(b) arm the Shiites with tanks and other heavy armor

WTF ?

Seems to me that the steps are intended to be taken concurrently.

arm the Shiites with tanks and other heavy armor (minimum 8 months),

Not a bad idea. Siding with the Shiites is a good idea because it will end the sectarian conflict quickly. The Sunni terrorists will know their jig is up with America and the Shiites destroying them at will.

I don't know what Hundt meant, but doing them more or less simultaneously sounds reasonable to me. That is, doing a (negotiate), while announcing the imminence of b (arm the Shiites, though I'd say "central government") and d (begin withdrawal) to concentrate the minds of the negotiators with c (confederation) as the goal; begin withdrawal in 6 mos and begin e (dismantling greenzone and McBases) early in 2008. That way we weill be mostly on our way out when Bush leaves.

This requires that along with the conference in a we also seriously address the Palestine-Israel issues and get the Saudis to share some oil revenue with the Sunni to keep them viable.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Cleek.

As for this limp and idiotic mish-mash raising centrism's stock, it certainly does so in the sense that it strongly reinforces the accurate perception that centrism is impotent, useless and dangerously deluded.

It's not entirely clear to me that Hundt intends this to be his actual proposal, just one more sensible than Friedman's, in that it has specific steps with detailed time estimates. I read his piece as more an attack on Friedman for serving up the appetizer for future Republican rhetoric than his own attempt to propose a substantive solution.

Any plan which leaves Al Queda operating in Iraq is suicidal.
Posted by: We got to move these refrigerators on November 30, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Any plan which eradicates Al Qaeda from Iraq will kill a large number of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Oops - I guess we have a choice; suicide or genocide.

Don't y'all just LOVE False Dilemmas?

****

Anyway for the serious discussion:
Arm the Shiites? Please. They're already armed. How about what I suggested 2 years ago:
Put the Sunnis on busses, and send them to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Because our choices right now seem to be between letting the Shiites kill all of the Sunnis (insurgents and non-insurgents) quickly, or letting the Shiites kill all of the Sunnis slowly.

Why is there no discussion about *saving* the Sunnis? They're not ALL insurgents.

Only five steps?

I believe we need a Twelve Step program for withdrawing and withdrawels from Iraq.

Aside from the question of how long it would take, this is idiotic on the substance. (a) and (b) are utterly at odds with each other, and his putting them together suggests he understands nothing of what is going on in Iraq.

Hello, my name is the United States of America, and I'm a recovering nation invader.

I think Friedman is just a panty waste. We need 15 million troops and to be there for 1000 years, and a pony. Anyone who proposes any less underestimates the importance of the task and lacks the will to see it through.

The Iraqis no longer care what the US will do. They are preparing to force the US out.

Whether the US withdraws right away or waits until it is annihilated by Iraqis, the outcome for the people of Iraq will be the same: civil war. A good outcome for the US soldiers, though, can be assured with withdrawal now. If not, a fighting retreat out of Iraq is in their futures.

Am I reading this wrong?

Quite. As penalcolony notes, none of those steps depend on each other as prerequisites, they are instead parallel tracks; the first withdrawal (of half the US forces) would be complete within a year [point (d)], at which point everything else except the complete withdrawal [point (e)] woudl also already be completed, if each process took the minimum estimated time, and the remaining withdrawal would take place over another year (again, assuming the minimum time).

There are all kinds of legitimate criticisms to level at this plan, but you've started in completely the wrong place.

I've read that it's the Sunnis who will easily take out the Shi'a when the US leaves. Better armed, better trained.

We need 15 million troops and to be there for 1000 years, and a pony. Anyone who proposes any less underestimates the importance of the task and lacks the will to see it through.

That's loser talk. I say 30 million troops, 2,000 years and TWO ponies -- or don't you have the guts for it?

Whether the US withdraws right away or waits until it is annihilated by Iraqis, .....
Posted by: Hostile on November 30, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Just knock it off, Hostile, okay?

We all know that despite the US's troop-strength shortcomings, any large scale engagements are going to be rapidly dealt with via air power. So this "US troops being wiped out" fantasy just ain't gonna happen. The US has air supremecy, the Iraqis don't even have primitive air defenses. Any group of insurgents who get together in numbers larger than 10, or drive any vehicle more substantial than a pickup-truck with a machine gun in back, is going to get destroyed.

