Iraq's a bottomless pit. Nobody can fix it. Nobody's available- We're F'd!

You can throw money at it and that will do nothing. No manpower is even available to help with the security situation. NYTimes said today that we'd be lucky if we were to get 30,000 add'l. troops from an international coalition due to competing global committments of troops. *

Bush has unleashed the bull in the china shop. Iraq's broke and there's nothing we can do about it. That's the sad ugly truth. It can only get worse.

PS: The 87 billion is for BFEE buddies. Cap'n Midnight's got it nailed 100% right in that other thread.

* "Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld notes that about 30 nations have made contributions to the occupation, the fact is that of the 163,000 troops now in Iraq, 86 percent, or six out of seven, are American. And when promised anonymity, Mr. Bush's most senior aides concede they would be lucky to bring in another 30,000. Those could come from India, Pakistan, Turkey and other nations. Even if they were willing, the French are already tied down in other countries, and the Germans are busy in Afghanistan. "There's not a lot of excess capacity in the world," one of Mr. Bush's closest aides said Friday"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/07/weekinreview/07SANG.html

I have a very ominous feeling that the UN Security Council will end up yielding to the Bush Cabal and send that 3rd division in without demanding that the UN control the civilian reconstruction. A very, very bad feeling.


And if the UN cedes control to the USA, then we should demand that Kofi return his nobel peace prize.

WTF? Who cares if the UN heads the effort or not? We need help in all forms. Man and money wise.

BTW I am kicking for edited addition to main post.

How much are we depleting our troop numbers?? If we're running out of available forces for deployment, What can stop the neo-con bastards from trying to get college students to fight?? BTW, I turn 21 tomorrow and I'm an able-bodied male college student, and I'm probably prime pickings.

More than that, I suspect if will come no matter who is in the White House. A nest of hornets, has, I fear, been stirred up - and getting off the present track may be very difficult. Let's hope I'm wrong.

young men. Das wha happens when you vote PUB.

It will take a couple hundred thousand more troops to get any semblance of order in Iraq, and the U.S. is the only country that could even do that- but only through the draft.

We threw more and more and more troops into Vietnam, and we bombed the living shit out of that country, but because our philosophy, strategy, and tactics never changed, the troop level in the end didn't matter.

This is the greatest similarity I see to Vietnam -- the utter stupidity of the people "fighting" from 5000 miles away who haven't got a CLUE what the fuck they're doing.

The philosophy can't change -- the BFEE wants the oil and the power and the global hegemony, and that attitude is going to trump all other solutions. Nothing else can change until that changes, and i don't see it changing any time soon (unless there's really a revolution). They'll trot out all the old 60s and 70s adages about how we've already spent so much in terms of lives and money that we can't abandon it now, but Kerry's line about "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?" is ringing very, very true once again.

and a seemingly impossible one at this point.

More troops will help keep the peace but it would be an artifical peace. Can you imagine a way to get a coalition of Iraqi factions assembled into one government? I can't.

I dunno -- that's not my area of expertise. Maybe I should go back and reread David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace."

But there's a little place in my gut that says maybe allowing the different factions to form their own "states" wouldn't be entirely bad. Balkanization, I know. And yet, isn't that how the U.S. was formed? Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm really just flying by the seat of my pants on this one.

Thirteen colonies, with somewhat different religious foundations and economic positions and even political leanings, form a federation/confederation/union/republic. Each gets to make some of its own laws and retain its own culture, while overall there's a general body of law that tends more or less to regulate interstate affairs and "national" interest, i.e. common monetary system, national defense, commerce, etc. While remaining unique, the thirteen colonies also had enough in common to lay aside some differences, respect the rights of each other's citizens, and live in peace (until the unresolved differences over slavery and its effect on interstate relations demanded resolution).

Is this a totally unworkable idea for Iraq at this point?

Just tossing out an idea for discussion, I guess.

Tansy Gold

liberate the Sunnis from the Baathists, tell them to go back to Baghdad, and bite away at Hussein's empire a little piece at a time. I believe that's called "containment".

You ought to make a separate thread based on your idea.

Bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, (who would be against THAT?) should be a goal of real Democrats. Using historically sound means to bring democracy to Iraq makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, working under the monarchy the US is becoming, it won't be easy.

> The big thing I worry about is a draft.

There's no need to "worry" about the draft; if Shrub stays
on his current course, you can COUNT on it as no one
in their right mind will enlist or re-up.

Atlant.

There is no way that Joe Limbot Chickenhawk will allow his precious offspring to even RISK going to a desert hell to fight. That's for someone else--a volunteer--to do.

If the Repubs bring a draft on, they know they won't be able to get elected in a race for dog catcher in this country for a long, long time.

it will be so until you morons wake up and realize that the problem there cannot be solved by the US, never.

Physically impossible. Even the U.N. cannot muster the manpower.

and I don know about the rest but I ain't telling.

Contrary to what Hannity was trying to spin on FOX after that sorry Bush address to the nation. Hannity said that the left was just angry because they were proven wrong on all counts about the Iraqi war (invasion). I wonder what planet Hannity really lives on?

that Rumsfeld requested a list of all eligible young men between the ages of 18 and 26. Of course, he insisted, nothing like that is in the works. He just requested the list for some obscure purpose.

I have also read that recruiters are having a tough time finding new sign-ups for the armed forces......

truly grim.

Troops are all deployed, the country is broke, busted, disgusted, leaders can't be trusted, and then we have another attack? Our disastrous date with destiny would be set like a jello mold at a Sunday potluck.

1. Elect a dem president in U.S.
2. Negotiate full transfer of responsibility to U.N. with cooperation of other Middle-Eastern countries.
3. Provide financial support for reconstruction (it is "our" mess, after all)

This is perhaps the BEST article I've read about the situation on the ground in Iraq, from last week's Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030915&s=davis

The thing about it is, this was NOT the kind of article that stoked my enmity for Bush -- rather, it left me feeling rather hopeless. The entire situation there is such a quagmire, with so much resentment building, that there is no real easy solution.

ANY foreign troops that remain on the ground, whether they be US or UN, will be walking around with bullseyes on them.

There is NO security apparatus within Iraq right now, so some kind of coalition force IS needed just to maintain basic order.

If the US simply pulls out of Iraq, a vacuum will be left that will result in the assemblage of forces that we supposedly invaded to stop.

The entire country is quickly becoming a humanitarian crisis, with the lack of electricity, water service, and pullout of NGO's who were distributing food.

The question is, WHAT DO WE DO NOW? We can't remain, nor can we leave. While we have Dubya and Rummy and Dickie and Wolfie and all the rest of the clowns to blame for getting us into this mess, we can't make solving the problem as simple as "turning it over to the UN" or "bring the troops home now." It's hard for even an optimist to remain hopeful at times like this.

We have removed Iraqis from a mildly uncomfortable (yet merely simmering frying pan) and dumped them ALL into a bonfire.
Questions:
Did Bush mean to do this so as to keep the Carlyle/energy cartel a steady stream of work?
Did Kerry let him do this so as to increase his appeal to quagmire loathing Americans?
Does anyone on earth know what in God's name the end game will/should be?

Did Kerry let him do this so as to increase his appeal to quagmire loathing Americans?


I'm a little surprised at this question from you, a Kerry supporter. Even *I*, who increasingly dislike Kerry, cannot believe he would be that cynical, self-serving and immoral.

That's quite a revelation on your part. Really.

Eloriel

that I really know how to play the DU crowd. :hi:

Did I mean it? It's at the very least a possibility. I remember people saying last October (when it was clear the Dems couldn't muster the votes to defeat IWR) that perhaps Bush should be given the rope with which to hang himself.

Would it be cynical and self serving of Kerry if he in fact did this?.... While no one's crystal ball is THAT good, I am certain that he, Biden, and Graham shared extensive personal notes on why they would vote as they eventually did.

Personally, I think Bush & Co. were so hell-bent for war that even a Congressional defeat wouldn't have stopped them.

however, I threw it in there for the Kerry hating crowd.

Even more remarkable that you would so blithely support such a cynical and immoral reason for Kerry's vote -- if even remotely true.

Or perhaps somehow you don't see sending Americans to die, killing brown people en masse, squandering the nation's wealth, dreams of empire, and so much more to be immoral.

:shrug:

Really, REALLY remarkable.

Eloriel

Maybe the immorality is that none of us trust anyone else any more. We're accusing each other of the most immoral and cynical reasons, not just here on DU (although it's pretty rampant here) but in the greater context. We question even the people we support.

That, I think, is the greatest evil done by the bushnazis.

they've made us so cynical we are almost to the point of demanding perfection from imperfect human beings who are running for office.

sad. very sad.

Cynicism and distrust has been a hallmark of the American experience for at least 30 years now. Gone are the days when we can feel a sense of community of connectedness with anything (something that the generation of the Depression and WWII knew something about), and it has been replaced with the ethos of rugged, "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" individualism and social Darwinism.

The Bushies are doing nothing more than capitalizing on this trend, so reinforced over the past 2 generations. "I've got mine, so you can go fuck yourself."

which will solve these problems painlessly let me know.

But for comparison's sake, if you want to know what Kerry would have done were he in Bush's shoes, he would probably have done the same thing Clinton did, which was limited air strikes with the THREAT of further action.

And yes, I know all those things are immoral (as does Kerry).