View Poll Results: Which ISG Option Would You Choose?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Set a timetable for withdrawal

    2 10.53%
  • Enter into negotiations with Syria and Iran

    4 21.05%
  • Encourage the legal trisection of Iraq

    5 26.32%
  • Replace Prime Minister al-Maliki with a "strongman"

    0 0%
  • Other, please explain below...

    8 42.11%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Iraq: Strategic and Diplomatic Options

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Another option, but....

    I doubt my call for an Iraqi Army take over of the government will receive much support (darn it), so I pondered the situation some more. What we have here is a civil war much like Lebanon (numerous players, not just a couple of groups), and perhaps some similarities to Bosnia.

    Perhaps by the definition of insurgency, this would count as an insurgency, but let's face it the current government is unlikely to win over the support of the local populace. I agree with a previous post, it is a pretend government of sorts, only recognized outside of Iraq by the world's diplomatic corps, but not by those it governs. This leads me to my next course of action proposal. Send in a non-bias international actor to act as a peace mediator with the various groups (minus AQ) and work out a peace plan, then send in a UN force under Chpt VI to enforce it.

    The groups that won't come to the table to talk should be eradicated. We'll give them enough rope to tie Iraq together, or to hang themselves. Those that won't bargin for their representatives should be cannon floder for an IO campaign directed against them.

    We're going to have to get tougher, much tougher to defeat the various armed groups, but first we need to identify those that we can reach a political agreement with. The rest we destroy.

    While this sounds like chest thumping I admit, I am not an advocate of military action in most cases, but when it is needed, we need to lift the restrictions on fighting and allow them (us) to defeat the enemy. The alternative is to continue half stepping and dragging the Iraqi people through years of continuing misery. Cliche but true, we need to be cruel to be kind.

  2. #22
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Manhattan, KS
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Going through each option...I would elect for 2, by the way

    1. I think that setting a timetable would be problematic for us and cause greater destabilization in the region. When you set out your timetable for withdrawal, you give your opponent a timetable to cause you problems on that withdrawal. They can focus their efforts on causing maximum damage to us as we're pulling out, which is desirable for the more extreme groups.

    2. I think it might make us look bad in the short-term considering the amount of hostility we've had with Iran and Syria over the last few years, but frankly I think that Bush's whole Axis of Evil rhetoric hasn't been particularly helpful to us to begin with and has been a big part of our problem with getting the international community to buy into the GWOT and Iraq. Most of the world probably realizes that Iran and Syria aren't ideal partners politically, but I think most nations start getting twitchy when the biggest superpower starts breaking things down into "good" and "evil" and acting unilaterally. Syria and Iran are not a direct or huge threat to us militarily or economically (since we don't import Iranian oil and since Iran will realistically not develop a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping us out) so it's not necessarily a bad thing to engage them. It's their neighborhood and they would likely have a better idea of how to stabilize and proceed there. The Iranian/Syrian alliance is also in part a reaction to our presence there...if we're out of the mix it could also weaken their cooperation by removing what they perceive as a common threat. We'll also still have troops in the area with our forces in Afghanistan to deal with the Iranians if they get out of hand. And if we've made a legitimate effort to engage Iran diplomatically, it would give the international community more of an incentive to back us if military action against Iran becomes necessary because they won't see us as just trying to impose our will. Engagement may be painful in the short-term but it gives us options in the long run.

    3. I think legal trisection would open the gates for widespread ethnic cleansing in all of the territories (Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd). It already happens, and it's currently a major issue, but trying to partition the major cities in particular has the potential to create a massive humanitarian crisis that we would be blamed for (as the British often are for their partitions in colonial times). If trisection is going to be tried, it needs to be Middle Eastern countries trying it, not us.

