How to properly exit Iraq?

[Waylander]

And during this little incidents how many people do you think are going to die?

When it comes to talking about Irans ability to got to war with the US in this region there are three possibilities.

1. The US and allies conduct a pure air war against Iran. Their air defence and air force is dead meat in a matter of days (Not to talk of their navy). The only problem occures on low level because of the huge amount of unguided AAA, MANPADs and small arms fire thrown into the air.
Iran looses a huge amount of infrastructure, stational C3 assets and industrial capability.
But a good proportion of their ground equipment may survive when they do not decide to maneuver and dislozise their units like the serbs did. They should have enough difficult terrain to do so.

2. The US and allies enter with ground troops. The air campaign is the same as in point one + CAS for the other units.
The western forces may suffer casualties by ambushes, guerillas, etc. but in the end nearly every heavy equipment of the Iranian armed forces will be found and destroyed as well as every buried installation for C3 assets and WMD production which cannot be taken out by the air force.
The big question comes after this campaign. The west could pull out and leave this mess and hope that it regulates itself or it stays and the following years are going to let the current situation in Iraq look like a nice birthday party.

3. The Iran attacks the Iran and tries to go in with heavy mechanized formations and a big load of light infantry and militias.
Most of them will be slaughtered by US air assets before reaching the border and what ever remains runs into the best mobile defense of the world which has been perfectionised during decades of cold war.


I don't really want to speculate further what might come after such events my cristall ball is already broken.

 

[Big-E]

Why are we talking about Iranian invasion in an exit Iraq thread? If anyone bombs Iran it will be Israel. I suspect those little talks they had with the Saudis was to get overflight rights and maybe a tanker or two. There not going to sit by and let Ahmadinejad develop their destruction.

 

[.pt]

Well today s Iran is certainly not 1981 Iraq. I think a repeat by the Israelis will not happen. Even if it does, it won´t totally destroy their program, it will only stop it or delay it for a a time. Also, the Iranians surely are planning for such a strike, and will minimise its impact.
The Israelis are probaly trying to shutdown the Iranian nuclear program, or delay it, in anyway they can. But ultimately, Iran will get it, even because there are suplyers ready to sell them the reactor, related machinery and technology.
The only option in the middle term is for a political change within Iran that stop this programs, or instills sufficient confidence in other countries to stop pressing for the demise of the program.
How, and if it will ever happen, is well beyond me...
.pt

 

[FutureTank]

Why are we talking about Iranian invasion in an exit Iraq thread? If anyone bombs Iran it will be Israel. I suspect those little talks they had with the Saudis was to get overflight rights and maybe a tanker or two. They are not going to sit by and let Ahmadinejad develop their destruction.

Big-E...the diplomat in you
Who are these 'they', the Israelis or the Saudis I don't know who hates Iran more!

 

[FutureTank]

That's what all Super Powers do... if anyone challenges your authority you make an example of them. Case in point Saddam... he's going to be hanged. Whatever the outcome in Iraq he's still gone and Khaddafi gave up his nuclear program, we still get our bases and we still get our oil. It might have been nice to get a democratic Iraq but I certainly never expected it.

I think the term 'superpower' is overused and misunderstood.
Does being a 'superpower' aid US in solving the situation it created in Iraq is probably the question that needs to be asked...rather then letting this thread slide into the Iran scenario discussion.

It seems to me that with Iraq the US has been reduced to just another state projecting power by very conventional and not entirely successful means. The military power is certainly not an enabler of the 'super' decisionmaking that built the European empires of the 19th century which served as models for the USA.

It seems to me that now US appreciates the difficulties of 'teaching lessons' on a global scale as the Europeans had done. Certainly overseas colonies contributing to bankrupting the British Empire, and I'm not sure that controlling the flow of oil is a good or even neccessary strategic goal for the USA in the long term. Certainly the British eventually realised that the 'jewel' of India was a drag on the imperial economy after two centuries of 'projecting' British culture and values.

Would US even want this result in Iraq, never mind the Persian Gulf?

