Exit Stategy in Iraq

bringbackbill · 10-20-2006, 05:42 PM

What is going to happen in Iraq? Here are three scenarios: #1 Best case- The Iraqi government and security forces become strong enough to defeat the insurgency and bring stability to the country. President Bush could claim victory on begin withdrawing troops. I think this is the least likely scenario. #2 As political pressure mounts from his own party, President Bush will declare victory(even though nothing really changes) and begin withdrawing troops prior to 08 elections. #3 President Bush stands his ground. The tide doesn't turn in Iraq and Republicans totally abandon him heading into 08 elections.
What do you think will happen? Any other possible outcomes?

KatKanPlay · 10-20-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by bringbackbill

What is going to happen in Iraq? Here are three scenarios: #1 Best case- The Iraqi government and security forces become strong enough to defeat the insurgency and bring stability to the country. President Bush could claim victory on begin withdrawing troops. I think this is the least likely scenario. #2 As political pressure mounts from his own party, President Bush will declare victory(even though nothing really changes) and begin withdrawing troops prior to 08 elections. #3 President Bush stands his ground. The tide doesn't turn in Iraq and Republicans totally abandon him heading into 08 elections.
What do you think will happen? Any other possible outcomes?

#1 - The Iraqi government is neither strong or stable enough to contain a civil war.
#2 - I dont think Bush gives a damn about the republican party deep down.
#3 - Bush will do the Republicans no good in 08.
Possible #4?
A diversion created to substantiate the viability of all executive decisions so far.

WickedLou9 · 10-20-2006, 05:54 PM

NPR : Think Tank Advises U.S. to Prepare for Iraq Defeat

Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, says U.S. forces may be defeated in Iraq, and the Bush administration should set up a plan to prepare for the consequences.

motivez · 10-20-2006, 08:49 PM

I don't think we're going to be leaving Iraq for many, many years.

We didn't construct those bases to play games of paintball with the Iraqi people, we did it because we expect to exert influence over whoever ends up taking control after the current government fails to calm violence.

As far as "without victory", I think it's irrelevent really. We're never going to have a military solution to the problems there.. it's political, and has to be handled that way. You don't force Democracy on a nation at the barrel of a gun. It's something they have to be willing to take for themselves.. and they'r enot.

Pro Street · 10-21-2006, 02:45 AM

I voted yes, and no.

JaJae · 10-21-2006, 02:46 AM

Nothing in Iraq could be considered a "victory" at this point in my book. And I don't believe Bush will be in office when our troops start coming home.

avsp · 10-23-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nothing in Iraq could be considered a "victory" at this point in my book. And I don't believe Bush will be in office when our troops start coming home.

The idea that the American electorial cycle should have any bearing on this, whilst obvious, fills me woith dispair

Scrum · 10-23-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nothing in Iraq could be considered a "victory" at this point in my book. And I don't believe Bush will be in office when our troops start coming home.

Agreed, but I also think looking at this purely as a win/lose situation, like many are doing, is wrong.

WickedLou9 · 10-23-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Agreed, but I also think looking at this purely as a win/lose situation is wrong.

I do too. We do WAY too much of this in our culture today. "It's either this , or it's that" 9 times out of ten that is a false choice. There are seldom only 2 options. I would rather put the Iraq situation on a continum with total victory on the right and total defeat on the left.
Total defeat would be the US withdrawing troops because of overwhelming losses, and having a radical Islamic government rise up and take over, possibly having Iraq fracture into several smaller weaker states with countries like Iran and Syria gaining influence over one or more of the states. That would be total failure.
Total vitory would be establishing peace, having a fully implemented and successful democratic secular government with the full support of the Iraqi people. Also all insurgent and other terrorist forces being defeated, captured and/or killed.

I think we are closer to the left side of that than the right, but it's not a total defeat.

DosEquis · 10-23-2006, 03:31 PM

We already acheived a military victory. This is a political struggle now, and a political struggle we simply can't win. The political struggle has to be fixed by the Iraqi people. Nobody else can fix it.

We need to withdrawl from areas but help the Iraqi government control it. Provide air support, intelligence reports, etc. In bad cases, send some soldiers in via helicopter to help out. We have built 14 military bases, it is time to put our troops in those bases out of harms way.

6SpeedTA95 · 10-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We already acheived a military victory. This is a political struggle now, and a political struggle we simply can't win. The political struggle has to be fixed by the Iraqi people. Nobody else can fix it.

We need to withdrawl from areas but help the Iraqi government control it. Provide air support, intelligence reports, etc. In bad cases, send some soldiers in via helicopter to help out. We have built 14 military bases, it is time to put our troops in those bases out of harms way.

Once again you've hit the nail on the head.

Scrum · 10-23-2006, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We already acheived a military victory. This is a political struggle now, and a political struggle we simply can't win. The political struggle has to be fixed by the Iraqi people. Nobody else can fix it.

We need to withdrawl from areas but help the Iraqi government control it. Provide air support, intelligence reports, etc. In bad cases, send some soldiers in via helicopter to help out. We have built 14 military bases, it is time to put our troops in those bases out of harms way.

ballz2wallz · 10-23-2006, 06:28 PM

I don't think it's that easy.

avsp · 10-24-2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We already acheived a military victory. This is a political struggle now, and a political struggle we simply can't win. The political struggle has to be fixed by the Iraqi people. Nobody else can fix it.

We need to withdrawl from areas but help the Iraqi government control it. Provide air support, intelligence reports, etc. In bad cases, send some soldiers in via helicopter to help out. We have built 14 military bases, it is time to put our troops in those bases out of harms way.

I too can see the appeal of this. It is not without its problems.

The continued presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil would still serve to discredit the Iraqi admin in the eyes of many Iraqis

At what level of violence would they be called upon to act? Even if left to the Iraqi govt to determine it would still be a source of disagreement & allow for insurrgent propaganda victories & division in western public opinion, ..., but then what tactic wouldnt?

It would still not guarantee a minimal CoW casualty rate. (see the Falcon thread elsewhere for example). Further should the enemy get the ability to shoot helicopters down easily & at will they could easily fall prey to an ambush.

As an aside, I still feel that worrying overly about troop casulalities is to miss the point of fighting in the first place.

Either way apart from such a withdrawal I'd also like to see the forces used to control the boarders as part of an attempt to keep at least a partial lid on the civil war that we are going to allow to escalate by doing this.

DosEquis · 10-24-2006, 12:05 PM

I can buy having our soldiers secure their border to prevent outsiders from bringing in extra weapons, fighters, and explosives. A good portion of that can be supplimented with UAVs and they can even have missiles mounted on them.

Those i do question the ability to secure the Iraqi border since we can't even control our own border. That is a different issue entirely.

I do not think moving our troops will help with less deaths in general, but it will be less deaths for our soldiers. I do think we are a cap on a mini-civil war and they really do need to hash it out. We can have the back of the government forces since we installed them.

They are the only ones who can fix it and regardless of whether we are on the cities or not they are going to kill each other. We can't just leave completely because those Iraqis, the silent majority, who support a democracy will lose confidence in what we were trying to install over there.

avsp · 10-24-2006, 12:15 PM

It may not guarantee less deaths of CoW troopers & further such an aim should not be a primary motivation in determining tactics anyway.

I dont wish to appear overly heartless not to wish death on anyone, nor to dishonour the dead. But soldiers are for dying, at least to some extent.

Worrying overly about this just means that you miss the point of using armed forces in the first place.

I am not advocating the 'needless' waste of soldiers lives.

View Poll Results: Will Bush abandon Iraq without victory?
Yes	7	58.33%
No	7	58.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll