billvon 2,991 #51 August 22, 2006 >Now maybe we will send enough troops in to get the job done so we can get out . . . Interesting article on this by Ken Pollack, one of the strongest proponents of the Iraq war. He suggests that 450,000 troops might be needed to "get the job done" and that losses (and costs) will be high. Let's hope we remember the lessons of Vietnam before we get to that point. Despite what revisionists might claim, we really didn't win that war. ------------ The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. The consequences of an all-out civil war in Iraq could be dire. Considering the experiences of recent such conflicts, hundreds of thousands of people may die. Refugees and displaced people could number in the millions. And with Iraqi insurgents, militias and organized crime rings wreaking havoc on Iraq's oil infrastructure, a full-scale civil war could send global oil prices soaring even higher. However, the greatest threat that the United States would face from civil war in Iraq is from the spillover -- the burdens, the instability, the copycat secession attempts and even the follow-on wars that could emerge in neighboring countries. Welcome to the new "new Middle East" -- a region where civil wars could follow one after another, like so many Cold War dominoes. And unlike communism, these dominoes may actually fall. . . . Ending an all-out civil war typically requires overwhelming military power to nail down a political settlement. It took 30,000 British troops to bring the Irish civil war to an end, 45,000 Syrian troops to conclude the Lebanese civil war, 50,000 NATO troops to stop the Bosnian civil war, and 60,000 to do the job in Kosovo. Considering Iraq's much larger population, it probably would require 450,000 troops to quash an all-out civil war there. Such an effort would require a commitment of enormous military and economic resources, far in excess of what the United States has already put forth. How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward and prepare for the tremendous risks an Iraqi civil war poses for this critical region. The outbreak of a large-scale civil conflict would not relieve us of our responsibilities in Iraq; in fact, it could multiply them. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, one should never assume that the situation can't get worse. It always can -- and usually does. ------------------------------ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800983_pf.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 August 22, 2006 I couldn't agree with this more. One of the worse situations we could possibly allow to happen is to pull-out and allow insurgents access to money generated by oil. It's critical we win this war and leave a stable govt. in place. Are you still more concerned about N. Korea than you are about Iran? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #53 August 22, 2006 I don't think the US could do it, just on numbers alone. Without a draft could the US strech to this kind of commitment as well as cover all the other commitments its millitary has? I couldn't imagine the draft even being a possibility in the current political environment.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #54 August 22, 2006 QuoteI don't think the US could do it, just on numbers alone. Without a draft could the US strech to this kind of commitment as well as cover all the other commitments its millitary has? I couldn't imagine the draft even being a possibility in the current political environment. When Bremmer went to Iraq there were, on average, 16 insurgent attacks daily. Now there are, on average, 90 insurgent attacks daily. How wonderfully well the Bush/Blair policy for bringing democracy to Iraq has worked. What a pair of geniuses.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #55 August 22, 2006 >Are you still more concerned about N. Korea than you are about Iran? One has nuclear weapons, one doesn't. It's a no-brainer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #56 August 22, 2006 > I couldn't imagine the draft even being a possibility in the current > political environment. I agree. Once the chickenhawks realize that THEY might have to serve - and that it might be them instead of a nameless expendable soldier coming home in a flag draped coffin - their support of the war will evaporate. Even today, only 35% of the US supports the war. Starting a draft would likely ensure our rapid exit from Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #57 August 22, 2006 Quote I agree. Once the chickenhawks realize that THEY might have to serve - and that it might be them instead of a nameless expendable soldier coming home in a flag draped coffin - their support of the war will evaporate. Even today, only 35% of the US supports the war. Starting a draft would likely ensure our rapid exit from Iraq. QuoteExpecting the chickenhawks to be drafted is a pipe deam like expecting the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. The pentagon learned something from VN the majoity of americans will not accept another "draft"like we had in the 60's. In response to this attitude the pentagon came up the idea to recruita large contingent of weekend warriors that "volunteered" to join for various socio economic reasons. Whats I weekend a month vs the benifits? This technique has given Rummy the ability to say that all the US soldiers in Iraq are "volunteers". So now that the rat is out of the bag there won't be a draft, and the military and reserve/national guard slots will be more difficult to fill. The half assed solution is to offer more cash incentives to join the military, lower the minimum standard for recruits and raise the maximum age. Even this and the merc's ("contractors") won't be enough to fill the ranks. IMO now that iraq has a democratic gov't and a standing army we can do the same thing we did in VN, Declare victory, withdraw and act surprised how quickly the country implodes. Good job Rummy, brenner, conney, et al. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #58 August 22, 2006 I think that is what will happen. Hopefully the White house has had its fingers burnt enough to stop them trying to impose Pax Americana elsewhere.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #59 August 22, 2006 >we can do the same thing we did in VN . . . I see four basic options. 