One idea for more troops in Iraq.

[Steph]

Sure. And the very fact that whenever the subject of United States is conjured up amongst Frenchies,they are entirely predictable of what is gonna come out of their mouth.

Why the fact Frenchies are mostly thinking the same thing about the US would mean we think only about the US?

Hmm.....arrogant i might as be seems to be but shouldn't you guys be taking notes on how to foster and maintain peace in the world based on our actions?

We are! We carefully note what you are doing, so we can avoid repeating it to have a chance to foster and maintain peace in the world.

 

[Little Raven]

Help some and skip helping your biggest ally in the Cold War eh?

I think NATO would argue that they are helping us, in a very big way.

But seriously, TG, think about it. Just 2 months ago, a NATO call for troops failed to raise just 2500 troops for Afghanistan. If NATO can't cough up a mere 2500 troops for the popular war, how on Earth is it going raise the tens of thousands of troops we'd need to make a dent in Iraq, which is about as popular as Typhoid Mary on a bad streak, and which NATO expressly opted out of back in 2003?

Rightly or wrongly, the world increasingly sees Iraq as ours (and, to a lesser extent, Britain’s) to fix. No amount of pressure on NATO is going to fix that. If we are going to send more troops, there’s going to have to come from here. That is, unless Blair can be conned into another round…hmmm…

 

[CartesianFart]

Why the fact Frenchies are mostly thinking the same thing about the US would mean we think only about the US?

Nevermind,steph,it was too much an general statement that all Frenchies are anti-American on my behalf.I do not believe that all French citizens have the same opinion,it is just that my impression of all of French regular in Civ OT have somewhat the same opinion and frankly,i am bored by it.

We are! We carefully note what you are doing, so we can avoid repeating it to have a chance to foster and maintain peace in the world.

It was only a silly sarcastic response.I don't mean it literally.It is just that i rarely get to talk or collaborate with French nationals (which i only get the privledge in CIV OT)and sometimes i rant out of frustration that i find only narrow and not enough diverse opinion on United States foreign relation policies amongst French Civ OT members.

 

[Steph]

Nevermind,steph,it was too much an general statement that all Frenchies are anti-American on my behalf.I do not believe that all French citizens have the same opinion,it is just that my impression of all of French regular in Civ OT have somewhat the same opinion and frankly,i am bored by it.

You miss the point. It could be that the French are mostly anti americans, but your initial post was not about that, you said French were spending all their time thinking about US international policy, which is not the case at all.

It was only a silly sarcastic response.I don't mean it literally.It is just that i rarely get to talk or collaborate with French nationals (which i only get the privledge in CIV OT)and sometimes i rant out of frustration that i find only narrow and not enough diverse opinion on United States foreign relation policies amongst French Civ OT members.

What if our opinion was right, and that's the reason we are so many to share it?

 

[CartesianFart]

You miss the point.

Can't be perfect all the time.Sometimes i am fallible to miss the point time to time.

It could be that the French are mostly anti americans, but your initial post was not about that, you said French were spending all their time thinking about US international policy, which is not the case at all.

I know and it was an illogical thing i've said.I know that in all due probability that all French does not share the same opinion on any given subject.It is just that all French people in Civ OT seems to have given the same opinion or arguments on the subject that we are discussing is what i am really at rant about.

What if our opinion was right, and that's the reason we are so many to share it?

You say "what if" leaves the possibility of whether it not or may be right.That is what i say what underlines the question in all discussion that brings out the difference of us all in this subject matter.The subject matter that denote if United States will suceed in its nation-building project in Iraq or not.

 

[Steph]

that all French does not share the same opinion on any given subject.It is just that all French people in Civ OT seems to have given the same opinion or arguments on the subject that we are discussing is what i am really at rant about.

Un pour tous, tous pour un! The mousquetaires of CivFanatics strike again!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Depend on what you mean on what "mistake" is?

Go ahead with that metaphor of "road to hell" and tell me that the phrase is something of any good intention can be brought out.

Look mate, I'm not bashing the US, in fact I myself was in favor of going into Iraq. Be defensive and roll your eyes at someone else. I guess you believe Iraq is going 'swimingly' as well.

 

[Red Stranger]

Today, I don't see any victory. But I see a defeat.