    4. Al-Maliki is a horrible prime minister. But al-Sadr would be far, far, worse, and he's the best bet for being able to control the country (because he controls the biggest armed force and has the biggest constituency). Worst of both worlds if we install him...he'll be hostile to the U.S. and we'll likely be blamed for everything he does if we allow him to take power. Any other Shi'a we install will likely be subordinated by al-Sadr. Any Sunni we install will likely cause the government to collapse (at best) and lead to immediate civil war (at worst). The Kurds don't have enough power outside of the north to fix the situation, assuming they'd be interested in doing so. They might just let the Sunni and Shi'a fight it out. Plus Turkey would likely object to a Kurdish strongman, which means there's a good chance we'd have to go back in if Turkey were attacked by Kurdish insurgents and had to go in (being a NATO ally). There's no strongman out there who could control Iraq that we could live with...better to let the regional powers sort it out, even if that includes Iran and Syria.

  3. #23
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Lessons to be learned from other small wars?

    Someone mentioned in another thread that the SWC and SWJ seem to have a dearth of lessons from Kosovo and Bosnia, and that the current state of affairs may approximate the shaky government of Lebanon soon.

    With regard to Lebanon's history of governance (and realizing that 1:1 parallels are difficult due to the ethnic/religious terrain), are there any lessons we can gleam from that past, in order to find a way ahead in Iraq?

    More importantly, are there any academics or policy-makers looking at the history of Lebanon for rudder steer? Can we focus our deliberations on strategic and diplomatic options by looking at what worked or didn't work there?

    Both Syria and Iran have a stake in Iraq, and although it is not necessarily the same stake they had/have in Lebanon, can we build a model of likely responses to our moves (wargaming if you will) by analysing that country's past?

  4. #24
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Lebanon

    JC

    Dave mentioned Bosnia and Kosovo; I surfaced Lebanon as the most relevant war (over Vietnam) to Iraq.

    The parallels are very close; the ethnic carpet is there although the Christian segment is larger.

    The role of Hizballah and Nasrallah compared to Muqtada al-sadr and his militia is eeerily close as well as their relations with Iran. The inability of the IDF to pound Hizballah out of existence is well documented; the parallels to dealing with Sadr should be evident.

    The roles of Syria and Iran as spoilers and manipulators are nearly identical, especially when examined in the light of Israeli inability to check those activities.

    Best

    Tom
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 12-01-2006 at 02:51 PM.

  5. #25
    Registered User JP0302's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Good day,
    this is my first post, so I would like to say hello to everyone first.

    I voted other.
    After looking at a couple of the options for while I couldn't decide. Partioning Irak in 3 has been a favorite of mine for a while. They seem to hate eachother more than they hate israel and the US together, but it is not practical. There would have to be massive, forced re-allocations.
    The timetable is completely out of question for me, setting one would just allow the insurgents to bed down and wait.
    To negotiate with syria and iran, that at first glance seems very logical, but if you consider that they support, train and equip the insurgency in irak I doubt it would work. Second, iran has been trying to be the big brother in the middle east, with the support they give the insurgency it's very easy for them to stop it, if they do it they will be looked upon by the whole middle east as the saviors of irak, which is exactly what they want. We can't give the chance to be that.
    A couple of pages back Jimbo wrote about isolating certain cities, I agree, but more importantly we need to isolate irak. We need to secure those borders with syria and iran to prevent the assistance to the insurgents, cut it off before it even gets there. After you'.ve secured the access to irak from those 2 countries, work your way inward. I know, a hell of a lot easier said than done.

    Joe

  6. #26
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Maybe Afghanistan has closer parallels than even Lebanon. We are an occupying force supporting a wobbly government, we refer to insurgents as the "muj" anyway, and the bad guys seem to be adept at kicking us where it hurts.

    They aren't heavy blows mind you, but a sort of death-by-a-thousand-cuts that ultimately results in withdrawal. They have to time, as did their neighbors to the east.

  7. #27
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Study Group to Call for Pullback

    30 November Washington Post - Study Group to Call for Pullback by Thomas Ricks and Robin Wright.

    The Iraq Study Group, which wrapped up eight months of deliberations yesterday, has reached a consensus and will call for a major withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, shifting the U.S. role from combat to support and advising, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

    But the recommendation includes a series of conditions and qualifications that would govern any drawdown of forces, the source said. "It describes a process by which combat brigades could be pulled out, but there wasn't a specific timetable on it," he said. The source demanded anonymity because members of the bipartisan panel have been pledged to secrecy until the report is officially issued Dec. 6...
    30 November Washington Times - Joint Chiefs Oppose Iraq Pullout by Rowan Scarborough.

