2

3/20/2008 1:21:30 PM

Lately I've been toying with the idea of a garrison strategy -- that is, remove a certain percentage of the troops and keep the rest in their (heavily defended and well-supplied) bases in-country.

This way, they would still be able to:

1) Train Iraqi forces
2) Be available to support Iraqi forces when they're out of their league
3) Respond to major threats to regional stability
4) Respond to genocide and other egregious human rights abuses
5) Operate effective intelligence and psychological operations

At the same time, they would not:

1) Be so painfully visible to regular Iraqis on a daily basis
2) Require the extensive and vulnerable supply network that is so often targeted for attack
3) Be on the regular patrols that are so often targeted
4) Generally have so many opportunities to get shot or to shoot innocent people

3/20/2008 1:36:33 PM

Great idea. Too bad it is exactly what we tried from the Spring of '04 until Petraeus showed up. It doesn't work.

3/20/2008 1:38:09 PM

You mean like we've done in every country we've invaded?

I mean, we're still in Germany and Japan.

3/20/2008 1:38:19 PM

Quote :

"I mean, we're still in Germany and Japan."

Yeah, but it's not because of the looming risk that either of those countries is going to implode into outright chaos. The merits of having foreign bases to protect regional American interests can be debated in another thread.

Quote :

"Too bad it is exactly what we tried from the Spring of '04 until Petraeus showed up."

By what possible standard? We fought two major offensives in Fallujah during that time. Major offensives, of course, not being characteristic of a garrison strategy.

3/20/2008 1:47:36 PM

I think that is a pretty reasonable idea

3/20/2008 1:53:38 PM

The garrison idea is what they are planning on anyway. But it only works when the Iraqis can handle all of their own security.

The difference in 04 was that we were trying to secure a city without actually being in the city. Now we have forces in all the neighborhoods with visibility and easy access to the community.

The Iraqi government and the US are actively negotiating on the rules and guidelines for this exact thing for when the bulk of the US troops withdraw.

3/20/2008 1:56:33 PM

Quote :

"By what possible standard?"

By the standard that the entire strategy was to go out, attempt to take out heads of organizations or squash resistance in specific areas, then quickly retreat back into FOBs and COPs.

Unnecessary dismounted patrols were discouraged unless they had the end result of direct kinetic (that is the term they use) action on a specific person or location. "Soft" engagement with local leaders was discouraged. An American patrol would drive by once or twice a day in most areas and then you wouldn't see them again for the rest of the day, essentially giving AQI, the Jaish al Mahdi, or any other insurgent group free reign of the area. The result was increased indirect fire attacks on US outposts and the ability to place ever more sophisitcated IEDs in the path of the limited number of routes coalition convoys could travel. This method didn't require as many boots outside the wire, so it was initially favored by the generals who were under pressure to minimize casualties. As we all saw, the insurgency controlled ever increasing parts of Iraq and the country descended into chaos.

Part of the reason that the surge was necessary was precisely to provide the number of Soldiers necessary to secure insurgent strongholds with a physical presence; not an intermittent or notional one. GEN Petraeus went against pretty much Rumsfeld's entire strategy when he defined Iraqi actors into "reconcilable" and "irreconcilable" categories. He sought to reach out to the former, even if they had attacked US troops in the past, while destroying the latter. The previous strategy made no differentiation largely because it couldn't due dysfunctional relationships between Iraqi locals and the US units assigned to their areas.

The garrison idea would only work, IMO, if the units garrisoned there were a mixture of SOF and conventional forces who worked regularly with the Iraqi Army both inside and outside the wire.

3/20/2008 2:05:02 PM

Agreed

3/20/2008 2:27:26 PM

so what is our current strategy? last i heard the surge was working but we are taking troops out until late july at which point there will be a 4-6 week pause....so like whats their plan on taking out troops and not having rising violence

3/20/2008 2:39:22 PM

We're dropping to pre-surge levels and the Army is reverting back from 15 month tours to 12 month tours. The hope is that the increased engagement by units which are already in theater will be carried on by their follow on units and that this will subsitute for the large number of troops needed at first to re-establish security.