 

[Big-E]

It seems to me that now US appreciates the difficulties of 'teaching lessons' on a global scale as the Europeans had done. Certainly overseas colonies contributing to bankrupting the British Empire, and I'm not sure that controlling the flow of oil is a good or even neccessary strategic goal for the USA in the long term. Certainly the British eventually realised that the 'jewel' of India was a drag on the imperial economy after two centuries of 'projecting' British culture and values.

The one thing this whole debacle has proven is we are not capable of nation building thru military means. America has never been a colonial power and never will be... it just isn't compatible with our democracy. The US has different means of projecting our culture and values than thru military control. Globalization makes our values and concepts felt world wide. We don't need a military to conquer the world. Just one to protect our economic interests.

 

[rickshaw]

The one thing this whole debacle has proven is we are not capable of nation building thru military means. America has never been a colonial power and never will be... it just isn't compatible with our democracy. The US has different means of projecting our culture and values than thru military control. Globalization makes our values and concepts felt world wide. We don't need a military to conquer the world. Just one to protect our economic interests.

I am sure that the peoples of Germany and Japan in particular and Western Europe in general will be very surprised to learn that.

The reality is, IMO, that the US has learnt the lesson that it cannot go into these matters half-cocked. It has always been able to achieve regime change but for the first time, since WWII, if found itself in the situation where what was needed was more in the form of "nation building". The neo-Cons in Washington unfortunately totally neglected this aspect of the war, falling for their own propaganda and the Iraqi ex-pats' delusions that once Saddam was toppled, everything would be beautiful and the Iraqi people would welcome the invading force with rose petals, waving flags and kisses on the cheeks for the soldiers.

Reality however has proven different. Now the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place and can't see anyway out. It can neither go forward or back and is madly scrambling for an exit strategy.

This does not mean that nation building is incompatable with your beliefs in democracy. What it means is that merely the US fumbled the ball on this one and stuffed it up.

If the US government and the neo-Cons whom controlled it, hadn't been so blinded by their own hubris and listened to what the critics of their policy had been saying, they'd have realised that not only do you have to be able to get rid of the unsavoury regime that you're toppling you have to have something to replace it with, other than a bunch of losers like the Iraqi exile community who's only uniting influence was the presence of Saddam in Baghdad. Once Saddam was removed, their coalition fell to pieces. Coupled with the numerous mistakes the US coalition made, the result has proved to be a disaster.

How to get out? Cutting and running would prove to be counterproductive IMO. What is required is a real effort to defeat the insurgents and that means more troops on the ground to improve the security of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately that should have been done two years ago, not now, when its too late.

So, it looks like instead, the US Government will allow a "troop surge", which will win a short breathing space and in the lull which follows, they'll try and leave with as much dignity as they can fashion, while the troops make a mad scramble back out through Kuwait, in the hope that they aren't the last ones left, in the rearguard, and suffer the same fate as the 44th Foot at Gandamak. :wink:

 

[Big-E]

I am sure that the peoples of Germany and Japan in particular and Western Europe in general will be very surprised to learn that.

That generation is dead... we aren't that nation anymore. The ideals and fortitude of our forfathers died with them. Our nation has become so soft that we can't suffer 1,000 casualties before we scream slaughter. We have become so partisan that our leaders villify each other just because they have different points of view. Our government is so filled with scandal and corruption no nation will want it as a model.

 

[radiosilence]

That generation is dead... we aren't that nation anymore. The ideals and fortitude of our forfathers died with them. Our nation has become so soft that we can't suffer 1,000 casualties before we scream slaughter. We have become so partisan that our leaders villify each other just because they have different points of view. Our government is so filled with scandal and corruption no nation will want it as a model.

I don't think we as a nation is soft, its just that the Iraq war was a "war of choice" which is dragging on with no end in sight. If we were in Afghanistan and suffering as much caualties as we are in Iraq, the nation would still be united behind the President because we were attacked by people who trained in Afghanistan. Also, it doesn't help that the former head of the dod was .......... (choose a word).

 

[FutureTank]

while the troops make a mad scramble back out through Kuwait

This is the optimistic view.

