Anyone catch the debate last night?

[legion]

Interesting idea George. We might even be able to get Turkey and Saudi Arabia to go along. I think we have almost no chance of getting Syria and Iran in on it, as they seem to see more profit in a chaotic Iraq (which they each hope to eventually make into a puppet state).

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by legion

Interesting idea George. We might even be able to get Turkey and Saudi Arabia to go along. I think we have almost no chance of getting Syria and Iran in on it, as they seem to see more profit in a chaotic Iraq (which they each hope to eventually make into a puppet state).

We just need some leadership which can see the alternatives.

I'm going to post the idea over at Bill Richardson's site (if I can) and try to get some feedback.

I don't think a classic Libertarian/Ron Paul "hands off" foreign policy is needed in these times, but I love what he has had to say so far.

[legion]

I'd love to see Richardson get the Dem nomination--then I'd actually have a choice to make in the general election.

(No way will I vote for Hillary or Obama...and I'll probably leave that line blank to have a clear conscience if it came down to one of them versus Rudy...)

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I have yet to see any new ideas beside stay the course and bleed, or leave altogether.

300,000 more U.S. troops.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by legion

I'd love to see Richardson get the Dem nomination--then I'd actually have a choice to make in the general election.

I doubt it. I'll make the wild guess that IL will go to the Dem nominee. If the Electoral College awarded votes on a proportional basis, you might have a point. But winner takes all and IL's votes are going to the Dem.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Like the Soviet Union, some countries were/are held together by dictators/force when they would be better off divided. Iraq needed to be divided into three parts (but it didn't/wont happen) with the ouster of Saddam.

The old saw "Can't we all just get along" MIGHT work when one group of people doesn't feel they are being repressed by another and that outsider's are NOT trying to influence their government.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Like the Soviet Union, some countries were/are held together by dictators/force when they would be better off divided. Iraq needed to be divided into three parts (but it didn't/wont happen) with the ouster of Saddam.

The old saw "Can't we all just get along" MIGHT work when one group of people doesn't feel they are being repressed by another and that outsider's are NOT trying to influence their government.

+1

The mouth breathers out there (the remaining 25% who would rather 'trust authority' than think for themselves generally iunfantilize any furriners. They can't be trusted to run their own country. It's kind of like the attitude the British had towards us in the 1770s.

The birth of a government is painful and bloody and we can't protect the Iraqis from the inevitable. George McGovern had the best plan, IMO, one that didn't get much media attention: removing troops from Iraq to Turkey, Saudi and other bases in the area -- it would allow the Iraqi government to sort itself out and deter predation by the neighbors.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by techweenie

+1

The mouth breathers out there (the remaining 25% who would rather 'trust authority' than think for themselves generally iunfantilize any furriners. They can't be trusted to run their own country. It's kind of like the attitude the British had towards us in the 1770s.

The birth of a government is painful and bloody and we can't protect the Iraqis from the inevitable. George McGovern had the best plan, IMO, one that didn't get much media attention: removing troops from Iraq to Turkey, Saudi and other bases in the area -- it would allow the Iraqi government to sort itself out and deter predation by the neighbors.

So much to disagree with, and I will, without the gratuitous ad hominem references.

The surge is working, I have been there...most of the information you get is simply not in concert with what I have seen. If you listen to Schumer and his ilk then...

I know you'll disagree, and that is fair. Whether you do it with facts or conjecture will separate which hole you breath out of. Watch how the MSM and the DEMs will vilify Petraeus' report, even after they UNANIMOUSLY confirmed him and voted for the surge.

What a loser...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

[Shaun @ Tru6]

The surge can only work on a tactical basis with success relative to its scope. it is not a strategy and as such will not guide us to victory.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

The surge can only work on a tactical basis with success relative to its scope. it is not a strategy and as such will not guide us to victory.

Sure it will...do a search on Lieutenant Colonel David Galula.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

So much to disagree with, and I will, without the gratuitous ad hominem references.

The surge is working, I have been there...most of the information you get is simply not in concert with what I have seen. If you listen to Schumer and his ilk then...

I know you'll disagree, and that is fair. Whether you do it with facts or conjecture will separate which hole you breath out of. Watch how the MSM and the DEMs will vilify Petraeus' report, even after they UNANIMOUSLY confirmed him and voted for the surge.

I'm sure Petraeus is a fine fellow.