That doesn't mean that the US can completely stop all insurgent activity - but they're certainly not an existential threat to either US presence, or the operation of the Iraqi government.

Though I could see successful strikes against the Green Zone in the future - it seems to be escalating in that direction.

But Stefan, all the ponies have been radicalized and joined militias. Two of 'em would be real trouble.

I'm sure some brilliant progressive (and aren't you all?) can explain this to me:

-- Syria has been a conduit and supporter for Sunni factions fighting in Iraq, funneling men, money and weapons to jihadis and Ba'athists.

-- Iran has been a conduit and support for Shi'a factions fighting in Iraq, funneling men, money and weapons to Sadirists.

The question: why on earth would anyone, let alone the Baker Commission, think that asking Syria and Iran to 'help us' achieve peace in Iraq is a good idea? The two countries have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure we fail in Iraq. They have no interest in 'peace' whatsoever; they have far different goals that require a failed Iraq.

These reports, if true, are handing to the foxes the keys to the henhouse.

Perhaps Kevin could address this, since he certainly seems to be in favor of 'negotiating' with Iran and Syria.

Boronx,

Yes, you hear both arguments being made, but my sense is that those who think the Shia will quickly take down the Sunnis seem to be much less familiar with military matters than those who think the Sunnis will quickly take down the Shia. Not that this proves anything, but its my sense that those thinking the Shia will quickly surpress the Sunnis are just assuming that superior numbers equals superior military capacity. In any event, I think both groups of commentators are being too optimistic, and that a civil war would drag on for at least a decade.

That said, Reed seems clearly to be in the "Sunnis will take out the Shia" camp, which is why he wants to make sure the Shia have sufficient heavy weapons that the Sunnis have less reason to believe they could quickly take over following a US withdrawl, such that they will then ingenuously engage in negotiations. I agree with someone above (Jeff?) that arming the central gov't (assuming that's what he means by Shia) with heavy weapons makes Saudi, Syrian, and Jordanian (helpful) participation rather unlikely. Same goes for Turkey if we're supplying the Kurds with tanks.

"Arm the Shiites with tanks and other heavy armor (minimum 8 months)"

Yes, a better armed Sadr is exactly what Iraq needs. Freedom fries for all!

Well, they didn't close campus today even though we had an ice storm yesterday and a snowstorm is moving in, so I have to go out and the cold. Damn my responsible side! I mean really - if there are three class periods left, and they don't have it yet, are they really going to get it in 3 hours and 45 minutes more?

Back later. Scarf? check. Mittens? check. Quad shot espresso with plenty o' Baileys? check.

>>just a panty waste

No, That's Britney Spears...ahem.

Pantywaist.

To slightly paraphrase Keven Costner in Bull Durham:

Know your homonyms. Homonyms are your friends

albot: (I know, probably a parody, but wingnuts likely agree with the sentiment) The Sunni terrorists will know their jig is up with America and the Shiites destroying them at will.

someone else: Why is there no discussion about *saving* the Sunnis? They're not ALL insurgents.

There is some discussion about saving the Sunnis. It's taking place in Saudi Arabia. Read the editorial by Nawaf Obaid in yesterday's WaPo.

Steve White: Syria has been a conduit and supporter for Sunni factions fighting in Iraq, funneling men, money and weapons to jihadis and Ba'athists.

Is that right, Steve? I was under the impression that the current government of Asad consists of Alawi Shias. Why would Shias be arming Sunnis? Oh, wait, they're Ba'athists, right?

More on Iran as a force for peace in Iraq.

Yes, a better armed Sadr is exactly what Iraq needs.

Presumably, he was referring to the other Shi'ites. Or perhaps didn't realize that not all Shi'ites are part of a homogenous group.

A sensible withdrawal will include addressing the insecurity and instability created by poverty and hunger. According to the Borgen Project, poverty and hunger create a threat to our national security by increasing instability. The UN Millennium Development Goals contains a set of guidelines that address all aspects of poverty and hunger and achieving the MDGs will improve global security.

That doesn't mean that the US can completely stop all insurgent activity - but they're certainly not an existential threat to either US presence, or the operation of the Iraqi government.

