PDA

View Full Version : are there enough troops in iraq?


zimv20
Aug 20, 2003, 04:25 PM
john mccain and some in the UN think the situation won't improve w/o a drastic increase in forces. i agree w/ that assessment.

if doubling the forces there required the UN to take control of the forces, should it be done?

is what's happening now best for the iraqis? or would the UN, w/ double the troops, do a better job at securing the peace and providing basic infrastructure?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 20, 2003, 05:42 PM
I personally think that the UN, even with the same amount of troops, would do a much better job of securing the peace.

But this attack on the UN is far too shady to be related to B'aath loyaltists IMHO. Probably al Queda, Hamas, or another Anti-american/anti-isreal terrorist group aiming to make you ask the same question that you are right now.

simX
Aug 20, 2003, 05:57 PM
A drastic increase in forces won't improve anything. As it is, we have troops over their getting killed when the war's supposedly "over". Iraqis already resent their country being occupied -- any increase in forces will just increase that resentment, which is shown by suicide bombings and related events.

Terrorism will exist no matter what happens, as there are always going to be people who feel the need to resort to extreme means to get their point across. There's a point at which more measures and troops won't do a thing to prevent these attacks, because these people are just too determined to fail.

Pinto
Aug 20, 2003, 07:07 PM
As long as there are US troops in Iraq some people will think that any westerners are part of the invasion/occupation force.

The problem is that no one else has the military power to take the place of the US.

This is a no-win situation that the US has gotten everyone into.

There were no terrorists in Iraq, now that the US has invaded they are flooding into the country.

Desertrat
Aug 20, 2003, 07:07 PM
I was just reading a StratFor analysis of the problems in Iraq. Gen. Shineki--since retired--was slammed down by Rumsfeld after having predicted that more troops would be needed than the number now there.

There seem to be three allied factions: The Baathists; disgruntled Shiites in the south, aided by Al Qaida and Iran; and "miscellaneous" anti-U.S. types who have entered Iraq since the end of the primary combat effort.

The ongoing sabotage of electric systems and water lines is pushing the main population from a positive-to-neutral view of us to one of hostility--which is the intent of the sabotage.

I dunno. What would appear to be needed is to vastly enlarge the number of Iraqi police and military or para-military personnel so that Iraqis are maintaining order among Iraqis. This takes time, of course. This still leaves the problem of Shiite vs. Sunni.

Some sort of representative government must be seen by the Iraqi people as truly being in charge--and not just U.S. puppets--before there's any hope of things calming down...

Maybe an influx of Blue Helmets would be helpful. I don't know.

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 20, 2003, 10:14 PM
I haven't heard anybody outside of the administration claim lately that we have enough troops in Iraq to stabilize the country and provide security. So long as the White House remains obsessed with controlling the situation in Iraq, the situation will continue to deteriorate and it will become increasingly difficult to convince anyone to help.

Pinto
Aug 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

There seem to be three allied factions: The Baathists; disgruntled Shiites in the south, aided by Al Qaida and Iran; and "miscellaneous" anti-U.S. types who have entered Iraq since the end of the primary combat effort.
'Rat

Here's an interesting article by Robert Fisk

The reaction to yesterday's tragedy could have been written in advance. The Americans will tell us that this proves how "desperate" Saddam's "dead-enders" have become - as if the attackers are more likely to give up as they become more successful in destroying US rule in Iraq. The truth - however many of Saddam's old regime hands are involved - is that the Iraqi resistance organisation now involves hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunni Muslims, many of them with no loyalty to the old regime. Increasingly, the Shias are becoming involved in anti-American actions.



Future reaction is equally predictable. Unable to blame their daily cup of bitterness upon Saddam's former retinue, the Americans will have to conjure up foreign intervention. Saudi "terrorists", al-Qa'ida "terrorists", pro-Syrian "terrorists", pro-Iranian "terrorists" - any mysterious "terrorists" will do if their supposed existence covers up the painful reality: that our occupation has spawned a real home-grown Iraqi guerrilla army capable of humbling the greatest power on Earth.



With the Americans still trying to bring other nations on board for their Iraqi adventure - even the Indians have had the good sense to decline the invitation - yesterday's bombing was therefore aimed at the jugular of any future "peace-keeping" mission. The UN flag was supposed to guarantee security. But in the past, a UN presence was always contingent upon the acquiescence of the sovereign power. With no sovereign power in existence in Iraq, the UN's legitimacy was bound to be locked on to the occupation authority. Thus could it be seen - by America's detractors - as no more than an extension of US power. President Bush was happy to show his scorn for the UN when its inspectors failed to find any weapons of mass destruction and when its Security Council would not agree to the Anglo-American invasion. Now he cannot even protect UN lives in Iraq.

link (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4492.htm)

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 12:21 AM
The Secretary General was calm and measured in his words about the destruction of the UN mission, but through the back channels I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq.

