What to do in Iraq?

To "stabilize" Iraq is the question, the answers are much more difficult. More troops? Less Troops? U.N. Troops?
Bush has alienated the U.N.. He can expect support from the governments of Spain and Italy but the jury is still out in how much help will be provided or when.
Popular support for war in Iraq in those countries, as we all know, was firmly against yet leaders of both countries backed Bush in his drive for war.
The European Press being much more liberal and informative than the American Press, I would assume public sentiment in both countries would be firmly against sending significant numbers of troops to Iraq.
The easy answer is that Bush should have never done this to begin with. We all agree he f**cked things up royal over there but we couldn't just pull out know, could we?

double the troops, have a REAL occupation not some playground wanabee occupation where we get shot while buying DVDs!.

Make a real curfew, only let ppl be outside from 10 am to 4 pm, shoot and kill anyone breaking this, in meantime build up everything, gaslines, powerlines, powerplants, fix goverment, and get the hell out.

Your suggestions sound like Sadaam with stars and stripes! It would cost the U.S. billions of dollars, take years, and probably end up being taken over by another dictatorial leader, or an Islamic theocracy.

I don't know what's the right answer, but this ain't it.:thumbsdown:

Leave no stone unturned. Find all the Saddam loyalists and deport them to Syria, Iran or someplace where they will be welcomed.

people fighting the occupation are "Saddam loyalists?"

I'm not.

I don't think 90% of them want america occupying their country. You'd have to build more jails than America has to house them all. We have one percent of our population in jails.

You minimize it. You either leave now with the dead and wounded we have already. Or stay there and keep fucking around and then leave when the numbers of dead and wounded are comparable to the number of names on the Vietnam memorial in Washington. This does not seem all that complicated to me.

Don

Edit: And almost forgot. For those who think escalation is the answer. When you go down to the recruiter and sign your ass up to go over, come back and give us your opinion again, and I may listen to you then.

leave

We will be tossed out on our asses, just like in Vietnam.

We can't win a guerilla war in their country.

Its a matter of how long we choose to ignore the fact that they don't want us there and will fight to toss us out, and how many soldiers we are willing to piss away in this idiotic enterprise.

It Just Another Stupid Bush* Oil Deal. Its a loser, just like all of Smirk's deals.

Let the Iraqis and the UN work it out!

I'd leave the caveat that a few US troops should peacekeep if the UN needs them and asks for them. They shouldn't stay there to ensure our corporations get rich.

Would support an international effort to rebuild Iraq. The libertarian idea that we should just withdraw from Iraq is silly but since when are doves realistic.

Doves think opposing war is pragmatic.

You oppose a war.

Not this libertarian policy of abandonment like in Vietnam. The soldiers lost in Vietnam because the politicians wouldn't let them win. I'm one of those people who thinks we should've invaded North Vietnam. Bush is pulling the same crap the GOP criticized Clinton for.

...was talking about that this morning. He said the failure of the Bush administration to elicit cooperation from other countries in the run-up to the war makes it difficult to ask for assistance in the mop-up. But that's clearly what needs to be done. Turn it over to an international peacekeeping mission.

International peacekeeping mission? Like in Srebrenica? The Congo? Please. The Iraqis who don't want foreign interference will shoot just as quickly at a blue helmet as they will at desert camo, and the blue helmets have a lousy track record of keeping anything resembling "peace."
We invaded their country and destroyed the only government and infrastructure they had. We CANNOT abandon them to anarchy now.
Go read http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/ for an inside-Baghdad perspective, he's not pro-invasion by any means but he does REPEATEDLY say things like "please pretty please don't leave and let the loony mullahs take over"
We're stuck there for now.

Now that the Bushies got their war and takeover, there are no good choices for the aftermath.

If we just pulled out cold, one of the following would happen:
1. Saddam's return, or
2. Another Saddam-like dictator would take over, or
3. A fundamentalist Muslim regime, also dictatorial, or
4. Continued in-fighting and possible break-up into 3 countries,
and/or tribally controlled regions.

If we just keep American troops there, sure it'll be a quagmire, with mounting casualties.

A peacekeeping force from the UN or NATO might help the country get on its feet again. Although the present U.S. government will come across as incredibly arrogant to ask for it now, after ignoring the world's opinion in the run-up to war.

Plus, while a lot of countries might be willing to send a troop contingent to be under UN or NATO command, hardly any will send them to operate under U.S. control. And Rummie et al. are hardly going to give up their control of forces in Iraq.

What a mess!

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364

Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:
* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

It’s been days since the President was flown to an aircraft carrier to announce that hostilities in Iraq had ended. Now, clearly, it’s time for the President to step forward and tell the truth that the war is continuing and so are the casualties.
To tell the truth that our forces face an ongoing challenge simply to protect themselves. We need to look at this from the perspective of those in the field—who are taking fire every day; who do not know friend from foe; who have no idea when they will come home. It is time for the President to tell the truth that we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq and meet the President's goal of withdrawing in a reasonable period.
To tell the truth that America should not go it alone—that international support to share the burden is as critical now as it should have been in the months leading up to the war. We now know that the State of the Union message, well after the vote on the Iraq resolution, contained information that was wrong—and at least some in the Administration knew it.
But just because a mistake was made, does not mean we should compound it by making further mistakes. International support and alliances are not weakness, but strengths. Diplomacy, cooperation, multilateralism, making friends in the world is not weakness as this administration would have some believe.
America is now viewed widely as an occupying power. We face a resistance movement that is capable of gaining greater strength by the day. And our service men and women remain vulnerable because they are too few to succeed in a peacekeeping mission for which they are neither trained nor equipped.
We now know that the Administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace. It is time to face that truth and to change course—to share the post-war burden internationally—for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world, and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over.

Q: Do you think a Vietnam analogy is appropriate?
JK: I think it’s early for any kind of analogies at this point in time. But what I do know is this—this Administration knew it was gonna go to war at a certain point. They also knew through certainty, as we all did, that we were gonna win the war. They failed to guard a nuclear facility from being looted. They failed to guard the foreign office from being looted—whatever papers might have given evidence of anything. They failed to protect Baghdad from being looted. They failed to provide the kind of police force and indigenous force necessary rapidly to create the kind of broad cooperative effort, to transfer power to the Iraqis. I believe there are four urgent steps that we should take in order to win the peace.
Number one—We increase overall troop strength with more allied troops with the right skills and training. And that means particularly, that people with Arabic speaking skills, and even, hopefully, Muslims. Without adequate security, every other peacekeeping goal is at risk. That means you have to immediately offer NATO a role to give Allies a graceful way to participate. Without real allies in real numbers, especially Arab-speaking, we are asking our young men and women to bear a needless risk for an length of time that is undescribed. We also need greater United Nations involvement in the humanitarian and governance transformation. And the world needs to be invested in the outcome in Iraq
Second, we have to train Iraqis more rapidly to carry out what always was an obvious job—of restoring civil order in the aftermath of the victory. The police functions have to be provided in an adequate form, we need to protect the people, and guarantee the safety of our own troops in that process. Such an effort will require international police trainers and mentors as well as military trainers in an accelerated commitment.

Tell the Iraqi people:

1. This is the plan.
2. This is how it will help you.
3. Here is how you can help us to implement it.

Of course *'s plan doesn't include helping the Iraqi people - he's only interested in helping himself and his cronies to their oil. And he can't just come out and tell the Iraqi's that, or the attacks would escalate into popular rebellion and then he wouldn't be able to blame everything on pockets of "Saddam Loyalists" anymore.

get the hell out of there. Immediately.