on them. IMO then the grand experiment has failed. And then Iraq is left to it's device.

I can't see occupation forces there for extended periods of time. All they would become is targets and eventually that leads to escalation and escalation leads to increases in troop levels. That brings back to page 1.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Thats the real issue isn't it?

How committed are they ? Are they willing to step up and carry the ball and are they going to be allowed to?

IMO give them the support and tools they need within reason. Give them a reasonable time table. If the world goes side ways on them. IMO then the grand experiment has failed. And then Iraq is left to it's device.

I can't see occupation forces there for extended periods of time. All they would become is targets and eventually that leads to escalation and escalation leads to increases in troop levels. That brings back to page 1.

Which is why I think both McCain and Obama have part of it right but neither has it totally right, since Iraq doesn't seem to want to take charge at any great speed it seems wrong to me to give them an open cheque book by saying that you will stay until they are ready and yet it is just as dangerous to simply bugger off and leave them to it.

Agreed soild plan, solid time table with some but not too much wiggle room. And let the Iraqi Goverment know it's time to step up. We will give you reasonable support and reasonable aid but your time has come.

And that's that... My my, I think this is the most agreed upon subject on this forum... Shocking. Hahaha. It's amazing what a few years of constant warfare will do to folks opinions.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

No there needs to be a time table. Or at least a plan to turn the running of Iraq over to Iraqi's. We can't just say "Take your time." they need a base line. They need to understand that we won't prop up an ineffectual goverment forever.

Eventually we have to leave and we need a plan to leave and a solid plan to draw down. We need to inform the Iraqi's of that plan and stick to it. We need to help with the security and rebuilding of the infrastructure, but they need to take an increasing interest in their own future and increasing interest in self governing themselves in all that entails.

It's a pity the US didn't get it right in the first place.

Now, what about Afghanistan? Things looking great there???

Technically we DID get it right the first time, because we went to Afghanistan first. We just went in without thinking about the repercussions of military occupation...

Originally Posted by errol

It's a pity the US didn't get it right in the first place.

You learn.


I have a pretty good feeling that the insurgents are in fact waiting for the American pullout before launching anything substantial. They realize that American forces pulling out WILL happen so they're better off sitting tight. Their job has been done, and on their part it looks like they've met their objectives. The insurgents' next objective would be to take places back from the Iraqi government itself. That would be a huge war where either the Iraqi government and military will prove itself, fight a war that could bring the country together possibly or lose and fall into chaos.

Lunatik, please refrain from "we." Many of us haven't been there or aren't there and perhaps won't ever be there. This includes you.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Technically we DID get it right the first time, because we went to Afghanistan first. We just went in without thinking about the repercussions of military occupation...

...and with nowhere near enough soldiers. Had we gone with 100,000 instead of diverting soldiers to Iraq, Bin Laden's would have rotted away on a stick in Kabul years ago.