GoodCitizenDan
11-14-2006, 01:52 AM
Thoughts on Iraq:
The democrats have now taken legislative power, or atleast they will in january. One of the central themes of their platform was that Bush fucked up by going into iraq and then pulled off an idiot chain-combo by screwing up every other major decision about Iraq for the next 2+ years. I REALLY don't think there's any point in argueing the above. If you don't believe it was a mistake going into Iraq, and that 90% of the actions that followed ranged between 'idiotic' and 'catastrophic', go read a god damn book. No, instead, lets talk about where the bungling of the last 3 years has left us, and what the legislative branch may be able to do to salvage the operation.
Larry, Curly, and Schemp try to build a country
That's right, the administration didn't even do a good enough job to get Moe in their roster. This was obviously schemp-quality work...
Lets take stock on the major fuck-ups thus far, to get a better idea of what aspects need the most immediate attention. These are in no particular order. Following each bullet point is a short bit of reasoning to explain WHY it was a fuck-up, assuming it's not immediately obvious.
-Not enough troops
The effects of this were obvious and numerous. The troops would clear one area, then leave it behind where it would immediately be reclaimed by the enemy. The triangle NW of the capital was COMPLETELY ignored until after the invasion. There was no way secure the borders from the influx of foreign fighters. I could go on for another 2 paragraphs about the effects. Lets just concede that this is a major point, though, and leave it at that.
-Complete neglect of the prime aspects of counterinsurgent warfare
Firepower used as primary tactic instead of a last resort. Troops concentrated on bases instead of in small groups among the population. Lack of respect for the local population, and/or, lack of ability to communicate with and understand the culture of the population.
-There was no clear chain of command with one person leading the operation
The department of state didn't get along with the department of defense. The military didn't get along with the Civilian leadership. NOBODY got along the CPA. As things are/were, you had differing people with differing goals, all with claims to controlling Iraq.
-Disbanding the military, Sweeps of Baath party members
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The military was practically BEGGING Bremer not to do it. In one fell swoop he put 140k armed and disgruntled iraqis on the streets, and then barred them from government employment(Their whole means to feed their families). Not to mention they then needed to train a NEW army without using any of the people most qualified. That stacks with the fact they we didn't even use our special forces to train the new army, but instead passed the job to contractors. The contractors, in turn, did such a BAD JOB that more than 50% of the army they trained defected before their first engagement. This was the crown jewel of fuck-ups
So, how the hell do we fix THAT mess???
Option #1 - Teh Win!!11
Here we will present the best, or atleast, most acceptable outcome. We'll define this in pretty broad terms. Lets say that an 'acceptable outcome' results in one nation of Iraq(no split) that has established law and order able and willing to prevent terrorist training and recruiting within it's borders. I think any US citizen would recognize that as a victory at this point. So, what do we do?
The first and most obvious answer is send more troops. To do ANY of the moves that follow, we must first have enough troops to secure the entire country at once. This could mean a draft. It could mean MAJOR stop-loss and defacto re-instatement. Either way, it isn't gonna be pretty. There would be a major backlash against whatever party endorsed the idea, even if it is only sensible.
From that point on the strategy is pretty straightforward, despite being infinately harder and more counterintuitive than the one we've been engaged in thus far. First we shut down the borders, HARD. Then we'll need to become like a police-force among the people. We'd need the vast majority of our troops living among the people and reporting to local precincts to do their daily jobs, which would shift dramatically to the rebuilding effort. This would put a big target on the chests of our servicemen, but if we're serious about the job, it's the only feasible option(hence, how I mentioned being counterintuitive).
The majority of our job would change. Instead of looking for enemies to kill, we'd be mainly reactionary, only firing when fired upon. Cordon and sweep searches would be stopped altogether. As the military did the police work, special forces would be training replacements for our men, and local governments could form above them. Another less-than-favorable outcome of this(for our military) would be a near-requirement that the same unit stay in one area until that area has transfered authority. Change in the military leadership causes TREMENDOUS setbacks in these kinds of situations. As each secto;r developed a police force and local government, the units in those finished sectors could be redeployed to other parts around the country, or return home.