1) Go to the UN, and ask/negotiate/beg for peacekeeping forces; start replacing our forces with forces from nearby countries. Unfortunately we no longer have the cojones or the negotiating skills for that avenue. 2) Increase our presence to half a million. In essence, replicate Vietnam troop levels. That would likely be enough to crush the insurgency and tightly control every town with an iron-fist sort of approach. But then we're stuck there, forever, and will see thousands of US deaths a year for decades. 3) Get out now and let the country implode. This will pretty much guarantee a country with a government that makes the Taliban look like our best friends - and one that will be emboldened by their 'success' against us. But it will occur without any additional US deaths. 4) Keep present troop levels, and watch the country implode more slowly. This is likely what will happen, since it will not require any tough decisions. At some point we'll "declare victory", give everyone a medal and leave, at which point the new government will arise. --------------------- Note to all the pro-war types - you're going to have to switch from the "cut and run" rhetoric to some sort of self-serving justification for leaving anyway. Why not do it sooner than later? Try these on for size: "Bush always said we'd win and then leave. Do you have something against winning?" "The Iraqis can now govern themselves. All this fighting is proof that they can manage their own affairs. Mission accomplished." "The Iraqis are turning the corner now; they have achieved stability, so we should leave." Time this one for a momentary lull in the fighting. When it resumes, blame the democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #60 August 22, 2006 Quote Note to all the pro-war types - you're going to have to switch from the "cut and run" rhetoric to some sort of self-serving justification for leaving anyway. . They've already practiced that, switching from "It's about WMDs", and "They have RPVs that can hit us in 45 minutes" and "See the mobile bioweapons labs on these photos" to "It's to remove the evil dictator" and "It's to help Iraq become a democracy". Like they thought no-one would notice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #61 August 22, 2006 Quote>Are you still more concerned about N. Korea than you are about Iran? One has nuclear weapons, one doesn't. It's a no-brainer. Then you must be terrified of France. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #62 August 22, 2006 >Then you must be terrified of France. More worried about China than France, actually. They not only have nuclear weapons and ICBM's, they have a space program that will soon rival ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #63 August 22, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_call_up expect the Army to follow suit shortly.... now WHO was the CJC who was roundly criticized, outright slandered by this administration for accurately stating the force necessary to accomplish the mission BEFORE the invasion? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #64 August 22, 2006 Quotehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_call_up expect the Army to follow suit shortly.... now WHO was the CJC who was roundly criticized, outright slandered by this administration for accurately stating the force necessary to accomplish the mission BEFORE the invasion? I know, I know.... This administration has bungled the Iraq affair since well before the 2003 invasion, and continues to bungle it. I cannot recall a more incompetent administration in my lifetime. Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #65 August 22, 2006 >Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Everon 0 #66 August 22, 2006 Quote>Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below. How dare you insult Tricky Dick in such a hostile manner? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Royd 0 #67 August 22, 2006 QuoteWhy? or is that a secret too?Could be, because those in our gov. and the press who despise the Pres. would disclose any military secret just to stick a knife in his back, even to their own harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #68 August 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy? or is that a secret too?Could be, because those in our gov. and the press who despise the Pres. would disclose any military secret just to stick a knife in his back, even to their own harm. The pres was elected twice I don't think the people despise him or he wouldn't have gotten elected the first time. I don't care what political he's from as long as he can walk the walk. However GW and his people have proven time and again that they weren't the right choice for the job. His latest FUBAR in Lebanon was just another example that GW and his staff don't get it. Due to what happened to our troops during VN we will continue to support out troops in the sand pile and their families at home. The next 18 month's of GWs term will be .......interesting. Duck and cover R.I.P. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #69 October 20, 2006 Bout time>http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-to-review-iraq-tactics-with/20061020121309990007?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Me think we needed a new strategy many moons agoI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #70 October 20, 2006 Quote>Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below.Good oneI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #71 October 25, 2006 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061024/D8KVA2D00.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #72 October 25, 2006 Bump. Wake up sheepleI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #73 October 25, 2006 QuoteBump. Wake up sheepleBaaaaaaaaaaa! [sheep] hey, why isn't there a sheep icon? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #74 October 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteBump. Wake up sheepleBaaaaaaaaaaa! [sheep] hey, why isn't there a sheep icon? Dude - do you REALLY want Clay getting hold of that??? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #75 November 4, 2006 http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/iraq-on-alert-ahead-of-saddam-verdict/20061103125609990008I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Skyrad 0 #58 August 22, 2006 I think that is what will happen. Hopefully the White house has had its fingers burnt enough to stop them trying to impose Pax Americana elsewhere.