PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon study narrows down Iraq options A.K.A. go big, go long or go home!



Firetxmi
11-20-2006, 02:46 PM
Pentagon study narrows down Iraq options

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 9 minutes ago

A Pentagon review of Iraq has come up with three options — injecting more troops into Iraq, shrinking the force but staying longer or pulling out, The Washington Post reported Monday.

The newspaper quoted senior defense officials as dubbing the three alternatives "Go big, go long and go home."

The secret military study was commissioned by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and comes as political and military leaders struggle with how to conduct a war that is increasingly unpopular, both in the United States and in occupied Iraq.

The postelection debate over Iraq is intensifying as members of Congress from both parties pose remedies and the Bush administration hunts for answers.

Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record) of New York proposed a military draft, which the administration has repeatedly said it doesn't need.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said more troops should be sent in and that the soldiers there now are "fighting and dying for a failed policy."

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said troop withdrawals must begin within four to six months.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., calls to push Iraqi units to the front lines of Baghdad.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel."

But not all Republicans agree. Hunter, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said Monday in an interview that he wants to "Go Iraqi." Hunter says the Pentagon tells him some 114 Iraqi battalions are trained and equipped, and 27 of those units are operating in areas that see less than one attack a day.

"We need to saddle those up and deploy them to the fight" in dangerous areas, primarily in Baghdad, said Hunter, R-Calif., who hopes to run for president in 2008.

Taking a different tack, newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a phased withdrawal of American forces.

They hope a special advisory commission led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he'd like to see the commission assert that U.S. troop commitments are not open-ended; propose a clear political road map for Iraq; and recommend engaging Iraq's neighbors in a political and diplomatic solution.

The United States should "begin to let the Iraqi leadership know we're not going to be staying," he said Monday on NBC's "Today" program.

"Over the next four months let them know we're going to start to phase out, force them to have to address the central issue. That is not how to stand up Iraqis, but how to get Iraqis to stand together," Biden said.

"The idea that we're going to have 140,000 troops in Iraq this time next year is just not reasonable," he said.

McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks — in the region and possibly on American soil.

"The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us." He was referring to Osama bin-Laden and the late al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

With about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq more than 3 1/2 years into the war, the American military has strained to provide enough forces while allowing for adequate rest and retraining between deployments.

Rangel, the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Sunday "there's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft."

In a speech Monday at Baruch College, Rangel said he wants to hold hearings into current troop levels and future plans for Iraq and other potential conflict regions, noting that the administration has said more troops may be needed.

If they are, the congressman said, it is impossible not to ask where more troops would come from — making the draft an egalitarian way to meet those demands.

"If the country's in danger, everyone should share in the sacrifice," Rangel said.

Speaking with reporters afterward, Rangel said, "You cannot increase the military without raising the possibility of the draft."

He said the purpose of a hearing would be to ask questions, such as, "Mr. President, share with me what is victory, and if you have any clue what you're talking about, who is the enemy ... who do we negotiate the victory with ... who sets the agenda in the Middle East?"

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said Monday that restoring the draft will not be on that list and was not something she supported. "The speaker and I discussed scheduling and it did not include that," said her top deputy, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Rangel spoke Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week," Levin on CNN's "Late Edition," and Biden wrote in Sunday's Washington Post.


Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_14


What are your opinions?

Ghelp
11-20-2006, 02:52 PM
Send in more soldiers.There are hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Europe and Asia.Send 50-100 thousand more and have every thing on lock down.

ElHombre
11-20-2006, 02:58 PM
Go Big: With what army?

Go Long: Stay the Course renamed with the same results, more deaths just so Bush and his cronies don't have to admit error and dump the problem on the next admin.

Go Home: The only option left. I don't see the Iraqi Army being able to secure the country for the country's sake, which is what's needed. Maybe for their individual faction, perhaps, but that just leads to more sectarian violence which would catch US troops in the middle.

seraosha
11-20-2006, 03:08 PM
Go Big. Go Long

Redeployment of troops in Europe, set rotations, create incentives for Military Police enlistments (bigger bonus's/retrain/retain).

Move Iraqi forces to nearby provinces...moving them enmass will just cause desertions, as then you will see sunni companies and shia populations and vice versa (not a good idea at this stage).

Get NATO to increase force in Afganistan, while rotating those troops (after stabilization tours) to Iraq.

Aussie Sapper
11-21-2006, 12:14 AM
Go Big: With what army?

Go Long: Stay the Course renamed with the same results, more deaths just so Bush and his cronies don't have to admit error and dump the problem on the next admin.

