1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

OT - Alternative Strategy for Iraq

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by dmarbell, Jul 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Here is an alternative strategy for Iraq that I have not heard anyone else come up with, at least not exactly. I did not serve in the military, and have no military strategy experience. You can read all my posts here, and see that I have never disparaged anyone in the military. I honor the service of all those in the military. I also was against the war in Iraq from the start, but have not and would not disparage anyone for their part in it, militarily. I do have the right, and freely exercise it, to disagree with our government's involvement in Iraq, and the administration's handling of the intelligence that got us there, and the subsequent management of the war.

    I don't believe we should completely withdraw from Iraq, at least not immediately. We cannot trust that region with whoever would come out on top in case of a civil war there.

    I suggest that we could redeploy our troops within Iraq in areas around the borders. This would allow a period of time to see if the inevitable civil war which breaks out is brief or protracted. If the war is brief, we would be in position to reenter the conflict in the case where Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations gaining control. If the war is long, we could then reenter as a peace keeping force to quell the violence. In either of these cases, the enemy would certainly be weakened by the conflict, so our involvement should not be adversely affected. If you are worried about an influx of new terrorists, keep reading.

    Besides regrouping and observing the activity, our military would be charged with 1) keeping terrorists from entering the country (thus the reason for redeployment inside Iraq near the borders), and 2) keeping terrorists from leaving Iraq to join cells outside Iraq or to try to attack the US, either on our soil or other US interests or allies.

    In this way, our military could engage Syrian, Iranian and other insurgents without penetrating other sovereign countries. If we engage Iranians or others coming into Iraq from the Iran side, we would absolutely be justified in our actions. Same with Syria.

    One person with whom I discussed this strategy told me this would seem feasible if all the terrorist were located in Iraq (or Iraq and Afghanistan). I replied that since these were our two theatres of military operations, that we are not now taking action against terrorists outside those two areas that this strategy would affect.

    We've been training military and police in Iraq for 3+ years. We've helped the Iraqis establish a government, hold elections and write a constitution. It's about time we allowed them to show what they can do.

    This is not a cut and run strategy, so don't try to reframe it as one.

    Danny
     
  2. grammie

    grammie TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    658
    Danny:

    The Iraqi's cannot hold areas taken back by U.S. forces now!!!

    Yesterday,,,a firefight killed 9 Iraqi policemen that were with the insurgents!!

    This is unconventional warfare Danny,,,,the people that the U.S. forces are training are the same people at night that shoot at you!!!

    What you suggest would widen the conflict,,,and draw in at least 3 other Muslim countries,,,The middle east would ignite!!!!! The draft would have to be implemented at once,,,,and your kids and grandsons will bleed for George Bush and his partners in crime!!!!

    If you want peace in Iraq,,,then sir,,there is only one way,,,,it must come from peace keeping efforts of "other" muslim nations,,,not the U.S.!!!

    The very sight of the people and flag that represents the America that has killed so many in an un-just,,,wrong,,,war,,would be sure to keep the flames of hatred fired for generations to come!!!

    Unconventional War requires unconventional methods!!! Of that,,,you can be sure!!! So in that frame of mind,,,,if you wish peace,,,then the Iranian backed Hezzbolah could quite the flames of a "civil war",,,which the U.S will not even think about because it requires doing business with the devil,,,,sort of like the U.S. supplying and arming Osama Bin Laden to battle the russians!!!

    It will not win a war,,,,but it would serve to "give an out" other than winding up your ball of string and heading for home and leaving another 3rd world country again.....

    When you are forced to drink from one cup or the other,,,,the 'taste' leaves a lot to be desired........

    AKa Grammie............
     
  3. School Teacher

    School Teacher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,050
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I did serve in the military but do not consider myself to be a military strategist as I was a Transportation officer. I don’t like to comment on political posts as there are plenty of others willing to do so. However, ...


    What is really wrong with this war is that it is taking too long. If asked, my strategy would be to task the commanding general with winning the war, give him all the support he needs and then get the hell out of the way.


    This mission is really about oil as oil is critical for our economy. If the commander needs 500,000 or even 1,000,000 troops, so be it. The US has over twice the population it had in 1941 so we should have plenty of manpower. If the ladies want to join in the fun, they would be welcome too. Just tell to commander to not take all day getting the job done.


    If the various Iraqi sects cannot live together peacefully, I would create three or as many required, separate countries where they could enjoy their cultural differences and not have to slaughter each other.


    I would put all of the oil fields and distribution facilities under US control forever. We would operate all of the oil fields, explore new fields, and market the oil (taking care of our requirements first and selling any extra we don’t need).


    From the profits of the oil sales, I would recover all of our costs, back to day one of the war, and then distribute the remaining profits to the Iraqis, minus a “management fee” for overseeing the entire operation. Every family that lost a family member would receive $1,000,000 and the wounded would also be compensated.


    If any nation complained, I would tell them to go to blazes. What’s the use in being the world’s only superpower if you can’t kick sand in a few faces anyway?


    I am a little tired right now so do not take this too serious. Wouldn’t it be nice to have General Patton or Attila the Hun back for a couple of months?
     
  4. grammie

    grammie TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    658
    Schoolteacher:

    Somehow,,,I get the picture of you standing there behind a podium with an obnoxious mustache.............

    For the life of me,,I can see wave upon wave of oriental looking dudes carring samuri swords and attacking the oil and rubber fields of Burma....

    I assure you,,,,,the idea of "fun" would not enter the picture....

    There is a differance between manpower and "trained manpower",,,as there is a differance in population demograpics,,,,example,,,take any group of military aged people,,,and less than 30% would be of any use to combat operations!!!

    It is very easy to carve another peoples country into sections because you "wish it",,but getting it done in real time will prove to be impossible even for a world power!!! It will no more be done than the Russians thinking they could defeat the Afghans.....

    AKA Grammie...........
     
  5. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Grammie,

    I fail to see how my strategy, if properly implemented, would allow 3 other Muslim countries to be drawn in. Our forces would have the responsibility to secure the Iraqi border. If the policy was for no one to cross the border from either side, and this policy was widely disseminated, then anyone encountered at the border would be fair game for our forces.

    Danny
     
  6. grammie

    grammie TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    658
    Danny:

    A "terrorist" is not born,,,,they are made...

    No army on this earth can stop an "ideal",,,not for as long and as far back into history as we can look....

    Because you see,,,,in the eyes of an american,,,they are called "terrorists",,but in the eyes of their own people,,,they are freedom fighters,,,,and just as you would give aid and comfort to an american soldier,,they will do the same for their own....When you kill,,,what you killed probably had a son,,,now you must kill the son,,,and then you must kill the sons son,,,and when they are gone,,,you must kill the daughters...

    If we pull back as you say,,,,,they will rebuild the insurgency stronger than before,,,we saw it in Afghanistan,,and in certain areas in Iraq,,,For every one we kill,,10 or 20 step forward to take their place,,,a body count does not win a war...

    Its all over soon as Bush is out of office,,,,They know it,,,all they have to do is wait and be patient,,,,a "puppet govenment" installed by the U.S. is sure to fail,,outside influences will see to that....

    You WILL SEE an "alternative strategy" for Iraq,,,,but it will be nothing like you expect..............

    AKA Grammie...........
     
  7. School Teacher

    School Teacher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,050
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Grammie:

    If you want to compare me to a historical figure, please select Charles (The Hammer) Martel, the leader of the Frankish and Burgundian forces. In the year 732, Charles Martel met an immense Islamic army near Tours, France. He fought a brilliant defensive battle in a place and time of his choosing, against far superior force and won. The victory prevented the Islamic hordes from overrunning Europe and caused their retreat back into Spain. They even named a great cognac after him and his grandson was Charlemagne.


