Saudis consider sending troops to Iraq

[Pro Street]

Saudis consider sending troops to Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

EXCLUSIVE
By Alex Johnson and Andrea Mitchell
MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 5:01 p.m. ET Jan 16, 2007

Saudi Arabia believes the Iraqi government is not up to the challenge and has told the United States that it is prepared to move its own forces into Iraq should the violence there degenerate into chaos, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Tuesday.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal made no effort to mask his skepticism Tuesday about President Bush’s proposal to send 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq to stem sectarian fighting.
“We agree with the full objectives set by the new plan,” Saud said at a joint news conference in Riyadh with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in the region selling Bush’s plan. “We are hoping these objectives can be accomplished, but the means are not in our hands. They are in the hands of the Iraqis themselves.”

In fact, Saudi leaders are privately “deeply skeptical” that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could implement the U.S. plan, the senior U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, who is traveling with Rice.
The Saudi government has signaled in the past that it would oppose an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, fearing it would leave minority Sunni Muslims at the mercy of Shiite Muslim militias.
The Saudis’ primary concern is the Sunni population of Anbar province, the senior U.S. official. The official said the Saudis had informed Washington that they were considering a plan to send troops into the province if Bush’s plan failed.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the report, which Rice downplayed during a briefing for reporters. She said such a scenario was why it was important for the U.S. plan to produce a unified Iraq.
Rice seeks support for plan
Rice is in the region to lobby Egypt, Jordan and the six moderate Arab states in the Persian Gulf for a statement of support for Bush’s plan.
“I’ve briefed the president’s plan on Iraq at all the different stops,” Rice told reporters. “There is, I think, very good support for the American commitment there, very good support for the objectives the president wants to achieve.”

Bush’s proposal has met with wide skepticism as sectarian violence has deepened in Iraq. The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died last year; at least 109 people were killed or found dead Tuesday, the bloodiest day in weeks.
Bush acknowledged frustration at the turn of events in an interview Tuesday with PBS’s Jim Lehrer.
“I’m frustrated at times about Iraq because I understand the consequences of failure. I want the Iraqis to succeed for our own sake,” the president said, according to a transcript of the interview.
“This is a war, part of a broader war, and if we fail in Iraq, there is a better likelihood that the enemy comes and hurts us here.”

This is a threat similiar to the scenario I posted about last week. The way we're now "handling" this civil war and it's eventual failure will cause an extraordinary about of fighting in the entire region.

If we had withdrawn to the outskirts of the country, and also used that time to take the Anbar province, these stakes would not be this high, since the US on the border would be a buffer between SA and Iraq.

[avsp]

Lets hope this is just sabre-rattling by the Saudisdesigned to have an effect

Either way, the reports itself is escalation & risks raising the level of all players uncertainty linked fear. Many of the players involved seem fairly 'new' or 'unsophisticated' & I worry that they are going to leap to an ill-considered ever more agressive stances

The Saudis are definately talking to the public of the Coalition nations, (amongst others) here. I really really hope they are listening

[kinggovernor]

We need more help from our allies

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Saudis consider sending troops to Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com




This is a threat similiar to the scenario I posted about last week. The way we're now "handling" this civil war and it's eventual failure will cause an extraordinary about of fighting in the entire region.

If we had withdrawn to the outskirts of the country, and also used that time to take the Anbar province, these stakes would not be this high, since the US on the border would be a buffer between SA and Iraq.

you make it sound so easy, just take the Al Anbar province, the problem is that it is so large, over 86,000 square miles. And most of the "towns" are just small groups of houses. There are several major cities but the problem is the supply of people and supplies coming from Syria.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you make it sound so easy, just take the Al Anbar province, the problem is that it is so large, over 86,000 square miles. And most of the "towns" are just small groups of houses. There are several major cities but the problem is the supply of people and supplies coming from Syria.

If we focused on there instead of just pulling out and tip-toeing around Fallujah (yes I still call it that)


I know what the Anbar province is, but I'm going along the lines of stop the supplies, hurt the "resistance"

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

If we focused on there instead of just pulling out and tip-toeing around Fallujah (yes I still call it that)


I know what the Anbar province is, but I'm going along the lines of stop the supplies, hurt the "resistance"

we are tip-toeing in Fallujah, according to whom. We almost leveled that city completely.

Which is what we are doing right now, with troops in al qaim, haditha, hit and other places along the euphrates river. The people supplies enter the country at al qaim then make their way down the river towards ramadia and baghdad.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we are tip-toeing in Fallujah, according to whom. We almost leveled that city completely.

Which is what we are doing right now, with troops in al qaim, haditha, hit and other places along the euphrates river. The people supplies enter the country at al qaim then make their way down the river towards ramadia and baghdad.

Last I heard we couldn't go in there..meh

Then hit the supply routes. leave the Capital to the Iraq security forces. step up arming them.. babysitting them doesn't seem to be getting anything done.

We've gone in and did what we said we would. We gave them the "free and democratic Iraq."

What they do with it afterward is up to them. The only thing we can do is wait and hope we didn't create even more problems.

[motivez]

Agreed on the last part Pro Street. It's up to the Iraqi's to make the decision about the future of their country. You can't force democracy, progress, or peace on any people who are unwilling to take it.

Security is obviously a major part of that, but if the government is incapable or unwilling to do what's needed to crack down on sectarian militias, I see no reason to continue wasting American lives and money being stuck in the middle of their civil war.

We can always move our troops back and try to secure border areas to prevent a flow of outsiders, but ultimately it's the sectarian civil war that's the problem.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Last I heard we couldn't go in there..meh

we leveled a good percentage of buildings and over 50% were damaged. We destroyed dozens and dozens of mosques. It is one of the quietest places in Al Anbar.

Then hit the supply routes. leave the Capital to the Iraq security forces. step up arming them.. babysitting them doesn't seem to be getting anything done.

We've gone in and did what we said we would. We gave them the "free and democratic Iraq."

What they do with it afterward is up to them. The only thing we can do is wait and hope we didn't create even more problems.

and when the capital explodes in anarchy, what do you think should happen?