Full Version: The path out of Iraq
I ran across an article on MSNBC called Hell to Pay a few days ago but I hesitated in posting it because inevitably it would have turned into a Kerry would do this and Bush would do this debate. I wanted to wait until we had a president to post it and phrase my questions accordingly.
Now that we have our president, it is time that we have a very honest conversation Iraq and how we extricate ourselves from this situation.
The pentagon has been planning for a major offensive in Fallujah for the past several weeks that will take place later this month and in to December presumably to make elections in January possible.
We have been led to believe over the course of the election that "things aren't so bad" but this story tells it differently:
I can't quote the whole thing but the article is very enlightening on what is really going on in Iraq. I took the opportunity to talk to a few friends of mine who are Iraq vets, they basically confirmed the story.
Questions for debate:
1. What is the path out of Iraq? Do you think the Pentagon's plan will be effective or is there something they are missing?
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
Now that we have our president, it is time that we have a very honest conversation Iraq and how we extricate ourselves from this situation.
The pentagon has been planning for a major offensive in Fallujah for the past several weeks that will take place later this month and in to December presumably to make elections in January possible.
We have been led to believe over the course of the election that "things aren't so bad" but this story tells it differently:
QUOTE
For months the American people have heard, from one side, promises to "stay the course" in Iraq (George W. Bush); and from the other side, equally vague plans for gradual withdrawal (John Kerry). Both plans depend heavily on building significant Iraqi forces to take over security. But the truth is, neither party is fully reckoning with the reality of Iraq—which is that the insurgents, by most accounts, are winning. Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged this privately to friends in recent weeks, NEWSWEEK has learned. The insurgents have effectively created a reign of terror throughout the country, killing thousands, driving Iraqi elites and technocrats into exile and scaring foreigners out. "Things are getting really bad," a senior Iraqi official in interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government told NEWSWEEK last week. "The initiative is in [the insurgents'] hands right now. This approach of being lenient and accommodating has really backfired. They see this as weakness."
A year ago the insurgents were relegated to sabotaging power and gas lines hundreds of miles outside Baghdad. Today they are moving into once safe neighborhoods in the heart of the capital, choking off what remains of "normal" Iraqi society like a creeping jungle. And they are increasingly brazen. At one point in Ramadi last week, while U.S. soldiers were negotiating with the mayor (who declared himself governor after the appointed governor fled), two insurgents rode by shooting AK-47s—from bicycles. Now even Baghdad's Green Zone, the four-square-mile U.S. compound cordoned off by blast walls and barbed wire, is under nearly daily assault by gunmen, mortars and even suicide bombers.
A year ago the insurgents were relegated to sabotaging power and gas lines hundreds of miles outside Baghdad. Today they are moving into once safe neighborhoods in the heart of the capital, choking off what remains of "normal" Iraqi society like a creeping jungle. And they are increasingly brazen. At one point in Ramadi last week, while U.S. soldiers were negotiating with the mayor (who declared himself governor after the appointed governor fled), two insurgents rode by shooting AK-47s—from bicycles. Now even Baghdad's Green Zone, the four-square-mile U.S. compound cordoned off by blast walls and barbed wire, is under nearly daily assault by gunmen, mortars and even suicide bombers.
I can't quote the whole thing but the article is very enlightening on what is really going on in Iraq. I took the opportunity to talk to a few friends of mine who are Iraq vets, they basically confirmed the story.
QUOTE
U.S. and Iraqi officials believe that a big victory in Fallujah and Ramadi is the best way to reverse this trend. They say more money has been spent recently on training, with a focus on producing quality troops, instead of churning out unreliable foot soldiers. Over the next few weeks, an additional six battalions of Iraqi soldiers should become operational, with a further six due by Christmas, effectively doubling active Iraqi forces. Some of the best local forces are in the First Iraqi Intervention Force brigade. Many have experience from the Iran-Iraq war. "Those guys are serious business," says an American officer who has observed them.
Questions for debate:
1. What is the path out of Iraq? Do you think the Pentagon's plan will be effective or is there something they are missing?