AQI is currently on the run in Iraq and it is largely because of two nearly simultaneous events:
1) The reversion from "everyone who has ever shot at us must be killed"
2) AQI over-extended in its treatment of local civilians.

With the US reaching out and AQI over-reaching, the tide for the religious extremist wing of the insurgency is receeding. We're slowly beginning to gain the cooperation (if not trust) of the nationalistic wing of the insurgency.

At least that is what appears to be happening.

3/20/2008 2:47:24 PM

is there a best case scenario timeline as far as us troops being out of iraq or a really big drawdown?

3/20/2008 2:49:29 PM

that, I don't have an answer to.

Arab politics in general are too complicated and interwoven on their own, and when you throw in a US Presidental election, there are too many variables for me, or many other people to predict that. There are far smarter people than you or I planning for all sorts of contingencies as we speak though, I can tell you that.

3/20/2008 2:56:38 PM

hmmm...wonder how things will be from nov 08 to jan 09

3/20/2008 2:59:46 PM

The irony, is that with the economy tanking, Iraq has become a back-burner issue. It is still polarizing to some, but to the large masses, it's effect is minimal and a long ways away, while the economy is here and now.

3/20/2008 3:02:41 PM

i've heard some pundits say that recently and i dont agree with it at all...the 10-12 billion a month will hurt the repubs come nov imo

3/20/2008 3:04:46 PM

The fact that the situation is becoming more and more positive could make that fact a positive issue for the republicans, and it would be ironic as hell if the dems somehow managed to lose the election. But I must say, if there was any republican that could win, it would be McCain

3/20/2008 9:42:23 PM

^^^ not only that, but i think maybe with the progress we've made in Iraq, a lot of people are thinking "Well, let's put off the big picture decisions on what to do there for a while and see if the situation breaks decisively towards long term success or failure." They're recognizing that leaving with the place all fucked up would be a disaster, as would staying around expending lives and dollars in a futile effort or at unacceptably high cost. The only relative win is to succeed, and it's now looking like there is at least enough of a chance of that to warrant keeping all of the cards on the table for the time being.

3/20/2008 9:59:54 PM

^ It's cute how we call a car bombing a day in a nation the size of Los Angeles "progress." I can't wait to see what they call "peace."

Why wouldn't my temporary garrison in international waters strategy work?

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Logistics."

Horse. Shit.

If we can get a 150,000-unit force into Iraq within a matter of weeks, what specific logistics prevent us from doing the reverse?

One word answers are costumes for weak positions.

Quote :

"drunknloaded: so what is our current strategy?"

Not that anyone at any point has any right to prognosticate (WHICH IS WHY WE'RE IN THIS BLOODY ECONOMIC QUICKSAND), but:

To delay a Civil War long enough so that when it does break out it does so as a World War.

3/20/2008 11:59:25 PM

Quote :

"^ It's cute how we call a car bombing a day in a nation the size of Los Angeles "progress." "

Well what else would you call where we're at?

I mean, no, it sure as shit isn't where we need to be, but it's major progress, and well beyond what most people expected not very long ago.

3/21/2008 12:52:46 AM

Quote :

"If we can get a 150,000-unit force into Iraq within a matter of weeks, what specific logistics prevent us from doing the reverse? "

We've built lots of camps and stuff in the meanwhile, and a slow trickle of other heavy machinery to support these camps has come in as well.

But, we could pull the vast majority of the troops out pretty quickly if we had to.

3/21/2008 12:54:19 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: Well what else would you call where we're at?"

From the same post:

Quote :

"BLOODY ECONOMIC QUICKSAND"

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : double..uh...quote?]

3/21/2008 12:57:47 AM

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:58 AM. Reason : shit]

3/21/2008 12:58:26 AM

I don't disagree...but that's sorta beside the point. At this point, it is what it is--there's no rewind button, and I think that we still have a reasonable chance of avoiding complete and utter catastrophe. Leaving and losing are both guaranteed, severe disasters. It may come down to it, but snatching this one from the jaws of defeat is still a very real possibility, and I don't think now is the time to quit.

3/21/2008 1:07:41 AM

If you don't disagree with the characterization, why recommend a suicidal strategy?