They are certainly a threat to the ability of the Iraqi government to effectively exercise soveriegnty, though certainly, as long as the US is there, the "government" can continue to pretend to be relevant.

And while they aren't an existential threat to US presence, they are capable of denying the US the ability to acheive any productive outcome with that presence. The US can stay and sacrifice soldiers, though, as long as it has the stomach for it.

Golly!! Iran is supporting training of Shia groups is Iraq?! And arming them?? OMG. Who would have thought that?

This from an article written by Larry Johnson and Pat Lang in August of 2005:

"FACT 1: Iran is well on its way to achieving de facto control of significant portions of Iraq. Tehran is backing shia cleric, Ali Sistani (a Persian, not an Arab) and Muqtada al Sadr. The Iranians are funneling money and training to supporters inside Iraq. The Iraqi shia control the political process and comprise the majority of the security forces that are deployed and operating with any effect in Iraq. The Iranian leaders and their Iraqi shia counterparts privately must wonder at their good fortune and can only conclude that God (Allah) is really on their side. Where they failed to dislodge Saddam Hussein during a bloody 8 year war that left Iran with more than a million casualties (in fact, Iraq defeated Iran) the Iranian leaders now have their supporters and agents occupying key political positions in Iraq. Best of all, the United States, which had backed Saddam during the first Gulf War, did the dirty work and deposed the Baath party, the Sunni leadership, and Saddam. Iran did not sit by passively watching the change, they jumped into the fray and helped the Shia in Iraq seize the reins of power thru the ballot box."

Think that some of this current reporting might be softening up the gullible populace in order to justify an attack on Iran? Hmmm?

Wonderin writes, I was under the impression that the current government of Asad consists of Alawi Shias. Why would Shias be arming Sunnis? Oh, wait, they're Ba'athists, right?

Well yes, they are Ba'athists. But you've got a couple other things wrong.

First, the Alawites are not Shi'a. They are a separate sect and an offshoot from the Shi'a from the ninth century (see Wikipedia for more). Many Sunnis consider them apostates and non-believers, and that's a problem for Mr. Assad: his country is 85% Sunni. He and his father maintained control by implementing a ruthless police state using Alawites in key positions (because they could be trusted) and using the Ba'athist political philosophy as one of the bedrocks of the state. Syria is one of the better definitions of a thug-police state today.

And that's why Assad wants a democratic Iraq to fail; he sees it (correctly) as a major threat to his continued rule.

Second, you've missed the link between Syria and Iran: the former derives much financial and diplomatic support from the latter, and Syria is very much a client state of Iran. This originally came from their mutual loathing of Saddam; but it also has roots in their desires for Lebanon and the dependence the Syrians have (since they're pretty much friendless otherwise) on Iran.

So even if the Syrians didn't see Iraq as important, the Iranians would make sure of their cooperation on destabilizing Iraq.

So Syria has several reasons for ensuring a failure in Iraq. That's why 'asking' them to 'help' with the 'peace' seems idiotic.

Wonderin: your noting of the Johnson and Lang piece might well be used to justify an attack on Iran. I dunno, I don't see that coming.

However, the piece is also excellent support for why we shouldn't trust Iran to 'help' with the plan for 'peace' in Iraq. Thanks for providing the reference.

Correction: it's the Johnon piece, not Wonderin's noting of it. Typing too quickly here.

"Where they failed to dislodge Saddam Hussein during a bloody 8 year war that left Iran with more than a million casualties (in fact, Iraq defeated Iran)"

Didn't Iraq invade Iran in that war?

Just knock it off, Hostile, okay?

Hostile is basically the leftwing version of Al, and should be taken just as seriously.

So what are the options?

1)Continued indefinite US presence in Iraq:
----upside: short term overall decrease in violence and *some* protection of each faction from attacks from the other. Diplomatically, shows the region that we have the stomach for finishing what we start.
----Downside: politically unpalatable by American and Iraqi populations. Innumerable american military casualties. Incalculable $$$ cost to taxpayers.

2)Immediate withdrawl:
----Upside: American casualties end. Cost to taxpayers end.
----Downside: immediate increase in sectarian violence and Iraqi civilian casualties as both sides fight for control of the country with an Iraqi military unable to secure the country. (however, long-term there *might be* fewer casualties) Diplomatic blow to US military prestige *could* embloden other militant groups to carry out attacks against the US. Weak Iraq unable to fend off potential aggression from neighbors, particularly Iran.

