Your Iraq War Strategy

[scottishranger]

Post here your Iraq war strategy for success. You can either post an existing one, modify an existing one to your ideals, or post a totaly unique one. It can be as long or as short as you want it to. Your choice.

My strategy would be to split the country into 3 countries. Give the Kurds their country they have been longing for so badly, give the Sunni a country in Eastern Iraq and the Shia' get Western Iraq. Obviously this pplan has some loopholes but that could be decided later couldn't it.

Now you....

[Ahiga]

Do not split the country into three pieces (Kurds will act like Israel somewhat did, and begin to covet other lands of their homeland). Rather, as is urged by Sunnis and shi'ites, move out of 'iraq' proper, and place our permanent bases [think that's a bad idea] as well as the most of our troops in Kurdistan. Either do this during the civil war, or do it after it's calmed down enough. From Kurdistan, launch forays into Iraq proper when it is requested, but do not keep up the continual presence we have there.

[Freddie]

I think the worst mistake we made after the post invasion was abolishing the Iraqi army and police force. I would have kept them in place to hold together law and order and reformed them over time. Other then that I think all the sectarian killings were the result of pent up frustration which has been boiling up over the years and now Saddam has gone people don’t have to worry about getting gassed.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Pull all of the troops out, take a census of the people in Iraq. Deport all of those people who fill out their census. Glass the entire country. Let them return and form their government.

[sephodwyrm]

Pull all of the troops out, take a census of the people in Iraq. Deport all of those people who fill out their census. Glass the entire country. Let them return and form their government.

What a humanist!
I bet you're joking.

[VALIS]

pull the troops out and then nuke the place from afar into oblivion!




but seriously,we should..............actually, i dont know,i dont think anyone has an answer,we cant leave and we are taking many casualties a day as iraq rips itself to pieces.
we should either stick with it and take the casualties or pull out and watch as iraq becomes a new afghanistan (pre 9/11) and becomes a safe haven for islamofacist terrorists.

given the choices staying in iraq is probably the best of a bad bunch

[Sétanta]

If we were to nuke Iraq, why leave out the rest of the middle east as well? Nuke everybody but Israel and take the oil after everybody else leaves. Its all good.

Actually though, I would not do anything different. The problem with Vietnam is that we let the civilians overrule the military. Don't do that this time. If we stick it out and accept the fact that casualties are going to happen then we will win...eventually.

[Ahiga]

If we were to nuke Iraq, why leave out the rest of the middle east as well? Nuke everybody but Israel and take the oil after everybody else leaves. Its all good.

Actually though, I would not do anything different. The problem with Vietnam is that we let the civilians overrule the military. Don't do that this time. If we stick it out and accept the fact that casualties are going to happen then we will win...eventually.

Hey, don't be accused of being an anti-semite by leaving out the Jews. If we nuke the middle east, we have to nuke Israel too, or we'll be a bunch of Mel gibsons, keeping them from experiencing the thing we give all the muslims!

Staying the course is saying that we expect to bleed out the opposition before we ourselves are bled. Now, what makes us think that we have greater stamina than they do? Look at Israel and Palestine - both sides are willing to bleed until the other is bled out, and it's been going on for +50 years. I don't want my countrymen staying in Iraq for decades for the problems the Sunnis and Shi'ites have. I also don't want us to pull out until we know there is no saving it.

I'd have to ask Bush and those who support staying the course what makes them think the same policies will work, when they haven't so far? Time and time again we were told it was almost done, that the insurgency was in its death throws, and time and time again it was proven false. If what we are doing now is what we should continue doing - why haven't we seen any sign of success?

[Caelius]

Here's what i'd do:
1. Maintain force ratios even after Major Combat operations have ended (250,000 troops used in initial invasion)
2. Order the Pentagon to draw up a proper post-war reconstruction plan and deploy another 150k to the country when the war ends from bases in the Pacific and Europe without having to rely on deactivated formations from the continental US too much.
3. Make sure ALL units have proper "police action" training based from units with the most experience in it (10th Mountain, 82nd Airbourne, etc.)
4. Secure Baghdad within the first month (requires about 30k troops) and let other Coalition nations with most experience in peacekeeping really take the lead in this, putting their troops in areas with the most instability. Then gradually work a way across the rest of the country over the next year.
5. Create ID system on all residents in Baghdad that can later be implemented for the rest of the country.
6. Establish MILITARY transitional occupation authority fashioned off of MacArthur's in Post-War Japan, with the Centcom head as the leader and surrounded by an experienced staff of Americans and Iraqis who know what to do. Maybe go as far as to have the Commanding General showing his dominance over Saddam on national TV to make sure every Iraqi know specifically who's incharge, regardless of media fallout.
7. KEEP AWAY FROM ABOLISHING THE IRAQI ARMY AND POLICE!

[hellheaven1987]

Kill everything in Iraq? Then ask American immigrants move in - ancient Greek style.

