U.S. soldiers tell Gates to send more troops

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


And what reasonably could we offer in negotiation that would have any allure to Iran-Syria?

An end to sanctions might be something they want. Either way engaging Iran and Syria won't be possible without a comprehensive negotiation which cuts a deal on Iran's nuclear program and Syria signing a peace deal with Israel. Neither of which are likely to happen epecially since the US is in no position to force the issue.

I'm sorry to say it but this pooch is screwed. Left alone Iraq will decend into civil war in a Beruit second, bring in the neighbors and they'll turn Iraq into their own private corrupt playground, while staying forever is not politically feasible. The surge amount in question is a drop in the bucket and it won't amount to any long term change in the situation.

Our real choices boil down to taking sides in the civil war and putting one side in absolute power over the other side (which will be a humanitarian disaster) or letting Iraq's neighbors take over a la Syria-Lebennon (which will be another disaster). The locals aren't up to the job.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


An end to sanctions might be something they want.

a) the sanctions so far are weak. b) they probably and rightly so figure that sanctions will ultimately be foiled with end around moves by various friendlies. Looking at you China.

Either way engaging Iran and Syria won't be possible without a comprehensive negotiation which cuts a deal on Iran's nuclear program and Syria signing a peace deal with Israel. Neither of which are likely to happen epecially since the US is in no position to force the issue.

Exactly so we can't offer this carrot.

I'm sorry to say it but this pooch is screwed. Left alone Iraq will decend into civil war in a Beruit second, bring in the neighbors and they'll turn Iraq into their own private corrupt playground, while staying forever is not politically feasible. The surge amount in question is a drop in the bucket and it won't amount to any long term change in the situation.

May very well be.

Our real choices boil down to taking sides in the civil war and putting one side in absolute power over the other side (which will be a humanitarian disaster) or letting Iraq's neighbors take over a la Syria-Lebennon (which will be another disaster). The locals aren't up to the job.

Which begs the question when would we get pulled into the larger conflagration. After a year or so from now when Iran has Nukes the option goes off the table.


So in a nutshell we have nothing of value that we could reasonably offer Syria/Iran and likewise have neither the will at present to affect a credible threat. After Iran goes Nuke military is no longer an option.

[Ramo]

I see and you have hard evidence of this. While your supposition could and may even likely be true treating the above statement as FACT is equally ludicrous. And even were they hand picked that doesn't in of itself mean the sentiment is not widley shared by boots on the ground. Further even if scripted that would indicate GASP a faction of soldiers on the ground that disagree with Joint Chiefs and Abisaid. (teh horror)

The straw poll people use to dismiss the arguement against action is almost equally valid. For every Powell saying give up the ghost you have a Reid saying its worth a try.

Reid? You think that his opinion is equivalent to that of a former senior General, Chair of the JCoS, and Secretary of State? Incidentaly, he only pseudo-endorsed a surge for a couple months. Which would be incredibly pointless. We need at least that much time to get into Sadr City in the first place.

I think that while we disagreed there on Irans motives to end the violence, you stated that its ABILITY to do so was limited. I dont completely disagree with that.

Even if I granted (which I dont) that SCIRI was allied to Iran - if Sadr cant stop rogue Mahdi army elements, what are the odds that Al-Hakim can stop rogue Mahdi army elements?

I was saying that SCIRI is Iran's natural ally, but that for the past year or so, they've been backing the Mahdi Army over the Badr Corps due to the growing power of his movement. I doubt that Iran could totally stop the violence from the Shia militias (particularly the Sadrists), but I do think that they could substantially reduce it. Not a perfect solution, but probably preferable to putting tens of thousands of American soldiers in Sadr City.

It's worth remembering that they fully cooperated in Afghanistan and their proxies joined the Karzai gov't. That's the sort of thing that diplomacy gets us.

And what reasonably could we offer in negotiation that would have any allure to Iran-Syria?

Syria isn't a real problem. As for Iran in their interest not to see Iraq turn into a failed state. Their Da'wa allies have controlled united Iraqi gov't's. But we could offer a bunch of things, not least of which normalized economic relations. Which would be imperative for the regime given the results of the recent Assembly of Expert elections.

[Zkribbler]

You're right, Oerdin.

I'm about ready to say to the Iraqis, "If you guys can't get along, then stew in your own bloodbath!"

But it's not that easy. If Iraq shatters, Turkey and Iran won't stand for an independent Kurdistan -- not with Kurdish minorities within their own borders. So, that's one and maybe two invasions.

The Saudis, Syrians and Jordanians won't stand by while their Sunni brothers are massacred at the hands of the far-more-numerous Shia, so at least one (and maybe all three) will intervene.

If the Shia start losing, then Iran will intervene militarily.

So we could be looking at one humdinger of a regional war.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo


Reid? You think that his opinion is equivalent to that of a former senior General, Chair of the JCoS, and Secretary of State? Incidentaly, he only pseudo-endorsed a surge for a couple months. Which would be incredibly pointless. We need at least that much time to get into Sadr City in the first place.

No I think ****e of Reid. But I likeiwsie thing there are agendas from Genrals and JCos that havelong staked their reputationon minimal force deployments. As for Powell, his is an opinion to consider but I have no idea how engaged he is with operational situations. Lord knows he has abit of Vietnam baggage wherein the Powell doctrine was his motto to prevent recurrance of such afiascos. Now that he sees things bogging down the recurring visions of Vietnam may be coloring his judgment.