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #59 August 22, 2006 >we can do the same thing we did in VN . . . I see four basic options. 1) Go to the UN, and ask/negotiate/beg for peacekeeping forces; start replacing our forces with forces from nearby countries. Unfortunately we no longer have the cojones or the negotiating skills for that avenue. 2) Increase our presence to half a million. In essence, replicate Vietnam troop levels. That would likely be enough to crush the insurgency and tightly control every town with an iron-fist sort of approach. But then we're stuck there, forever, and will see thousands of US deaths a year for decades. 3) Get out now and let the country implode. This will pretty much guarantee a country with a government that makes the Taliban look like our best friends - and one that will be emboldened by their 'success' against us. But it will occur without any additional US deaths. 4) Keep present troop levels, and watch the country implode more slowly. This is likely what will happen, since it will not require any tough decisions. At some point we'll "declare victory", give everyone a medal and leave, at which point the new government will arise. --------------------- Note to all the pro-war types - you're going to have to switch from the "cut and run" rhetoric to some sort of self-serving justification for leaving anyway. Why not do it sooner than later? Try these on for size: "Bush always said we'd win and then leave. Do you have something against winning?" "The Iraqis can now govern themselves. All this fighting is proof that they can manage their own affairs. Mission accomplished." "The Iraqis are turning the corner now; they have achieved stability, so we should leave." Time this one for a momentary lull in the fighting. When it resumes, blame the democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #60 August 22, 2006 Quote Note to all the pro-war types - you're going to have to switch from the "cut and run" rhetoric to some sort of self-serving justification for leaving anyway. . They've already practiced that, switching from "It's about WMDs", and "They have RPVs that can hit us in 45 minutes" and "See the mobile bioweapons labs on these photos" to "It's to remove the evil dictator" and "It's to help Iraq become a democracy". Like they thought no-one would notice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #61 August 22, 2006 Quote>Are you still more concerned about N. Korea than you are about Iran? One has nuclear weapons, one doesn't. It's a no-brainer. Then you must be terrified of France. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #62 August 22, 2006 >Then you must be terrified of France. More worried about China than France, actually. They not only have nuclear weapons and ICBM's, they have a space program that will soon rival ours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #63 August 22, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_call_up expect the Army to follow suit shortly.... now WHO was the CJC who was roundly criticized, outright slandered by this administration for accurately stating the force necessary to accomplish the mission BEFORE the invasion? ____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #64 August 22, 2006 Quotehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060822/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_call_up expect the Army to follow suit shortly.... now WHO was the CJC who was roundly criticized, outright slandered by this administration for accurately stating the force necessary to accomplish the mission BEFORE the invasion? I know, I know.... This administration has bungled the Iraq affair since well before the 2003 invasion, and continues to bungle it. I cannot recall a more incompetent administration in my lifetime. Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #65 August 22, 2006 >Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #66 August 22, 2006 Quote>Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below. How dare you insult Tricky Dick in such a hostile manner? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #67 August 22, 2006 QuoteWhy? or is that a secret too?Could be, because those in our gov. and the press who despise the Pres. would disclose any military secret just to stick a knife in his back, even to their own harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #68 August 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy? or is that a secret too?Could be, because those in our gov. and the press who despise the Pres. would disclose any military secret just to stick a knife in his back, even to their own harm. The pres was elected twice I don't think the people despise him or he wouldn't have gotten elected the first time. I don't care what political he's from as long as he can walk the walk. However GW and his people have proven time and again that they weren't the right choice for the job. His latest FUBAR in Lebanon was just another example that GW and his staff don't get it. Due to what happened to our troops during VN we will continue to support out troops in the sand pile and their families at home. The next 18 month's of GWs term will be .......interesting. Duck and cover R.I.P. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #69 October 20, 2006 Bout time>http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-to-review-iraq-tactics-with/20061020121309990007?ncid=NWS00010000000001 Me think we needed a new strategy many moons agoI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #70 October 20, 2006 Quote>Even Nixon, a throughly nasty crook, was competent. See below.Good oneI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #71 October 25, 2006 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061024/D8KVA2D00.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #72 October 25, 2006 Bump. Wake up sheepleI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #73 October 25, 2006 QuoteBump. Wake up sheepleBaaaaaaaaaaa! [sheep] hey, why isn't there a sheep icon? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 October 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteBump. Wake up sheepleBaaaaaaaaaaa! [sheep] hey, why isn't there a sheep icon? Dude - do you REALLY want Clay getting hold of that??? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #75 November 4, 2006 http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/iraq-on-alert-ahead-of-saddam-verdict/20061103125609990008I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