3)Phased withdrawl:
----upside: Iraq given a chance to gain stable government and military sufficient to protect its borders and police its own civil war. Some "face-saving" done politically as the US will leave the country in less of a shambles than it might have.
----downside: additional US casualties, ongoing sectarian violence, perhaps prolonging it, and continued expense to taxpayers.

....................................

Nice post Steve White.

We have already spent over $300 billion on this war of terror. According to the Borgen Project--if we had applied those funds, and all future funds headed for Iraq, to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals...we could have eradicated extreme poverty around the world.

Whenever anyone tells you "back the Shiites", ask them which Shiites, as there are at least three factions (SCIRI, Dawa, and the Sadrists), and Juan Cole says that the Sadr people are, in turn, divided into three sub-factions, two of which aren't taking instructions from Moqtata al-Sadr any more.

Some Shiites are pro-Iranian; others are nationalist and reject Iranian influence. Give these guys tanks to fight to Sunnis and they'll soon turn on each other.

"(e)commit to a total withdrawal including a dismantling of the astonishingly large Green Zone and airfield facilities (24 months minimum and not capable of being precisely defined)."

Of course, any "sensible" widthrawl plan should keep the door open for perpetual occupation. What is a centrist if not accomodating?

Ah, but Reed is already too late. We don't need a Dem withdrawal plan after all.

Bush has just set a timetable, oops, ah, I mean a benchmark of June of 07 to get out of Iraq.

It's all going to be Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fault if things go badly in Iraq from now on out. The all powerful Bush has spoken, but maybe Dems aren't reading the lastest news flashes out of Jordan yet. Bush didn't blame the Dems after all, he blamed the Iraqi PM. Maliki takes full responsibility for Bush's graceless exit strategy.

This give Repugs a year to get ready for 08.

Steve White, you claim that Syria is a client state of Iran. Then why do you also accuse Syria of supporting Ba'athists and Sunni extemists in Iraq? Seems counter-intuitive, no?

Secondly, Alawites are indeed Shia. The scholar Juan Cole has referred to them as the "esoteric Shiite Alawite sect." Thus, if support for Sunnis in Iraq is coming from Syria, it is coming from sources other than the leadership.

Syria is 75% Sunni. The leadership is clearly secular Arab nationalist, but with a nominal Shiite Alawite sheen.

The two countries have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure we fail in Iraq.

But not half so hard as Bush has been.

Any bets that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will be living in Hawaii in 08? Perhaps right next door to Imelda Marcos and her many, many shoes.

Josh Marshall was right, Bush washed his hands of the whole Iraqi issue. I can only wonder what Jordan's King Abdullah thinks of Bush right now.

There is NOTHING sensible about Iraq!

the great thing about friedman trying to establish the 10 year marker is that insanity like 5 years will look reasonable. the whole Iraq discussion has devolved to lunacy.
.

Hi Frequency. I still have that list of permalinks of your oh-so-accurate election predictions. Shall I fetch it?

Or you could just STFU, since you've been wrong about everything thus far, and stop ascribing motives to people who are differently allied politically than you are. We are Americans too, and just as concerned about our country as you lot pretend to be. We did not chose to cast you as our enemy, but you and your leaders willingly ascribed that role to us.

Knock it off, 'kay?

The LA TIMES wonders:

White House officials spent the day on the defensive, insisting they had faith in Maliki despite the harsh content of the leaked memo and struggling to explain why a meeting that had been on the president's calendar for days was suddenly scrubbed.

Senior Bush aides offered at least four explanations for the cancellation — finally dispatching a more junior official to tell reporters late Wednesday that Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II had decided mutually that a three-way conversation was not necessary.

...but, but Bush went from "we're not leaving the till job is done" to an astonishing switch of "come June 07, we're out of Iraq."

Must have been a late breaking stare decisis from Chief Justice James Baker III of Poppy's court, it over-turned the Dick Cheney "decider" doctrine. It makes me wonder if Dick Cheney is bound and gagged somewhere in a dark corner of the Whitehouse basement.

any large scale engagements are going to be rapidly dealt with via air power.

