Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security? - Page 2




 
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
 
June 12th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
I see Iraq as being at the very least a ten year commitment (from 2003, not from present) and we will probably maintain bases in Iraq for several years after that (but more like our bases in Korea, protection from attack, not occupation.). Democracies are a very tricky thing to put together, the US had to suffer under the Articles of Confederation for a few years, during which time the nation almost fell apart into several smaller, weaker nations, before we wrote the Constitution and put together the most stable democratic form of government in the history of mankind. I think too many people thought this would just be a quick fix, go in, catch Saddam, declare victory and leave, but no, it is and will not be that simple. We've had troops in Korea for damn near 60 years now, Japan for over 60 years now (60.73 rounds up to 61!) and the same with Germany, Italy and France. (The Army still maintains some administrative offices in France, right? MMarsh?) We occupied the South for 30 years after the Civil War (For anyone from south of the Mason-Dixon line change the "we" to "you" and "South" to "us" then add "damned Yankees")


If you have been paying attention (or even like me and trying to ignore the press without much luck) you have likely heard the "V" word, that's right, comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam started in April, 2003 and the snowball effect started. Well just like the war in Vietnam the war in Iraq will not be won on the streets of Baghdad or the deserts of Iraq but on the streets of Boston and the beaches of California. Public opinion is the greatest weapon both sides have in this war and for whatever reason the public at large is more likely to believe the nagative BS as opposed to the positive truthes, most likely because victories are hard to notice but the failures stick out like sore thumbs.
June 13th, 2006  
rotc boy
 
 
Damien pretty much just summed up all my thoughts right there...
nice way to put it
June 13th, 2006  
mmarsh
 
 
Damien

Sorry, DeGaulle kicked out the US Army when he withdrew from NATO. (40 years ago). There is an office in the embassy, but then again the French army has an office in the French Consulate in NYC. I would know, I had to go there to avoid getting drafted into the French Army when I was 18.

I am going to pick apart certain parts of your arguement. First of all Germany, France, Italy, Korea were all Democracies before they fell into Facism/Communism. What the US did was to rebuild what was already there, which is far easier than starting from scratch. Japan isnt a democracy. Like the UK, its a Constitutional Monarchy. The Emporer power's is mostly cermonial but its never been completely extinguished either. Democracies generally dont go for life appointments.

We have tried establishing new Democracies in South America, southeast Asia and a few other places, but in almost everywhere it has failed. The best we can hope for is Democracy in name only but a dictator friendly to the US such as Egypt. As you pointed out, its incredibly difficult to home grow a Democracy espically if its due from military action.

The other major diffence is in all these western or asian countries the people were homogenious, in Iraq there are Kurds, Sunni, Shiite, and several smaller groups. And they all hate one another.

The problem with Iraq, was not only were Americans under the false impression the democracy would flourish rapid the moment Saddam was gone, so were the Neocons. In fact several Neocons like Francis Fukiyama have finally come around to publically acknowledge that they were wrong about this. Unfortunatly this miscalculation cost us and the hope of a Iraq Democracy dearly, and possibly fatally.

Personally given the absolute hatred between the rival Muslims groups (and their shared hatred for us) I think it would be wise to give up on the idea of a true Iraqi Democracy, because I would give it the life expectency of a house fly (about 3-4 days) before total Civil War would breakout. The wisest thing to do is either

1. Withdraw and let them kill each other (which is what they want)

2. Just put the toughest Mother*****er in charge, not necessarily Saddam but somebody who will be feared by all the groups.

