Forward thinking thread on Iraq

[Mack]

In this thread, I would like an honest and open debate on what should be done in Iraq NOW. Clearly, the situation is less than ideal and people on both sides of the aisle agree that changes need to be made. Regardless of whether or not we should have gone to war--we did--and no amount of quibbling can change that. I would appreciate it if any talk about the intelligence leading up to the war, connections to terrorism before the war, or any other part of recent history that can't be changed be left out of this thread.




I will start the debate by offering up what I believe are the four main options we have in Iraq

1. Fazed withdrawal.

-Whether you call it cut and run or strategic redeployment the basic idea is to set a time table and get out as soon as possible.

2. Stay the course.

-This strategy basically entails doing exactly what we are doing now. Keep troop levels the same and continue to try and train Iraqi police and military forces.

3. Increase troops

-Send in more troops and get the job done right. This strategies main supporter is Senator John McCain, but it hasn't picked up much steam.

4. Partitions

-The most common dividing strategy would give the Kurds the North, the Sunnis the middle, and the Shiites the south.


So what strategy would work best? Or are there any alternative strategies that you would suggest?

Good luck.

[raytri]

I was listening to a guy on MPR this morning who was saying that partition is all but inevitable. All the oil in the country is in either the Shiite (80%) or Kurdish (20%) regions, and the Iraqi constitution allows both those regions to declare themselves autonomous areas and keep nearly all the oil revenue for themselves. He expects them to do exactly that, leaving the Sunnis and a weak and poor central government in Baghdad to limp along on the leavings.

Such a scenario would be messy, because it's unlikely the Sunnis would simply accept such a screw-over. But it might happen regardless of what we or they do about it. That said, I agree with the Iraq Study Group that we shouldn't actively support that alternative. If it happens, it happens, but let's try to keep Iraq intact first.

"Stay the course"? No. "Go big?" We simply don't have the resources or the political will. That leaves immediate withdrawal or phased withdrawal. Given that choice, the latter is the only reasonable option. If Iraq makes progress toward standing on its own, we'll continue to support it with economic aid, military assistance and advisors. But the combat units need to leave on a timetable that suits us, rather than being left in an open-ended committment to Iraq, hostage to an Iraqi government that has shown little interest in reining in the militias, rooting out the sectarian divisions within its security forces or stamping out rampant corruption.

[Sleepy]

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

I was listening to a guy on MPR this morning who was saying that partition is all but inevitable. All the oil in the country is in either the Shiite (80%) or Kurdish (20%) regions, and the Iraqi constitution allows both those regions to declare themselves autonomous areas and keep nearly all the oil revenue for themselves. He expects them to do exactly that, leaving the Sunnis and a weak and poor central government in Baghdad to limp along on the leavings.

Such a scenario would be messy, because it's unlikely the Sunnis would simply accept such a screw-over. But it might happen regardless of what we or they do about it. That said, I agree with the Iraq Study Group that we shouldn't actively support that alternative. If it happens, it happens, but let's try to keep Iraq intact first.

"Stay the course"? No. "Go big?" We simply don't have the resources or the political will. That leaves immediate withdrawal or phased withdrawal. Given that choice, the latter is the only reasonable option. If Iraq makes progress toward standing on its own, we'll continue to support it with economic aid, military assistance and advisors. But the combat units need to leave on a timetable that suits us, rather than being left in an open-ended committment to Iraq, hostage to an Iraqi government that has shown little interest in reining in the militias, rooting out the sectarian divisions within its security forces or stamping out rampant corruption.

should they worry about oil? They could build nuclear power plants like Iran.

We should train them and get out.

[JavaBlack]

From what some say, partition is already a reality and the question is more whether we should accept it or not. I'm not too keen on the idea, but if we want out soon this might be what ends up happening. I think we should leave it up to the Iraqis.
We should definitely start putting more effort into training the Iraqi troops so that someone can maintain control over the country. Once the Iraqi army is trained (this may take years), we should begin a phased withdrawal and hope for the best.
That's probably what we will do. It's all we really can do.
Who knows what will happen though?
No one really knows what will happen. No one.