Steve Gilliard has done some interesting stories about how the insurgents can engage and destroy the Green Zone despite the US' formidible air power. When the supply lines are cut off the US will have to make a forced retreat into Kuwait. Air power will not save everyone. And then Iraq will be right where it would be if we had withdrawn while we had the chance.

One other thing, insurgents probably shot down an F-16 earlier this week while it was engaged in combat support. That should be a warning to our troops and their supporters.

if Dick Cheney is bound and gagged somewhere in a dark corner of the Whitehouse basement.

Make that a ball-gag. And bring on Zed and the Gimp.

A good reason why Americans have found themselves bogged down in Iraq is that, like dimwits such as Steve White, they are now trying to understand Middle East dymanics from wikipedia

I've got a better idea - since Americans are so competitive and sports-oriented, let's make getting out of Iraq a race. Have a designated time and have every platoon race to the border with either Kuwait or Jordan. First platoon to the border gets a free IPod with Bush's favorite country and western songs.

Let's get the f*ck out of there as fast as we can!!!

Air Power Fallcy

From: here on 6/26/06, via The News Blog.

Abandoned On The Killing Fields - No Medevac Coming

...The MEDIVAC was denied because we could not guarantee the LZ was not hot. Even with the QRF securing the area, the MEDIVAC was not launched. We were told we had to transport the severely wounded soldier and interpreter back to the FOB, have the aid station stabilize them and the MEDIVAC would then fly to the FOB to pick them up. To complicate matters the QRF did not have an ambulance with them, because the medical until will not roll any of the 20 odd HUMVEE and M113 combat ambulances with the QRF because it is too dangerous outside the FOB.

But the Gimp's sleeping.

And Zed's dead.

Hostile is basically the leftwing version of Al

OUCH!

Botecelli, I provided the Wiki reference as a courtesy to Wonderin. There's plenty written about the Alawite sect out there if you want to find it.

Wonderin writes:

Steve White, you claim that Syria is a client state of Iran. Then why do you also accuse Syria of supporting Ba'athists and Sunni extemists in Iraq? Seems counter-intuitive, no?

Not at all. The Syrians are playing this both ways. The overall goal is to ensure that a democratic Iraq doesn't emerge. That's the primary goal of both Syria and Iran. Supporting both sets of thugs, Sunni and Shi'a, is useful to achieve that end.

Second, Syria has a large Sunni majority. Helping the Sunni thugs in Iraq keeps them happy. And more than a few Syrian Sunnis have been captured and killed in Iraq.

Secondly, Alawites are indeed Shia. The scholar Juan Cole has referred to them as the "esoteric Shiite Alawite sect." Thus, if support for Sunnis in Iraq is coming from Syria, it is coming from sources other than the leadership.

With respect to Mr. Cole, most Shi'a don't consider the Alawites to be Shi'a, and many of them don't even consider the Alawites to be Muslim. The Assad family was quite scared of that and spent some time, in the 1970s and 80s, trying to get Muslim scholars to bless the Alawites as Muslim, and with mixed success.

Again, look to the overall goals of Syria. A democratic Iraq is a clear threat to it. The leadership there will do whatever it takes to subvert Iraq. Asking them to 'help' in the 'peace' process to 'stabilize' Iraq guarantees failure. Ditto for Iran.

That's the point. Again, I'm hoping someone will explain to me why the progressive community would want these countries to 'help'.

The 101st keyboarders are almost ready to go. Another 2-3 years and they will swarm the insurgents and bring democracy, Christianity and poines to the Iraqi masses.

And ponies, too (*grin*).

Why would a democratic Iraq be a threat to Iran? Iraq's current government is democraticaly elected and the major blocks, the Dawi and Sadr faction, are on very friendly terms with Iran.

Any bets that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will be living in Hawaii in 08?

I wouldn't bet any money that Nuri al-Maliki is living in 2008, but if he is, Hawai'i is as likely a spot as any, and more than some.

I would think an Arizona climate would be more agreeable to Mr. Maliki, but Hawaii is nice too.

Again, I'm hoping someone will explain to me why the progressive community would want these countries to 'help'.

Because it's better than wanting these countries to 'hinder.'

Besides, it's no longer a question of what we or anyone in the US wants -- it's a question of what's going to happen, with or without our participation. Every day the US is losing legitimacy, credibility, and influence in Iraq, and there's precious little we can do to stop it, even with outside help.