Of course, there'd be alot of other smaller details that I don't have time to go into, but that'd be the main idea. Essentially, if we want to win this we are going to need to increase our troop strength(probably around double or triple), completely rework our positioning into a more constructive yet vulnerable ground position, and be prepared to spend atleast another 1-3 years there(taking even greater casualties for the next 6 months atleast).
Option #2 - Stay the course!
If you think this is a feasible option, PLEASE go read a book. Simply put, all we're doing right now is killing time. No progress is being made. Actually, no, thats not ENTIRELY correct. Did you ever see that video in Psychology 101 where the guy has his left and right brain seperated and then tries to do those IQ test puzzles? His right hand puts the pieces together in the correct design while his left hand takes them apart just as fast(left/right brain duality). THATS what the current situation is like. We don't have the resources on the ground to do the job right, so our military comes in and puts things right(right brain), only to leave and let it fall back into chaos just as fast(left brain).
Option #3 - Screw you guys... I'm going home!
Let's consider this to be the 'phased withdrawal' or 'Cut and run' option(depending on your political affiliation). The main objective here is to GTFO ASAP while the optional secondary objective is to make it seem like someone else's fault. Blame the Iraqis for not 'stepping up'. Blame the GOP for letting things get this fucked up. Blame whoever tries to excuse themselves from the room once the accusations start flying. Basically, just paint the situation as untenable and give a fatalist response(example: "There is simply no way to resolve this problem through the use of our military on the ground. At this point, the responsibility lies with the Iraqis").
This is probably the most likely response. Let's face it, it's alot easier to sell short-term benefits over long-term benefits, especially when long-term benefits would require such a high level of short-term sacrifice. Besides, your average american doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people, he just wants to make sure they aren't gonna anthrax his office building or something. The resulting civil war in Iraq would likely keep them from focusing their rage on us for a while, and may even divert the attention of islamic extremists everywhere. Why go half way around the world to fight heathens when there's plenty in your back yard? They'd be left with Sunni vs Shiite, fight to the finish!(Which isn't a bad situation for us in the short-term, assuming you're an uncaring prick like 60% of our population)
Long term would be bad, though. Very bad, actually. After a few bloody years spent screwing themselves, the Iraqis would likely latch on to the US as a MAJOR focus of anger and resentment. Picture Iran, but nuttier(Ya, I know, thats pretty damn nutty). We're talking about a 1984-esque "5 minute hate" level of animosity.
Option #4 - Time keeps on slippin... slippin...
Option 4... Time machine??? Oh, come on. Lets be serious. Even IF someone had a time machine, they probably wouldn't use it to stop the Iraq war from happening. They'd probably be back in colonial america chillin with ben franklin or procuring their own pet dinosoar.
Me? I've always wondered who would win if I could get Ghengis Kahn to fight Ceasar, hand-to-hand, in a giant bowl of pudding. Make it happen time machine!
In conclusion:
Bush fucked us right in the collective ass-hole. Any attempt to fix the problem is gonna be painfull. The current plan, stay the course, doesn't seem as painfull but is completely pointless in that it accomplishes nothing. It looks like the Dems are gonna try to pass the buck and GTFO of iraq, which honestly doesn't seem like THAT bad of an idea. The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we really care about the average Iraqi citizen? If the answer is yes, to the point where you'd die for one, then proceed to option #1. If the answer is no, then proceed to option #3. If the answer is, "Screw this, I came for the puddin wrastlin!" then proceed to option #4, and pick me up along the way... 'cause I'm sick of politics.
(I have to admit, I wrote this to take my mind off of my craving to have a cigarette. If you actually read it all, then kudos to you my friend. I'm not gonna proof-read it...)