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
Questions for debate:
Excellent thread Cube Jockey!. You were right about the MSNBC article, a very enlightening read if there ever was one. To answer the first debate topic, the article contained a small section of what is needed for our path out of Iraq.
Getting to the point is where I become more of a skeptic. O.K., so you have some battle hardened Iraqis from the Iran-Iraq war. That was roughly fifteen years ago, so how old are they now? Not only that, but the first two or three groups that we trained and supplied(one was NG and the other was former Saddam army people if I remember correctly) failed to demonstrate any level of control over the militants. Yes, the "tipping point" presents us with the best way to leave Iraq, I'm just not certain that we will ever get to that point.
QUOTE
1. What is the path out of Iraq? Do you think the Pentagon's plan will be effective or is there something they are missing?
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
[b]3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
[b]3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
Excellent thread Cube Jockey!. You were right about the MSNBC article, a very enlightening read if there ever was one. To answer the first debate topic, the article contained a small section of what is needed for our path out of Iraq.
QUOTE
The U.S. military is now pushing for what one top officer calls "a tipping point," when a critical mass of Iraqi units are on the streets, operating against the insurgency. Optimists hope this will happen by the Iraqi elections—if the Fallujah offensive succeeds.
Getting to the point is where I become more of a skeptic. O.K., so you have some battle hardened Iraqis from the Iran-Iraq war. That was roughly fifteen years ago, so how old are they now? Not only that, but the first two or three groups that we trained and supplied(one was NG and the other was former Saddam army people if I remember correctly) failed to demonstrate any level of control over the militants. Yes, the "tipping point" presents us with the best way to leave Iraq, I'm just not certain that we will ever get to that point.
1. What is the path out of Iraq? Do you think the Pentagon's plan will be effective or is there something they are missing?
Its impossible to say without in depth knowledge of what the Pentagon is planning... or even if the Pentagon is responsible for the planning and not the White House.
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
It will depend on what happens in Fallujah. If the rebels stand and fight and are largely wiped out by the US and Iraqi troops that are posed to attack there, then it is possible that this will stun the insurgency long enough to hold an election and thus legitimize the government of Iraq.
This in itself how ever does not mean an awful lot for the policies of GW Bush if the election is then won by an Iraqi government that is opposed to US military intervention. For example, if Moqtada al Sadr should gain power through a popular vote, I think its safe to say that the entire war in Iraq would then be a monumental failure.
3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
They have to be if the time table for the election is to work. The US forces in Iraq are already putting a serious strain on America's ability to project its military forces oversea's and if the violence worsens then Usama Bin Laden's stated objective of 'bleeding' the US dry will start to have effect.
According to this article by the Project on Defense Alternatives;
Asia Times then goes on to remark:
For me, the biggest surprise in the war in Iraq has not been the insurgency or their tactics* but rather the inherent weakness of the US military with its gargantuan costs, its expensive equipment and its hard to replace troops.
At the moment the whole war looks to be delicately balanced on a knifes edge and it could fall either way. If the Iraqi armed forces can be trained up and remain intact despite infiltrations, and if the insurgency can be put down, or at least hurt badly enough, then there is still a chance that the elections could be held and that Allawi may win. If all that happens, then Iraq may yet see a future as a democratic nation.
On the other hand, the insurgents in Fallujah are Sunni Muslims and even defeating them will not cause any upset to the ambitions of those Iranian backed Iraqi's like al Sadr. If the Iraqi forces take heavy casualties in Fallujah, then the burden of keeping the 'peace' in Iraq may continue to rest in the hands of an ever stretched and ever entrenched US military.
* I was trained to do the same thing in the eventuality of a Soviet invasion of Denmark
Its impossible to say without in depth knowledge of what the Pentagon is planning... or even if the Pentagon is responsible for the planning and not the White House.
2. Do you believe that expecting elections to occur in January 2005 is realistic?
It will depend on what happens in Fallujah. If the rebels stand and fight and are largely wiped out by the US and Iraqi troops that are posed to attack there, then it is possible that this will stun the insurgency long enough to hold an election and thus legitimize the government of Iraq.