    All six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, amid an ongoing Pentagon review of strategy for Iraq, oppose pulling out U.S. troops now, and are also against a specific withdrawal timetable, a defense source said yesterday...

    The Joint Chiefs -- which includes Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman, along with a vice chairman and the heads of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy -- have been meeting several times a week to review a list of Iraq options for President Bush...

  8. #28
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Diplomacy, War, and Communications

    Folks,

    I would indeed push for more comms with Syria and Iran--both open and behind closed doors. In keeping with the old advice keep your friends close and your enemies closer, communications with all parties, regardless of agenda, is basic diplomacy 101 and should be part of warfighting 401.

    The worst thing you can do (to your own interests) is paint the opponent into a corner where his only option is to fight to the death. In some cases that is unavoidable and in some cases the opponent does it for you.

    Rhetoric on either (or all) side is part of the equation; using simple rhetoric often traps the speaker in a position, especially Western speakers because of credibilty with the audience.

    Bottom line: don't nail communications doors shut. Sooner or later you will have to reopen them.

    Best

    Tom

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1

    Question Second and Third Order of Effects

    Pulling out is an option but what are the second and third order of effects? Who will fill the void, the Iraqi Army, Iran, or Saudi Arabia? We need to make sure we make the right decision this time or we will pay for it long after we leave.

  10. #30
    Council Member SSG Rock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    125

    Default

    If we leave the region will deteriorate from chaos to regional war IMO. Saudi Arabia is not about to stand for Iran dominating the region and will oppose any move to consolidate power with the Iraqi Shia. In fact, with SA already pumping money to the Sunni in Iraq, if we leave, they will probably send in troops. It is my understanding that they have already begun building 75 miles of new paved road heading toward Iran. That would be for transporting military equipment no doubt. I just googeld this up.

    Looks like the goalposts are moving on us again. This just keeps getting worse and worse. Now what?
    Don't taze me bro!

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Checkmate

    It is immoral if we pull out and it is immoral if we stay. It is a classic checkmate that we stumbled into with our eyes wide open. I tend to agree with Rock, that when we pull out, the region will probably get drug into a war of some sort over Iraq, whether it fought through surrogates or actually state on state, but does that mean we should stay there with no feasible military objective other than preventing a regional conflict? That gets expensive in many ways.

    Is a regional conflict really a negative? Could a regional conflict be shaped to our liking?

    It is time to start exploring these questions seriously.

  12. #32
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Ex Speaker of the House on Fox

    I caught the tail end of Newt Gingrich on FOX news tonight (channel hopping, I normally don't watch Fox), and he was being challenged about the will and ability of the Iraqi military to fight. Newt said that the positive indicator of 50 recruits getting killed in a suicide bombing (I'm paraphrasing) was that there were 50 recruits signing up to fight for their country.

    I wonder if they are signing up to fight for their country, or signing up for work in most cases due to the high unemployment? Some could be signing up to get the training, then go back to their militia, etc. However, if he is correct that recruits are lining up to protect Iraq (not a sub-tribe) then that would be a good news story.

  13. #33
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Recruits lining up have been a prime target for years. They clean up the mess and get right back in line. The Iraqi government is having the same problem as all other types of wars like this one. The security forces are taking in bad elements. But I doubt the lines that are getting attacked are the ones with these bad elements. As for why they wait in these lines? I imagine it is for the same reasons our own servicemen join the military or take on a job in law enforcement. The reasons are a varied multitude. In Iraq, wouldn't you assume they are getting in line for security? As for the media, good news is no news. Most media elites loath the military and think that most people can care less about patriotic Iraqis. I have not seen any of these cowards approach one of these lines and ask people why they are standing there. They sit on their asses in safer waters and take in hearsay and half-truths without any verification. This is why the Iraqi government has set up a new arm of government to rightly force the media to file retractions for made up stories. Like the one about six Sunnis being drug out of a mosque and set on fire while still alive while security forces just stood by. There is no truth to that entire report and the AP, for example, doesn't have to retract it.
    Last edited by Culpeper; 12-02-2006 at 11:40 PM. Reason: spelling

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •