The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Mr44, Jan 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    The consensus seems to be that everyone wants a thread to discuss Iraq, but some expressed a concern that the prior thread had become too unwieldy and out of control.

    A new year brings with it new analysis of Iraq.

    Here's the latest Department of Defense report that was delivered to Congress:

    HERE

    Do US concerns parallel Iraqi concerns? The DOD uses 3 broad performance categories that are then broken down into specific points:

    1)Political
    2)Economic
    3)Security

    The ongoing problems in Iraq can be traced to the current level of Sectarian violence. With the start of a new year, what path needs to be taken in Iraq and how would it fit within a broader policy?
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    before anything else is posted, i'd like to wish a fond farewell to Red-Seven's thread, which provided an unbroken discussion from the end of major combat operations to the end of 2006 (covering a period lasting from 2003-06). i doubt you would find much in the way of parallel discussions elsewhere on the web. not of that quality and length, at least.
  3. Shadow_of_Evil Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2001
    star 6
    Bye Bye Red-Seven's thread. :(
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Eh, moving on isn't a bad thing either.

    And Shadow, it's salaam. ;)

    E_S
  5. Shadow_of_Evil Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2001
    star 6
    Hahaha, good catch.
    Insha'Allah, I will fix it. :D

    Anyhoo, the US death toll hit 3000 for the New Years start.
    Happy New Year [face_plain]
  6. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    The faster they get that new hi-tech armour going the better for the average infantry man, I was reading about this new liquid armour that is suppose to be awesome against IED. Maybe thats where they need to put the money into now, not these fancy toys that do nothing to fight a grass roots insurgency. Protect the front line soldier because this will be the type of combat soldiers will be seeing in 21st century conflicts. And body bags coming home with no progress equals most Americans thinking Ok let's get out, it's not worth it. In fact there was a poll the other day that said around 60% now disaprove of this war the same % as those opposed to the Vietnam war in the early seventies.
  7. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    The hi-tech armour isn't a solution to the cause of the problem; it just ensures taht the problem continues unabated but the armour is better.

    I'm not sure what we can do about fixing the problems though. Certainly, the concerns of Sunnis who fear some measure of Shi'ite and Kurdish retribution will be enacted via law is valid and should be addressed by the Iraqi parliament, for starters...

    E_S
  8. Shadow_of_Evil Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2001
    star 6
    The hi-tech armour isn't a solution to the cause of the problem; it just ensures taht the problem continues unabated but the armour is better.

    That's what I wanted to post, more or less, but unlike you I had nothing to follow through with :(
    To me, the bodyarmour upgrade is like a bandaid for a gushing wound. It'll help lower the immediate threat to the soldiers but they should be more focus on prevention.
    Then again, if I was a soldier in Iraq I'm sure I'd say the opposite; and rightly so.

    some measure of Shi'ite and Kurdish retribution will be enacted via law

    In what way do you mean? More prosecutions or what?
  9. Fluke_Groundrunner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2001
    star 4
    It is looking like Bush has decided to increase the troop count in Iraq, as an attempt to improve control and security there. This is one of the options recommended by the Pentagon's report, but I believe the Iraq Study Group's report is against that idea, and the general consensus seems to be that more troops will only create a temporary fix.

    How will increasing the troops actually make a difference with
    a) the insurgency and
    b) the sectarian violence?

    I also propose some questions.

    First, what happens if the troops are pulled from Iraq, with the expectation that the Iraqis will find a way to make things work, and as long as they don?t put into power another ruthless dictator, the troops won?t come back? Allow them chance to fix it themselves.

    Second, what about dividing Iraq so that Shiites and Sunnis can have their own sections? Is that a crazy idea? Why would it work or not work?


  10. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    We can all agree that 2006 was, to put it mildly, a disappointing year for Iraq. The Askariya Mosque bombing last February may go down in history as one of the most successful terrorist attacks ever in terms of achieving its strategic objective, not that things were going well in Iraq prior to that. Nevertheless, it certainly set the tone for all that has followed. The year ended with the disappointment of the Iraq Study Group's report - the only positive thing to come out of it really was as a kind of codification of the need for a radical strategic change.

