Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

[YellowFever]

I'm very interested to hear S-2's reply, but I would also like to hear yours. I have been trying to figure that out for a long time, and have failed.

For one thing I do not see a diplomatic solution to the WOT.

The people we fight sees diplomacy as a weakness.

You give them an inch hoping they give an inch and they will just demand another foot.

That is why I feel Iraq is so important.

In my way of thinking, pulling out, or even a strateigc trooop redeployment (or whatever it's being called this week) would be disastrous in Iraq.
Look, it's going to be hard..very hard to bring democracy to Iraq but as I see it we have no other choice than to hold the line.

Personally I don't give a rip about democracy in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East.
And Osama bin Laden and his types do not worry me.

What worries me are the despot rulers of countries like Syria and Iran and Jordan and Sudan (and previously, Iraq and Afghanistan).

We have to show them supporting terrorists in any way, shape or form would not be advantageous to their future well being.

We have to show these idiots that america is not a paper tiger and we won't run as soon as the body counts start rising.

That is why I am so pro the Iraqi occupation, if nothing else than for symbolic reasons and the message it sends to other rulers in that part of the world.

You help someone kill thousands of our citizens and you just might hang for it.

It sounds cold and we might come off like bullies but I'm way past the point of caring what they think of us.

We will never discourage all the nutjobs and extremists in the world.
We can make them (the rulers of ME countries) so afraid that they won't supports these nutjobs..ever again.

Once that level has been reached I'd say the WOT is over.

A french saying comes to mind:

"Pour l'encouragement de les autres..."


P.S. Quite honestly, I think A-Jad and the Imams and all the other dictators in the ME would have been pissing in their pants if it wasn't for all the political pressure BS coming from the Dems and Western Europe about our occupation of Iraq.

[Parihaka]

an intelligent withdrawal NEED NOT spell out defeat, nor does it necessarily have to be a result of mistakes we made earlier.

No matter how many trumpets you tootle, how many flags you wave as you bid a fond adieu to the Iraqi citizens who's armed forces you destroyed, they still know that as the last of the gallant yankees marches out, the chaps who've been blowing them up in the market places and torturing the men to death, the people who broke the will of the Americans to stay and protect them, will be marching in from the other end of town.

[Parihaka]

I'll just add that diplomatic solutions can be found, but only when the person you are negotiating with is sufficiently scared of you to agree to what you want.
Which side is most scared in the middle east?

[astralis]

parihaka,

No matter how many trumpets you tootle, how many flags you wave as you bid a fond adieu to the Iraqi citizens who's armed forces you destroyed, they still know that as the last of the gallant yankees marches out, the chaps who've been blowing them up in the market places and torturing the men to death, the people who broke the will of the Americans to stay and protect them, will be marching in from the other end of town.

if the iraqis have got the will to fight them, they can break them. insurgencies are broken by the natives, who have superior HUMINT than any occupier.

see how 35,000 british troops broke the malayan insurgency. in no small part due to the natives.

[Parihaka]

parihaka,



if the iraqis have got the will to fight them, they can break them. insurgencies are broken by the natives, who have superior HUMINT than any occupier.

see how 35,000 british troops broke the malayan insurgency. in no small part due to the natives.

Yeah, but it required 35,000 commonwealth troops. You seem to be asking the natives to do it themselves, against an adversary in main armed and trained by a foreign country.
Or am I mistaken and you've come round to supporting the surge;)

[S2]

Yellow Fever Reply

To the war on terror?

A doctrinal reformation of Islam successfully spread throughout the Umma.

A thorough re-design of public education throughout Islam.

That's when this GWOT will be successfully concluded.

It'll be awhile.

[astralis]

parihaka,

Yeah, but it required 35,000 commonwealth troops. You seem to be asking the natives to do it themselves, against an adversary in main armed and trained by a foreign country.

how big is the IA? how long has it been trained by the americans? does it not have heavy armor and a nascent air force? if need be, wouldn't it be able to call upon the world's greatest air force, easily doubling if not quadrupling its firepower?

note that south vietnam stood for 3 years against an enemy that was REALLY supported by a major foreign power. if the much-aligned ARVN could do that much, you're telling me that the IA will fold against insurgents armed with AK-47s and IEDs.

also, i'm not calling for full withdrawal. i believe the figure being bandied about these days is 75,000 troops for AQI operations. certainly not enough for occupation (but then again, neither is 150,000), but more than plenty for hunter-killer operations. 75,000 american troops freed up for anti-terrorist operations is going to mean a lot of dead terrorists.

Or am I mistaken and you've come round to supporting the surge

actually, you are i support the surge and wish it nothing but success. however, from all aspects, the most important part of the surge- the POLITICS- is not occurring, and if that doesn't change, the surge is nothing more than a temporary bandage. that is when we must come up with a better idea.

[YellowFever]

To the war on terror?

A doctrinal reformation of Islam successfully spread throughout the Umma.

A thorough re-design of public education throughout Islam.

That's when this GWOT will be successfully concluded.

It'll be awhile.

Exactly....

And all those will happen if the dicators in these Muslim States actually start the ball rolling in that general direction.

And that won't happen without great pressure (even through intimidation) from the the Western World (and america specifically).

[S2]

Parihaka Reply

What if we withdrew without withdrawing?

Before Iraq dissolves utterly, we began to shift troops to Kurdistan. After all, it remains within Iraq's borders. Not all, but enough to provide the foundation of a PERMANENT presence. Yup, I wanta stay (in Kurdistan) forever. Covers our butt geostrategically if Iraq dissolves altogether and assures Kurdistan's independance in the event.

Meanwhile we operate at our current size, but increasingly out of that region-excepting al-Anbar and Baghdad. We abandon the south. Give it up to the shias. It's a shia-dominated government and parliament still. What message would you expect the Iraqis to construe from our shift north? Perhaps that we are reading the tea-leaves according to a different perspective and taking steps accordingly.

Could we be accused of abandoning Iraq or its sovereignty were we to quietly begin shifting forces northward before any possible dissolution has occurred? Shouldn't we, if that allows us to continue operating about Baghdad, and al-anbar?

Kurdistan must be secured. THAT will absolutely be a bloodbath absent our presence. Further, our geo-strategic (separate from the GWOT) leverage vis-a-vis Syria and Iran is retained. This, I believe, always was an implied objective of our intervention and remains worthy.

Nobody could accuse us of abandoning Iraq. The Kurds certainly wouldn't object and that's a third of the nation already. Our abandonment of the south would, with this, perhaps lay the path towards partition but that will always be an Iraqi decision, not ours.

[YellowFever]

also, i'm not calling for full withdrawal. i believe the figure being bandied about these days is 75,000 troops for AQI operations. certainly not enough for occupation (but then again, neither is 150,000), but more than plenty for hunter-killer operations. 75,000 american troops freed up for anti-terrorist operations is going to mean a lot of dead terrorists.

If 150,000 soldiers can't adequately deal with terrorists operating in, let's say Baghdad, WHILE the troops themselves are stationed in Baghdad, how is 75,000 troops going to effectively carry out hunter-killer operations sitting in the middle of Kurdistan or the middle of the Iraqi desert?

[Parihaka]

parihaka,



how big is the IA? how long has it been trained by the americans? does it not have heavy armor and a nascent air force? if need be, wouldn't it be able to call upon the world's greatest air force, easily doubling if not quadrupling its firepower?

350,000 give or take. The problem lies here
Personally I would have preferred elections to not be held until ten years after invasion but Bush et al were so all-fire keen to demonstrate bringing 'freedom and democracy' there that they invited the fox into the chicken coop. One thing America does really crappily is Imperialism, and if you're going to be a long term player you really need to learn how to.

note that south vietnam stood for 3 years against an enemy that was REALLY supported by a major foreign power. if the much-aligned ARVN could do that much, you're telling me that the IA will fold against insurgents armed with AK-47s and IEDs.

Some will fight, most will join up like the political leadership, to Iran.
Those that fight will be hampered by lack of leadership and their tactics and names and addresses will be known to the enemy a la the Fatah security forces, also well trained by America. Like I say, the fox is already in.

actually, you are i support the surge and wish it nothing but success. however, from all aspects, the most important part of the surge- the POLITICS- is not occurring, and if that doesn't change, the surge is nothing more than a temporary bandage. that is when we must come up with a better idea.

You want a political solution?
Either arrange with the Iranians that they take over administrative control of south and central Iraq in what would probably be a long term solution, while America makes Kurdistan an American/Nato protectorate. Saudi Arabia will of course take umbrage at this but strategically pissing them off isn't as important as stablising Iraq.

Or, dismiss the current 'government', and settle in for ten years of work.

[YellowFever]

What if we withdrew without withdrawing?

Before Iraq dissolves utterly, we began to shift troops to Kurdistan. After all, it remains within Iraq's borders. Not all, but enough to provide the foundation of a PERMANENT presence. Yup, I wanta stay (in Kurdistan) forever. Covers our butt geostrategically if Iraq dissolves altogether and assures Kurdistan's independance in the event.

Ohhh..Turkey is gonna love that.

Now you wanna piss off the only Moderate Muslim State in that region?

Meanwhile we operate at our current size, but increasingly out of that region-excepting al-Anbar and Baghdad. We abandon the south. Give it up to the shias. It's a shia-dominated government and parliament still.

Isn't most of our casualties happening in the Baghdad and al-anbar area?

so why go North at all if your main reason to pull out is to avoid casualties?

What message would you expect the Iraqis to construe from our shift north? Perhaps that we are reading the tea-leaves according to a different perspective and taking steps accordingly.

I think you're making the same mistake alot of the Westerners make S-2.
They are not going to read our repositioning as reading tea-leaves.
They are going to think we ran.

Kurdistan must be secured. THAT will absolutely be a bloodbath absent our presence. Further, our geo-strategic (separate from the GWOT) leverage vis-a-vis Syria and Iran is retained. This, I believe, always was an implied objective of our intervention and remains worthy.

Nobody could accuse us of abandoning Iraq. The Kurds certainly wouldn't object and that's a third of the nation already. Our abandonment of the south would, with this, perhaps lay the path towards partition but that will always be an Iraqi decision, not ours.

I can actually go with this idea..if ..IF there won't be any political fallout from the Dems but..somehow I think that won't happen.
(Within 2 years the "what the hell are we doing there sitting in the middle of the desert" whining is going to start from the left.)

[smilingassassin]

Bluesman, Astralis, knowing as I do that sitting on the other side of the world decreases the likelyhood of meeting either of you for pistols at dawn, with all due respect;) you're both wrong.
Bluesman approaches the need for America to win from a military perspective.
Astralis approaches the need for America to win from a diplomatic perspective.
You both recognise the need for America to win the war against the irhabis.
The problem arises not because of your differences in approach because both are necessary, but the lack of clear political leadership in your country.

There is a reason why after WWII, the rest of the Western world agreed on Bretton Woods and maintained it even after Nixon reneged on America's part.
There is a reason the rest of the Western world agreed to the UN, and maintain it even when it has become the cesspool that it is.

These reasons were formative in America being able to lead the world during the cold war, and to spend far more than the rest of the world in maintaining its armed forces.

Your politicians have forgotten these reasons or choose to ignore them, placing domestic squabbles before them, and as a consequence many Americans have forgotten them as well.

America is not alone.
You need to remember that not only are you not alone, but to take heed of what your international friends tell you.
My own country is quietly re-arming, as is Australia, Canada and Britain. I don't want the reasons for this to happen.
I have no wish to see my son in uniform in 16 years time, going to a greater war that could be prevented now.

There is very little chance that I could pick up a gun now, and prevent that future world war from happening, but that doesn't mean that I am not now at war.
The only way I can fight it is through ideas, through discussions with my countrymen and most especially through discussions with both friends and enemies around the world through the internet.
I'm not pretending that some article or opinion that I post on some irhabi-supporting website will change the world, but having seen in real life the effect that enough people yelling at someone picking a fight to 'stop doing that' has on the aggressor, I know that with enough people doing that, change can be made.

Your problem, and America's problem, is that you have failed to elect enough politicians from either side that are willing to clearly enunciate that America is at war.
Instead, Afghanistan and Iraq, the ructions with Iran and the general middle-eastern problems are, despite Americans and others dying daily, treated by your politicians purely as foreign policy, and that foreign policy made subject to purile vote buying.
Whoever is next elected in America needs to say that America is at war, and that war needs to be won now, because if it is not there will be a far greater war in the future and it’ll be our children that do the dying. You need to tell that leader this.

So with all due respect, maybe you should learn strategy from each other, and apply that strategy where it will have the greatest effect, against your politicians, and those who unlike the two of you, want to see America and the West fail.

Know thine enemy.

Very well said Pari, and I'd hedge bets after that post if you did take up pistols at dawn in your favour! Left or right, this war needs to be WON and we as free nations need to unite to achieve that goal.

Even here in Canada the level of polarization is un-bearable, I myself used to be just about middle ground neither liberal or conservative, but I've found myself on the conservative side of things the last few years because it seems the Liberals are getting too far out of hand.
Liberals in Canada also seem eager to lose in Afganistan and it sickens me.

Just last month here in B.C. there was a call to pullout because a local reservist was killed. This reservist was desperate to go to Afganistan and fight for his country and the people of Afganistan and yet the left used his death as a call to leave....

[S2]

Yellow Fever Reply

"Ohhh..Turkey is gonna love that.

Now you wanna piss off the only Moderate Muslim State in that region?"

Yeah, if they can't abide reason. How did those elections go in the moderate muslim state of Turkey? Consider-

1.) Kurdistan already exists. Official Kurdish Gov't Website. The Turks largely understand that it's irreversible short of war.

2.) Turkey possesses legitimate grievances against the PKK. But it ends there, in my view. Thus, eliminate the PKK sanctuaries within Kurdistan and you eliminate Turkish rationales to be anything but good neighbors. This is in the interest of the Kurdish gov't. No competing nationalist agenda perpetrated by Kurds should endanger the long held aspirations of the Kurdish diaspora- a homeland nation. Incurring the wrath of Turkey makes no sense, so both PUK and the KDP should view the PKK as nothing but a threat to the greater interests of all Kurds everywhere.

If you agree that America's presence is necessary to secure Kurdistan regardless of Iraq's outcome, but especially should partition occur, then you'll agree that the U.S. will possess considerable leverage to presuade Talabani and Barzani to aggressively prosecute the PKK's presence within Kurdistan. Done so as to mobilize the Peshmerga, without Kurdish sanctuary, the PKK is dead meat for the Turkish Army. Those Kurds in Turkey who can't abide Turkish governance of their affairs can repatriate to Kurdistan. After all, that's the ultimate reason for a republic of Kurdistan- a final redoubt.

I envision our presence in Kurdistan as eliminating over time one of the middle-east's festering pus-sores, Kurd-Turk enmity. Absent the PKK, Turk-Kurd relations would unquestionably have immense positive economic benefits to both peoples. The Kurds are immensely entrepreneurial. Trade along an economically depressed southeastern Turkish border should be inevitable if de-militarized and made safe. Kurd oil could be taxed in exchange for secure trans-shipment to Turkish ports for export. This is a paradigm shift that ALONE would justify the initial invasion of Iraq.

I like that a lot better than more of the same ol', same ol' about how upset the Turks will be. Time for that nonsense to cease. Everything else is prejudged on the distant past and it's high time that the Turks get over themselves.

Couldn't hurt their E.U. ambitions, either.

"Isn't most of our casualties happening in the Baghdad and al-anbar area?

so why go North at all if your main reason to pull out is to avoid casualties?"

I never said that my main reason for going north was to avoid casualties. Not at all. As an absolute figure, our casualties don't necessarily trouble me. Relative to objectives, though, they've been an unnecessary cost. Avoiding a needless butcher's bill is ALWAYS a good thing if the greater goals can be achieved regardless.

"I think you're making the same mistake alot of the Westerners make S-2.
They are not going to read our repositioning as reading tea-leaves.
They are going to think we ran."

Yellow Fever, Kurdistan is part of Iraq. Are we running to Iraq? Done correctly, you'd not notice the shift in forces. No helicopters off roof-tops. No egg on face.

However, it may be the "shot across the bow" needed to get the Iraqi gov't. off their ass and approve the necessary legislation to convince our nation that they are worth our time, money, and blood. If it isn't adequate, well-at least we'll be in Kurdistan when it all goes to hell, i.e. pursuing our objectives regardless of Iraqi progress/failure.

Astralis actually had it right. We're not retreating. Hell, we ARE attacking in another direction. Think of it as Jesus turning the moneychangers tables over in the temple. Standing amidst the wreckage, he dusts off his hands and says, "My work is done here." We should have tore through Iraq, ripping out the prevailing paradigm and not slowed until we hit the Kurd border if OIF Phase IV was foretold.

"I can actually go with this idea..if ..IF there won't be any political fallout from the Dems but..somehow I think that won't happen.
(Within 2 years the "what the hell are we doing there sitting in the middle of the desert" whining is going to start from the left.)"

Protecting a peace-seeking republic of Kurdistan as it (and we) pursue our goal of democratic transformation, albeit from a far more favorable venue. Oh, we're keeping a tidy eye on Syria and Iran from here, even if the GCC states ask us to leave. But even if they don't, we should be sensitive to the possibility and have a fall-back position as a worst case, and an alternative position which will help to reduce our footprint in the emirates.

[TopHatter]

I'm ANGRY, man.

I know you're mad, believe me we've had enough conversations out on your lanai to know that you've seriously hacked off right now. ;)

You've also seen me mad as a hatter, usually after consuming a little too much of your rum.

As I said earlier though, this is a great thread but we just need the slice out the occasional personal attacks on other members. Good to go? :)