Inu
Aug 21, 2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by zimv20

if doubling the forces there required the UN to take control of the forces, should it be done?


After the UN has been called irrelevant by the pompous leader of the USA, it should come back to relevance after your leader's buddy's got their share of the spoils of war?

As honored as we are being allowed to pay for your wars, but you broke it - you fix it. Have a nice day.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Secretary General was calm and measured in his words about the destruction of the UN mission, but through the back channels I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq.

I don't think the U.S had much say over U.N. security operations. From what I have heard the U.N. did not want to be seen to be hiding behind fortifications the way the U.S. is. The U.N. has not had to fear attacks from Iraqi's, and so have not taken a defensive posture. This may now change, but the goal was to not seem distant from the people they were trying to help.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Secretary General was calm and measured in his words about the destruction of the UN mission, but through the back channels I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq.

Wait a minute. The US offered increased security to the UN, and they turned it down. That was their own friggin fault.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait a minute. The US offered increased security to the UN, and they turned it down. That was their own friggin fault.

I think we can agree it was the terrorists fault that building was blown up. Unless you want to ascribe blame for the people killed in the WTC and Pentagon to the U.S. for hubris in thinking we were safe here?

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
I think we can agree it was the terrorists fault that building was blown up. Unless you want to ascribe blame for the people killed in the WTC and Pentagon to the U.S. for hubris in thinking we were safe here?

No, I am not saying that. My problem with his post was this statement "I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq. "

The US had offered to protect the UN headquarters there days before the attack, and the UN in their all mighty glory said "nope, we don't need your protection".

So my point was don't say the US needs a finger-wagging for better security, when they had offered it and were told no.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, I am not saying that. My problem with his post was this statement "I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq. "

The US had offered to protect the UN headquarters there days before the attack, and the UN in their all mighty glory said "nope, we don't need your protection".

So my point was don't say the US needs a finger-wagging for better security, when they had offered it and were told no.

Point taken. In fact if you read my post you'll see that I am in agreement with you about the matter.

I was just thinking back to the converstaions after 9/11 when there were people making qualifying statements to the effect that the U.S. shared some blame for the attacks and all the conservatives in the world were saying "How dare you suggest that, it is the terrorists who are responsible for the attack." Just making sure you weren't making that same argument.;)

zimv20
Aug 21, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

The US had offered to protect the UN headquarters there days before the attack, and the UN in their all mighty glory said "nope, we don't need your protection".


on abcnews last night, they said the UN turned down the offer for fear that US presence at the facility would attract negative attention. the kind of negative attention they got, regardless.

zimv20
Aug 21, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
My problem with his post was this statement "I'd hope and expect he is giving the Bush administration a stern finger-wagging about the need for the US to provide security in Iraq. "


i believe mr. annan's statement was in regard to security throughout iraq for iraqis.

simX
Aug 21, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Inu
After the UN has been called irrelevant by the pompous leader of the USA, it should come back to relevance after your leader's buddy's got their share of the spoils of war?

As honored as we are being allowed to pay for your wars, but you broke it - you fix it. Have a nice day.

I have to admit that I must reluctantly agree with this entire post. Unfortunately, being a citizen of the U.S., that means that I'll have to pay out of my own pocket.

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i believe mr. annan's statement was in regard to security throughout iraq for iraqis.

Right. The UN has maintained a mission in Iraq for many years -- for over a decade, I believe. If the US is going to insist on running the country, it has to be done properly, and that does not mean ringing the UN mission with M-1 tanks. As I said, Annan was characteristically diplomatic before the cameras, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't making a much more forceful case for US responsibilities through the back channels.

RobVanDam
Aug 21, 2003, 10:12 PM
What I find baffling is that people don't know how this will end.

On it's current path, it's very obvious how this will end. The Iraqi rebellion will grow, the United States will go and kill the rebels that decide one day to gather in the open.

This isn't Vietnam, this is Mogidishu.

When the guerilla attacks get out of hand the US will go either on a massive attack to kill everyone involved (which is very possible, see: Pablo Escobar in Columbia), or they will establish good ol' marshall law and then kill everyone involved in a very, very, effective week. I'll bet the first will happen.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
What I find baffling is that people don't know how this will end.

On it's current path, it's very obvious how this will end. The Iraqi rebellion will grow, the United States will go and kill the rebels that decide one day to gather in the open.

This isn't Vietnam, this is Mogidishu.

When the guerilla attacks get out of hand the US will go either on a massive attack to kill everyone involved (which is very possible, see: Pablo Escobar in Columbia), or they will establish good ol' marshall law and then kill everyone involved in a very, very, effective week. I'll bet the first will happen.