A good general sees victory when others see defeat. A bad general sees defeat when there is a path to victory. You sir, would be a bad general, and I a good one.

 

[betazed]

A little OT but...

Winston Churchill said “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” . I think we should modify that a bit. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else again and again.”

100 troops did not solve the problem, so 1000 troops might? 1000 troops did not solve the problem so 10,000 might? 10,000 troops did not solve the problem...

At what point do we start to wonder maybe it is the troops themselves that is the problem!

 

[Sidhe]

At what point do we start to wonder maybe it is the troops themselves that is the problem!

In my case it was about the moment I started reading the justification of Iraq based on conjecture. I.e. before their was anything concrete to go on. In other words just before they went in.

 

[MobBoss]

Ok, LR here are my thoughts on the idea. Basically I think it is a very, very bad idea. Recruiting, which is already at a low point, would drop beyond acceptable levels, no matter how much money/incentives/bonus' you give people. No one in their right miind would volunteer to stay in Iraq 'until its done' for the money we pay them.

Which brings me to my next point. You mention this was how it was done in WW II. Well, what else did we have during WW II? Thats right...a draft. About the only way you could sustain current troop levels in the military and instill such a deployment demand would be via the draft. I dont think anyone in their right mind wants this to occur.

Also, such a move would create massive amounts of public outcry against the situation in Iraq. If you think the Cindy Sheehans were bad, wait till you have mothers with babies on the news saying that their husbands are basically prisoners of the military by being forced to serve in Iraq 'until its done'. Whatever good will and support the military would have would be erased for good or at least until such an unfair deployment situation was rectified.

Also, this war is not currently viewed as the "all or nothing" situation that WW II was viewed as fighting the Nazis and Japanese. It is an occupation, more like post war Germany and/or Japan. And we have had troops in those countries for over 60 years. Thats kind of a long wait to be deployed 'till its over" dont you think?

 

[Little Raven]

Ok, LR here are my thoughts on the idea. Basically I think it is a very, very bad idea. Recruiting, which is already at a low point, would drop beyond acceptable levels, no matter how much money/incentives/bonus' you give people. No one in their right miind would volunteer to stay in Iraq 'until its done' for the money we pay them.

Are you sure about that? My brother (ex-Marine) hooked up with one of his buddies the other day, and asked when he was getting out. His buddy told him that he re-upped, which baffled my brother. “You what?!?” “Yeah, dude, they offered me a $31,000 retaining bonus for another 4 years.”

My brother, jaw hitting the floor, reached into his backpack, (he’s now in college) pulled out his calculator, typed a few numbers, then said “Congratulations. You’re selling your soul…for 21 dollars a day.”

Point being…some of these guys are not so good at math.

Also, such a move would create massive amounts of public outcry against the situation in Iraq.

Well, duh. I imagine Keane has to know this as well…I mean, he is an ex-General. (They don’t hand out stars to just anyone…do they?) But I think he’s counting on the idea that this will enable us to actually win, instead of just being locked in a continual holding pattern that bleeds us without accomplishing anything. After all, even Robert Gates is admitting that right now, we’re losing. If we try this, and it fails to generate traction within a year or two, then the public outcry will be overwhelming and we’ll lose. But we were going to lose anyway. So why not try for the Hail Mary?

Also, this war is not currently viewed as the "all or nothing" situation that WW II was viewed as fighting the Nazis and Japanese.

I would agree, and I imagine that Keane would too. But I also think he would say that current perception is wrong, and that Iraq really IS that important. Which is why he stresses the ‘right leadership’ angle. I’m sure even he would say that we need the right leader to reshape opinion on Iraq. I don’t know whether he would say that Bush is that leader, or if he has any suggestions on where such a leader can be found if Bush isn’t the man.

I doubt even Keane sees this as a long term plan. It's more of a last-ditch effort to try and regain the upper hand...a new-age Schlieffen plan, if you will. Should it fail, it will fail within two years, and we'll know we're well and truly beaten. The question is, how much additional risk does it carry, and how much is a shot at victory worth?

So far, both you and Igloodude seem to agree that the answers are 'Quite a bit' and 'Not that much,' respectively.

 

[Winner]

Leave that country.