But

I guess you missed that the white house is writing Petraeus' report for him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/16/BL2007081601003.html

Just like every other front-line soldier from day one of this idiotic war, Petraeus will be ignored, filtered and spun.

250K-plus Americans in and around Baghdad will temporarily tamp down the violence, but it's up in the other provinces. Selective media coverage is failing the mouth-breathers.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by techweenie

I'm sure Petraeus is a fine fellow.

But

I guess you missed that the white house is writing Petraeus' report for him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/08/16/BL2007081601003.html

Just like every other front-line soldier from day one of this idiotic war, Petraeus will be ignored, filtered and spun.

250K-plus Americans in and around Baghdad will temporarily tamp down the violence, but it's up in the other provinces. Selective media coverage is failing the mouth-breathers.

I guess you missed the fact that the President, as the Commander in Chief, will brief his report...as they always do. You do get the whole civilians run the military thing, right?

Basing a discussion around the WP when the military is at the alter is as pointless as breathing from your mouth while submerged...I wouldn't do it, nor should you.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Sure it will...do a search on Lieutenant Colonel David Galula.

I've ordered Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, but by God, the man is French, and their track record on winning insurgencies is not very good.

Anyway, the only way we're going to win this is from the ground up, working with local tribes. Problem is as you get higher up the ranks, it soon becomes a house of cards. How do you keep your local leaders happy when the attention starts to shift up. How do you keep the leaders on the upper levels, where true graft and corruption is the predominant theme, to act altruistically toward the base? And how do you do it with so few men in the field with a constant influx of destablization from Iran and Syria, not to mention the random, honest mistake of bombing this or that completely by accident?

The surge is all too much like an entrepreneur underfunding a venture. It might work if you are very lucky and can build uninterrupted momentum until cash flow turns +.

More likely than not you'll invest everything you have hoping for that one big hit that will get you to the next stage, but it's always too little too late, not enough resources to get the job done right and the venture fails losing everything.

We're doing this war on the cheap and it really shows.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

We're doing this war on the cheap and it really shows.

Yep. We couldn't afford to buy it but we broke it.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I've ordered Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, but by God, the man is French, and their track record on winning insurgencies is not very good.

Anyway, the only way we're going to win this is from the ground up, working with local tribes. Problem is as you get higher up the ranks, it soon becomes a house of cards. How do you keep your local leaders happy when the attention starts to shift up. How do you keep the leaders on the upper levels, where true graft and corruption is the predominant theme, to act altruistically toward the base? And how do you do it with so few men in the field with a constant influx of destablization from Iran and Syria, not to mention the random, honest mistake of bombing this or that completely by accident?

The surge is all too much like an entrepreneur underfunding a venture. It might work if you are very lucky and can build uninterrupted momentum until cash flow turns +.

More likely than not you'll invest everything you have hoping for that one big hit that will get you to the next stage, but it's always too little too late, not enough resources to get the job done right and the venture fails losing everything.

We're doing this war on the cheap and it really shows.

Very happy to discuss this with you.

Galula talks at length about insurgents and how to best them. We have made many mistakes, but I have seen a sea change in both tactics and intent, surge independent.
I'll get you some links, politically neutral.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

will start a new thread after I get the book and start reading.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I say we pull out and let the area degenerate into chaos. It's a virtual inevitability anyway and frankly, if they're busy killing each other, they'll have less time to be focused on killing the west, plotting jihad against the "Great Satan" and will generally be less of a problem to us.

Machiavellian? Perhaps. But I'm fairly certain it would be better than the situation we have today - a quagmire brought on by a bull-headed idiot of a president that costs us countless lives and untold billions of dollars. Our president's charge is to look out for OUR best interests - not the Iraqis, not the Israelis, not the E.U.'s or anyone else's - ours. This jackass has completely failed in that regard and it's nice to see the "next generation" of candidates more-or-less acknowledging that - even if they're not coming right out and saying it.

My vote will likely go to the first candidate who comes right out and says "Iraq was a mistake, it had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or any 'war on terror', it was ill-conceived and is no longer in the best interests of our country to pursue. Bush's administration is a failure and if elected, my first actions will be to reverse and undo as much of what he's done in the last eight years as possible". That would almost guarantee my vote. 'cept if it's from a Democrat's mouth, 'cause then I'd know it was a lie.

[FOG]

Tech,

The violence is down in what was considered to be the toughest one, Anbar. The TTP varied between locales, one part of a town was dealt with in one manner while a different approach was used in another.

