Would This Strategy For Iraq Not Only Succeed , But Also Make A Whole Bunch Of People Happy ?

Question

How about this -- Why don't we pull our troops out of the cities and populated areas and redeploy them to various staging areas throughout the country ? Then let the Iraqis patrol their cities . Their own cities , their own 'police' . I believe their citizens would begin to respect their 'police' / military as their own . Also , if too big of a problem arose , we could be ready to respond with air power and if necessary , ground troops. . . . but just long enough to quell whatever battle was taking place . Afterwards , our troops could return to their staging areas .
We could then give an ultimatum to Iran and Syria -- " No border incursions will be tolerated , and massive retaliation would come instantly for any infractions ".
Let Iraqis patrol the main roads that have so many IED's . Let them get sick and tired of gettin blown-up . Let them feel the pain . They'll get the message in a helluva hurry .

What Do You Think ? . . . . Anything To Add ?

Marvin - Check your email. I sent one much earlier , a second about an hour ago , and a third just a minute ago .

Answer 1

I say call Dubya right away and let him know. So says Juan.

Answer 2

Sounds like what a lot of Democrats are saying.

I agree that this is better than the surge. But I have to questions the 'staging areas'. Where are they, and what's the point of them not being in the populated areas? It seems like a battle we're needed for could be over and done with before we got there.

I, for one, am more for enforcing the border, and letting the civil war play out. That way, I think Al Qaeda will have no use for Iraq and Iraq will have no use for Al Qaeda. And it will force the only happy ending I see, in splitting Iraq three ways, either as states or seperate entities.

I think the biggest thing we have to do there is stop fighting the war like it's a normal war. There's no sense in our troops being there simply to quell violence. It's only a temporary solution that gets a lot of people killed. Sure we can send more troops and have less violence, but the ultimate goal is no troops, and no violence... I think we can all agree on that.

Answer 3

Forget Iraq! #1 We won that war! In about30 minutes. #2 We offered them Liberty and Democracy. They DON"T want it! #3 Our surge, was just a trickle. We do not have enough force present or the POLITICAL will to take care of the insurgents to a point of where our soldiers won't be killed on a daily basis. #4 Bring the Troops home and prepare to kick the crap out of Iran and possibly Pakistan if they won't let us get Bin Laden. Do the 3 R's at home. Regroup, Retrain, and Resupply! Make no mistake we will have to go to war with Iran. Anyone thinking "diplomacy" will keep Iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons is asinine! Right now our presence in Iraq is only getting our young men and women killed a few each day (and it keeps adding up). I am a Rep , I am a con (very con), and I am tired of President Bush's failed strategy in Iraq. I don't hate our President like many of the libs do, I have just quit supporting his failing military and diplomatic strategies! And I don't blame him anytime it rains, or I get a headache, or my car doesn't start, etc etc!

Answer 4

I don't believe that would be the best approach. I think the US should partition Iraq into three countries; Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish. Then ethnically cleanse all three. Divide the oil fields the same way and interconnected so the Kurds would have control of the Kurdish oil fields and so on. All of this with each of the areas completely contiguous without any division at all. The Shi'ite area next to Iran, the Sunni area next to Syria, and the Kurdish area next to Turkey.
Diversity only works in the minds of Liberals.

Answer 5

"Make people happier" is as far as I would go.

The paper advocates withdrawal to border areas from which troops can be supplied or exit in relative safety , but be available for various options, including the prevention of foreign interference. Quelling battles within Iraq by its inhabitants would not be one of the options, IMO.

Apparently, you do not accept my premise, amply fortified in the paper, that Iraq is not a viable nation and must be replaced by Sunnistan, Shiastan, and Kurdistan.

My paper questions the meaning to the word "Iraqi" which implies loyalty to an entity called "Iraq", which did not exist when I was born and has always been held together by force.

I respect your reluctance to share an email address. Myself, an 84 year old WW II veteran (VII Corps, 4th Cavalry Squadron), I don't worry about anything.
After partition and peace, whenever that happens and whatever it means, I would expect complete withdrawal and concentration on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Answer 6

THC I think you might want to read some accounts of what is happening in Iraq. For example, recently a report was released that an Iraqi Captain told his men that he was a catholic. He was liked by troops under his command. The next day they stoned him to death. Police squads have been shooting sunnis in and around bagdhad, and on and on. Toppling the Hussein regime has unleashed violence among the people against the people. Imagine what inner city ethnic groups would do to rich caucasian folks, say, in NYC, if laws and conditions were removed. It would be ugly, like, Iraq.

Answer 7

I don't like that idea that much- better than what we currently have though.

how about all the troops come home. we not only reestablish the emergency group, that was disbanded, but form new groups ready to go to Iraq at a moments notice.
let the iraqis take care of themselves and if they choose to- let them break up into different parts (which we are already viewing). we can supply them with any aid they need- including weapons- but unless something dire happens we do not supply them with men.

we try to befriend iran and syria like the 9/11 comminsion suggested. we don't probably get to good terms with iran while bush is in office since he opposes this and the president of iran distrusts bush (the feeling is mutual between the two).
iran has weapons. almost the same as ours- we attack they will able to attack back and cause similair amounts of damage. you don't threaten someone who will take you up on that threat.

Answer 8

Might be a good strategy setting up mini bases around the country in less populated areas. But I would add the border to Iran as a trigger wire also.

Answer 9

Bad plan militarily. We control the cities now, if we give up our positions prematurely and the militias take them over, we will just lose more troops trying to reestablish our positions.

Answer 10

Good thinking, general. It might work but with the fact that it is a civil war all they will do is kill each other no matter what anyway. Your plan does keep us out of harms way sort of. They might find ways to get us just because we are there on our "safe little bases". To keep our people totally safe and still force the Iraqi government to do what you suggest is to bring most of them home. Leave a few advisors there for another year and then bring them home too.

Answer 11

I like it out of site out of mind, militants will have nothing to attack. It is disturbing but I agree with the "let them get sick and tired of gettin blown up" idea. what drives them now is our presence in their everyday activities. If we leave the heavily populated areas they will have to face their real threat which are the morons who are strpping the bombs to their chest's.