Lives of your soldiers aren't worth it, and I say that from European perspective. It gives me no joy seeing how your boys are sent to hopeless situation.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you sure about that? My brother (ex-Marine) hooked up with one of his buddies the other day, and asked when he was getting out. His buddy told him that he re-upped, which baffled my brother. “You what?!?” “Yeah, dude, they offered me a $31,000 retaining bonus for another 4 years.”

My brother, jaw hitting the floor, reached into his backpack, (he’s now in college) pulled out his calculator, typed a few numbers, then said “Congratulations. You’re selling your soul…for 21 dollars a day.”

Do you really think he would have re-upped for any amount of money if he knew full well that all four years would be in Iraq? Somehow I dont think so.

Also, I am noticing that more than just a few soldiers are leaving the service to sign up with contractors over in Iraq. Those guys make 31k in a month or so with far more benefits. Why sign up when you can do the same exact job at 10x the pay?

I imagine Keane has to know this as well…I mean, he is an ex-General. (They don’t hand out stars to just anyone…do they?)

You would be suprised. At that level it has just as much (if not more) to do with politics as it does ability.

But we were going to lose anyway.

I dont agree with this as I dont see it happening, unless our will fails utterly and the Dems force us out.

I doubt even Keane sees this as a long term plan. It's more of a last-ditch effort to try and regain the upper hand...a new-age Schlieffen plan, if you will.

Well, the Schlieffen plan was formed prior to the war and was more of a maneuver plan. We are three years in here. Changing canoes in the middle of the rapids is far harder than lining up that canoe before hitting the white water.

Should it fail, it will fail within two years, and we'll know we're well and truly beaten. The question is, how much additional risk does it carry, and how much is a shot at victory worth?

Again, I will say it over and over. Guys with small arms and IEDs cannot truly beat us. Ever. We will be truly beat when our will gives out - the old war weariness if you will. Its down to a contest of who wants it worse, us or them - not who is best at waging war or has the more powerful army. Plain and simple, if we dont want it bad enough we will lose.

My opinion is that if it costs us 50k soldiers dead to achieve victory, then that is the cost. Do it. Even if it costs us more than that, do it. Even if it costs me my life in serving over there DO IT. Finalize it so that we never have to fight a war there ever again. Otherwise, 3 or 5 or 10 years down the road we will be there again, doing the same stupid thing over again.

 

[IglooDame]

A little OT but...

Winston Churchill said “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” . I think we should modify that a bit. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else again and again.”

100 troops did not solve the problem, so 1000 troops might? 1000 troops did not solve the problem so 10,000 might? 10,000 troops did not solve the problem...

At what point do we start to wonder maybe it is the troops themselves that is the problem!

But there is a valid case to be made that there is a troop level that will result in the insurgency fading (or that it would have, back before the 'sectarian violence' came to the fore). I've read about (no links at the moment, but I can hunt them down if desired) how "soldiers on every corner", aggressive patrol schedules, and in general simple heavy US military presence can turn Iraqi neighborhoods from violent to pacified. The problem is that they don't stay pacified when the US troops leave to go clamp down on a different neighborhood. Once you have enough troops to put a lid on a substantial geographic area (in this case, Baghdad) and can put significant borders/checkpoints around the area, you can show the population that security is an attainable option under the current government.

Counterinsurgency has always been a pretty ugly game throughout history - while the publicizing of flushing Korans and the occasional massacre has certainly not helped the cause, I don't blame the troops themselves for the deterioration of the Iraqi urban areas over the last couple years.

 

[JollyRoger]

Again, I will say it over and over. Guys with small arms and IEDs cannot truly beat us. Ever. We will be truly beat when our will gives out - the old war weariness if you will. Its down to a contest of who wants it worse, us or them - not who is best at waging war or has the more powerful army. Plain and simple, if we dont want it bad enough we will lose.

My opinion is that if it costs us 50k soldiers dead to achieve victory, then that is the cost. Do it. Even if it costs us more than that, do it. Even if it costs me my life in serving over there DO IT. Finalize it so that we never have to fight a war there ever again. Otherwise, 3 or 5 or 10 years down the road we will be there again, doing the same stupid thing over again.

