US To Reduce Amount of Troops in Iraq

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Lmao, worth the lives of US soldiers? Because somehow according to you bringing in the UN would stop people from being killed yes? What would they do? Wave a big magic UN wand and make all the badness go away?


I don't know, but George Bush went to the UN asking for exactly this, for other countries to lend troops. And the way HE put it was that they would supplement our security forces, help control the situation, and provide more internationalism, which would stop resentment against "American imperialism" and the resultant terrorist attacks.

Of course, since he fell flat on face, because he doesn't know the first thing about diplomacy [namely, GIVE and take], I suppose the current common wisdom is that, had Georgie actually succeeded, the troops wouldn't have been any help anyway.

Can you say "sour grapes"?

Or maybe you just think its better to get some of everybodies troops to go do some dying, much more civilized that way yes?

That's the way Bush pitched it to the UN. "Please come to Iraq to soak up that enemy fire! It's too much for us!" No wonder it failed.

 

[Kentonio]

No, he tried to reason with them that Iraq was the responsibility of the world, they turned round and stuck their tongues out like children and said 'Your mess, you sort it out'. And these are the people he should go begging to?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If Mr. Bush was so eager to make the mess in Iraq [which he himself created against the world's wishes] the responsibility of that world, why didn't he offer something in return? Why is Iraq a responsibility for all and a reward only for the USA? Why should the world help on those terms?

Offering [and expecting] GIVE and TAKE is not "childish" - it's just standard diplomacy. Expecting everyone to tail behind you merely on the strength of your strongman manichean rhetoric, on the other hand, IS amazingly childish on Bush's part.

"Your mess, you sort it out". Exactly. Precisely! You've got it! Now if France invaded Syria [after the USA warned, advised, and requested them repeatedly not to], and then turned around and boldly asked the USA for help after insurrection sprung up all over the country, and set the terms of that help at ZERO [no say in Syria's future, no special trade terms with the new Syrian government, no reward out of Syria's potential oil sales, and all USA troops to be under the French Army's command] wouldn't the USA say, this is just pouring money down a hole? In other words, "YOUR MESS, YOU CLEAN IT UP?"

And they'd be perfectly justified.

 

[Kentonio]

The UN, or rather France, Russia and Germany in this instance, prevaricated and hummed and hawed and did nothing to help rid the world of Saddam, despite happily signing up to document after document 'condemning' his actions. you talk about the benefits of the invasion, do you really thing America are actually going to gain more from this war than it has cost them?! Oh and incidentally how much was Russia and Frances reticence to get involved to do with their contracts in place with the Ba'athist regime? Do you really think they gave a damn about the humanitarian question?

Btw the US and UK make up a big part of the UN anyway, not to mention holding two of the seats on the permanent security council. Spain and the other allies are also UN members. To suggest that America invaded against the wishes of the entire world is misleading.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

you talk about the benefits of the invasion, do you really thing America are actually going to gain more from this war than it has cost them?!

That was the plan - in this supposed "leveraged takeover" on a national scale. Shouldn't have elected a C+ MBA then.

Oh and incidentally how much was Russia and Frances reticence to get involved to do with their contracts in place with the Ba'athist regime?

Probably a lot! And how much do you think American eagerness to get into Iraq was spurred on by the fact that we were at risk of being shut out as Saddam handed out contracts and trade agreements to Russian and French companies?

Do you really think they gave a damn about the humanitarian question?


Probably not. After all, we sure don't. We installed the guy, we supported him for around 40 years, and most of our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" are even more diabolical, dictatorial, and inhumane than the target of said coalition.

Humanitarianism's always been a useful excuse, nothing more.

Oh and incidenatlly the US and UK make up a big part of the UN anyway, not to mention holding two of the seats on the permanent security council. To suggest that America went along against the wishes of the entire world is misleading.

OTOH, America, Britian and Poland do not constitute the Earth, or even a fraction of it. It wasn't necessary to get all 180 something nations on board - but you have to admit the support of at least a few more of the major regional and world powers [China, Russia, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, the Arab League] would have helped diplomatically and economically.

