Solutions
Ok, Bush is no longer president. For some reason you are, and now it's up to you to figure out what to do about Iraq. History will determine the success of your presidency upon your action and it's impact on the future. What's your command Mr. or Ms President?

---

Personally I'd like to see us get out of this the best way possible, and believe that there may be some time before total disaster. Here are some ideas to discuss among my advisors- you.

Set a timetable: While initially against it, there appears to be distinct advantages in timed withdrawal. First it gives the American public an end to the light of the tunnel and would give a big moral boost to not only the public, but to the soldiers as well. Second, it gives a definite signal to the Iraqi's that they had better shape up within a given time. Finally it gives us a definite exit and helps us save some face.

Breakout the surplus equipment:
Granted, there is a problem finding people who would are dependable in a fight. But for those poorly equipped Iraqi's who actually do fight, give them equipment! Breakout our old surplus M-1's and M-113's sitting in a tank farm, ect. Figure out how many divisions Iraq would need to defend itself and at least build seed units in each.

One type of a division that would really help them keep order is an air assault like our 101 airborne which is helicopter borne light infantry. 

Look at Confederation, not separation. There would still be a general government, but the Kurd's, Shiites, and Sunni's would decide on their own inner states.

I also suggested reploying these two divisions (1st Armored, 2nd Infantry) to theaters that they're actually needed. Europe is no longer the weak, war torn area that can't defend itself from a Russian invasion. And post Korean War generations in South Korea are hell bent to kick American out of Korea. It should be noted that there is also a difference between a facility and a division, so I didn't suggest that we just abandoned the facilities in Germany or England. We just don't need to field small army's there when they are needed elsewhere.

Solutions
Set a timetable: While initially against it, there appears to be distinct advantages in timed withdrawal. First it gives the American public an end to the light of the tunnel and would give a big moral boost to not only the public, but to the soldiers as well. Second, it gives a definite signal to the Iraqi's that they had better shape up within a given time. Finally it gives us a definite exit and helps us save some face.


And what is an appropriate time for withdrawl?  1 year?  5 years?  50 years?  What if the Iraqi Government wants to sign a treaty to build permanent bases there, like what we have in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other places on the planet? 

We still have troops in Italy, Germany, and Japan.  And that war ended over 60 years ago.  We still have troops in South Korea, even though that has been over for 50 years.  We still have troops in former Yugoslavia, even though that conflict officially ended almost 10 years ago.

So what is an appropriate time for withdrawl?  Before I am willing to listen to anybody about "timeline", I want to know what exactly a timeline is.  And I want to see the troops of earlier conflicts resolved before the one we are involved in now.


Breakout the surplus equipment:
Granted, there is a problem finding people who would are dependable in a fight. But for those poorly equipped Iraqi's who actually do fight, give them equipment! Breakout our old surplus M-1's and M-113's sitting in a tank farm, ect. Figure out how many divisions Iraq would need to defend itself and at least build seed units in each.

One type of a division that would really help them keep order is an air assault like our 101 airborne which is helicopter borne light infantry. 


The problem with the new Iraqi Military is not the lack of equipment, it is the lack of people.

The Saddam government left the nation with a huge surplus of military hardware.  They have everything form T-72 tanks and BMP personnel carriers to helicopters and MIG aircraft.  What they do not have is trustworthy people to use it all.

The US Government has been very careful to NOT provide Iraq with US hardware.  And it is not a subject of trust, it is a subject of economics.  US hardware is among the most expensive in the world.  Iraq has been useing Soviet hardware for generations, and the continue to use it because it is inexpensive, and readily available.

There is also a political side to this.  By continuing to buy hardware from the Soviet Union, it removes the aspect of people starting to say that the war was in order to sell US military equipment.  Just as the US is being careful to not import Iraqi oil, it is being equally careful to not export US equipment if it can be sent by another country.

Besides, we are doing nobody a favor by sending them old obsolete hardware.  The Bradley is considered by many a death trap, but it is far better then the M-113 which it replaced.  Even the BMP which they currently use is better then the M-113.  And most hardware that is obsolete is sitting for use as spare parts, or because it is lost in the system.  I entered the military in 1983, and I can honestly say that in my 10 years in, I never saw a functioning M-113 outside of a museum.