And what defeat?

Pride is no reason to be at war.

Just what the fuck does victory look like?

Quote :

"theDuke866: Leaving and losing are both guaranteed, severe disasters."

You sound like the clowns that got us into this mess, theDuke866 and that's not typical of you. Truth through repeated assertion is not a logical concept.

Quote :

"Gamecat: Why wouldn't my temporary garrison in international waters strategy work?"

I'm really hoping for a grating reply by any of the more informed "TWW brass."

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 1:20 AM. Reason : duke: struggle in quicksand | cat: find a branch]

3/21/2008 1:14:06 AM

Quote :

"Pride is no reason to be at war. "

What about honor?

We borked their country good, it's our job to help fix it. Not to mention long-term, this is the most stable thing to do. We can let Iraq fester and wait for a 9/11, or we can build some goodwill in the region and make sure they are stable before really leaving.

On the other hand, perhaps the best thing we could do to build good will would actually be to leave. But considering the comments a while back about how Iraqis are backwards ignorant 'tards who are just going to kill each other anyway ( ), I can see why this scenario is often lost on people.

But regardless of what we do, we can't allow Iraq to fail as a country, like we did with Afghanistan.

3/21/2008 1:25:34 AM

War is meant to be violent and total.

If we cannot commit to fighting a total war, then we should leave.

3/21/2008 1:30:48 AM

well that's the thing...i don't think we necessarily are pursuing a suicidal strategy



Pride has nothing to do with my thoughts on this, either. First of all, it's not like our nation-destroying capability has had any doubt cast upon it, and who really gives a shit about our nation-building capability from a pride perspective? That isn't where international power is derived from. Second, I don't really see it as a face-saving endeavor--we've already lost plenty, and we wouldn't really lose any more in the eyes of the world on the whole if we got the hell out of there (although I think that would breed even MORE distrust among Arab cultures). If we pull it together in the end, the world will still look at it as "Thank God you mostly unfucked that mess, but you're idiots for getting into it to start with."


and I would count as a victory any solution that allows us to leave with Iraq as a functioning nation on its own, and not a crisis for the Iraqis, the region, or us.

Quote :

" "theDuke866: Leaving and losing are both guaranteed, severe disasters." "

whoa, whoa, whoa...you can't seriously think that there is any chance that the ship will right itself if we just leave it alone. I'll buy the argument for leaving that "it's a lost cause--might as well call it quits now rather than fuck away more dollars and lives only to watch it go down the tubes completely in a few years."

I don't agree with that assessment, at least at this point, but I see where you're coming from.

The idea that I need a crystal ball to see that Iraq is going down hard without continued intervention is a stretch, I think.

3/21/2008 1:31:09 AM

Quote :

"War is meant to be violent and total. If we cannot commit to fighting a total war, then we should leave. "

that is fucking stupid. i mean, it is completely beyond asinine, and I wouldn't expect a 5th grader to be so lacking of a grasp on reality.

3/21/2008 1:33:48 AM

Address the comment or shut the fuck up

3/21/2008 1:41:34 AM

Very well. Why don't you go argue with Noah about flooding while you're at it?

What are you suggesting? That we should consider total war against these people? Are you fucking kidding me? That's 100x more barbaric than the worst, most redneck, ignorant right-winger that you so loathe. I mean, turning the country into a sheet of glass is something I have a hard time believing you wouldn't scoff at if the suggestion came from, say, eyedrB or hooksaw.

Furthermore, war is meant to be violent, but please, Clausewitz, show me where in the Idiot's Guide To Waging War it says that it should always be total. Hint: if there was such a book, it wouldn't say that, because only the most limp-minded dunce would even briefly entertain such an idea. It's impractical, it's unnecessary, it's often counterproductive, and most of all, it is horribly, horribly unethical. There's a reason the word "Nazi" carries the connotation that it does today.

At any rate, the closest thing I can think of to the Idiot's Guide To Wage War is Sun Tzu's The Art Of War. Oddly enough, one of the major principles espoused in the book is that of "economy of force." Without getting into the weeds on the subject, suffice it to say that "total war" would generally find itself at odds with this rather solid principle.