This in itself how ever does not mean an awful lot for the policies of GW Bush if the election is then won by an Iraqi government that is opposed to US military intervention. For example, if Moqtada al Sadr should gain power through a popular vote, I think its safe to say that the entire war in Iraq would then be a monumental failure.
3. There have been some problems with the Iraqi security forces already, do you think they are ready for prime time?
They have to be if the time table for the election is to work. The US forces in Iraq are already putting a serious strain on America's ability to project its military forces oversea's and if the violence worsens then Usama Bin Laden's stated objective of 'bleeding' the US dry will start to have effect.
According to this article by the Project on Defense Alternatives;
QUOTE(PDA)
Adding together the active- and reserve-component troops either deployed or stationed overseas yields a total of more than 420,000. About half of these are in or around Iraq, supporting the occupation. Prior to the Iraq war (but after 11 September 2001) the comparable active-plus-reserve total overseas was approximately 250,000.
All told, well over 400,000 reservists have been mobilized at one time or another for foreign or domestic duty since 11 September 2001. Most of these belong to the "selected reserves," which comprise units that regularly train together. Currently, America's selected reserves number approximately 880,000. Thus, about half of these reservists have been mobilized at one time or another during the past three years.
In order to maintain the current high level of overseas activity many of the previous guidelines and "rules of thumb" for limiting overseas deployments have been set aside. Thus, combat assignments for Army troops have been extended from six months to a year or more, and average time between deployments has been cut. Guard and reserve tours have been extended, too.
All told, well over 400,000 reservists have been mobilized at one time or another for foreign or domestic duty since 11 September 2001. Most of these belong to the "selected reserves," which comprise units that regularly train together. Currently, America's selected reserves number approximately 880,000. Thus, about half of these reservists have been mobilized at one time or another during the past three years.
In order to maintain the current high level of overseas activity many of the previous guidelines and "rules of thumb" for limiting overseas deployments have been set aside. Thus, combat assignments for Army troops have been extended from six months to a year or more, and average time between deployments has been cut. Guard and reserve tours have been extended, too.
Asia Times then goes on to remark:
QUOTE(Asia Times)
PDA also estimates that the 120-plus-day overseas deployment rate (averaged for 2003 and 2004) has been 46% during the Iraq war years, with most of it being 365-day deployments. This rate is likely to decline only marginally in 2004. And, many of the soldiers deployed in 2005 will be on their second 365-day deployment in three years. PDA anticipates that accumulated stresses by late 2005 will exceed any since the Vietnam War period.
Another way of looking at it is that the actual percentage of US active-component military who are overseas, in terms of deployment for military operations, is greater than in 1990-91, during Operation Desert Storm. Back then it was 1.7%. Now it is 14%.
Another way of looking at it is that the actual percentage of US active-component military who are overseas, in terms of deployment for military operations, is greater than in 1990-91, during Operation Desert Storm. Back then it was 1.7%. Now it is 14%.
For me, the biggest surprise in the war in Iraq has not been the insurgency or their tactics* but rather the inherent weakness of the US military with its gargantuan costs, its expensive equipment and its hard to replace troops.
At the moment the whole war looks to be delicately balanced on a knifes edge and it could fall either way. If the Iraqi armed forces can be trained up and remain intact despite infiltrations, and if the insurgency can be put down, or at least hurt badly enough, then there is still a chance that the elections could be held and that Allawi may win. If all that happens, then Iraq may yet see a future as a democratic nation.
On the other hand, the insurgents in Fallujah are Sunni Muslims and even defeating them will not cause any upset to the ambitions of those Iranian backed Iraqi's like al Sadr. If the Iraqi forces take heavy casualties in Fallujah, then the burden of keeping the 'peace' in Iraq may continue to rest in the hands of an ever stretched and ever entrenched US military.
* I was trained to do the same thing in the eventuality of a Soviet invasion of Denmark
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.