3. Let all 3 groups manage themselves, possibly create 3 different countries.
--
Are the USA serious about wanting Iraq to handle its own security?
June 13th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Public opinion is the greatest weapon both sides have in this war and for whatever reason the public at large is more likely to believe the nagative BS as opposed to the positive truthes, most likely because victories are hard to notice but the failures stick out like sore thumbs.
Very true Damien, one picture of caskets draped with the Stars and Stripes entering the cargo hold of a Galaxy says so much more then an article written about a constitution that isn't worth the paper it is written on. I guess you could call it a very unfair starting point when entering this public opinion debate.
June 13th, 2006  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
3. Let all 3 groups manage themselves, possibly create 3 different countries.
This is what I predict will eventually happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
You're totally missing my point. My point is that the Iraqi Army itself does not need any super advanced tech hardware; all they need is good intelligence and a unifying will to form a stable government/country.
Then why do the U.S. troops in Iraq need it? In order to handle the job coalition forces are currently doing in Iraq, Iraqi forces need equivalent training and equipment. Why do you think Iraqi Army casualties are 10 times higher than coalition ones?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
This isn't happening over there right now because there are those who have great hate for the US and Israel and see any incursion into any of their lands (Palestine... Afghanistan... Israel...) as an act of defiance against their religion. Having radical clerics fanning the flames doesn't help either. As for the US using advanced tech over there, heh if they were truly using advanced tech, you'd see SEALS and about 4 carrier battle groups parked out on the Persian Gulf. The only advanced tech I see are Predator Drones doing recon (but the US uses that everywhere...) and neat robots disabling ieds (SWAT bomb squad here has been using it for years).
The only advanced tech I said the Iraqi Army should be given IS the tech that's already there in American hands! (Except the Talon and Gladiator robots)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Example, the American Revolution. The colonists did have any of the guns and supplies the British had, but they had a strong will and cooperation among other colonists. The French did support them, but mainly by ships to block out any British reinforcements coming across the Atlantic. It's not helping in Iraq right now not because of who has what crazy technology and why, it's why won't the freakin Shiites and Sunnis just get along and stop bombing each other?
At least crazy technology and good training wouldn't require any coalition forces patrolling the streets any longer, which is what their governments want, isn't it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Does that mean the EU are now lapdogs to the US because they support a non-nuclear armed Iran?
Yes! Because Iran is outside of the EUs sphere of interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Mohmar

Everybody here knows my opinion of the war and of George Bush, but I think you are coming from left field on this one. Its in the US interest to have the Iraqis provide their own security, this war has completed destroyed the Bush Administration. The only reason we are still in Iraq is because leaving would be an admission of defeat and error, both things Bush has problems acknowledging. If someone were to present to Bush a plan for Iraqi withdrawl that gaurenteed his honor intact I think Bush would take it in a heartbeat.
So it would seem. Yet what the US government actually does doesn't make sense!
June 14th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
First of all Germany, France, Italy, Korea were all Democracies before they fell into Facism/Communism.
Germany - Ruled by a monarch (Kaiser) till the failed Weimar Republic was established, I suppose you could include that as a history of democracy but that would do little more than convince Germans that it was a failed system and that they needed one strong leader.

France - They were on what, the fourth Republic when WWII rolled right over them?

Italy - Wasn't Italy unified only a few years before WWI and didn't Mussoulini (I think I butchered that) rise to power because the previous dictator had been really bad?

Korea - Didn't they go from thousand year old dynastic rule to Chinese occupation to Japanese occupation to split in two? Also, didn't Korea go through a series of dictators before finally establishing a democratic form of government? Let's not forget the US foreign policy at the time stated that so long as they were communist they were good enough. (referring to military dictators around the world.)

Quote:
1. Withdraw and let them kill each other (which is what they want)
That sounds like my "Let them learn from their own mistakes" theory except their own mistakes could involve me getting hurt, which I don't like.

Quote:
3. Let all 3 groups manage themselves, possibly create 3 different countries.
Two reasons why that won't work, Korea and Vietnam.
June 14th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
Then why do the U.S. troops in Iraq need it? In order to handle the job coalition forces are currently doing in Iraq, Iraqi forces need equivalent training and equipment. Why do you think Iraqi Army casualties are 10 times higher than coalition ones?
Okay, maybe another analogy might help: It's not who has the bigger gun that will win the battle, it's how a person uses it. If I were armed with a P90 and I went up against a Navy SEAL armed with a butter knife, I'm pretty sure he'd still kill me 7 times before I hit the ground. This leads me to my next point: training. The US military is doing the best they can to train the Iraqi Army with the resources and land they have. The last thing the Iraqi want to see is an American barrack/training ground be built on their soil. It would only fuel the notion that the American are there to stay. The US is giving the Iraqi Army the equipment they will need to defend themselves. If you disagree with that, please just skip the bush-beating and say what kind of technology you are talking about that the Iraqi Army absolutely needs to defend itself. As for the casualty rate, the only truthful answer I can give you is that the Iraqi Army is on the front lines more because the US wants them to try and take over their own security. Any other reason I give you is purely opinion so I will refrain from that. Actually, any other reason I can think of can be spurrious. Who knows, maybe they just have bad luck...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
The only advanced tech I said the Iraqi Army should be given IS the tech that's already there in American hands! (Except the Talon and Gladiator robots)
The Iraqi Army would not need bomb-disabling robots if they came to a diplomatic resolve with their fellow brothers. It's pretty much Iraqis killing other Iraqis over there. How about instead of arming the Shiites with the latest and greatest in killing technology, they sit down with their brothers and try to work out their problems diplomatically. The US giving the Iraqi Army more powerful weaponry to fight an insurgency war would just lead to an all out civil war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
At least crazy technology and good training wouldn't require any coalition forces patrolling the streets any longer, which is what their governments want, isn't it.
No it wouldn't because they would still not have the full knowledge how to use them let alone maintain it. You can't just give them the Predator Drone and train them to use it. It would most likely be shot down on its maiden flight. Certain technology just requires too much coordination and training to hand over. As far as I know, a Predator Drone requires an engineer to man it anywhere from a neighboring country to an anchored aircraft carrier/destroyer parked nearby. I don't remember the Iraqis having even a corvette or a frigate... If you're going to suggest the US give them a few, then that's just wandering the line of insanity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
Yes! Because Iran is outside of the EUs sphere of interest.
A nuclear-armed Iran is within everyone's sphere of interest... An unstable theocracy with their finger on the magic reset button is something a vast majority of the UN agrees should not happen (even Iran's neighbors discreetly voiced their fears and nervousness). Isolationism might have worked 200 years ago, but today everything is becoming more globalized. An unstable country may only be the region's problem today, but it will become the world's problem tomorrow.
June 15th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Here's how I see this issue, we want the Iraqi's to take over their own security, the real issue is whether or not we can trust the Iraqi's to take over their own security, they don't exactly have an excellent track record and from what I can see it looks like Al-Qaeda and every other terrorist organization in Iraq has infiltrated the Iraqi Army and Police to a frightening extent.
June 15th, 2006  
Easy-8
 
 
We are gonna have to pull out sooner or later. The only way we are gonna be able to do that is to make the Iraqi Forces strong enough to fight the insurgents without our help.
June 16th, 2006  
therise21
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike
I have little indication that the US government honestly wants the Iraqi government to handle its own security. The material the Iraqi Army seems to get is limited to PASGT helmets and body armor, Humvees, light trucks and M113 APCs. If they really meant business they'd give them modern NVGs, M1A2 Abrams, M2 Bradleys, up-to date anti-armor rocket launchers, F-15s and F/A-18s, recon/attack Predator UAVs, Gladiator and Talon Drones. Hell, they could use the Iraqi Army as guinea pigs for the Land Warrior System.
Perhaps they could also buy the Merkava Mk 4 from Israel and donate it to Iraq.
the iraqis chose to but their equipment from china, so why would the US give them our technology also? that would be a giant training nightmare. and i dont think the israelis would be too keen on iraq having their tanks. so if they want all of this stuff they can buy it from china. if you need indication of the US govt's will to get out of iraq, look at the approval ratings of the president and the headlines of the newspapers over here.
 


Similar Topics
New Rules In Iraq May Make It Tougher To Keep Insurgents
Rising security costs curtail Iraq reconstruction
Iraq rebuilding slows as U.S. money for projects dries up
Shaking hands with Sadam Hussein
PM to send more troops to Iraq