.... anyway, this has nothing to do with whether or not Bush should go back and offer a REAL agenda to the world. One, for the umpteenth time, with give and take involved.

 

[omichyron]

America certainly planned on getting more from the war than it would cost

In any case you can't really expect countries that disagreed with us in the first place to step in and provide support.

The US is probably going to treat this situation much like we did Vietnam. we'll hang in there a while and then say everything has reached a satisfactory conclusion and get out. in the end the Saddam loyalists will be the only force of order and everything will be back how it started except with a lot more destruction, death, terror, and anti US sentiment.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by omichyron
America certainly planned on getting more from the war than it would cost

In any case you can't really expect countries that disagreed with us in the first place to step in and provide support.

The US is probably going to treat this situation much like we did Vietnam. we'll hang in there a while and then say everything has reached a satisfactory conclusion and get out. in the end the Saddam loyalists will be the only force of order and everything will be back how it started except with a lot more destruction, death, terror, and anti US sentiment.

Actually I believe the people of Iraq have more sense than to allow that to happen.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
.... anyway, this has nothing to do with whether or not Bush should go back and offer a REAL agenda to the world. One, for the umpteenth time, with give and take involved.

Originally posted by Kentonio
You dont mean the world you mean France and Russia. In this instance everyone else is basically irrelevant. Germany will follow Frances lead unless we in Britain manage to talk them over and China couldnt care less.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

You dont mean the world you mean France and Russia. In this instance everyone else is basically irrelevant. Germany will follow Frances lead unless we in Britain manage to talk them over and China couldnt care less.

Well, two things. First of all, besides economic aid there is diplomatic aid. If we'd had the backing of the Arab League, or at least some prominent members [like Saudi Arabia], it would have given us a little more legitimacy, even if said nations didn't have much in the way of pocket money or troops to lend us. Secondly, although France and Russia's contribution to GW1 was not as large as some USA politicians would have liked, the total [which included around 40 REAL nations "Solomon Islands" and "Albania" not included] was enough to pay off 5 in every 6 dollars of the total cost.

So I'd say firstly that there was more to gain than France/Russia's support, and secondly that the support of those two was not out of the question at all, given capable diplomacy.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Exactly the WRONG move.

Troops in Iraq are ALREADY stretched. Think what it's going to be like in a few months when missions start expiring - or in a few years, when soldiers must choose whether or not to re-enlist.

Don't worry - Bush will always have the draft to supply him with a fresh supply of troops:

"What the department of defence is doing is creating the infrastructure to make the draft a viable option should the administration wish to go this route."

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Why should you care?

All it adds up to is a "tourism" increase for Canada!

OK, on a serious note, this will never pass, unless by Executive Decree.... there is no way most Americans will vote for a return of the draft.

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Why should you care?

All it adds up to is a "tourism" increase for Canada!

Never thought of THAT.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

OK, on a serious note, this will never pass, unless by Executive Decree.... there is no way most Americans will vote for a return of the draft.

I agree however an analyst makes a good point in that article:

"I don't think a presidential candidate would seriously propose a draft," said Charles Pena, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute. "But an incumbent, safely in for a second term — that might be a different story."

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

Well, two things. First of all, besides economic aid there is diplomatic aid. If we'd had the backing of the Arab League, or at least some prominent members [like Saudi Arabia], it would have given us a little more legitimacy, even if said nations didn't have much in the way of pocket money or troops to lend us. Secondly, although France and Russia's contribution to GW1 was not as large as some USA politicians would have liked, the total [which included around 40 REAL nations "Solomon Islands" and "Albania" not included] was enough to pay off 5 in every 6 dollars of the total cost.

So I'd say firstly that there was more to gain than France/Russia's support, and secondly that the support of those two was not out of the question at all, given capable diplomacy.