Furthermore, part of the reason for our recent progress in Iraq is because we wised up and stopped going at every problem with the Bigger Hammer approach. A more nuanced approach is paying dividends. That isn't to say that there isn't a time and place for the cleanup hitters--just that sometimes small ball is the answer.

Finally, can you imagine what would happen if we approached every conflict from a standpoint of "total war or nothing"? Can you imagine the fallout from, for example, our raid on Libya back in the 80s in response to their continual state sponsoring of terrorism, if instead of sending a couple dozen aircraft to bomb 3-4 sites, we'd simply opened up the silos and flattened the entire country? Or if conventional war is more your thing, if we'd carpet bombed with B-52s, sent in 2 full divisions of Marines and several more from the Army? Firebombed cities like we did in Tokyo and Dresdin? Absolutely destroyed every last bit of infrastructure in the entire country? I mean, we could've done it, no problem--but do I really need to write another page about why this would've been a bad idea?

There's a reason conflict is approached from a spectrum, from an interpersonal level all the way up to an international level. Your statement about total war is as asinine as it would be for me to fly to NC and shoot you in the head twice over an internet argument, when it's both easier and more effective to simply make you look like a fool.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:12 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/21/2008 2:10:16 AM

As an addendum to your stupid comment, I thought I would give you the background on which it is based.

I've been watching the military channel and they have a show on gun camera footage from pilots during the Vietnam War. The particular guy they had on there was a Vietnam Vet Air Force pilot who was talking about the idiocy of the Rolling Thunder campaign. Basically, he was talking about the idiocy of political interference into the operations.

First, they were not allowed to attack high value targets. Then they were, and by that time they had significant anti aircraft protection. Then they were told to repeatedly bomb targets that had already been destroyed. More planes were getting lost every mission for no exact reason. Rolling Thunder was seen as a waste of men, planes and resources and needlessly extended the war.

He ended the show talking about the tragedy of the Vietnam War. Leaders were more worried about maintaining their political careers than allowing the commanders the flexibility to carry out operations the way they see fit. Doing so needlessly prolonged the war and caused more suffering. He said that war is meant to be quick and brutal. You do what you need to do and get it over with. Long protracted wars of occupation without a concrete victory does nothing but prolong suffering and increase losses.

In relating to my comment, I agree with him completely. If we are not willing to do what is necessary to bring about a quick end to the conflict than we are serving no function but to prolong the suffering of the people of Iraq and our men and women in uniform.

3/21/2008 2:22:30 AM

Quote :

"moron: What about honor?"

And what's dishonorable about financial arrangements with the so-called legitimate, elected government of Iraq?

Witness my complete lack of disagreement with committing resources to rebuild what we've destroyed.

In fact, go back to the last page and reread my post. It's late and I was basically going to say all that again, but differently.

The tl;dr version goes like this:

LET THEM DO IT THEIR WAY WITH OUR MONEY

LIKE WE GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THEM

AND STAY SMALL AND AGILE NEARBY

WHEN SHIT THAT THREATENS OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS UP

GO QUICK, HARD, ISOLATE AND DESTROY TARGETS THEN RETREAT

Quote :

"moron: On the other hand, perhaps the best thing we could do to build good will would actually be to leave. But considering the comments a while back about how Iraqis are backwards ignorant 'tards who are just going to kill each other anyway ( ), I can see why this scenario is often lost on people."

I agree.

Staying in international waters and out of their face just might give them all the breathing room they need for "political progress." Take a look at the history of nascent democracies--including ours truly--and you'll see the grim truth about what "political progress" at this stage in their national development looks like.

Saddam Hussein was holding a Civil War back at the barrel of a gun

Bush's father knew that.

Colin Powell knew that (where's he work now?).

And now we're stuck doing the same thing for time immemorial.

I see no honor in that.

Quote :

"moron: But regardless of what we do, we can't allow Iraq to fail as a country, like we did with Afghanistan."

Fail's a big word. What do you mean by that?

To me, failure would be not letting the Iraqi people decide exactly what to do with their country now that they have "control" over it. Even if that is to wage a Civil War against the assholes with guns. If they lose, we could always do something crazy like issue a Congressional declaration of war on a state legitimately.

Quote :

"Scuba Steve: War is meant to be violent and total. If we cannot commit to fighting a total war, then we should leave."

Duke's got a specific definition of that term and it involves massive collateral damage.

What do you mean by total war?

Nuclear?

Quote :

"theDuke866: well that's the thing...i don't think we necessarily are pursuing a suicidal strategy"

What?

Do you understand quicksand?

Quote :

"theDuke866: If we pull it together in the end, the world will still look at it as "Thank God you mostly unfucked that mess, but you're idiots for getting into it to start with.""

Nuff said.

Quote :

"theDuke866: you can't seriously think that there is any chance that the ship will right itself if we just leave it alone."

Over what span of time?

Quote :

"theDuke866: The idea that I need a crystal ball to see that Iraq is going down hard without continued intervention is a stretch, I think."

1) Has it been tried?
2) What makes you so certain that you continually declare this?
3) Is all intervention militaristic?

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:38 AM. Reason : say it in the mirror: "It's. Not. Our. Country."]

3/21/2008 2:29:04 AM

^^

Don't forget that Reagan "cut and ran" after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, withdrawing all forces four months later. He was advised never to go in by his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger.

3/21/2008 2:29:17 AM

I generally agree with your post about the Vietnam War, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone not totally ignorant of the situation argue otherwise.


and I'm not really sure what, if anything, you're attempting to get at with the post about the Marine barracks bombing.

3/21/2008 2:34:17 AM

Can you imagine if we'd INVADED Libya and occupied them in perpetuity in the 80s for being a state sponsor of terror rather than bomb them like Reagan did?

No.

You can't.

Because Reagan was busy running up trillions in debt to fight a total war, not a perpetual half-measure.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM. Reason : to further the fucking point]

3/21/2008 2:35:07 AM

i'm not sure i see how that really makes any point at all, much less one relevent to the discussion.

i'm not trying to be condescending, because you're a smart dude, but either you have made one helluva weak point, or something's getting lost in translation, or something has gone totally over my head.

3/21/2008 2:41:47 AM

Look, dude.

You've barely answered a question I've asked.

Seemed a trollpost might be the way to get you to pay attention to the prior substance (which you seem hell-bent on ignoring).

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:44 AM. Reason : skirt skirt skirt]

3/21/2008 2:42:26 AM

sorry, i've been sidetracked by the low hanging fruit

i'm actually not really even familiar with what you're advocating. i'll have to look through the thread and find it.

3/21/2008 2:45:14 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: And what defeat?"

That was a serious question.

How the hell would leaving be "defeat" for the United States?

It's not like we lost the Iraq War.

We're making a rational decision based on opportunity-cost.

It is after all, our money and your lives. We still live in a world of economy not only of dollars but respect.

The world already knows we've fucked the dog. We continue to show them that we have absolutely no interest in letting the Iraqi people run their own nation by refusing to give them meaningful reasons to seriously run it.

Besides, with us on the stage, no one else will step up. We've clearly marked an American flag on that part of the map. Do you honestly believe no one in the world would come to their aid in our absence?

Even if you do, the fact remains that nobody will while we're there. Such is the nature of being the "lone superpower." That's right, nobody uses that phrase anymore.

How short lived the title can be when a nation is so steadfastly and irrationally led.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:56 AM. Reason : ...]

3/21/2008 2:49:38 AM

Bah I am tired. I'll leave you with this.

3/21/2008 2:50:19 AM

man

what the hell happened to him?

not just in his stance on that subject--in his overall demeanor.

and gamecat, i don't have the time to get into all of your points tonight (gotta be up in 5 hours). i'll get to it later--if i don't, remind me. i'm not trying to dodge you.

3/21/2008 2:59:54 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: what the hell happened to him?"

Didn't you hear?

9/11 launched us into an alternate universe with its own laws of physics, logic, and economic justification.

3/21/2008 3:12:16 AM

yeah i wish the dems could get a shot at something like 9/11

3/21/2008 3:32:26 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: If we can get a 150,000-unit force into Iraq within a matter of weeks, what specific logistics prevent us from doing the reverse?"