The democrats have now taken legislative power, or atleast they will in january. One of the central themes of their platform was that Bush fucked up by going into iraq and then pulled off an idiot chain-combo by screwing up every other major decision about Iraq for the next 2+ years. I REALLY don't think there's any point in argueing the above. If you don't believe it was a mistake going into Iraq, and that 90% of the actions that followed ranged between 'idiotic' and 'catastrophic', go read a god damn book. No, instead, lets talk about where the bungling of the last 3 years has left us, and what the legislative branch may be able to do to salvage the operation.
Larry, Curly, and Schemp try to build a country
That's right, the administration didn't even do a good enough job to get Moe in their roster. This was obviously schemp-quality work...
Lets take stock on the major fuck-ups thus far, to get a better idea of what aspects need the most immediate attention. These are in no particular order. Following each bullet point is a short bit of reasoning to explain WHY it was a fuck-up, assuming it's not immediately obvious.
-Not enough troops
The effects of this were obvious and numerous. The troops would clear one area, then leave it behind where it would immediately be reclaimed by the enemy. The triangle NW of the capital was COMPLETELY ignored until after the invasion. There was no way secure the borders from the influx of foreign fighters. I could go on for another 2 paragraphs about the effects. Lets just concede that this is a major point, though, and leave it at that.
-Complete neglect of the prime aspects of counterinsurgent warfare
Firepower used as primary tactic instead of a last resort. Troops concentrated on bases instead of in small groups among the population. Lack of respect for the local population, and/or, lack of ability to communicate with and understand the culture of the population.
-There was no clear chain of command with one person leading the operation
The department of state didn't get along with the department of defense. The military didn't get along with the Civilian leadership. NOBODY got along the CPA. As things are/were, you had differing people with differing goals, all with claims to controlling Iraq.
-Disbanding the military, Sweeps of Baath party members
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The military was practically BEGGING Bremer not to do it. In one fell swoop he put 140k armed and disgruntled iraqis on the streets, and then barred them from government employment(Their whole means to feed their families). Not to mention they then needed to train a NEW army without using any of the people most qualified. That stacks with the fact they we didn't even use our special forces to train the new army, but instead passed the job to contractors. The contractors, in turn, did such a BAD JOB that more than 50% of the army they trained defected before their first engagement. This was the crown jewel of fuck-ups
So, how the hell do we fix THAT mess???
Option #1 - Teh Win!!11
Here we will present the best, or atleast, most acceptable outcome. We'll define this in pretty broad terms. Lets say that an 'acceptable outcome' results in one nation of Iraq(no split) that has established law and order able and willing to prevent terrorist training and recruiting within it's borders. I think any US citizen would recognize that as a victory at this point. So, what do we do?
The first and most obvious answer is send more troops. To do ANY of the moves that follow, we must first have enough troops to secure the entire country at once. This could mean a draft. It could mean MAJOR stop-loss and defacto re-instatement. Either way, it isn't gonna be pretty. There would be a major backlash against whatever party endorsed the idea, even if it is only sensible.
From that point on the strategy is pretty straightforward, despite being infinately harder and more counterintuitive than the one we've been engaged in thus far. First we shut down the borders, HARD. Then we'll need to become like a police-force among the people. We'd need the vast majority of our troops living among the people and reporting to local precincts to do their daily jobs, which would shift dramatically to the rebuilding effort. This would put a big target on the chests of our servicemen, but if we're serious about the job, it's the only feasible option(hence, how I mentioned being counterintuitive).
The majority of our job would change. Instead of looking for enemies to kill, we'd be mainly reactionary, only firing when fired upon. Cordon and sweep searches would be stopped altogether. As the military did the police work, special forces would be training replacements for our men, and local governments could form above them. Another less-than-favorable outcome of this(for our military) would be a near-requirement that the same unit stay in one area until that area has transfered authority. Change in the military leadership causes TREMENDOUS setbacks in these kinds of situations. As each secto;r developed a police force and local government, the units in those finished sectors could be redeployed to other parts around the country, or return home.
Of course, there'd be alot of other smaller details that I don't have time to go into, but that'd be the main idea. Essentially, if we want to win this we are going to need to increase our troop strength(probably around double or triple), completely rework our positioning into a more constructive yet vulnerable ground position, and be prepared to spend atleast another 1-3 years there(taking even greater casualties for the next 6 months atleast).
Option #2 - Stay the course!
If you think this is a feasible option, PLEASE go read a book. Simply put, all we're doing right now is killing time. No progress is being made. Actually, no, thats not ENTIRELY correct. Did you ever see that video in Psychology 101 where the guy has his left and right brain seperated and then tries to do those IQ test puzzles? His right hand puts the pieces together in the correct design while his left hand takes them apart just as fast(left/right brain duality). THATS what the current situation is like. We don't have the resources on the ground to do the job right, so our military comes in and puts things right(right brain), only to leave and let it fall back into chaos just as fast(left brain).
Option #3 - Screw you guys... I'm going home!
Let's consider this to be the 'phased withdrawal' or 'Cut and run' option(depending on your political affiliation). The main objective here is to GTFO ASAP while the optional secondary objective is to make it seem like someone else's fault. Blame the Iraqis for not 'stepping up'. Blame the GOP for letting things get this fucked up. Blame whoever tries to excuse themselves from the room once the accusations start flying. Basically, just paint the situation as untenable and give a fatalist response(example: "There is simply no way to resolve this problem through the use of our military on the ground. At this point, the responsibility lies with the Iraqis").
This is probably the most likely response. Let's face it, it's alot easier to sell short-term benefits over long-term benefits, especially when long-term benefits would require such a high level of short-term sacrifice. Besides, your average american doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people, he just wants to make sure they aren't gonna anthrax his office building or something. The resulting civil war in Iraq would likely keep them from focusing their rage on us for a while, and may even divert the attention of islamic extremists everywhere. Why go half way around the world to fight heathens when there's plenty in your back yard? They'd be left with Sunni vs Shiite, fight to the finish!(Which isn't a bad situation for us in the short-term, assuming you're an uncaring prick like 60% of our population)
Long term would be bad, though. Very bad, actually. After a few bloody years spent screwing themselves, the Iraqis would likely latch on to the US as a MAJOR focus of anger and resentment. Picture Iran, but nuttier(Ya, I know, thats pretty damn nutty). We're talking about a 1984-esque "5 minute hate" level of animosity.
Option #4 - Time keeps on slippin... slippin...
Option 4... Time machine??? Oh, come on. Lets be serious. Even IF someone had a time machine, they probably wouldn't use it to stop the Iraq war from happening. They'd probably be back in colonial america chillin with ben franklin or procuring their own pet dinosoar.
Me? I've always wondered who would win if I could get Ghengis Kahn to fight Ceasar, hand-to-hand, in a giant bowl of pudding. Make it happen time machine!
In conclusion:
Bush fucked us right in the collective ass-hole. Any attempt to fix the problem is gonna be painfull. The current plan, stay the course, doesn't seem as painfull but is completely pointless in that it accomplishes nothing. It looks like the Dems are gonna try to pass the buck and GTFO of iraq, which honestly doesn't seem like THAT bad of an idea. The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we really care about the average Iraqi citizen? If the answer is yes, to the point where you'd die for one, then proceed to option #1. If the answer is no, then proceed to option #3. If the answer is, "Screw this, I came for the puddin wrastlin!" then proceed to option #4, and pick me up along the way... 'cause I'm sick of politics.
(I have to admit, I wrote this to take my mind off of my craving to have a cigarette. If you actually read it all, then kudos to you my friend. I'm not gonna proof-read it...)