Go Home: The only option left. I don't see the Iraqi Army being able to secure the country for the country's sake, which is what's needed. Maybe for their individual faction, perhaps, but that just leads to more sectarian violence which would catch US troops in the middle.

I share your thougts on this.

In showing my age,, I saw/heard pretty much the same in the late 60's and early 70's regarding that quaint South East Asian country (you know the one I mean). They managed to sort things out for themselves, so I guess that the Iraqi's should be able to do similar,,,ummmm maybe.

However, having said this, we must not forget one impotant aspect about all of this,, that is that 3 letter word that started this,,,OIL. I would imagine that a solution that was resolved by the Iraqi's themselves, which was not in the best interests of certain persons, would not be acceptable.

Herein lies the real "problem",, how does this sh*t all end,, with a solution that is favourable to the afforementioned persons.

If you can provide a solution for this, you are a better man than many.

Cheers mate

LRPV
11-21-2006, 12:20 AM
I share your thougts on this.

In showing my age,, I saw/heard pretty much the same in the late 60's and early 70's regarding that quaint South East Asian country (you know the one I mean). They managed to sort things out for themselves, so I guess that the Iraqi's should be able to do similar,,,ummmm maybe.

However, having said this, we must not forget one impotant aspect about all of this,, that is that 3 letter word that started this,,,OIL. I would imagine that a solution that was resolved by the Iraqi's themselves, which was not in the best interests of certain persons, would not be acceptable.

Herein lies the real "problem",, how does this sh*t all end,, with a solution that is favourable to the afforementioned persons.

If you can provide a solution for this, you are a better man than many.

Cheers mate


Nailed it!.

Without American influence over Iraqi oil reserves PNAC goes out the window.

khukuri
11-21-2006, 03:28 AM
I share your thougts on this.

In showing my age,, I saw/heard pretty much the same in the late 60's and early 70's regarding that quaint South East Asian country (you know the one I mean). They managed to sort things out for themselves, so I guess that the Iraqi's should be able to do similar,,,ummmm maybe.

However, having said this, we must not forget one impotant aspect about all of this,, that is that 3 letter word that started this,,,OIL. I would imagine that a solution that was resolved by the Iraqi's themselves, which was not in the best interests of certain persons, would not be acceptable.

Herein lies the real "problem",, how does this sh*t all end,, with a solution that is favourable to the afforementioned persons.

If you can provide a solution for this, you are a better man than many.

Cheers mate

there you go!

Hoofpic
11-21-2006, 08:31 AM
140,000 in country...25% work out of the wire...75% work in the wire..sounds like the tail is bigger than the dog...even it up 50-50 see what happens. Do this until we gather resources

Reactivate the horse.

Get more troops in-country

Bug out of Korea or send more ROK's in Iraq

Use Immigration (Mexican)...resourse thought only








Send in more soldiers.There are hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Europe and Asia.Send 50-100 thousand more and have every thing on lock down.

Clarsachier
11-21-2006, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE]In showing my age,, I saw/heard pretty much the same in the late 60's and early 70's regarding that quaint South East Asian country (you know the one I mean). They managed to sort things out for themselves, so I guess that the Iraqi's should be able to do similar,,,ummmm maybe.


Another similarity is that the false premise that,

"we have to stay the course otherwise, the country will dissolve into Kaos"

was used as an excuse to avoid withdrawal and an admission of defeat just the same as it's being employed by the U.S. admin today.

Zorro C9
11-21-2006, 10:46 AM
Maybe we can get Control in.

2Sheds_Jackson
11-21-2006, 12:57 PM
Going home is a pipe dream. We were able to leave Vietnam, because Vietnam held little strategic value, apart from it's place in the "domino" theory.

Iraq is another story. If we leave, we will be pulled back in constantly, as oil supply is disrupted, prices spike, world markets are manipulated - not to mention the prospect of oil wealth directly funding exported terrorism. We will simply not be able to tolerate what goes on there, and we will be sucked in time and again to fix whatever is broke. Unless the world ends next year, or oil suddenly has no value, or the jihadis decide to become pacifists, walking away would be a very short sighted thing to do.

giggler
11-21-2006, 02:59 PM
Go Big now then Go home by 2010 after that leave 2 armored brigades plus 3rd ACR in Kuwait ready to go aid what ever goverment thats friendly to US if they need help fast while 1000 advisors countinue to train Iraqi forces til they prove they can defend there country.