The less optimistic view is that the secterian Iraqi violence will have a 'surge' of its own during or after such a withdrawal, and attempt to breach the Kuwait and Saudi borders (on any number of pretexts ranging from demand for security, services, or blame for providing support to US and implicit killing of other Muslims), requiring these states to enter a conflict that would bring in the Egyptians as well since neither Saudis nor Kuwait have the personnel to maintain effective surveillance for long. This would result in the building of a permanent border security intallations and defence and surveillance systems (fences). Could it be that it is THIS that Saudis were discussing with Israelis?

Would Iran stay out of this scenario?

 

[rickshaw]

That generation is dead... we aren't that nation anymore. The ideals and fortitude of our forfathers died with them. Our nation has become so soft that we can't suffer 1,000 casualties before we scream slaughter. We have become so partisan that our leaders villify each other just because they have different points of view. Our government is so filled with scandal and corruption no nation will want it as a model.

You are too harsh, I suspect. That generation is (nearly) dead but that nation and its ideals still live on. The problem is that your government took a (relatively) minor threat, blew it up to a major one and then when its balloon was pricked and no WMDs were found, it discovered just as with the sympathy that the world had given it with 11 September, it evaporated from its own population. This government has, unfortunately, been perhaps the worst in a generation, which is IMO, certainly saying something. So many opportunities, all squandered along with the lives of so many young men and women. Its been a long road but finally some realism appears to be inching its way in through the cracks and getting into Doubya's head. Its not a shame, in many ways, that the position of President has term limits placed on it IMHO. While all the valuable lessons he's learnt will be lost, it means there is an opportunity for fresh thinking to come to the fore and replace him.

 

[radiosilence]

This is the optimistic view.

This would result in the building of a permanent border security intallations and defence and surveillance systems (fences). Could it be that it is THIS that Saudis were discussing with Israelis?

French companies, along with contractors from China, Russia, the UK and the US, will compete for Saudi Arabia’s Miksa program, an ambitious border control network comprising up to 225 radar stations to monitor the kingdom’s ground borders, coasts and airspace. While this was negotiated directly with France’s Thales Group for several years, Saudi Arabia earlier this year decided to launch a competition; responses to its Request for Information are due in late August, to be followed by a Request for Proposals with a deadline of late December.The project’s value is estimated at 7 billion euros.

link

I think the Saudis were talking to the Israelis concerning Iran's Nuclear Program.

 

[FutureTank]

This government has, unfortunately, been perhaps the worst in a generation, which is IMO, certainly saying something.

This government was voted in twice by the electorate. Are you saying the democratic process is broken?

 

[FutureTank]

French companies, along with contractors from China, Russia, the UK and the US, will compete for Saudi Arabia’s Miksa program, an ambitious border control network comprising up to 225 radar stations to monitor the kingdom’s ground borders, coasts and airspace

I guess "Miksa su casa" doesn't translate well into Arabic

 

[rickshaw]

This government was voted in twice by the electorate. Are you saying the democratic process is broken?

No, but you're assuming that its results will always produce a valid outcome. The electorate can be just as silly and stupid, collectively as it can be individually, you realise? Every nation elects bad governments from time to time. Its the problem when you believe the advertising. :wink:

In other words, the process worked, the problem was that it was "garbage in, garbage out." :lol:

 

[FutureTank]

No, but you're assuming that its results will always produce a valid outcome. The electorate can be just as silly and stupid, collectively as it can be individually, you realise? Every nation elects bad governments from time to time. Its the problem when you believe the advertising. :wink:

Actually I hold a rather Jungian interpretation of governing in that the population gets the leaders it deserves :unknown :shudder

 

[rickshaw]

link

Perhaps it might not be that they also learnt the lesson associated with sole-tenders when the Russians exploited the (in)famous "hole" in their radar systems during the Ethopian War?

 

[FutureTank]

Getting out of Iraq - in the beginning...

No, but you're assuming that its results will always produce a valid outcome. The electorate can be just as silly and stupid, collectively as it can be individually, you realise? Every nation elects bad governments from time to time. Its the problem when you believe the advertising. :wink:
In other words, the process worked, the problem was that it was "garbage in, garbage out." :lol:

No, I expect that in a validated process the outcomes would be equally valid.
This applies to most engineered processes, including social engineering (politics).