[scottishranger]

Kurdistan is already basically independent, its territories do not fly the Iraqi falg, but the Kurdistan or PKK flag.

I basically agree with your post Ahiga, it seems logical and in the past(and present) the Kurds have been more than willing to work with the U.S. so I could see the plan working.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Actualy pulling the troops out might work!


You see, once the troops are out, we're no longer the occupier. Then Mr Terrorist comes out in the open. Give it a month of civil war, then sweep in again, and dominate them on our own terms. Our military was BUILT to dominate in open warfare.

[sephodwyrm]

The problem with Vietnam is that we let the civilians overrule the military. Don't do that this time.

Something new overruled the military - corporations.
Welcome to corporate Amerika.
Corporate cronies earn 5 times more money than the private doing the same things.
Soon even the military might be privatized...

[Sammur-amat]

cut the supplies, telecommunications,reserves ..everything from allies..leave them there on mercy of locals...
That should succesufully teach Us citizens to not send their offsprings into imperialistic missions away from Us soil.
The Iraqi will be just fine without Us help..certainly better without it.

[Fianóglach]

My strategy would be to split the country into 3 countries. Give the Kurds their country they have been longing for so badly, give the Sunni a country in Eastern Iraq and the Shia' get Western Iraq. Obviously this pplan has some loopholes but that could be decided later couldn't it.

Yeah partition has worked brilliantly in the past, Ireland, Palestine, India, Pakistan... What could possibly go wrong!

My Iraq strategy is to follow orders and try not to get slotted. Period.

[sephodwyrm]

For me, I would throw half a million men in Iraq when it started.

And elect another strong-armed military occupation instead of some ridiculous democratically elected government in Iraq. Impose martial law and shoot anyone that goes against curfew, and force military officers to learn Arabic and respect the Qur'an.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

My strategy would be to split the country into 3 countries. Give the Kurds their country they have been longing for so badly,

Something Turkey has already made perfectly clear they would not accept.

give the Sunni a country in Eastern Iraq

Where there's no oil. So that's something the Sunnis wouldn't accept.

... and the Shia' get Western Iraq.

Something the Saudis have already said they wouldn't accept.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

Is the question what I would do in March 2003, or what I would do now? There's a huge difference. Anyone can look back and see what we should have done (which is not to take blame off those who made mistakes, they were decisions whose answers were obvious at the time, not just in hindsight.)

So, if it were now, I would do one of two things:

1.) Determine if our national will would support sending in more troops and taking off the kid gloves. If it were, I would send in another 300,000 troops, flood the important and contested areas with them, and tell them that short of murdering innocents and using torture in interrogations, they have a free hand to crush insurgent activity. Casualties would probably be high in the short run, but if John Q. Iraqi saw that US forces are not toying around and are in strength enough to make insurgent activity difficult, he might grudgingly submit to US governance.

2.) If our national will was found to not be willing to go through with the above changes, I would withdraw all American troops at the nearest convenience, because in the present situation, they cannot defeat the insurgency and restore order. If that was going to happen, it would have already.

[hellheaven1987]

How about arm the normal citizens? Then the army would not have a tight schedule and have an excuse for not fighting.

[Crimson Scythe]

Something Turkey has already made perfectly clear they would not accept.

The knee-jerk reaction of the Turkish government to a Kurdish state is coming under control. I think many Turks accept that there will be an independent Kurdish nation in northern Iraq, sooner or later. Some, like myself, are actually for it, as I hope that the more independence-seeking Kurds in Turkey will just go there, instead of bombing civilians in Turkey. But the government concerned over the details, as am I.

First, how do you keep the independent Iraqi Kurds from trying to grab Turkish (or Iranian, or Syrian) territory, under the guise of "uniting the Kurdish people", something that would spark a major, and very bloody, war and possibly even genocide? The Kurds are the powder keg of the region. This is made even worse if the Kurds get Kirkuk and its oil reserves, which would give them the money they've always lacked. I'm just imagining the havoc an oil-funded PKK can create.

Second, how do you keep the Kurdish state stable? Kurds still have a feudal clan system (Barzani is the leader of the biggest clan in northern Iraq) and have fought each other as recently as the 1990s. Even in Turkey, where the clan system is most suppressed, there has been inter-clan violence which has resembled fighting between mafia families.

Third, where do you draw the boundries of a Kurdish state? This partly relates to my first point, but is also important within Iraq. The Kurds claim Kirkuk and Mosul, and have altered the demographics of those cities by forcing out Arabs and moving in Kurds. But there are also the 1.2-1.5 million Turkmen (often lumped into the Sunni camp, remember Adnan Pachachi?) to consider, who have lived in those cities for centuries and who are very close to the Turkish Republic, both linguistically and ideologically (they tend to be well-educated and liberal, being descended from the old Ottoman ruling and merchant classes).

Does a Kurdish state still seem like a good idea? I'm starting to doubt it just after having written this post. :hmmm: