What should be done in Iraq going forward?

I don't want this thread to re-iterate that Saddam was evil or Bush lied or the entrenched opinions we have all heard a thousand times.

The question is what should the US do from this point going forward. We have lost 2000 brave soldiers. We can not being them back. What do we do moving forward?

IMO, we need to let Iraq run Iraq as quickly as possible. This means that as soon as a democraticly elected government is in place, we start leaving.

First, we need to annouce our plans, any plans, to make clear that we actually have a plan. Personally I believe we have not announced our plans only because the administration knows that most people would not agree with them.

Those plans should be that we announce our intentions not to stay and not to establish permanant military bases. (I know this will never happen because that is the major reason this noecon administration went to war) We can say the timeline is flexible depending on the new government but the timeline is as follows.

As soon as a new democractically elected government is in place, I believe this is supposed to be January, we start turing over Iraqi security to the Iraqi police force. This should be phased by region, but the entire process should take no longer than 6 months. After this 6 month timeline which should end in August 06 our military role in Iraq should only be as police trainers. We should also provide financial and military aid to the government, but let the government deal with Iraq, not us.

We were able to overthrow Afghanistan providing military assistance to the northern rebels, letting them do the heavy lifting. We should also be able to provide support to a legitimately elected Iraqi government, letting them do the heavy lifting fighting the insurgants in their own country. If our departure of military force spirals the country into civil war and an Islamic fundamentalist state, and only our continued dictatorship and occupation of the country prevents that, then we are screwed and the democratic government will never work.

But we need to remove our troops quickly, within a year. Having our troops on the ground is never going to stop an insurgancy against us. Only leaving so that the insurgancy is against the Iraqi government (Civil war) and having the government win will lead to peace in Iraq. Yes, we need to support the Iraqi government against this civil war, but only as needed from arms length to prevent a fundamentalist Islamic state from taking over. There may end up being an ongoing insurgancy like the Kurds in Turkey, but that is something the Iraqi government needs to control, not the USA.

Yes, we should also stay involved enough to ensure that international terrorist bases are not created, but just like we work in Pakistan, our role should be secondary and the Iraqi government should destroy these bases just like the Pakistan government does.

Actually, the number of US soldiers killed is 1,600 and 400 "civilian contractor" deaths. I was watching a brief show on the US invasion of Okinawa in WW II the other day. This was the first time the Japanese employed concentrated kamikaze attacks on US warships stationed off the island. The Navy had thirty-three ships sunk, well over half by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged, more than fifty seriously.... US Carriers also lost 539 planes. Approximately 3,500 US Marines were killed, and a staggering 72,000 Japanese were killed. All of this death for one small island in the Pacific.

Political and military leaders often set out large military actions, knowing full well that at the end of the day, many, many US soldiers would be dead. But they understood full well defeating the enemy and winning the war would only achieve peace. I believe fewer than 16% of those Army Air corps flying raids into Europe ever completed their tour of duty. Most were shot down, killed or captured prior to completing their tour of duty. Yet, the bombing raids never ceased. Day and night, hundreds of B24 and B17 planes took off on bombing raids, and fewer and fewer planes ever returned.

What I'm suggesting here is this--soldiers getting killed in wars is normal. It seems to me that had the US baled in WWII after only two thousand deaths, France, Western and Eastern Europe would all be speaking German, and all the Pacific would be speaking Japanese.

The US has the opportunity to plant freedom in a region that has known only tyranny, and the amazing thing is, by any standard of measurement, we have been most successful. I can only imagine what a magnificent future awaits future generations living in a free, prosperous and peaceful Iraq. Surely what has taken root in Iraq will take place in other mid-east nations, and most likely, it will come from the peoples of those nations, looking at Iraq as their example.

This is the future I wish to leave my children and grandchildren. Past generations paid a very heavy price in leaving me the world in which I live. Now, it is our turn.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

But if "bail" there is no reason to believe we will all be speaking arabic. In fact, if we remove our troops once a new government if formed, I have no reason to believe that "Al Qeada" would win and would be able to set up a Taliban type fundamentalist government in Iraq. I certainly don't want that to happen either, because we just had to remove such a government because they harbored terrorists.

I have no reason to believe that "Al Qeada" would win and would be able to set up a Taliban type fundamentalist government in Iraq.

The only reason you have to believe that is because 2,000 Americans died making it all possible. Only when total victory is secured should the US begin its withdrawal. Far too much has been invested, and even more so, far too much is at risk to cut short our efforts in Iraq.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

If we had not lost one single soldier by not attackng Iraq, I would be 100% POSITIVE that Iraq would not be becoming a Taliban type fundamentalist government. The fact that we invaded and lost 2000 soldiers is why it is now possible.

But like I said, I want to discuss what we should do moving forward. All I can gather from your post is that we should continue to play policeman and bomb target in Iraq. Do you really think that our presence is doing anything to stabilize the country. Look at the poll that was posted, http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12610

We are no longer a stabilizing force, we are now a de-stabilizing force in Iraq. And the only reason to stay and continue to be targets is not to prevent a Taliban government, but to maintain control over the territory and to ensure we get military bases out of it all.

I here the right wing propaganda that if we leave then Al Qeada will win, exactly how? The Iraqi people don't want a taliban government either. We are not being viewed as liberators, we need to let Iraq become the new democratic Iraq on it's own.

Don't forget that many Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed.

__________________
"[A] war is not meant to be won or lost, but it is meant to be continuous. In principle, the war effort is planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. "
-George Orwell