    Casey will be leaving Iraq soon. Maybe sooner than planned. Call that a clear indicator that Bush sees a troop surge as a necessary short term tactic. I have trouble disagreeing with the President that it has to be tried before abandoning Iraq. And if a troop surge fails, then partitioning Iraq has to go back on the table as something else we need to work with the Iraqis on achieving before we abandon them.
  11. Septhaka Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 10, 2006
    star 1

    This type of partitioning would not likely work for three critical reasons. First, Iraq is not well-suited to partitioning due to the configuration of its natural resources. If partitioned along Kurd/Sunni/Shia lines then the Sunni would control Iraq's water supply and the Shia would control Iraq's petroleum resources. This feeds the other two reasons. Second, there is little political will in Iraq for such a partitioning. Even the Shia do not want partitioning. Third, Iraq's neighbors, most notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey, would not likely support a partitioning because it will invariably lead to regional instability, skirmishes and wars, and potential expand the central Sunni/Shia conflict to the wider region.

    When I have more time to respond I will post a formal post to this thread. Suffice to say the US objective of a Iraqi democracy was and likely will never be attainable in my opinion.
  12. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I really think that old thread ought to be preserved somehow.
  13. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    well, unless the entire board crashes and all the data is lost, it's not going anywhere.
  14. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Does the US have an Iraq policy beyond getting the hell out of there as soon as possible? ;)
  15. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Well, the current U.S. policy is to stay there forever.
  16. Fluke_Groundrunner Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 1, 2001
    star 4
    Edit it and create a binded book out of it, then sell it on Amazon. It will be the "FanForce Iraqi Report: A Discussion with Every Possible Insight" :D
  17. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Fixed.

    Remember, we're on the JC side of the boards, not the FF side.

    Kimball Kinnison
  18. Blue_Jedi33 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2003
    star 5
    Well better armour doesn't solve the long term problems in the context of the conflict,but if you were a front line infantry man you would want a product that could better protect your limbs and vital organs ASAP, and you wouldn't care about the dollar cost either.

    Bottom line is that body bags flown back to American soil is going to continue to be a huge issue, better armour could slow this down. Mind you what armour can survive 2 artillary shells stacked on top of each other set to go off as an IED, not much. Even an M1 tank has tough time with that one.
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Actually, if you're a front line man I doubt you'd be wanting to be having to face IEDs etc at all, armour or no. Hence the need for a real solution rather than stopgap, band-aids which sounds great because we're talking all hi-tech but otherwise not actually fixing the problem.

    Shadow; the Sunnis had a great time under Saddam because he came from a Sunni family and generally didn't repress them like he did others. They also made up approx 30% of the country, so it was a case of minority rule. What the Sunni now fear, and not entirely without cause, is that they will be, for want of a better word, shafted by the majority Shi'a government as a kind of payback for the Saddam days.

    This expands further on it.

    E_S

  20. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Shadow; the Sunnis had a great time under Saddam because he came from a Sunni family and generally didn't repress them like he did others. They also made up approx 30% of the country, so it was a case of minority rule. What the Sunni now fear, and not entirely without cause, is that they will be, for want of a better word, shafted by the majority Shi'a government as a kind of payback for the Saddam days.

    By all accounts in the world press, the execution of Saddam or the nature of it has further fired up the Sunnis in this regard.
  21. Shadow_of_Evil Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2001
    star 6
    What the Sunni now fear, and not entirely without cause, is that they will be, for want of a better word, shafted by the majority Shi'a government as a kind of payback for the Saddam days.

    I understand this, I understood it before, what I was wondering was if the Sunni are afraid of military action against them from the Shi'a government, not just Shi'a militants. As in a legalised war.
    Was a grea article you linked me to by the way. :)
  22. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    One of my co-workers was a Marine in Iraq and was hit by an IED while on the gun mount of his Humvee (they were the lead vehicle in a patrol)... He was ejected from the vehicle and suffered 3 slipped vertebral discs.

    The military didn't award him a Purple Heart, however, because they said it wasn't a 'direct' injury from the blast. Ridiculous, but true.

    2007 will be a pivotal year for Iraq. If the Iraqis can't get it together and stop the sectarian strife, then the entire endeavor will be forfeit.
  23. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The liquid armor is a program that isn't expected to yield anything useable for about ten years at the minimum. Not to mention that half the problem is simple blast force alone, not just things penetrating you. If you're outside an armored vehicle and near a properly placed and large IED going off, you're going to die, improved armor or not.

    Unless, of course, we develop personal energy shields. :p



  24. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5

    2007 will be a pivotal year for Iraq. If the Iraqis can't get it together and stop the sectarian strife, then the entire endeavor will be forfeit.


    What makes 2007 special as opposed to 2006?


    Or 2005?


    Or 2004?



  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Precisely what I've been saying.

    E_S
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.