First off, the deployment didn't happen in a matter of weeks. What appeared to be a brief period of time during which the news media covered the movement, was actually preceeded by a massive amount of planning and preparation here in the US on top of contingency plans already in place.

Advantages when deploying in 2003:
1) Assets generally localized on US bases, maintained regularly, with clear deployment plan
2) Sophisiticated transportation system including roads, railroads, multiple deep-water ports, and airports capable of supporting heavy aircraft like the C-5.
3) Secured transportation lines all the way from the start point for the staging areas for the invasion.

Challenges when redeploying in 2008:
1) Assets scattered across Iraq, still maintained, but parts more difficult to secure
2) Gross tonnage: we deployed hardly any up-armored wheeled vehicles in 2003, and even the the M1114 was basic without upgraded gunners turret or add on armor. This alone will increase the number of transportation assets required to move equipment.
3) Unsecured routes. This one goes without saying really . . .
4) The routes themselves. There is one major N-S artery in Iraq and one major E-W artery cutting through the middle of the country, roughly in the shape of a cross. Everything will have to feed into those routes. The highway network that exists here doesn't exist there.
5) Customs requirements. I don't know if they would plan on just bum rushing the Saudi or Kuwaiti borders and getting all of our guys south of the berm, or moving them out unit by unit, but the cleaning necessary to prepare vehicles to US Customs standards, for movement from SW Asia to the US, is no small task. It took my battalion about 48 hours of continuous operations on the wash racks to get our vehicles ready when we came back the first time. This time varies depending on the type of unit with a light infantry unit taking less time and a mechanized unit taking a lot more. A lot more.
6) The fact that we simply have more stuff over there than we did when we invaded in 2003. Even if you leave the semi-permanet equipment over there, we've got more to bring back.


Those would be the "specific logistics [that] prevent us from doing the reverse," and even that isn't a remotely comprehensive list. I'm not a professional logisitican, and I'm sure I could come up with more if I talked to some other guys I know, but I think that covers it.

3/21/2008 5:46:24 AM

^ Yep. Civilians are unaware of the requirements of washing equipment to prevent the transport of parasites and so on. And it takes extra time to carefully wash certain area of the vehicle, such as optics, for example.

And don't forget the benefits of sling-loading rotary-winged aircraft. It can make trips from A to B much faster and safer, too, in some cases.

3/21/2008 6:10:53 AM

This is the sole goal behind any strategy that we take from here on out.

Iraq must be a self sufficient, stable country.

The entire reason AQI wanted the civil war was to bring any order in the country down and step into its place. Al-queda wants a country to base its operations out of whether it is Pakistan or Iraq.

And let me say this again. There is no rational argument for leaving as fast as possible. None at all. The only time for this argument were at the beginning of 07 when conditions were the worst on the ground for the Iraqis and our troops. Now, such an argument is a joke. The only reason we would ever do that was if we get invaded by China or some such nonsense. This argument, as of right now, only exists in the dreams of democrats who hate Bush beyond reason.

Point is, we can now see being able to pull Iraq out of this and keeping it there. Unless the entire populace turns against us, we will have a presence on the ground in Iraq for a very long time. This presence will most likely be self sustaining bases outside of cities while the Iraqis take care of themselves. The US and Iraqi governments are drawing up legislation for this presence in Iraq. Just like our democracy, as long as the people in Iraq support us, they will not rise up against us. I don't think everyone realizes how deep and real most of the Iraqi population respect the troops and want them there.

3/21/2008 8:28:52 AM

^ Hippies pass joints. I guess servicemen pass crystal balls.

Quote :

"BEU: Iraq must be a self sufficient, stable country."

Only one?

Why?

And who the hell are you to tell 20 million people how to run their country?

Quote :

"BEU: The entire reason AQI wanted the civil war was to bring any order in the country down and step into its place. Al-queda wants a country to base its operations out of whether it is Pakistan or Iraq."

And if they succeed, Congress declares war on Iraq and we have legitimacy.

Crazy.