Having the support of the Saudis and the Arab League gives us legitimacy? Not in my eyes it doesnt. At the end of the day the only useful help anyone can give is financial and material, and if recieving that help means pandering to the same people who couldnt give a toss about the people of Iraq before the war then it isnt worth it. The feeling of hypocracy would leave a bad taste to be quite frank.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Having the support of the Saudis and the Arab League gives us legitimacy? Not in my eyes it doesnt.

Well, your opinion is largely irrelevant to soldiers on the ground, at least compared with a nearby Iraqi citizen who sees "American" invasion, "American" troops and "American" occupation and just might decide to blow himself up.

[yes, I realize I'm leaving out Britain - but what difference does it make to an Iraqi? Both Britain and America have screwed over the Arabs about equally, I'd say. ]

Anyway, the approval of the Arab League, would allow the soldiers to say "We're here as part of a plan endorsed by your Arab neighbors".

At the end of the day the only useful help anyone can give is financial and material

No amount of money and troops can stop a determined suicide bomber - only ideology can.

if recieving that help means pandering to the same people who couldnt give a toss about the people of Iraq before the war

Again, neither did we. Unless we're making a pretty big and pretty hypocritical exception for Iraq.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Having the support of the Saudis and the Arab League gives us legitimacy? Not in my eyes it doesnt.

Well, your opinion is largely irrelevant to soldiers on the ground, at least compared with a nearby Iraqi citizen who sees "American" invasion, "American" troops and "American" occupation and just might decide to blow himself up.

[yes, I realize I'm leaving out Britain - but what difference does it make to an Iraqi? Both Britain and America have screwed over the Arabs about equally, I'd say. ]

Anyway, the approval of the Arab League, would allow the soldiers to say "We're here as part of a plan endorsed by your Arab neighbors".

I'd venture to say that it wouldnt make a great deal of difference to the average Iraqi on the ground either to be quite frank, they are not stupid people, they know why we are there. The exception of course being the extremist minority who would not accept foreign occupation under any circumstances and certainly not just because their neighbours said it was ok.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
No amount of money and troops can stop a determined suicide bomber - only ideology can.

Very true, and once again the other Arab states backing the invasion would make little difference to this. Many of the Arab extremists hate the Saudi rulers for instance as much as they hate the US.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Again, neither did we. Unless we're making a pretty big and pretty hypocritical exception for Iraq.

Once again I challenge your assertion that solving part of the worlds troubles is hypocracy unless you can solve the whole thing in one go. That doesnt make sense to me, you have to start somewhere.

 

[omichyron]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Actually I believe the people of Iraq have more sense than to allow that to happen.

I doubt Saddam will regain control over the Kurds or the southern parts of his country, but there are a lot of loyalists around Baghdad who would be only too glad to see him return.

 

[Norlamand]

Originally posted by cgannon64
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...06/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_worldwrap_031106221306

I think this could actually be good news if they put in troops that are more appropiate to the situation, like replacing artillery units, etc.

You are on the right track. Heavy combat arms and support battalions are not what is needed now. Light infantry, engineers, special forces and, more importantly, military police units are more appropriate. Artillery and armor units have not training in police action, that is more appropriate for the MP's and special forces. A fairly large rapid reaction force of heavier units needs to remain for backup.

 

[The Yankee]

As I've said...we need more mobile patrols. Having tanks parked around isn't exactly going to stop a guerilla with an RPG-launcher in an alleyway.
And it's obvious what more patrols could have done....perhaps that helicopter wouldn't have been shot down and 16 people wouldn't be killed and would have been with their families on the vacation.


By the way...anybody have a list of the Coalition of the Willing and maybe of the contributions by each?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by The Yankee
As I've said...we need more mobile patrols. Having tanks parked around isn't exactly going to stop a guerilla with an RPG-launcher in an alleyway.
And it's obvious what more patrols could have done....perhaps that helicopter wouldn't have been shot down and 16 people wouldn't be killed and would have been with their families on the vacation.

More mobile patrols would just mean more targets on the ground. Doesnt matter if theyre in the air or on the ground. Our guys are surrounded by the enemy.