Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: America may penalise Iraq if it fails to stop the violence

  1. #1
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624

    America may penalise Iraq if it fails to stop the violence

    America may penalise Iraq if it fails to stop the violence


    By Oliver Poole,Iraq Correspondent and Damien McElroy in Washington
    Last Updated: 2:20am BST 23/10/2006

    President George W Bush met his top generals to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq as it was reported that America is considering punishing Baghdad if it fails to meet deadlines to stop the violence.

    The new policy would mark a dramatic shift from the previous position that progress could only be determined by the "situation on the ground".

    Instead benchmarks would be set covering progress in the Iraqi military, police and economy that if missed would result in the imposition of "penalties" by Washington.

    These would include "changes in military strategy", which could mean troop cuts or redeployment within Iraq, or the removal of ministers deemed incompetent or corrupt.

    The revelation comes after Mr Bush indicated on Saturday that the US, which suffered one of its deadliest months in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, intended to change its tactics.

    "Our goal in Iraq is clear and unchanging: our goal is victory," he said in his weekly radio address. "What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that goal."

    Mr Bush, whose policy on Iraq has appeared to unravel amid growing violence just weeks before mid-term elections, insisted that his administration had no intention of withdrawing from the country but admitted that it was "constantly adjusting" tactics.

    "There is one thing we will not do - we will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said.

    Late on Saturday, Mr Bush held talks with Gen John Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East; Gen George Casey, the US commander in Iraq; Dick Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary,; Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser; his deputy, Jack Crouch; and the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad.

    Nicole Guillemard, a White House spokesman, said the top-level meeting, with Casey and Khalilzad participating via video link from Baghdad, was part of ongoing talks on Iraq policy.

    The violence continued yesterday with insurgent gunmen killing 13 police recruits near the town of Baquba and two American soldiers reported dead. More than 80 US troops have been killed this month.

    Today the worsening security situation will be raised at a meeting at No 10 between Tony Blair and Barham Saleh, Iraq's deputy prime minister.

    Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, tried to calm security fears by saying Britain was "quite far down the road" to transferring control of southern Iraq to local authorities.

    But Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the Prime Minister's former envoy to Iraq, described the position there as a "mess" and urged ministers to face up to the failure of policy.

    In an interview on Sky News, he warned of violence "for many years to come" in the country.

    Indicating that America and Britain might now have to deal with Iran and Syria, he cast doubt on the ability of the Iraqi forces to replace coalition troops. "They are not going to take over the rest of the country without several parts of Iraq being full of violence," he said, although he insisted that US and British forces were still doing more good than harm in Iraq.

    As for the recent operation by Iraqi forces to dampen violence in Al Amara, he hinted that that had only been possible because of the presence nearby of British troops.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../23/wirq23.xml
    An interesting change of strategy that is hardly any strategy!

    Unless there is more to it than what is being reported.

    Tinkering with the democratic institutions or removing ministers is hardly a stamp of Freedom and Democracy that the War was supposed to usher in!

    Everything is so muttonheadedly planned.

    From crisis to crisis leading to greater crisis!

    Cut and run is the greatest of strategy!
    Last edited by Ray; 23 Oct 06, at 08:51.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  2. #2
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    07 Mar 05
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
    Cut and run is the greatest of strategy!
    I bet if the US invaded Iran a vast portion of the Iraqi insurgency would cease.

    There are forces at play that want to see the US fail and struggle in Iraq. I don't like what I hear and read in the MSM but withdrawing US presence from Iraq will leave a power vaccuum for Iran and islamic extremists to build upon. This is the exact opposite of what we want to do. Future generations will suffer if we don't do the right thing which is promote democracy in the ME.

    The citizens of the US and the civilized world need to take a long term look at the ramifications of leaving. I don't care who the POTUS is or what mistakes have been made in the past. The US is drawing a line in the sand in Iraq and Afghanistan; the message being that islamic nations police their countries with regard to islamic extremism and Terrorism or it will be done forcibly.

    Partitioning Iraq should be an option and might really be the best option for the US. Turkey and Iran can KMA.

  3. #3
    Military Professional Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 03
    Posts
    19,624
    All these stuff of change of strategy and it boiling down to mere tweaks and that too tweaks that would leave Iraq a more dangerous place is worrisome.

    Cut and run seems to be on the minds of many.

    It will only lead to the terrorists getting more bolshy.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  4. #4
    HKHolic Senior Contributor leib10's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Feb 05
    Location
    Lubbock, TX
    Posts
    3,513
    This is ridiculous. The Iraqis obviously can't do ANYTHING without us, yet we decide to penalize them and hurt their cause?

    Our thinking has become so muddled...
    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor Srirangan's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Aug 04
    Location
    New Delhi
    Posts
    760
    Depends which "Iraq" do you punish. Punishing the jehadi kind of Iraq will only do good!

  6. #6
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    I have to echo the comments about this makes no sense. The U.S Army can't control the violence in the country, how the hell is the new Iraqi government going to do it?

    Not sure if this is some backdoor strategy to give military commanders an excuse to start cutting and pulling troops out to 'punish' Iraq but theres no possible way I can see this improving the violence situation.

    Basiclly Iraq is going to be the way it is for awhile, theres nothing anyone can really do about it at this point in time. I think the U.S and Brits need to start seriously working on a short term time table to transfer full control of security to the current Iraqi government and hope for the best and withdraw. The U.S could continue helping indirectly by providing advice, equipment and resources to the current Iraqi government to help them survive but other then that theres not much else you can do.

    Right now your just treading water and sending your people back in body bags with no real clear progress being made on reducing the violence. I think your guys have done what they could do and should be able to come home now.

  7. #7
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    07 Mar 05
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    193
    The casulties and setbacks need to be looked in a proper perspective. I do not mean to callous but when you hear about cutting troops and withdrawing you have to question american resolve and stomach to fight. How many russian troops died in stalingrad?

    This is not Vietnam we are fighting a country that is rich in one of the world's most precious resources and more importantly by US being there our presence is felt by states that turn a blind eye to islamic extremism.

    I don't think people understand the stakes we're playing for in Iraq & Afghanistan.

  8. #8
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams View Post
    The casulties and setbacks need to be looked in a proper perspective. I do not mean to callous but when you hear about cutting troops and withdrawing you have to question american resolve and stomach to fight. How many russian troops died in stalingrad?

    This is not Vietnam we are fighting a country that is rich in one of the world's most precious resources and more importantly by US being there our presence is felt by states that turn a blind eye to islamic extremism.

    I don't think people understand the stakes we're playing for in Iraq & Afghanistan.
    This isn’t the Russian's defending their territory in Stalingrad; the U.S Army is in a foreign country half way around the world trying control its native population.

    Ultimately the world is going to have to shift from oil one way or the other the stuff isn’t going to last forever. Frankly I think its time the U.S start taking this more seriously and trying to find ways to break its huge consumption rate of the stuff.

  9. #9
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    07 Mar 05
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by canoe View Post
    This isn’t the Russian's defending their territory in Stalingrad; the U.S Army is in a foreign country half way around the world trying control its native population.

    Ultimately the world is going to have to shift from oil one way or the other the stuff isn’t going to last forever. Frankly I think its time the U.S start taking this more seriously and trying to find ways to break its huge consumption rate of the stuff.
    My point is without sounding like a complete a$$ that when comparing casualties throughout history and other battles the casualties in OIF are extremly low for the stakes involved. America is being very short sighted and we need to look alot farther ahead at the impacts of leaving region. There are serious long term repercussions by exiting out of Iraq too soon.

    Iran will become the Hegemon in the region because of OIF and the US leaving too early without having a balancer in the region that is friendly toward freedom and democratic ideals. Iran is the greatest threat to US and world stablility more so than the DPRK is which is now China's problem.

    My concern is for our future generations. Our kids and are children's children. If we walk away and let our #1 enemy grow stronger we will pay a much higher price down the line than had we stood our ground now in Iraq.
    Last edited by InfiniteDreams; 25 Oct 06, at 00:09.

  10. #10
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams View Post
    My point is without sounding like a complete a$$ that when comparing casualties throughout history and other battles the casualties in OIF are extremly low for the stakes involved. America is being very short sighted and we need to look alot farther ahead at the impacts of leaving region. There are serious long term repercussions by exiting out of Iraq too soon.

    Iran will become the Hegemon in the region because of OIF and the US leaving too early without having a balancer in the region that is friendly toward freedom and democratic ideals. Iran is the greatest threat to US and world stablility more so than the DPRK is which is now China's problem.

    My concern is for our future generations. Our kids and are children's children. If we walk away and let our #1 enemy grow stronger we will pay a much higher price down the line than had we stood our ground now in Iraq.
    Well the main argument I can make to that is the American public will not support this war long enough to acheive that (probably would require decades). I'll be surprised if your still in Iraq in any significant way after 2010. Why have those extra body bags filled between now and 2010 if you already know what the outcome will be?

    Your essentially fighting a war the public had already decided to back out of, the current reality of public opinion just hasen't caught up the decision makers yet. The elections are coming however..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The American Iraq
    By Shek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30 Jan 07,, 20:00
  2. Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Aug 05,, 12:29
  3. Why the U.S. must withdraw from Iraq
    By lulldapull in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 04 Jan 05,, 19:20
  4. More proof of the Saddam al Qaeda Connection
    By Leader in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01 Jun 04,, 02:22
  5. President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom
    By Leader in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26 May 04,, 01:13

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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