Replies

Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

Wow, it's almost 2007, and we're just getting to this option? Anyone else feeling my irritation on this?

Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. ... No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

This would have been very smart, on a case by case basis, had we done it earlier. It may be too little too late now.

Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

Certainly a top contender for 2006's "Too little too late" award. I spent some time on the Syrian border, and it makes the U.S./Mexico border look like a 2,000 mile Fort Knox.

Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

Cut U.S. troops from presence patrol duties, and run them from nearby locations. Like Kuwait. Where have I heard this before? Now, it may not necessarily be a bad idea, but it's a major shift, when you realize this is coming from the DoD.