Can you please give me your opinion on what the US should do in Iraq, in a civil, intelligent manner?

Question

For my views on this, see the following question,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqmuVT8fHaPWJktNd4yvMwvsy6IX?qid=20070423181920AAN9gwr

...and this editorial from the LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot24apr24,1,7787320.column?ctrack=1&cset=true

Answer 1

The United States should bring the military hammer and swing hard and often. We often hear how the Israeli military is ruthless, this in my opinion we need to perform at that level. Their is nothing wrong with being ruthless in war. Another Israeli doctrine is no media, we need to do the same. Second, the country should be divided into three federations, Sunni, Shia and Kurds, in it's present state; as well as the forseeable future a United Iraq is not likely, on this same point the limits of any military power is to bring a country together when you are viewed as an occupying force. We need to conquer the offenders like Maqt Al Sadr, don't give him a pass, kick his a ss. Absolutely dominate the federation that has our greatest interests at stake. Then go to the stakeholders with our bloody knife and tell them to sit down, let's talk. Set the knife down by pulling the military back into key areas that are most meaningful to the 3 different divisions/stakeholders of Iraq. Show them that all we have to do is make a phone call, and if we have to go back in there we will show caustic military strategy. Bring in Mohammed Al Baredi, he won the Nobel Peace Prize and told the U.S. their are no weapons of mass destruction. I would have a team of civil engineers sit down with the official leadership and look at the infrastructure needs and water requirements for the 3 federated states separately, and only. Hammer out a realistic timeline to do one at a time, giving our military war machine a chance to cool down and re-group. Once we are 75% through that process we would have a regional discussion on the oil issues. I would have the stakeholders of each federation set their top 2 priorities with our active support. Then we would step back as a country and have a public discourse on the cost benefit ratio of the U.S. going any further. I would have a Gantt Chart that is a timeline and give it to the Arab neighbors and the American people through the use of the internet. I would point my biggest missle and my Grumpiest General and let them know, if you get in the way of what we are trying to do in the field, the consequences will be toxic. I would ramp up dialoge with Syria, Iran and have Jordan sit across the table along with Eygpt. I would bring the Saudi's and Russians in on the oil discussion as it relates to oil distribution. In the meantime, Syria and Iranian interests would need to be made clear along with the French. The U.S. should host a Summit meeting with all Arab States including Israel. Perhaps a team of Bill Clinton, Senior Bush and Powell along with a British contingent who can sit at the table with the Mideast's diplomatic corps. The West would drive the discussion and the Mideast makes the decisions, with our interests in consideration. At the table we discuss the U.S having a different military role in the region based on their commitment to demonstrate follow through. At that point, I think the rest could work itself out. In that context Palestine could regain a homeland. That is what I would do if I were a sitting President.

Answer 2

Not the people of any country that I am aware of, before the war, or since, but how about this what if? Let's just say for a minute that the world bank actually has control of all of the UN, and NATO nations. Maybe we really wen't it, and took Saddam out because he was standing up to them as, and wanting to remain an independant nation. I'm not quite sure detail wise how exactly it all fits, but it is something to think about. No one really has been looking at the big picture of what has been going on with the world as a whole, and piecing it all togeather, as one big thing happening to us all. I hate the thought that we might be playing the role of 1939 Germany to gain world control. Seeing where were going, and what were doing in these places makes me wonder. If so, the people of the countries doing it are getting a snowjob, and filled with propeganda (how do you feel?) just as they did then. One true fact is that history does repeat itself. Reagan came out of nowhere one day, and announced that Russia just folded Then he told the world that they would become like us. Actually I am thinking it is a meet in the middle under the table agreement, as were going into Socialism, and it's not the American people's will to do so. We are trading, and sharing all of our industrial knowledge with China right now, and they are Commies! We keep hearing that were stopping the terrorist threats. Well, umm...then why is our Mexican border something can be just walked through? A virtual fence is a virtual fence- just a line in the sand. This gets proven many hundreds of times everyday. This pretty much tells me that terrorists are not the real issue. We still have a few countries like Iran, and North Korea who aren't with the big plan. If I'm right, (hope I'm wrong) those (and a few others) will be down the road on our world tour. It would sure be a good reason to have a huge base in somewhere like...oh say Iraq.

Answer 3

The answer to your question is complex; there is no easy or ideal solution. Once you step in quicksand, there's just no way to exit easily--and Iraq is indeed quicksand. History may prove that this war represents the biggest military blunder ever. In fact, it amplifies the foresight and brilliance of Bush Sr.

When we defeated the Iraqi army and forced them out of Kuwait, everyone was up in arms--including Generals Powell and Swartzkoff. Bush was heavily criticized for not "finishing the job" by going into Baghdad. But Bush knew that to remove Saddam was a mistake. He could foresee the chaos and the fact that we would be stuck there forever.

Unlike Bush Sr., Bush Jr. made a tragic mistake. Frankly, I don't know how we gracefully exit. In a word, I think we're screwed.

Answer 4

Well, its quite complicated, becasue its turmed into such a mess. The ones that are suffering now are the poelpe, who are lacking essential services (health, housing, jobs, etc...). Therefore, I think the most sensible thing US can do is give Irak's new government a sum of money, to pay for all the damage they have done. Let them distribute it to the appopriate services and mobilize it and get out. It will even save money becasue it will not need to support an army over there. Or, US can just leave, give money, and let the UN help restore the country.

Answer 5

Very simple, lets see if the democrats plan of cut-n-run will work. We pull all of our troops back to the middle of the desert and wait. That way when the body counts rise from hundreds per day to thousands per day we can go back in and then the dems will understand that they don't know what they are talking about and finally shut up!

Answer 6

sure, here goes...i think the u.s. should immediately pull out ALL troops, put them on board carriers in the persian gulf, let the civil war go uncontrolled in order to obtain a winner, let the iranians annihilate that winner, then we go back in, annihilate the iranians and THEN install a democracy that has a chance of taking hold.

Answer 7

we need to get new people with new ideas involved as soon as possible

Force will never solve the problem, only communication between all the parties involved. All of them, even those (and especially those) we don't like!

We need a great communicator. Our current leader is a poor communicator.

Answer 8

simple, pack it up and just get out.