The Iraq War

[Freebird]

I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands.

Yes, and I can imagine how frustrating it can be, as Plan D writes, they suspect that the civilians are spotting for the bad guys. Here's the problem I see though Chris, if there are some REAL civilians killed (and there will be, it can't totally be avoided) then AL Jazeera etc. will be filming the corpses from 20 different angles. The population sees the USA as heavy handed, and loses faith in their Gov't who are allied with the US, opening the door for rhetoric from the local mosque. It looks like a catch-22 to me, by loosening the ROE's you do better against the militants, but may lose the battle for "hearts minds"

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you. It is a no win situation in the case of civilians.

Thats why this war is like no war before.

 

[Erich]

semi-chuckle on the inside .......... the last half dozen postings sound like what we went through in Nam

the facts of war gentlemen, civilians will take it harder than the military. It always happens, too many innocents will get killed and there is no way to avoid this. As in Nam the villagers had an Ak 47 pointed at their backs, in the mid-east they are forced to take a bullet or their children/themselves rounded up for possible future useage as a bomber ............ I know this as fact

 

[wilbur1]

Well Erich, if thats the way its going to be i say..let the dogs loose, God will sort them out

 

[Erich]

we've had that saying let God sort em out since suvivalist times here in southern Oregon since the late 60's. sorry wilbur but it is the truth, there will never be peace in the mid-east we have to take this as fact, if any it will be too short termed. Adler and I and others know full well the simple possibilities of tribal war that has been going on for centuries even while we were over there and are still over there, one one leaves as a protecting force, another will surely move in, it is almost one of logistics, the place is volitile and this is what happens even with an overwhelming presence. The Iraqis do not want us there, even knowing that if we left tomorrow that they would probably get creamed. And again with our way of thinking we are westerners not having any clue how the eastern way of thinking acts nor responds

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

semi-chuckle on the inside .......... the last half dozen postings sound like what we went through in Nam

the facts of war gentlemen, civilians will take it harder than the military. It always happens, too many innocents will get killed and there is no way to avoid this. As in Nam the villagers had an Ak 47 pointed at their backs, in the mid-east they are forced to take a bullet or their children/themselves rounded up for possible future useage as a bomber ............ I know this as fact

Agreed 100%

 

[Derfman]

The thing I'd really like to see would be a two edged sword.

A huge part of the problem is mushy politically correct thinking in western countries, especially on military issues.

If the point could be driven home that there is a CRITICAL difference between a bomber (suicide or not) that blows up a sidewalk cafe, and a soldier that shoots at an enemy combatant but hits a non-combatant by accident, then we would see much more support for the ugly cost of cleaning up that mess.

However, if you stress the above point enough, some "militant" groups would avoid killing random non-combatants, and would ambush soldiers and cops and such, and you'd be pretty much forced to recognize that their fighting methods were a step above the subhuman trash that TARGET sidewalk cafes and busy markets for attacks.

 

[plan_D]

Another problem ... the Coalition is supplying the insurgents with weapons. Many a time the Royal Regiment handed weapons over to the police and Iraqi military ... and within a day they'd disappeared ( the regiment checked up on them almost everyday ) ... they'd gone to the insurgents !

The Royal Regiment though ... what I have had read is fantastic. While on foot patrol some of the lads heard an ambush against some land rovers (Snatches, name from Northern Ireland) ...and ran 900 metres just to go give 'em a hand..against all orders, of course. On another patrol, one of the lads got in trouble because he was shooting out all the street lights - for obvious reasons.

The Iraqi insurgents really are getting a battering, but as Chris has says they just keep coming.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The problem Marc is that the government is so currupt. The Police regular turn ther backs on the insurgents. Those that dont are found in a ditch with there head cut off several days later.

 

[Gnomey]

Bought this for myself for Christmas after hearing about it here. Only 3 chapters in so far and enjoying it, gives a real insight to Southern Iraq. I would certainly highly recommend it.

 

[Freebird]

I think the hands of our soldiers are tied behind there backs (this is just my observation of having served there) and we should untie there hands.

Also we need to put more pressure on the Arabs to step up and do something.
Marc you are correct that our military forces over there are winning on the battle field the problem is that for every battle won another 100 possible enemies rise up.

It is kind of like a vicious circle or we take one step foward and 2 steps back.

I don't think it was a good idea to get US soldiers involved with a Muslim factional fight. Chris, I think part of the problem was that the US government was too open about "staying until the job is done" or "it's too important we cannot leave", because that tells the Iraqi Gov't that no matter how much they screw up, the US is staying. An interesting point, after the democrats some Republicans came close to passing the pull-out bill, the Saudi's said that if the US left they would send in troops to support the Sunni's.

we've had that saying let God sort em out since suvivalist times here in southern Oregon since the late 60's. There will never be peace in the mid-east we have to take this as fact, if any it will be too short termed. Adler and I and others know full well the simple possibilities of tribal war that has been going on for centuries even while we were over there and are still over there, once one leaves as a protecting force, another will surely move in, it is almost one of logistics, the place is volitile and this is what happens even with an overwhelming presence. The Iraqis do not want us there.

Erich I think you are right about that, I don't see the idea of a stable, democratic Iraq as obtainable, given the mindset of the Muslim leaders.

About 2 months ago the "Federal" plan was passed in the US congress by about 75 - 25, but without much publicity. What do you think of that idea?

Basically the plan was something like this: The US pulls back from populated areas, establishes 3 or 4 bases near the borders, and the troops concentrate on going after Al Quaida bases, and stopping weapons from crossing the Iranian border. The 3 sects of Muslims will each be in local control in their own "province", just like it is now in the Kurd area.