Quote :

"BEU: And let me say this again. There is no rational argument for leaving as fast as possible. None at all."

It must've taken you some time to go through all the rational possibilities, and I'm sure you did before making such a bold claim since you knew it'd be challenged.

Could you enlighten us with some rebuttals to the top 5? 3? Or even 1?

Calling it a joke doesn't count. We could characterize this as a war of aggression and use emotionally charged words like imperialism taking that line.

Quote :

"BEU: The only time for this argument were at the beginning of 07 when conditions were the worst on the ground for the Iraqis and our troops. Now, such an argument is a joke. The only reason we would ever do that was if we get invaded by China or some such nonsense. This argument, as of right now, only exists in the dreams of democrats who hate Bush beyond reason."

LOL

Ad hominem FTW.

What about politically unaffiliated people who prefer a peaceful, Constitutional republic to an aggressive, authoritarian meddler?

Ben Franklin himself said that there's never been a good war or a bad peace.

Let's hear you argue with that in ANY rational manner.

---

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 1) Assets scattered across Iraq, still maintained, but parts more difficult to secure"

Who said anything about "secure?"

Signs go up: ATTN IRAQIS: AMERICANS GONE IN 18 MONTHS, BE PREPARED

We start pulling back percentages at a time and let them cope with the consequences with our resources and in their own way.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 2) Gross tonnage: we deployed hardly any up-armored wheeled vehicles in 2003, and even the the M1114 was basic without upgraded gunners turret or add on armor. This alone will increase the number of transportation assets required to move equipment."

*ahem*

Phased withdrawal.

You're building my 18 month case for me.

Note my complete lack of a one-day exit strategy.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 3) Unsecured routes. This one goes without saying really . . ."

A $600 billion a year defense apparatus and you're going to tell me that we can't secure routes through the country?

Surely you jest.

Or you're an idiot.

But I think you're just kidding here.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 4) The routes themselves. There is one major N-S artery in Iraq and one major E-W artery cutting through the middle of the country, roughly in the shape of a cross. Everything will have to feed into those routes. The highway network that exists here doesn't exist there."

Again...$600 billion defense apparatus and we can't secure an interstate in a country the size of a Southwestern state?

I grow more confident in our ability to "win" this war by the minute.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 5) Customs requirements. I don't know if they would plan on just bum rushing the Saudi or Kuwaiti borders and getting all of our guys south of the berm, or moving them out unit by unit, but the cleaning necessary to prepare vehicles to US Customs standards, for movement from SW Asia to the US, is no small task. It took my battalion about 48 hours of continuous operations on the wash racks to get our vehicles ready when we came back the first time. This time varies depending on the type of unit with a light infantry unit taking less time and a mechanized unit taking a lot more. A lot more."

IOW phased withdrawal. You continue to build my case, then argue that you're owning me while doing it in Chit Chat.

Wow.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: 6) The fact that we simply have more stuff over there than we did when we invaded in 2003. Even if you leave the semi-permanet equipment over there, we've got more to bring back."

And we've got trillions (that's TWELVE ZEROS) of dollars worth of resources at the Pentagon's disposal to do it.

Unless those resources didn't involve developing something as simple as a fucking exit strategy, I don't see how this amounts to any more than: "But it's heeeeeavyyyy..."

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ...]

3/21/2008 3:11:50 PM

Quote :

" You're building my 18 month case for me. Note my complete lack of a one-day exit strategy."

Actually I was responding to this:

Quote :

"If we can get a 150,000-unit force into Iraq within a matter of weeks, what specific logistics prevent us from doing the reverse?"

So, umm, any more rabbits you want to pull out of your ass?

Quote :

"Who said anything about "secure?""

Sorry, I used bad wording here. When I said "parts harder to secure" I meant, "vehicle parts would be harder to acquire." Not "geographic locations within Iraq will be harder to control." The point is still relevant when you discuss the logistical problems of removing US forces from Iraq.

Quote :

"A $600 billion a year defense apparatus and you're going to tell me that we can't secure routes through the country?"

Quote :

"Again...$600 billion defense apparatus and we can't secure an interstate in a country the size of a Southwestern state?"