Look at Confederation, not separation. There would still be a general government, but the Kurd's, Shiites, and Sunni's would decide on their own inner states.


Good idea.  That is also what Al-Queda and Iran want.  In that way, they can foster resentment and fighting between the various groups for decades to come.  And a weak and fractured Iraq does nobody any good, including Iraq.

We tried a Confederation once.  In fact, it was our first form of government after we won the Revolution.  And it lasted less then 7 years.  It was such a horrible form of government that it should never be used as anything but a temporary way of binding seperate people together.  Yugoslavia was also a confederation, and look at what happened when the only person able to keep them united died.  We ended up with years of bloody war.


I also suggested reploying these two divisions (1st Armored, 2nd Infantry) to theaters that they're actually needed. Europe is no longer the weak, war torn area that can't defend itself from a Russian invasion. And post Korean War generations in South Korea are hell bent to kick American out of Korea. It should be noted that there is also a difference between a facility and a division, so I didn't suggest that we just abandoned the facilities in Germany or England. We just don't need to field small army's there when they are needed elsewhere.


You have to realize that base agreements with foreign countries are complex and involve more then just putting troops in place.

Before the Government puts (or removes) troops from these bases, it also has to gain the agreement of the host country.  The Status Of Forces Agreements (SOFA) is an agreement as to where they will be stationed, how many will be stationed there, and for how long.  The troops in Germany are there as what was originally an occupation force, then evolved into a NATO commitment.

And to be honest, there are still a lot of countries in Europe that do not fully trust Germany.  Starting 2 World Wars in 50 years and killing tens of millions of people tends to make the neighbors slightly uneasy.  In fact, I doubt that a lot of countries would have sit back and let Germany unify if not for the US forces there to keep an eye on everything.

And if we pulled our troops out of Korea, do you really think that the North will be friendly northern neighbors?  For goodness sakes, we are talking about a country which is building nuclear weapons, even though it signed an agreement with us to stop their program.  And they are about to teest a ballistic missil, even though we have an agreement that they will suspend all such tests.

And if South Korea really wanted the US out, they would simply ask us to leave.  We are not on occupation force, we are there at the request of their government.  If the majority of people wanted to kick the US out, they would be gone.  That has long been part of the platform of the Socialist Party in South Korea.  And the Socialist Party there gains about as many votes in the elections as the Socialist Party in the US gets.  Hardly an overwhelming cry to leave.

a. The war in Iraq is NOT a war, it is an occupation.
b. The attack on a disarmed nation called Iraq is NOT comparable to WWII.
c. The occupation of Iraq is NOT about the interests of the Iraqi people, it's abut the interests of oil barons.
d. The British forced the people of Iraq into one nation. It could only be held together by force. There will be no "democracy" in the region until the various ethnicities and religious factions sort things out bloodily. The United States cannot impose democracy on Iraq. Anyway, the U.S. is not interested in democracy for Iraq. The real motivation behind our occupation is to let the fatcats steal all they can from Iraq.
e. There is no such thing as the War on Terror. The so-called War on Terror is a vector for fascism. If we DO want to eschew terrorism, it would be a good idea to get out of Iraq, a country where we are not wanted...and make no mistake about it, we are going to have to get out!

Like I said, the first thing to do is to nationalize the oil industry. No more taxpayer funded death for the private profits of the greedy few.

And what is an appropriate time for withdrawl?  1 year?  5 years?  50 years?  What if the Iraqi Government wants to sign a treaty to build permanent bases there, like what we have in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other places on the planet? 

We still have troops in Italy, Germany, and Japan.  And that war ended over 60 years ago.  We still have troops in South Korea, even though that has been over for 50 years.  We still have troops in former Yugoslavia, even though that conflict officially ended almost 10 years ago.

So what is an appropriate time for withdrawl?  Before I am willing to listen to anybody about "timeline", I want to know what exactly a timeline is.  And I want to see the troops of earlier conflicts resolved before the one we are involved in now.

The problem with the new Iraqi Military is not the lack of equipment, it is the lack of people.

The Saddam government left the nation with a huge surplus of military hardware.  They have everything form T-72 tanks and BMP personnel carriers to helicopters and MIG aircraft.  What they do not have is trustworthy people to use it all.

The US Government has been very careful to NOT provide Iraq with US hardware.  And it is not a subject of trust, it is a subject of economics.  US hardware is among the most expensive in the world.  Iraq has been useing Soviet hardware for generations, and the continue to use it because it is inexpensive, and readily available.

There is also a political side to this.  By continuing to buy hardware from the Soviet Union, it removes the aspect of people starting to say that the war was in order to sell US military equipment.  Just as the US is being careful to not import Iraqi oil, it is being equally careful to not export US equipment if it can be sent by another country.

Besides, we are doing nobody a favor by sending them old obsolete hardware.  The Bradley is considered by many a death trap, but it is far better then the M-113 which it replaced.  Even the BMP which they currently use is better then the M-113.  And most hardware that is obsolete is sitting for use as spare parts, or because it is lost in the system.  I entered the military in 1983, and I can honestly say that in my 10 years in, I never saw a functioning M-113 outside of a museum.

Good idea.  That is also what Al-Queda and Iran want.  In that way, they can foster resentment and fighting between the various groups for decades to come.  And a weak and fractured Iraq does nobody any good, including Iraq.

We tried a Confederation once.  In fact, it was our first form of government after we won the Revolution.  And it lasted less then 7 years.  It was such a horrible form of government that it should never be used as anything but a temporary way of binding seperate people together.  Yugoslavia was also a confederation, and look at what happened when the only person able to keep them united died.  We ended up with years of bloody war.

You have to realize that base agreements with foreign countries are complex and involve more then just putting troops in place.

Before the Government puts (or removes) troops from these bases, it also has to gain the agreement of the host country.  The Status Of Forces Agreements (SOFA) is an agreement as to where they will be stationed, how many will be stationed there, and for how long.  The troops in Germany are there as what was originally an occupation force, then evolved into a NATO commitment.

And to be honest, there are still a lot of countries in Europe that do not fully trust Germany.  Starting 2 World Wars in 50 years and killing tens of millions of people tends to make the neighbors slightly uneasy.  In fact, I doubt that a lot of countries would have sit back and let Germany unify if not for the US forces there to keep an eye on everything.

And if we pulled our troops out of Korea, do you really think that the North will be friendly northern neighbors?  For goodness sakes, we are talking about a country which is building nuclear weapons, even though it signed an agreement with us to stop their program.  And they are about to teest a ballistic missil, even though we have an agreement that they will suspend all such tests.

And if South Korea really wanted the US out, they would simply ask us to leave.  We are not on occupation force, we are there at the request of their government.  If the majority of people wanted to kick the US out, they would be gone.  That has long been part of the platform of the Socialist Party in South Korea.  And the Socialist Party there gains about as many votes in the elections as the Socialist Party in the US gets.  Hardly an overwhelming cry to leave.


Well, how long did it take to train a combat ready (measured in divisions) American army in WW2? Frankly 2 years ought to be enough time to get serious about raising up and Iraqi army of at least 10 divisions. It seems that only two extremes are being fielded, the immediate withdrawl which would pull the rug out under Iraq and all we have been trying to do, or continuing to linger until some other president gets to worry about how to get out. I

What's your command Mr. or Ms President?


Following the conflict, there will be a mop-up period that may involve a brief flare-up of violence in the region.  China has agreed to provide the manpower in exchange for Taiwan and Iran, Russia to provide the heavy equipment in exchange for the resources of the former 'stans, with the exception of Pakistan, which is to be handed over to India as a condition of their participation.  We will provide air support and claim the remaining land from Egypt to Iraq. The European Union has agreed to make no land claims in exchange for being the sole contractor for all regional pipeline and infrastructure rebuilding.

We've learned that our predecessors were right:  Democracy cannot be exported to a tribal theocratic culture.  To that end, all allied troops and contractors were withdrawn as of last week. 

Targets were selected and programmed, and our respective launch systems were interlocked, requiring the authorization of the leaders of the EU, US, China, Russia, and India before firing.  The last of these authorizations has been received; the world, united, has chosen to end this war today.

I'm pleased to tell you today that I have signed legislation that will outlaw the Middle East forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.

Again, this is not war. It's piracy.