What do you think we should do with Iraq?

None ^ | 12/12/06 | Me

[ChiefJayStrongbow]

1) Instead of having the soldiers fill out reams of paperwork on why they fired any rounds when being ambushed, I would have them only fill out paperwork if they came back from an ambush and hadn't fired any rounds.

2) Cut all water, sewer, electric, and cell phone services for a week to any province where an attack occurs, unless the citizens can immediately identify the culprit(s) and unless the culprit(s) are immediately apprehended.

3) Publicly execute anyone that is suspected of being an insurgent.

4) Declare the inquiry into the Haditha killings to be over AND change the rules of engagement to be that if you are in a village and enemy fire comes from your village, your entire village will be bombed into rubble.

5) Sell some cruise missles to the Iraqi government and immediately use them to bomb the living $hit out of an Iranian oil refinery and a Syrian oil refinery ... they are both getting off too cheap.

[Logic n' Reason]

A reflective pure glass mirror that when the angle of the sun is just right, can be seen all the way from outer space!!

Iran to follow shortly....

[SunkenCiv]

Build a sprawling, state of the art, one storey suburb, then move everyone in Baghdad into to, one strip-searched family at a time. Anyone who doesn't want to go gets their current house bulldozed.

Just kidding. Kinda.

[stop_fascism]

Fully implement the ISG report! just kidding.

1. Continue to train the Iraqi army and police. Let them worry about the security of Baghdad.

2. Use our forces to identify and kill terrorists.

[Brilliant]

Two things: 1) focus on training the Iraqis, and 2) recofigure our troop placement to take them out of harm's way. With those two changes, the burden of fighting this war will shift to the Iraqis, and we can keep our presence up for another 10 years, which is probably what it's going to take to bring this war to an end. Our troops' only function will be to respond to confirmed al Qaeda operations that the Iraqi's can't handle by themselves, and act as a counterweight to Iran.

[Laserman]

"Kick the hell out of Syria and Iran."

Exactly. Nuke Tehran and Damascus. Then tell them two more are coming if they don't stop supporting terrorists. Eventually, the problem will be solved- either all their cities will be vapor, or they will stop making trouble.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Now that you've got the PX, bowling alley, swimming pools, officers club, golf course, and barracks built....


Is it time to put in the runways yet?

[verity]

This country needs more people like you.

[NavyCanDo]

Lets start by kicking the media out and let our soldiers do their jobs without fear of reprisal.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Push the button and watch the rest on CNN.

[Thrownatbirth]

The President needs to regain support at home first. He needs to reframe and simplify this conflict as a war head-to-head with al Qaeda, and that the Sunni/Shia conflict of today has been deliberately provoked by al Qaeda. We know that from Zarqawi memos.

Then tell the public we're killing al Qaeda every day. We're killing the same ilk as the 9/11 hijackers. That makes it simple enough to digest, even for a House Intelligence chairman.

[Cucumber]

Don't ask.

[MadIvan]

Dear -

I think we ought to give Kurdistan independence - this would create absolute mayhem in Iran, as their Kurdish regions would rise up in an attempt to join them. Give the Kurds all the weapons they want.

The remainder should be cantonised - sort of like an Arab Switzerland. The Rules of Engagement should be changed to allow the Allied troops a free hand in crushing the insurgents. Towns like Fallujah, if there is one like that again, should be obliterated as a warning.

Love, Ivan

[steve8714]

You wouldn't necessarily have to, as long as you cut a nice hunk out of Iran.

[Tokra]

Let them kill each other, while we loom like vultures on the sidelines from Kuwait and Saudi. With our military, invading the country is the easy part. Terrorists try to set up camp or install a hostile government, we smack them down in 48 hours. 2 hours if we only need to flatten the country from air.

You took the words right out of my mouth. An excellent suggestion.

[OldGuard1]

Wow, you mentioned bringing the French in, and you didn't get flamed? It's a miracle!

Seriously, though, it's wrong to pretend that the French are afraid of getting their hands bloody. Right now, they're the second most militarized European state (right behind Britain). Germany's economy is 50% bigger than theirs, yet France spends $5B more on its military than Germany. Our ally Poland spends an eighth as much on its military as France. Yes, France has a big history of losing in war (mostly due to incompetent leaders -- the French resistance in WWII did a pretty good job), but they're not afraid to fight.

That said, France doesn't want to fight in a way that will *help us*. Some times it seems they'd rather sacrifice their own national interests if it will help give us a bloody nose. Thus, I would be less surprised to a genetically engineered flying pig in the next ten years than French troops on the ground in Iraq -- unless there was some way that the French felt that having their troops on the ground would give us a bloody nose.

[MinorityRepublican]

Nice suggestion there but not feasible. If we were to divide Iraq into three parts, that will admit our occupation was a failure and we would be forced to withdraw troops quickly. Once that happens, Turkey will invade Kurdistan and enlarge the "Turkish Empire".

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Well, speaking from my near-total ignorance of military matters and international diplomacy, if I were president, I'd address Congress and the nation and clearly outline the stakes and the choices facing us:

1) Withdraw, as the Democrats and some Republicans wish. This would certainly mean abandoning at least a large part of Iraq to the Iranians, who would emerge from this a much more powerful and important force in the Mideast. It could also mean betraying the Kurds yet again, and would certainly involve the influx of large numbers of Iraqi refugees into the US. The net result, then, of our invasion on Iraq would not have been to install a friendly democracy in Iraq, but rather to bring the Shi'a fundamentalists to power over the Sunnis and to enhance Iran's position in the world - an outcome even the most deranged leftist should not desire.

2) Recognize that a new war must be fought in Iraq - this time to destroy the Iran-backed Shia militias and also the al-Qaeda-Sunni factions. This would entail a larger number of troops, possible strikes against targets in Syria and Iran, and a clear recognition by Democrats and the public that this is a long-term commitment which will inevitably see more US casualties. Victory in this war would establish Iraq as a friendly nation (democracy or not) that would serve as a bulwark against Iranian expansionism.

3) Make clear that there is no third option. Getting mad at the Iraqis for not ending the sectarian violence is pointless - most aren't involved in it and those who are involved have no reason to stop, since they appear to be winning.

I believe that the people of the US have always been prepared to sacrifice, if the cause and it's consequences are made clear, and if the president is willing to outline a clear plan of action. What people don't like is the seeming pointlessness of this effort, with a small but constant loss of young American lives and no end in sight, since no clear end-point has ever been defined. I have nothing but respect for Bush's decision to invade Iraq - deposing Saddam was absolutely a good thing for the world, but a war leader must do far more than Bush has done to confront the opposition and to make clear the stakes and the objectives.

[The KG9 Kid]

Beat me to it.

[AmusedBystander]

Spray all the areas with our soon-to-be-outdated chemicals where Saddam did not spray. It saves us a bunch of storage and disposal costs and rids Iraq of all who won't cooperate.