Conservatives, explain to me being against a time line in Iraq

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

but it was ok with the previous congress, right?

Nobody in this thread has said that that I'm aware of. This is called a straw man argument.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

but it was ok with the previous congress, right?

No.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nobody in this thread has said that that I'm aware of. This is called a straw man argument.

thanks for the info

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But they aren't in basic training, they are learning to fight a war, keep stability and peace in their country, and ward off invading countries. Certainly that takes a little longer than basic training, especially when starting from the ground up?

Yeah, sure...I'm not saying that in 4 years, the Americans will have zero work to do because the Iraqis will be completely able to do everything themselves to American standards.

But, at minimum, isn't 4 years enough to train grunts to go through the streets and do basic policing? That's really what the timeline is about. No one gives a shit if specialists and trainers stay behind. We're talking about taking the foot soldiers out. How can 4 years not be enough time to train Iraqis to patrol their own streets? To guard their own buildings?

That is indeed the stuff of basic training and police academies, and there is no such program on Earth that takes anywhere near 4 years to complete.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

But, at minimum, isn't 4 years enough to train grunts to go through the streets and do basic policing? That's really what the timeline is about. No one gives a shit if specialists and trainers stay behind. We're talking about taking the foot soldiers out. How can 4 years not be enough time to train Iraqis to patrol their own streets? To guard their own buildings?

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the insurgents can continue this for a long, long time. Wrecking infrastructure, creating a culture of fear and hate - how do patrol fix this?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the insurgents can continue this for a long, long time. Wrecking infrastructure, creating a culture of fear and hate - how do patrol fix this?

The Iraqis could also continue to fight the insurgents for a very long time if they were doing everything themselves. It costs us a million dollars an hour or something crazy to be the boots on the ground. It would be dirt cheap for Iraqis to do the same job. Of course, unless Iraqis actually support the cause, they won't fight for a long time. But I guess that's the second part of the incentive...first you have to give the Iraqis a reason to get off their asses because you stop doing the dirty work for them, and then you have to give them an underlying cause to fight for.

As it stands now, it seems that the have neither. Without the timeline, they have no reason to lift a finger because US troops are fighting for them. And even if they did have to defend themselves, they'd probably be fighting for their sect, not the US-backed central government.

The whole thing is fucked on so many levels. There needs to be a drastic overhaul if this thing is to work. Maybe the Biden plan or something...

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The Iraqis could also continue to fight the insurgents for a very long time if they were doing everything themselves.

Civil war.

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

It costs us a million dollars an hour or something crazy to be the boots on the ground. It would be dirt cheap for Iraqis to do the same job.

Not as effectively - internal power struggles woul emerge.

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Of course, unless Iraqis actually support the cause, they won't fight for a long time. But I guess that's the second part of the incentive...first you have to give the Iraqis a reason to get off their asses because you stop doing the dirty work for them, and then you have to give them an underlying cause to fight for.

Many of them want to be Iran 2

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

As it stands now, it seems that the have neither. Without the timeline, they have no reason to lift a finger because US troops are fighting for them. And even if they did have to defend themselves, they'd probably be fighting for their sect, not the US-backed central government.

Not sure that a timelinw would help, but one is needed unless policy is changed.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Yeah, sure...I'm not saying that in 4 years, the Americans will have zero work to do because the Iraqis will be completely able to do everything themselves to American standards.

But, at minimum, isn't 4 years enough to train grunts to go through the streets and do basic policing? That's really what the timeline is about. No one gives a shit if specialists and trainers stay behind. We're talking about taking the foot soldiers out. How can 4 years not be enough time to train Iraqis to patrol their own streets? To guard their own buildings?

That is indeed the stuff of basic training and police academies, and there is no such program on Earth that takes anywhere near 4 years to complete.

Sure, and I think that's what we have. Certainly the Iraqis have taken more control as the years have gone by? But, is 4 yrs enough time to build an entire army of new recruits, train them, have them stay around for a lengthy period of time (to gain experience, which is what most of them need) and determine if they are indeed patriotic for Iraq or infiltrating for the insurgents cause. There's a lot that needs to be worked out on a brand new military, and the training of grunts is just a small part of it. The generals that run our military have been there for decades, and certainly the Iraqi army can't run itself without experience. We are there to help them get that.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But, is 4 yrs enough time to build an entire army of new recruits, train them, have them stay around for a lengthy period of time (to gain experience, which is what most of them need) and determine if they are indeed patriotic for Iraq or infiltrating for the insurgents cause.

Four years may not be enough time to build an entire army, but it surely is enough time to see real progress. In four years, if what we were doing was fundamentally sound, you'd see the need for American troops dwindling as Iraqi forces were getting stronger.

What we see is the exact opposite. Per the surge, we're needing more American troops, not less. That means in four years, we haven't even gotten enough competent, loyal troops to take some of the burden off ours. That's pretty disturbing.

How someone can see such a backward, dysfunctional situation and think the solution is more of the same is beyond me. It's like putting someone on a diet, seeing that in 4 years they've gained weight, and then saying we need to give it more time.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Four years may not be enough time to build an entire army, but it surely is enough time to see real progress.

So how would you measure 'real progress'? Certainly your ability to see 'real progress' from the other side of the world is different from our military's ability to see 'real progress' when it's next to them? Surely the standards of measure are different?

[Diesel66]

Either stop fighting today and start pulling out immediately or let the military fight the damn war.

[Kytro]

The US should have never handed over power until the population was stable.

They should have locked down all movement, police state until the population had been disarmed and they were able restore peace and quality of life.

Then freedoms could be returned, and the population, though resentful wouldn't want to return to conflict.

[thomez]

Disarming the population doesn't seem like a reasonable task.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

Disarming the population doesn't seem like a reasonable task.

Why not?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Why not?

Iraq has a large and porous border, and we cannot even secure our own. Plus, it is the same as in America or anywhere else, you will disarm the law abiding citizenry with much greater ease and leave them in a terrible position when faced with criminals, which we know Iraq has plenty of. It simply is not a feasible solution to Iraq's problems, nor is it an ethical one.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

Iraq has a large and porous border, and we cannot even secure our own. Plus, it is the same as in America or anywhere else, you will disarm the law abiding citizenry with much greater ease and leave them in a terrible position when faced with criminals, which we know Iraq has plenty of. It simply is not a feasible solution to Iraq's problems, nor is it an ethical one.

Iraq is not ready for freedom.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Iraq is not ready for freedom.

The average Iraqi citizen has even more of a need for personal defence then Americans

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The average Iraqi citizen has even more of a need for personal defence then Americans

I agree, I am merely talking about fixing Iraq. The US needs soldiers on every corner

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Iraq is not ready for freedom.

I think they have the best chance of becoming free with a three state system. I think almost all individuals are always ready for freedom, the few just do their best to hold it back because they fear the consequences.