Firetxmi
11-21-2006, 08:26 PM
Going home is a pipe dream. We were able to leave Vietnam, because Vietnam held little strategic value, apart from it's place in the "domino" theory.

Iraq is another story. If we leave, we will be pulled back in constantly, as oil supply is disrupted, prices spike, world markets are manipulated - not to mention the prospect of oil wealth directly funding exported terrorism. We will simply not be able to tolerate what goes on there, and we will be sucked in time and again to fix whatever is broke. Unless the world ends next year, or oil suddenly has no value, or the jihadis decide to become pacifists, walking away would be a very short sighted thing to do.

So which of the other two options do you support? Or even better- is there a fourth option?

budgie
11-22-2006, 10:25 AM
Send in more soldiers.There are hundreds of thousands of US soldiers in Europe and Asia.Send 50-100 thousand more and have every thing on lock down.

Ditto. If they really believe an increase in troops can secure the country it will have to be a big one. The extra casualties might be a stain on the Bush presidency (as was the invasion itself) but if it acheives some progress after 3 years of deterioration it will vindicate him somewhat. The door won't hit his a$$ quite so hard on the way out.

These troops will need to be put to good use however. I propose a managed partition of the country. If the Sunnis are going to be left with the poor part, tough.

ElHombre
11-22-2006, 11:19 AM
So which of the other two options do you support? Or even better- is there a fourth option?

Any option which keeps him from facing the fact that the hippies were right all along.[/snark]

annihilation
11-22-2006, 01:38 PM
Going home is a pipe dream. We were able to leave Vietnam, because Vietnam held little strategic value, apart from it's place in the "domino" theory.

Iraq is another story. If we leave, we will be pulled back in constantly, as oil supply is disrupted, prices spike, world markets are manipulated - not to mention the prospect of oil wealth directly funding exported terrorism. We will simply not be able to tolerate what goes on there, and we will be sucked in time and again to fix whatever is broke. Unless the world ends next year, or oil suddenly has no value, or the jihadis decide to become pacifists, walking away would be a very short sighted thing to do.


How about we just take the oil? Pull back to around the oil reserves and to the kurdish regions. Sell the oil and give some of the procedes to the Kurds and the rest is used to pay our bill.

Ergnkon
11-22-2006, 04:11 PM
How about we just take the oil? Pull back to around the oil reserves and to the kurdish regions. Sell the oil and give some of the procedes to the Kurds and the rest is used to pay our bill.

That's what probably will happen at the end, but I really wonder how the oil will be sold abroad from the landlock kurdish region?

annihilation
11-22-2006, 04:51 PM
That's what probably will happen at the end, but I really wonder how the oil will be sold abroad from the landlock kurdish region?

Pipelines into turkey.

Ergnkon
11-23-2006, 07:56 AM
Pipelines into turkey.

Naah...unlikely, at least not when they're providing safehaven for the kurdish terrorists(PKK) in their territory and supplying them with the weapons US gives them.

Do you ever wonder where those Glocks US gives them disappears?

http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=552377

http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=502555

http://aafoto.anadoluajansi.com.tr/getFileServlet?sfx=2&arcId=418328

Noble713
11-23-2006, 08:50 PM
So which of the other two options do you support? Or even better- is there a fourth option?

Attempt to institute a media blackout. Sever communications not only with the outside world but within Iraq itself. Encourage Sunni-Shiite violence. Prop up the Kurds. Offer citizenship to people who serve 1 year in Iraq in ANY capacity (military, reconstruction, etc). Provide incentives for these new citizens to stay in Iraq (land grants, family subsidies, etc). The Kurds won't care as they will be basking in their near-sovereignty. The Shiites and Sunnis will hopefully be too busy butchering each other to realize that they are well on their way to becoming marginalized minorities.

Might take a few decades to achieve adequate results though, and we simply don't have the kind of money to fund such a project.

kinsella
11-23-2006, 11:19 PM
Attempt to institute a media blackout. Sever communications not only with the outside world but within Iraq itself. Encourage Sunni-Shiite violence. Prop up the Kurds. Offer citizenship to people who serve 1 year in Iraq in ANY capacity (military, reconstruction, etc). Provide incentives for these new citizens to stay in Iraq (land grants, family subsidies, etc). The Kurds won't care as they will be basking in their near-sovereignty. The Shiites and Sunnis will hopefully be too busy butchering each other to realize that they are well on their way to becoming marginalized minorities.

Might take a few decades to achieve adequate results though, and we simply don't have the kind of money to fund such a project.

really? did you leave out a sarcasm icon or something?