I do realise the collective stupidity of the electorate. I was in US during the 2000 elections, and having just finished a degree in Governance, was a keen observer of the whole process. It confirmed my opinion that the vast bulk of the US 'superpower' stands of 'straw' political legs. The voting pattern for the last election confirmed the distribution of Republican vs Democratic votes and relationship to levels of education.

In Australia political advertising is considerably more regulated, but I appreciate you point in respect to US. However it seems to me that if something has to be advertised, then the consumer is probably not interested in the 'product' in the first place, so the problem is not so much with advertising as it is with the appeal of the political dimension to the average American, and their concern with the effect this process can have on their, or their children's lives.

For this reason, any process in understanding how to get OUT of Iraq must begin with the examination of how US got INTO Iraq in the first place, and therefore the process of choosing national leaders.

I think with all due respect for the admin people here that this thread is irrevocably tied to the political levels of decision making.

Given what is known now about the WMDs in Iraq, it seems to be fairly clear that the goal of the invasion was not so much the urgency of their threat, but the desire to topple Saddam, and with him the entire power elite slice of the Iraqi society.

I don't think one needs to be a Harvard professor to realise that this kind of dramatic transformation being proposed, of a society alien to democratic principles and processes and with a culture based on models foreign to the minds of most Americans, this was not going to be a "walk in the park" operation. If anything, US probably has greater expereince then most with this issue given that the singular most glaring problem in Vietnam was in the inability to establish stong popular democracy in the face of Communist insurrection.

There should have been long and detailed analysis and planning of the Iraq operation within the Pentagon, and very close coordination among the other departments and agencies before the first boot hit the ground.

As an example, the Germans planned invasions of France and USSR for years although they estimated the operations to take no more then a few months at the longest. In France the approach to occupation was fairly mild, and so was the resistance. In USSR however they proceeded to destroy the entire power structure of the state, imagening that emigres and their own administrative prowess would bring the population under order. They failed because different societies just don't react to dramatic change like that in the same way (just as people don't), in this case the way a German society would have reacted (and did after being occupied themselves).

 

[rickshaw]

No, I expect that in a validated process the outcomes would be equally valid.
This applies to most engineered processes, including social engineering (politics).

Rather touchingly naive, don't you think? Why do you assume that? Experience would indicate there is nothing more capricious than an electorate which has been deliberately spooked by an unscrupulious government (ie Tampa, "children overboard", 11 September, etc.).

I do realise the collective stupidity of the electorate. I was in US during the 2000 elections, and having just finished a degree in Governance, was a keen observer of the whole process. It confirmed my opinion that the vast bulk of the US 'superpower' stands of 'straw' political legs. The voting pattern for the last election confirmed the distribution of Republican vs Democratic votes and relationship to levels of education.

It is a shame that the US ignores education in the way it does, while spending squillions on defence. It is doing its own citizens a real disservice IMO. In the various international rankings for primary school children, their education system is usually rated at the bottom of the first world.

In Australia political advertising is considerably more regulated, but I appreciate you point in respect to US. However it seems to me that if something has to be advertised, then the consumer is probably not interested in the 'product' in the first place, so the problem is not so much with advertising as it is with the appeal of the political dimension to the average American, and their concern with the effect this process can have on their, or their children's lives.

For this reason, any process in understanding how to get OUT of Iraq must begin with the examination of how US got INTO Iraq in the first place, and therefore the process of choosing national leaders.

So, you believe we need a new version of "The Pentagon Papers"?

I think with all due respect for the admin people here that this thread is irrevocably tied to the political levels of decision making.

Isn't all strategy? Clausewitz summed it up well. Sun Tzu said it even better.

Given what is known now about the WMDs in Iraq, it seems to be fairly clear that the goal of the invasion was not so much the urgency of their threat, but the desire to topple Saddam, and with him the entire power elite slice of the Iraqi society.

This was revealed two years ago. The neo-Cons were talking about it even before the assumed power. Their goal was to stabilise the Middle-East through securing Israel. Problem is they assumed this was both desirable (at the expense of US and the West's other interests in the region) and possible.

