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.