What is "it" that we are fighting for? Until that it is clearly defined by the Commander-in-Chief in a way that the American people can recognize that "it" has be achieved, then no one but the kool aid drinkers will beleive "it" is worth 50k lives or that "it" won't be an objective we will need to reachieved in 3, 5, or 10 years down the line anyway, regardless of whether we achieve "it" now or not.

 

[MobBoss]

What is "it" that we are fighting for? Until that it is clearly defined by the Commander-in-Chief in a way that the American people can recognize that "it" has be achieved, then no one but the kool aid drinkers will beleive "it" is worth 50k lives or that "it" won't be an objective we will need to reachieved in 3, 5, or 10 years down the line anyway, regardless of whether we achieve "it" now or not.

At this point "it" is a stable Iraqi government that can police its own populace and defend itself from its neighbors. "It" is not quite there yet.

Thats the goal at this point.

 

[JollyRoger]

At this point "it" is a stable Iraqi government that can police its own populace and defend itself from its neighbors. "It" is not quite there yet.

Thats the goal at this point.

That's what was there before we invaded.

 

[betazed]

The problem is that they don't stay pacified when the US troops leave to go clamp down on a different neighborhood.

And therein lies the problem, isn't it? You are only attacking the symptom and not the disease.

Once you have enough troops to put a lid on a substantial geographic area (in this case, Baghdad) and can put significant borders/checkpoints around the area, you can show the population that security is an attainable option under the current government.

Not quite. What you would have shown is that substantial US troops can attain security under the current government. What you really want is security without US troops under some government. I am not sure how the latter goal is served in any way by the former.

Counterinsurgency has always been a pretty ugly game throughout history - while the publicizing of flushing Korans and the occasional massacre has certainly not helped the cause, I don't blame the troops themselves for the deterioration of the Iraqi urban areas over the last couple years.

Don't blame the troops. Question the strategy.

 

[Little Raven]

Do you really think he would have re-upped for any amount of money if he knew full well that all four years would be in Iraq? Somehow I dont think so.

Probably not, but according to various sources, we're seeing more and more debt problems among our soldiers. Can't we capitalize on that somehow?

As to our soldiers leaving the army to join private security firms...well, that's altogether another problem, and (to my mind at least) a very serious one.

You would be suprised. At that level it has just as much (if not more) to do with politics as it does ability.

Sure. But there’s no way a total moron makes it that far up the ranks, and even a total moron could see that this plan would seriously affect recruiting and retention. So I assume Keane knows this, and is betting on this being a fairly short-term solution with either a big pay off or a final defeat at the end. Either way, it doesn't last long.

Well, the Schlieffen plan was formed prior to the war and was more of a maneuver plan.

My point was more that Keane’s plan would be a one-shot no-holes-barred this-one's-for-all-the-marbles attempt to regain control of the situation. Like the Schlieffen plan, failure would mean defeat. On the other hand, it might be just about the only play we have left.

We will be truly beat when our will gives out - the old war weariness if you will. Its down to a contest of who wants it worse, us or them - not who is best at waging war or has the more powerful army. Plain and simple, if we dont want it bad enough we will lose.

But MB, come on. You’re a smart guy. I know you’re a believer, but even you have to recognize that the writing is rapidly being written on the walls of DC. Bush is bringing in Baker, hoping for a magic bullet, and the only thing Baker is going to offer is withdrawal. The next Secretary of Defense is openly admitting that the war is going badly to Congress. Poll after poll shows public support for Iraq dropping, and even Republican lawmakers are beginning to talk about getting out before they get voted out.

If we turn this into a battle of wills, we’re going to lose. We just don’t want it that bad.

My opinion is that if it costs us 50k soldiers dead to achieve victory, then that is the cost. Do it. Even if it costs us more than that, do it. Even if it costs me my life in serving over there DO IT. Finalize it so that we never have to fight a war there ever again. Otherwise, 3 or 5 or 10 years down the road we will be there again, doing the same stupid thing over again.

I understand…I think. I think Keane feels the same way…that’s why he’s willing to put it all on the line to try and make sure Iraq succeeds. But then, Keane obviously feels like our effort is doomed unless we radically change gears, which is I’m guessing is the biggest difference in your philosophies.