I don't think one needs to be a Harvard professor to realise that this kind of dramatic transformation being proposed, of a society alien to democratic principles and processes and with a culture based on models foreign to the minds of most Americans, this was not going to be a "walk in the park" operation. If anything, US probably has greater expereince then most with this issue given that the singular most glaring problem in Vietnam was in the inability to establish stong popular democracy in the face of Communist insurrection.

There should have been long and detailed analysis and planning of the Iraq operation within the Pentagon, and very close coordination among the other departments and agencies before the first boot hit the ground.

As an example, the Germans planned invasions of France and USSR for years although they estimated the operations to take no more then a few months at the longest. In France the approach to occupation was fairly mild, and so was the resistance. In USSR however they proceeded to destroy the entire power structure of the state, imagening that emigres and their own administrative prowess would bring the population under order. They failed because different societies just don't react to dramatic change like that in the same way (just as people don't), in this case the way a German society would have reacted (and did after being occupied themselves).

Couldn't agree more. However the neo-Cons allowed their hubris to blind themselves to the reality. While I don't necessarily agree that it is impossible for Iraq to become a democratic state, what is blindingly obvious and as been for a long, long, long time in international affairs, that it is much more difficult than most people believe to export revolution on the "bayonets of one's soldiers", as Napoleon was want to describe it. Sometimes it is possible but the preconditions have to be right and the society's must be interested in accepting a new political system (or have no choice as the structures of the old have been completely obliterated, as in Germany and Japan). You simply cannot march in and expect everybody to be happy and in a society like Iraq, unhappiness is usually expressed through violence.

Now, we both know what the problem has been, what we need to discuss is possible solutions. Cutting and running would be counter-productive IMO. A surge might secure temporary respite but it won't solve the problem. Iraqisation will help but again, this will be only temporary in effect, if at all. So, how do we see the Coalition of the Willing exist Iraq without the soldiers ending up like the 44th at Gandamak?

 

[FutureTank]

Originally Posted by FutureTank
No, I expect that in a validated process the outcomes would be equally valid.
This applies to most engineered processes, including social engineering (politics).
Rather touchingly naive, don't you think? Why do you assume that? Experience would indicate there is nothing more capricious than an electorate which has been deliberately spooked by an unscrupulious government (ie Tampa, "children overboard", 11 September, etc.).

Well, I did say 'expect'. I happen to believe in social engineering, but it doesn't mean the discipline exists now, so what we get instead is..."garbage in, garbage out" as you eloquently put it
However I do think that the Australian electorate is better informed then the US electorate, possibly because of the obigatory voting requirement.

It is a shame that the US ignores education in the way it does, while spending squillions on defence. It is doing its own citizens a real disservice IMO. In the various international rankings for primary school children, their education system is usually rated at the bottom of the first world.

I would not judge American education system so harshly.
Part of the problem (in my perception) is the inability by some stratae of the American society to relate Federal policies to local issues.

So, you believe we need a new version of "The Pentagon Papers."?

Certainly not if they are going to be locked up

the political levels of decision making...Isn't all strategy? Clausewitz summed it up well. Sun Tzu said it even better.

There is a very strong discouragement of discussing politics in the forum

Problem is they assumed this was both desirable (at the expense of US and the West's other interests in the region) and possible..

Yes, but actually this was a policy that predates GW's election.

While I don't necessarily agree that it is impossible for Iraq to become a democratic state, what is blindingly obvious and as been for a long, long, long time in international affairs, that it is much more difficult than most people believe to export revolution on the "bayonets of one's soldiers"...You simply cannot march in and expect everybody to be happy and in a society like Iraq, unhappiness is usually expressed through violence.

I suppose anything is possible, but I think the process of transforming Iraq into a democratic society would take far longer then the 3-4 generations global transformations take in the 'West'.

Now, we both know what the problem has been, what we need to discuss is possible solutions. Cutting and running would be counter-productive IMO. A surge might secure temporary respite but it won't solve the problem. Iraqisation will help but again, this will be only temporary in effect, if at all. So, how do we see the Coalition of the Willing exist Iraq without the soldiers ending up like the 44th at Gandamak?

There is only one solution/strategy, but I am unwilling to discuss it here because:
a) I am hoping to offer it in exchange for a position in my current job-seeking efforts, and
b) if someone else thinks of it, I would not want their efforts to fail on my account.