Syria isn't a real problem. As for Iran in their interest not to see Iraq turn into a failed state. Their Da'wa allies have controlled united Iraqi gov't's. But we could offer a bunch of things, not least of which normalized economic relations. Which would be imperative for the regime given the results of the recent Assembly of Expert elections.

No its always been Iran. Syria remains Irans toady. AS WaPo indicated too little carrot no stick. And if negotiations are to be entertained the negotiating group better have an idea of what there doing and willing to offer (that has any meaning to Iran) rather than simpel exploratory bondoggles.

[Ramo]

The stick is the escalating civil war *** regional war. Iran has every reason to want a stable Iraq dominated by its (Shia Islamist) majority. The carrot's gonna be primarily economic normalization.

No I think ****e of Reid. But I likeiwsie thing there are agendas from Genrals and JCos that havelong staked their reputationon minimal force deployments. As for Powell, his is an opinion to consider but I have no idea how engaged he is with operational situations. Lord knows he has abit of Vietnam baggage wherein the Powell doctrine was his motto to prevent recurrance of such afiascos. Now that he sees things bogging down the recurring visions of Vietnam may be coloring his judgment.

The point is that there is not an anti-Powell for every Powell. The top brass is overwhelmingly against Bush-McCain. As reflected by the fact the the JCoS unanimously opposes the plan.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
The stick is the escalating civil war *** regional war. Iran has every reason to want a stable Iraq dominated by its (Shia Islamist) majority. The carrot's gonna be primarily economic normalization.

What in the wide wide world of sports gives you any reason to believe Iran wishes a stable Iraq when they are destabilizing the situation daily? So Iraq goes civil war BFD. One less national threat to them. Its not like Sunnis are pouring over ther borders in retaliation or likely to in the near future.
.

[Ramo]

They hitched their star to the rising power in the South. The Sadrists weren't Iran's first choice.

And it's not a minor problem if Iraq breaks apart. Saudis escalate and poor in cash and guns, as they've promised. The Kurds declare independence and cause problems at home. Lots of Shias get ethnically cleansed. There's likely retaliation against their oil production. And the constant violence in a bordering failed state causes some severe economic problems in an already ****ty economy.

OTOH, they get a close ally with a stable, majority-dominated Iraq.

[Ramo]

I don't believe that the "political solution" of sending a couple tens of thousands of American troops into Sadr City is going to remain a political solution for long. It's going to become a military solution eventually, and it'll be bad when that happens...

[MrFun]

The border of Iraq is anachronistic -- it was drawn up by Great Britain and France after World War I.

It may be better for the Iraqi groups to decide for themselves whether to dissolve this country and create two new countries from the imperial-era Iraq.

[Zkribbler]

Mr. Fun appears to have overlooked my insightful post, supra

Originally posted by Zkribbler
You're right, Oerdin.

I'm about ready to say to the Iraqis, "If you guys can't get along, then stew in your own bloodbath!"

But it's not that easy. If Iraq shatters, Turkey and Iran won't stand for an independent Kurdistan -- not with Kurdish minorities within their own borders. So, that's one and maybe two invasions.

The Saudis, Syrians and Jordanians won't stand by while their Sunni brothers are massacred at the hands of the far-more-numerous Shia, so at least one (and maybe all three) will intervene.

If the Shia start losing, then Iran will intervene militarily.

So we could be looking at one humdinger of a regional war.

[MrFun]

So we will have serious, chronic problems either way in the Middle East -- with an old Iraq unified with an anachronistic border created by imperial European powers, or with at least two new countries replacing the old Iraq.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MrFun
The border of Iraq is anachronistic -- it was drawn up by Great Britain and France after World War I.

It may be better for the Iraqi groups to decide for themselves whether to dissolve this country and create two new countries from the imperial-era Iraq.

You'd most certainly create three new states or atleast the state would divid into three parts (Kurd, Shi'a, and Sunni). The Sunni part is completely nonviable as an independent country as it has virtually no resources so it would have to be absorbed into into one of the neighboring Sunni States (Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia) while the Shi'a part would only be marginally viable (and then only due to the oil fields of southern Iraq) but there are no Arab Shi'a powers who would want them. Thus they'd be a small independent power quickly pulled into orbit around Iran. Kurdistan is a huge can of worms which no one wants to open due to an independent Kurdistan becoming a flash point for a regional war. Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria all have areas where the majority of the population is Kurdish and who want to be part of a majority Kurdish state. Naturely, those powers hate that idea.

Allowing for an independent Kurdistan would be 90%+ likely to cause a regional war as the regional powers all attempt to crush this Kurdish nationalism before it spins out of control a la the modern Sunni Iraqi insurgency. This would be a major international tussle in the mideast and, rightly, no one wants it to happen.

[MrFun]

Like I said already, Oerdin -- we're fluxed if we maintain a united, old Iraq, or we're fluxed if we allow Iraq to split into new countries.

[Chemical Ollie]

I've made a rough calculation that the cost of liberating one (1) Iraqi citizen is 4400 $ per year, so far. The figure is based on data given by Swedish Radio News. Am I correct?