The advntage is that it will give the US troops more of a regular mission, instead of supervising a religious civil war, and less chance of civilian "incedents". I think each "Imam" or warlord in charge of his own territory will be more inclined to keep the peace with his own militia, nor do I think a national army is attainable anytime soon.

I think the advantage would shift, instead of the US begging the Iraqi's to get their act together, they could use some "hard diplomacy" on the warlords. For example the US representative goes to conference with the Sunni (or Shite) leader, and says something like this:

"We are not inclined to support your side, because you are associated with Sunni Al Quaida (or Shite Iran). However we are willing to give you a chance, if you manage your provincial government reasonably well, stop insurgents from operating in your territory, and provide for the needs of the people, we will support you with money, supplies weapons. If you screw up - we won't stop sending the money weapons, we'll just send them to your opponent"

Kind of a stick and carrot approach. meanwhile, the US troops instead of patrolling the cities are free to seal off the Iranian border.

 

[Freebird]

About your previous post Chris...

Problem is that {Biden's "Federal plan"} wont work. When I was in Iraq we brought the idea up. My Division covered everything north of Baghdad up to Turkey. Kirkuk and up was in "Kurdistan" which was pretty much run by the Kurds. We trained the Kurds to protect there own region.

The problem is this the Kurdish area is a very oil rich area. The Shiites and the Sunni's dont want the Kurds to have all the "power".

There were several time I flew Generals up to the Kurdish Headquarters in Irbil (northern Iraq) and we would have lunch with the Kurdish political leaders (on invite from then and the Generals). We would not really speak or open our mouths because well that is not the place of the "normal soldier". Anyhow we listened to what was being said and that was a main concern.

Frankly it would never work...

About the oil - the Kurds (or anyone else) cannot make any money from their oil unless they export it, if the US sealed off the border they can't do anything with the oil. The US would just have to "lay down the law", all oil revenue would have to be equally split on a per capita or whatever basis. The Kurds also have to realize that without US "goodwill", there is a good chance that Turket will come in and destroy the Kurd area.

 

[evangilder]

This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either.

The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.

Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.

 

[Freebird]

This is starting to get complicated already, Freebird. Divide the land into three sections essentially, all autonomous. But the oil from one region gets divvied up to the others in terms of revenue. There are other resources and things as well and it will get even more complicated. Then add to the fact that peacful coexistence between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of separated sections is not an easy thing to maintain either.

Yes, it's complicated for sure, but the whole thing is a mess already. It's kind of like the program in Canada "equalization" where the rich provinces (B.C., Alberta, Ontario) subsidise the resource poor ones (Atlantic provinces etc) I'm sure there is something similar in the US.

The key is to make the Iraqis self sufficient, with enough stability so that we can leave without someone else just waltzing right in to take over, or the fundamentalist a-holes from taking over. It's a tough road.

Would be nice, I have my doubts that it can be done though. There are too many factions that have no interest in a peaceful Iraq.

Personally, it would be fine with me if we found an alternative to oil and let those crazy countries turn back into the third world toilets they were before oil was found there.

I couldn't agree more. One thing I don't like though, is some media comments that "The US has to stay in Iraq until we win", to my mind the US is not going to get a "win" over there (ie a stable, democratic US ally) so the idea of a "successful outcome" would be more realistic, like you say, find some way to leave without the whole place going down the crapper.

It seems to me that the current situation is almost a "lose" for the US, a huge drain on the US treasury, public opinion shifting against foreign deployments, and 150,000+ troops tied up in Iraq.

Looking at it from the point of view of Iran or N. Korea, the current situation is pretty good, the US government public are distracted by Iraq, and the public mood is turning against military action, if it was needed in the future (like in Korea or Iran)

I don't like the idea that because of the Iraq situation there won't be public support for future action to keep the A-bomb away from these B*****ds!

 

[plan_D]

There's no quick solution to a problem like Iraq, a steady hand-over of power to the Iraq government is the best option for success. The only alteration to the plan for me would be when the Iraqi government believes its time to run the country safely then pull the troops out of cities and into bases like the "Federal" plan but have a whole Iraqi nation, instead of trying to split it up.

In Al-Amarah the British forces knew where the HQ of the OMS was but because of politics it was impossible for them to raid the building [it was not a mosque]. This is where the problem lies, the insurgency [in Afghanistan and Iraq] need to be rid of any areas where they feel safe. The military commanders know this and it was this feeling that sent British forces into the Helmand province in Afghanistan. The Coalition (in both nations) need to constantly apply pressure to the enemy and make them constantly look over their shoulder.

I know a Para who served in Afghanistan and he informed me that the easiest way to stop the mortar attacks on their compound was to constantly patrol and harass the enemy. Even as a Para he admitted that the Royal Marines that took over their position did a better job of applying pressure and thus received less mortar attacks, the Royal Regiment (those in Sniper One) apparently sat tight in their compound and received a hammering.
I'm not saying that we should be gung-ho but I am saying that Coalition presence needs to be there all the time, making the insurgency worry.

 

[wilbur1]

too true pland

 

[ccheese]

This morning John Edwards was interviewed for Good Morning America. He said, almost in words of one syllable, that if he is elected as President of the US, within his first year he will have ALL U.S. troops OUT of Iraq, and there will be NO permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. I didn't think the GOP was thinking in this direction !

Charles

 

[Matt308]

That's because he's a Demo, Charles.

 

[ccheese]

That's because he's a Demo, Charles.

Charles

 

[renrich]

John Edwards is not only a democrat but he has no chance of being president of the US