"I'm sure some brilliant progressive (and aren't you all?) can explain this to me:

* * *

"[W]hy on earth would anyone, let alone the Baker Commission, think that asking Syria and Iran to 'help us' achieve peace in Iraq is a good idea? The two countries have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure we fail in Iraq."

Which, of course, is why it would be important to ask (or more likely, bargain for) their help. How do you expect to change the situation in Iraq if you will only negotiate wtih those who support us already?

And OF COURSE, enlisting the aid of Iran and Syria is not a plan with a high likelihood of success. There are NO possible plans with high likelihoods of success at this point, unless you have a time machine and can prevent GWB's parents from meeting each other.

Why would a democratic Iraq be a threat to Iran?

A popular democratic regime with a large Shi'a population that was home to the historical Shi'a sites would be a political rival for leadership of the Shi'a community and would, if theocratic, also be a religious rival for authority with the Iranian theocrats and, if not a theocratic state, would no doubt be home to religious authorities that would be an alternative and often conflicting source of religious authority to that of the Iranian theocrats.

Plus, there is, as I understand, considerable Arab/Persian ethnic enmity such that any strong, stable Iraq is likely to be something of a problem or challenge for Iran, at least in the short-run.

Bush legacy

allowed 9/11
allowed Katrina
occupied Iraq illegally and stupidly
refused to leave Iraq when it could
got it's butt kicked while leaving Iraq
said, "Bring it on!" and "Mission Accomplished"

probably impeached, convicted, jailed for refusing to learn from mistakes and to behave well

It's been a disaster from the time Scalia justified not counting votes in Florida 2000.

I guess I fall for Dubya bait and switch talk againr about withdrawal. Froomkins says Bush ISN'T withdrawing and it's still "stay the course."

And Froomkin says Mr. Maliki stood Bush up, and that is why the meeting didn't take place as expected.

Nothing new yet, Baker commission has been a waste of money and time.

And Froomkin has this:

Andy Bromage writes in the New Haven Advocate on a study by Christopher Lohse, a social work master's student at Southern Connecticut State University, who "says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years. . . .

"Lohse's study . . . found a correlation between the severity of a person's psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush."

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电

joe buck wrote:

"Some Shiites are pro-Iranian; others are nationalist and reject Iranian influence. Give these guys tanks to fight to Sunnis and they'll soon turn on each other."
_________________

Which is why they don't have much armor now.

However, the long term plan for Iraq without an American presence must include plans for giving the Iraqis both armor and artillery. Otherwise, their national army will be incapable of withstanding a coup de main from an outside enemy. For that matter, we also have to train and equip a reasonable logistics corps. Their air force also needs to be expanded.

The Iraqis still have no civil aviation authority, either. Control of all air traffic in Iraq is done by Americans. All these things are going to take a while.

However, the long term plan for Iraq without an American presence must include plans for giving the Iraqis both armor and artillery. Otherwise, their national army will be incapable of withstanding a coup de main from an outside enemy. For that matter, we also have to train and equip a reasonable logistics corps. Their air force also needs to be expanded.

How are you going to do that when they can't even field a single battalion of troops to fight the insurgency on its own?

How are you going to do that when they can't screen out the insurgents and the militia members who have heavily infiltrated the Iraqi security forces?

Something like 70% of the Iraqi police is infiltrated by members of the various militias--you think you're going to build a sustainable force out of that?

And here's a news flash, genius, insurgents and those who would attempt a "coup de main" by infiltrating into the country aren't really going to be deterred by artillery, logistics or a professional air force.

I would guess that this is the kind of thinking that leaves us with what we have right now--a spiralling out of control situation that we are not equipped to deal with and a military culture that is still trying to fight World War III in the Fulda Gap against mechanized Soviet units.

Unbelievable! Haven't you learned anything at all about Fourth Generation Warfare?

Apparently not.

Fine--build a robust Iraqi logistics corps. See where that gets you.

hostile wrote:

"Steve Gilliard has done some interesting stories about how the insurgents can engage and destroy the Green Zone despite the US' formidible air power. When the supply lines are cut off the US will have to make a forced retreat into Kuwait. Air power will not save everyone. And then Iraq will be right where it would be if we had withdrawn while we had the chance.