Correct. As our forces diminish in size, the insurgency will become emboldened without an effective check by the Iraqi Army. Money here is utterly irrelevant. You can't tape a dollar to a highway and say "don't bomb here, this belongs to the US" it takes boots. As the number of boots diminishes, so will control. This is not an advanced level concept here.

Quote :

"I don't see how this amounts to any more than: "But it's heeeeeavyyyy...""

Ok, now this is slightly more advanced. When you move something from point A to point B, especially something like a truck that won't float in water, you'll need to put it in something that a) does float, or b) can cross bodies of water using lift generated by adequate forward acceleration through the atmosphere. Since we don't live in super-happy-fun land, most of these devices have load limits. When you're extracting trucks that have upwards of 2,000lbs of add-on armor, this becomes an issue.

Quote :

"Surely you jest. Or you're an idiot."

Feel free to call me an idiot. I wouldn't know anything about Iraq. None of my responses were based on professional articles I've read. None of it would be based on the fact that I've been there twice or the fact that I've literally traveled the length of the main North-South route from Dihook to the Kuwaiti border, or that I've driven the East-West route from the Jordanian border to just south-west of Baghdad.

So, yeah, feel free to run your undereducated over-emotional mouth about thing which you obviously have more experience with.

3/21/2008 3:24:40 PM

Quote :

"Unconditional phased withdrawal/redeployment reaching 100% within 18 months. This is not surrender. Remember, we have replaced the dictatorial regime successfully with an elected democratic government. Hoorah. Now let us move on to more important matters. We should maintain a force of redeployed troops capable of rapid response in nearby international waters, the size of which fluctuates with conditions on the ground. This approach fails the OMF COST argument long term, as it remains a conscious incentive to deliberate on the necessity of our stay. After all, would we be paying all this money, making all these sacrifices and enemies if we didn't feel a debt to every dead soldier we hear about to "continue doing" well...whatever the hell it is we're doing? That's a question we ought ask ourselves every day, but not at the cost of another drop of American blood unless the enemy presents a clear and present danger to our security. In the past this was known as sound foreign policy. It's been on holiday since the gravitational constant changed on September 11th and all. Publicly respecting the rights of others to determine how to run their country tends to go a long way for the image--especially when damaged--of a nation. Let the spooks handle ground operations from there. Break every bit of Al Qaeda in Iraq and use military intervention ONLY when we have direct evidence our sovereignty is imminently threatened OR if and when said spooks may require it for their own protection. After all, the generals tell us we've broken Al Qaeda Iraq's back. Withdrawal would force the government to solve its internal security crisis or fail as incompetent governments--like incompetent banks that loan money to poor money managers--should. Their success or failure will show us whether the people of this nation really give a damn about the borders we've drawn for them, or if they really want to Balkanize. Sure, we'll use all the propaganda resources at our disposal to prevent the latter, but leaflets are cheap and don't require supply lines. Better a small contingent of military intelligence spooks and special forces than a behemoth 160,000-man supply chain. At this point, I think the Iraqis ought to be free to make up their own minds at this point, but it should be at the barrel of each other's guns--y'know...like it is here--rather than those of a foreign power. Meanwhile, we can fund Iraq's government and its efforts to reconstruct until we turn blue for all I care. We owe them restitution. The press at the Fed's certainly still warm enough to print up all the money the Iraqi government could possibly need. Recently stifled bank runs and all. ( ) Give them all the dough we can spare and let them succeed or fail on their own two feet with it. Few can say we don't care if they fail and we cease, just that the Iraqi government fails at managing resources. As for speculation over the future--the very crime that got us into this catastrophe--I'll do it, but frankly, my position doesn't require it: The data says the Mahdi Army is waiting us out. If they really want their civil war, they'll have it. But frankly, we had no right to claim perfect foresight on the way in Iraq, so I don't think we have the credulity or the standing to any such claims on the way out. Who the fuck knows what happens when our soldiers leave. Why don't we let the Iraqis worry about figuring that part out for themselves and support whatever decision they make? You know. As if we gave a fuck about them."

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : now you don't even have to leave the page!]

3/21/2008 3:29:27 PM