Last week Gun. Keane gave a report to congress about the war in Iraq. Ever since Gen. Patreus was put in charge and changed tactics after reciving the new troops in the surge, casualties are down, security is improving, terrorist groups(mostly al qadea in Iraq) are losing their foothold in sunni areas, momentum is swinging to the coalition forces, and sectarian violence is down. A liberal think tank was put together by the New York times composed mostly of known anti-war in Iraq people. Their conclusion: the coaliton has a good chance of winning the war in Iraq.

Question:
Do you think the coaliton can win the war in Iraq or at least provide some stability? Why?

Choices:
Yes coalition forces have a good chance
No coalition forces don't have a very good chance

 

The US and Nato can win this war, we just need to do a few things.

1. Keep up, Increase and Expand the Surge, sectarian violence is down, all we need is a final knockout punch to win in Iraq, the knockout must require:

2. More troops, we need cooperation with Nato, the US is stretched to the limit, in Afganistan and Iraq, we need more troops from countries around the global, finally we need:

3. An Iraqi Security network, what's the point of fighting a war, if more enemy soldiers pour in from the borders we need a hardcore border around Iraq, to stop extremists from getting into the country, we also need to overhaul the Iraqi security force,

If the US does those 3 things than i think the war can be won by 2010

you are absoultley right.

It is debatable whether or not there is a military solution to the war in Iraq.

The key points to remember is that:

1.the problem is iraqi- so iraqi troops must be able to defend their own territory. The US has to be able to effectively train local forces. These local forces can't be dependent on US air power and technology as eventually we will leave. They must be able to stand on their own two feet. There have been some advances in this sector and many brave Iraqi police have given their lives. On the other hand, Iraqi forces have been unable to operate effectivley against insurgents and have failed in many encounters.

2.Political action-

Under saddam's heavy handed reign, the different groups were able to be forced into submission. A central dictatorship was able to keep order through violence and intimidation;however, this has changed. We cannot expect all of Iraq to suddenly just hold hands- the ethnic and secretarian differences have existed for a while so maybe Iraq should be split into different zones/ruling govts.

SASSmith91091,

No.

1. Because we don't know the realities behind 'grass roots campaign' as a function of appealing to particularly Sunni in the West. Corruption is so deep in Arab cultures that almost /nothing/ gets done without a process of 'waxing the mustache' smoothing of the waters. If you don't know what the SOF are bribing the local village headman with, you don't know if it is sustainable or even legal.

2. Because our efforts bypass the central government which is decidedly Iranian friendly by both religion and political orientation (kissing and holding hands with Ahmadinejad being but one 'overture' of a much deeper ties-that-bind intent to make Iraq Shiia _as a function of majority rule_), signalling that we have created a monster which is sitting on 30 trillion dollars worth of oil and has nominally 'sovereign powers' yet is not willing to do the simple things that a democracy must, like bringing in minority members, creating oil revenue sharing plans and setting up some kind of amnesty program so that the ex-Baathists can start bureaucrating the country again.

3. The Police are utterly worthless. Completely compromised by the militias and totally indifferent in their attitudes towards various ethnic and sectarian victimizations. The Military is only slightly better, the U.S. having done what the Russians did for so long: Mixing regional and sectarian elements to the point where the units are 'harmless' simply because their constituent members are unwilling to trust each other enough to be a threat to anyone.

4. Iran _will not_ stop influence peddling so long as there is any chance whatsoever that they can prevent the U.S. from having a defacto vote in OPEC on what will come to be price gouging when the currency of trade is no longer exclusively the USD (our debt, our pathetically ballooned economy, our ENORMOUS appetite for oil that no longer contributes majority manufacture or food stuffs to the world economy). China is an element in this because they need the oil to sponsor their own consumer market burst. And Chinese Nukes + Iranian IED tech are an unstoppable 1-2 punch in terms of can't-touch-this continued rights of interference in Iraq. To which I can only add that the Iranians feel completely 'justified' in their actions because the Iran:Iraq war was entirely sponsored by the U.S. and British banks with U.S. and Western technology + targeting for chemical strikes that butchered or crippled the better part of 2 million Iranians.

5. Nobody can afford to stop. If the Iraqis stop playing 'host' to AQII attacks then they lose their bargaining chip. If the Shiia in the Iraqi government don't play along with Al Sadr and other Iranian puppets then the U.S. looks like we are 'stabilizing the nation' with the possibility of bringing prosperity to everyone. And that means that we will never leave. Ironically, BOTH SIDES must acknowledge now that they will never be safe from Iran and Anarchy without some major sponsoring counterweight influence and while I'm sure the EU and Russia would love to sell Iraq more weapons, the reality remains without a stable goverment (the Sunni would demolish the present Shiia force structure as the mouse eats the elephant, unless Iran came into it directly) NOBODY is going to make the mistake of more arms for promises as forced Western nations to lay off a debt of close to 570 Billion Dollars after the last debacle of arming the ugly.

CONCLUSION:
This is really a lipstick on pig action designed to bridge the Iraqi occupation over the election period on the notion that so long as no new Presidential candidate /has to/ make book on 'all the bad news out of Iraq' the people who really run this country will be able to 'talk him into it' on a continued U.S. presence in that benighted state, once he/she are in office and behind closed doors where the real situation (viz a viz U.S. petroeconomics or severe depre$$ion go) can be explained.

Past that, Iraqi is still bleeding white as rapidly as they apply bandaid+transfusion solutions and only the 'apparencies' of limited acknowledged violence (vs. non-returning professional class population) prevent the ugly from becoming obvious again.

Point Blank: We must stay in Iraq for at least one generation (20 odd years) before we breed and educate out the worst of the oppressed=violence accessed societal elements in Iraq. Since no pre-seated Presidential hopeful is going to have the testicular fortitude to stand up and say "I believe in Iraq to the extent that I am setting into motion a 120 billion a year for two decades 'Marshall Plan'" when post-Katrina Louisiana is still effectively a festering wound; we cannot talk about the pragmatic realities of /why/ me must give that culture a handup. Vs. why we do not invest the same cash in making this country petro independent in half the time.


CJ