One other thing, insurgents probably shot down an F-16 earlier this week while it was engaged in combat support. That should be a warning to our troops and their supporters."
____________________

Hostile, there are attacks on convoys every day, but they seldom succeed in halting any convoy. You are also forgetting our ability to resupply by air.

The F-16CG lost the other day was probably performing night reconnaisance as it was equipped with the LANTIRN system. It was far more likely brought down by a mechanical malfunction. The fact that the cockpit canopy was shown to be intact on the ground means the pilot probably made a controlled ejection.

The fact that the cockpit canopy was shown to be intact on the ground means the pilot probably made a controlled ejection.

Actually, he didn't. And the Iraqis took the pilots' remains before the rescue and retrieval forces could arrive.

pale rider wrote:

"And here's a news flash, genius, insurgents and those who would attempt a "coup de main" by infiltrating into the country aren't really going to be deterred by artillery, logistics or a professional air force."
__________________

PR, insurgents cannot perform coups de main, they aren't equipped for it. It is a conventional technique, such as was used by Giap to take South Vietnam. Please note all that means is that the Sunni or Al Qaeda insurgents cannot forcibly conquer the country while the army remains loyal to the Iraqi government. (They can disrupt things plenty but they cannot take over the place.) It does not mean that the Iraqi government cannot be suborned by the Shiites.

Regardless of the state of the current army, you can bet that the Iraqi government knows that its military lacks most of what it needs to defend itself from outside attack. And a robust logistics structure is necessary to maintain any force in the field, regardless of who they are fighting. The Iraqis are still far too reliant upon our logistics right now.

It doesn't take a genius to know these things, just someone who pays attention.

pale rider wrote:

"Actually, he didn't [eject]. And the Iraqis took the pilots' remains before the rescue and retrieval forces could arrive."
________________

PR, I'd heard that the insurgents took the body. But I hadn't read anything about whether he had ejected or not. Can you point me toward a source for that? (That canopy is very strong evidence that ejection was initiated, even if it was unsuccessful.)

Looks like I was wrong about the night recce part of my guess about the lost F-16. But it also looks like the pilot attempted to eject. From the Army Times:

"The jet crashed at 1:35 p.m. Monday local time about 20 miles northwest of Baghdad while participating in air and ground combat operations, the statement from CentAF said.

Coalition reconnaissance and fighter aircraft were overhead when the crash occurred and confirmed that insurgents were near the crash site immediately following the impact, the Air Force said. As soon as the extensive ground combat operations in the area ended Monday, ground forces secured the crash scene.

Before U.S. teams arrived, Iraqi photographers were at the crash site. Videotape pictures obtained by Associated Press Television News appear to show the wreckage of the jet in a field and the remains of a U.S. serviceman with a tangled parachute nearby. Al-Jazeera satellite television said images of the dead pilot were too graphic to air.

Iraqi insurgents claimed they shot down the F-16 with a shoulder-fired Strela anti-aircraft missile. If the F-16 was shot down, it would be the first combat loss of an Air Force Fighter since April 7, 2003, when an F-15E Strike Eagle went down near Tikrit, killing the two crew members."

I hope the guy died in the ejection.

Obviously they're concurrent, not sequential. Not ridiculous.

So that's the answer? The Iraqis just need to build themselves a robust logistics corps and everything will be fine?

Whew! I'm glad that's settled.

Sensible centrists believe they can just wave their hands and make everything they think should happen happen instantaneously.

i1 i2 i3 i4 i5 i6 i7 i8 i9 i10 i11 i12 i13 i14 i15 i16 i17 i18 i19 i20 i21 i22 i23 i24 i25 i26 i27 i28 i29 i30 i31 i32 i33 i34 i35 i36 i37 i38 i39 i40 i41 i42 i43 i44 i45 i46 i47 i48 i49 i50 i51 i52 i53 i54 i55 i56 i57 i58 i59 i60 i61 i62 i63 i64 i65 i66 i67 i68 i69 i70 i71 i72 i73 i74 i75 i76 i77 i78 i79 i80 i81 i82 i83 i84 i85 i86 i87 i88 i89 i90 i91 i92 i93 i94 i95 i96 i97 i98 i99 i100