    I think that most Americans would love to see a quick and successful end to the war. However, how we get from here to there is a puzzle. Americans, as a whole, are not a very patient people. We don’t like 20 or 30 or 100 year long wars.


    Colon Powell may have been correct when he advised President Bush not to depose Saddam with the comparison to breaking a dish in a china shop, i.e., “If you break it, it’s yours.”


    We will have a presidential election in 2008 and IMO, the war in Iraq will be the central issue. The American People will select a candidate whose views on Iraq match their own. I hope that President Bush has a rabbit in his hat.
     
  8. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,639
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    Surely the concept of a robotic oil rig with the capability of drilling through radioactive slag has occurred to some of you military geniuses?

    Let's get with the program here and quit screwin around. Iraq really doesn/\'t have to have a population.

    HM
     
  9. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    heh...bush ignored all reports coming from the War Colleges...gee, can't imagine why we're in the mess we're in today.
     
  10. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    heh...bush ignored all reports coming from the War Colleges...gee, can't imagine why we're in the mess we're in today.
     
  11. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    India-3-9,

    I can't say I disagree with any of those -isms. However, here's one for all.

    Never, ever, start a war until you are absolutely, positively 110% sure it is necessary and unavoidable.

    I don't think the current conflict conforms to that mantra. I think most people in this country, if they were honest with themselves, would agree that we would be better off today if we had not gone into Iraq at all.

    Danny
     
  12. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,639
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    You have to understand that the concept of not winning wars began with Korea.

    Viet Nam was a wonderful war, the economy boomed, the military industrial complex prospered, and all was rosy. Till the cannon fodder decided to object strenuously.

    After that we had to be satisfied with a couple little exercises in the Falklands, Somalia, and a lttle bigger in Bosnia. Pretty much like test patterns for TV.

    Now we have another nice "forever" action to further the objective of the shadow government.

    Only problem seems to be a lack of competence at the top. Sell job isn't working.

    (I also believe in low yield thermonuclear slum clearance devices.)

    HM
     
  13. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,914
    All the "End the war now" talk by the Democracts(or anybody else) is just that "Talk". No way is this mess going to be over in our life time! If ANYBODY thinks that this or any other administration is going to let Iran, Syria, and a bunch of ruthless murderers from Hell control 1/3 of the oil reserves in the world, they are out of their mind! Even if the Democracts get in power(God Forbid), then it won't be a "withrawal", it will be billed as a "redeployment" That way they can tell their anti war hippie pals that they "Withdrew" only to give the Islamic whacko terrorist time to regroup, which will cost even more U.S. lives when they go back in! They may cut a deal with the crooked U.N. and have another "unified" war effort(but only if the right countries get a big enough slice of the pie). This would create the necessity of a "puppet" government when the current one falls(and you think the "current" one is corrupt)!The current war stinks because nobody wants to admit that it is just that a WAR! You don't win war by "winning hearts". Most Muslims will hate us anyway! You win wars by killing your enemies, breaking their toys, and making it highly costly to wage war against you! This government GREATLY underestimated the resistance in this conflict and far as I can tell didn't learn a %^&*%$ thing from Vietnam! I hate war as do most Americans, but anybody who thinks electing another President will end this one is either dreaming,or smoking something illegal! The Democracts want the war effort to fail under Bush. Their plan is to blame ALL the failures and American deaths on him, then have their own one which will be totally holy (in their eyes). The bottom line is we will NEVER make these Islama fanatic nut cases our friends, and the U.S. will be fighting SOMEWHERE in the middle east when your grandchildren are sending their kids off to war(provided this country last that long). I don't like it, but it IS going to happen! Sooner or later, the insane nut job running Iran will have to be taken care of. Remember this guy calls for the TOTAL destruction of Isreal and pretty much says he'll nuke them as soon as he gets a big ewnough bomb built! Just wait til that can of worms gets opened! Iran has no refining capability to speak of and plans on taking over Iraq. You can count on one other thing. The liberals who whine about Bush and his current so called wiretapping(really only listening to cell calls that you could do also with a snope box from Radio Shack) will not want to accept the responsibility when the terrorist are finally successful in their attempt at a MAJOR terrorist hit in the U.S. (Beleive me It's COMING)!The current population of the U.S. has no stomach for war, but war they will have, like it or not!
     