Thats gonna be a lot of killin'. I don't see how that really helps us make Iraq a better place.

And why would they ever gather in the open? Have the Israelis ever gotten terrorists to gather in the open for slaughter?

Ah well, it's only trolling...

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Right. The UN has maintained a mission in Iraq for many years -- for over a decade, I believe. If the US is going to insist on running the country, it has to be done properly, and that does not mean ringing the UN mission with M-1 tanks. As I said, Annan was characteristically diplomatic before the cameras, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't making a much more forceful case for US responsibilities through the back channels.

Yea, except that he said that did not turn down the offer for additional policing of the UN buildings by US troops. He said that the person who did would have to answer for it.

It is a war zone, in a 3rd world country, with a bunch of wackos running around trying to use terrorism to get us out. This was a bad idea for them to go after the UN, because it will get the world pissed off.

Inu
Aug 22, 2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

It is a war zone, in a 3rd world country, with a bunch of wackos running around trying to use terrorism to get us out. This was a bad idea for them to go after the UN, because it will get the world pissed off.

I don't know why exactly, but i just had a "Life of Brian" Flashback. Maybe in 5 Years the Iraqi will gather in Resistance Cells and debate like there.

Pissing off the UN was certainly stupid enough from them, but i think they are looking at the UN nowadays and see only another branch of US Forces.

Of course the situation isnt funny, but i couldnt help thinking of some Resistance Member asking his Brothers "what have the US ever done for us?". You better make sure they have some reasons to bring forward then, so they can feel silly :D

RobVanDam
Aug 22, 2003, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Thats gonna be a lot of killin'. I don't see how that really helps us make Iraq a better place.

And why would they ever gather in the open? Have the Israelis ever gotten terrorists to gather in the open for slaughter?

Ah well, it's only trolling... I don't think ya know much about Pablo Escobar, so I'll give a brief history because it's very similar to what's happening now.

It's the early 90's, war on drugs in Columbia, Pablo is a big drug lord, like one of the biggest. We decide, hey, we're going to get rid of him and send Delta down to Columbia to work with the Columbians. There are some extremely bloody fights, the worse Pablo is hurt, the more drastic he gets. At one point, he puts prices on Columbian Policeman's heads. Eventually the killing dies down and Pablo is on the run with just a few others. He's eventually tracked down and killed.

Following this example, we've probably peaked at the middle where most of the killing happens. It's all a matter of time before the rebellion is killed off.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
I don't think ya know much about Pablo Escobar, so I'll give a brief history because it's very similar to what's happening now.

It's the early 90's, war on drugs in Columbia, Pablo is a big drug lord, like one of the biggest. We decide, hey, we're going to get rid of him and send Delta down to Columbia to work with the Columbians. There are some extremely bloody fights, the worse Pablo is hurt, the more drastic he gets. At one point, he puts prices on Columbian Policeman's heads. Eventually the killing dies down and Pablo is on the run with just a few others. He's eventually tracked down and killed.

Following this example, we've probably peaked at the middle where most of the killing happens. It's all a matter of time before the rebellion is killed off.

I actually do know about Pable Escobar, but I see some fundamental differences between the two cases. First, Pablo was never a head of state, so his removal or killing would not disrupt the political structure of a country. Second, we didn't send the full force of our military in to hostile territory to get him, only special forces and covert ops guys. Third, Pablo never had NBC weaponry. Of course it looks like Saddam didn't either, but that's a different matter. And lastly, catching up with Pablo meant an end to the problem. Killing Saddam will not have the same effect. Killing Pablo meant we could wrap up the mission, bring the boys home, ride off into the sunset... whatever you want to call it. Killiing Saddam will only be the first step in putting Iraq back together, a task made more difficult by the fact that Iraq was never really "together" before. Iraq is a country made up of several different tribal, religious, and ethnic groups that have a long history of animosity towards each other. It was held together for so long by force, I'm not sure it can form a cohesive country without a whole lot of bloodshed. And then only maybe.

RobVanDam
Aug 22, 2003, 12:38 PM
Good arguement. Damn good arguement.

zimv20
Aug 24, 2003, 11:35 PM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=436639


Former officer and defence expert Michael Yardley said these were not random attacks. "We were always going to see an extended guerrilla campaign against allied forces. We know that Saddam Hussein planned for this contingency - to resist unconventionally.

"It has been suggested that these are random attacks but they are more than that, although we can't be sure who is responsible - Jihadists, remnants of Saddam Hussein's intelligence or Fedayeen militia. You need at least half a million troops to police this country effectively, which we do not have. Either the intelligence assessment was deficient or George Bush and Tony Blair were willing to take an unacceptable degree of risk in this campaign."