The surge does help. Conventional forces are a necessity for the CAGs to succeed.

The key problem is not the success but in reporting. People unfamiliar with war in general, and insurgency in particular want a simplified metric. That is beyond stupid. Getting a report into a format that laymen can understand is very difficult if not impossible. I have tried to explain things one on one to otherwise very successful people, unfortunately very few have the training and practical background to comprehend, a 1st grade reader on how to drive a 911 fast is easier.

Look in USAF BGen. (ret.) Charles Boyd (of OODA loop fame) for his public comments on getting people to understand war.

Shaun,

Go ahead and read Galula but remember where his lessons came from. Try the Marine Corps Small wars manual, and contact the Naval Post Graduate school, they have a masters program in their SOF department and the bookstore has a pretty good selection of books.

There have very few bombings of mistaken targets, far more deliberate mis-reporting by the media.

One problem with your entrepreneur analogy is the implied time line. A quick insurgency war would be in the 12-20 year time frame. Remember that the U.S. has had far more historical success than the media would like to admit. I personally believe that your entrepreneur analogy of being under funded is accurate when applied to the initial invasion and 1st two years. Nobody has demanded to see what the staff studies for the invasion entailed.

Porsche-O-Phile,

Having served two tours in Iraq, ground and flying, plus having served over there previously I think you are dead wrong. The long term costs to the U.S. would be much higher if we leave.

S/F, FOG

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by FOG

Tech,

The violence is down in what was considered to be the toughest one, Anbar. The TTP varied between locales, one part of a town was dealt with in one manner while a different approach was used in another.

The surge does help. Conventional forces are a necessity for the CAGs to succeed.

The key problem is not the success but in reporting. People unfamiliar with war in general, and insurgency in particular want a simplified metric. That is beyond stupid. Getting a report into a format that laymen can understand is very difficult if not impossible. I have tried to explain things one on one to otherwise very successful people, unfortunately very few have the training and practical background to comprehend, a 1st grade reader on how to drive a 911 fast is easier.

Look in USAF BGen. (ret.) Charles Boyd (of OODA loop fame) for his public comments on getting people to understand war.

S/F, FOG

Ah, blame the media again. Sorry, that's beyond lame. The press has been lap-dogging Bush since 9/11/01. Most of the bad things going on in Iraq do not get reported in the MSM. There are about 600 right wing apologists tossing out lies and half truths about the Iraq war, and creating a (pardon) fog around the facts.

10% of the population of Iraq is dead or in exile. 70% of those remaining want us out. Unemployment in key regions is 60%. Housewives are turning to prostitution to feed their kids. The contractors that we've paid tens of billions to for construction projects in Iraq have bussed in immigrants to do the labor. The buildings they've built -- in some cases -- need to be torn down completely. There is no oversight nor accountability, and until recently our mercenaries were not under any laws, whatsoever. Nearly ten billion in cash has gone into the hands of corrupt individuals. The Bush administration selected on-site 'supervisors' on the basis of their faith, not experience. Incidents of American troops randomly shooting civilians may be down -- we hope so -- but there have been many and egregious examples. Screening of recruits has been relaxed multiple times, and now we have a fair number of gang-bangers in uniform -- even 'tagging' buildings in Iraq with their US gang IDs. This may be the first modern war where there has been minimal effort to instruct troops on local customs and language. Three years of 'training' has resulted in only 6,000 trained Iraqi police/troops.

But to the point at hand: with 100,000 contractors (an unknown proportion are simply mercenaries from companies like Blackwater) and 168K troops concentrating on Baghdad, it's not surprising that some of the violence has been suppressed. However, violence is up in areas where those troops were drawn from.

The people I speak with who are on the ground and do not risk repercussions from superiors indicate that we are indeed in a quagmire and will continue to absorb casualties as long as we are there.

And why are we there? We supposedly went in to remove Saddam and the 'threats' he represented. We created a vacuum quickly filled by a few jihadists and our presence created an insurgency. The insurgency is responsible for (I've heard) 80% of violence against our troops. By definition, the insurgency stops when we leave. Many predict the insurgents will turn against the jihadists when we leave. IMO, the best course of action is to stop sacrificing American lives and let the Iraqis find their own equilibrium.

[Rick Lee]

The media have been lap-dogging Bush? Can I have a sip fo that Kool-Aid?