  14. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    If almost all of us believe that a major terrorist hit here is inevitable, then why aren't we concentrating more on securing our borders and shoring up the intelligence and police forces? Terrorist cells in Pakistan aren't going to suddenly give up their planning for a strike and go to Iraq to fight the infidels.

    Looking back, if WMDs existed in Iraq, the biggest threat was to Israel. We could have let them handle that situation, while we concentrated on eliminating those who have the capability to strike us or our interests. (Some say Israel is our "interest," but that's another whole topic.)

    I have always seen this Iraqi action as a waste of effort and resources.

    Danny
     
  15. revsublime

    revsublime TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    "If ANYBODY thinks that this or any other administration is going to let Iran, Syria, and a bunch of ruthless murderers from Hell control 1/3 of the oil reserves in the world, they are out of their mind!"

    therein lies our problem...1) refusal to invest in alternative energy which leaves us at the mercy of the major oil controllers 2) our messing around in their countries & politics which breeds terrorism.

    Imagine if China all of a sudden decided that they were going to send their military into the US to control our wood resources. Would you also become a terrorist...or wait...would that be a "freedom fighter" because its YOUR country that's being screwed with?

    Our foreign policy has been so screwed up solely because we want to control another countries resources. We had just better pray china never wants to start acting like we do...or we'll be making our own IED's in this country.

    All empires fall...let's not accelerate the fall of ours.
     
  16. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    Danny that essentially is what is going on now--

    Phase one- secure central locations- time for Iraq to gain troops and become proficient

    Phase two- move to outside area base locations --

    Phase three - redeployment


    You could never leave the central area completely during phase two but you could provide support rather than the main effort

    HM and revsublime---- your ideas must have come from union meetings- where you have nothing better to do than complain why things arent like they were 75 years ago- they are so far out- they cant even be commented on


    This is about people, stability, and oil-- no doubt -- and the ideas get intermingled or used as excuses for one or the other

    If you dont want to be walking to work- you better hope that something works in this region

    we probably have enough time to come up with some alternative fuel plan in the next 30 years if China doesnt gulp the reserves too fast but we cant do it in the next 5-10

    The way of life of the young kids growing up will be substantially different than ours in any case- gone will be the pickup trucks and stopping and getting a 12 pack of beer and vacations and holdings and things such as trapshooting-- few people will drive vehicles that they own--unless some discovery occurs that we cant even fathom now

    Iraq is about what we stand for- both the good and the bad, the good being the protection of people against tyrants and the bad being our own interests abroad -- but both are tangled--

    regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  17. lightfoot

    lightfoot TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    221
    Danny,

    This is a lose-lose situation. Bush and his supporters has screwed this up so bad it’s not a matter of IF it’s going to hurt, it’s a matter of how bad it’s going to hurt. There is no way to win the war Bush has declared on Iraq. The “War on Terror” still has promise, but that has nothing to do with Iraq. If Afghanistan was Russia’s Viet Nam, Iraq is our Afghanistan. If we stay, what we see now will continue forever. But what can we do? Bush and his supporters have handed us (the United States and the world) a thermonuclear grenade with the pin pulled. You can throw it, or stuff it down your pants, but the result will be the same. And “slide action” brings up a good point…what about the oil?

    So, I kind of like your strategy. It’s a withdrawal from the urban areas and areas of conflict. We become a border patrol while the inevitable civil war goes on. Then we start a SERIOUS dialog with Iran and Syria. We actually might have been in a position to have a working relationship with Iran until Bush’s “axis of evil” speech. There’s still hope. But for now, and the foreseeable future, Iraq is hosed. The question is how many more American military will be sacrificed to this quagmire?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.