The Great American Debate! What Option Would You Suggest?

I was watching a lively debate concerning Iraq on the program ‘Larry King Live’ aired on CNN yesterday. Taking part were White House correspondents, strategists, think tanks, and ex presidents’ advisors and congressmen.

The options discussed for getting out of the disastrous Iraqi quagmire that the US has slipped into, were:

Option 1. An immediate withdrawal of all American and coalition troops from Iraq and leave the Iraqi’s to sort out their problems.

Option 2. Divide Iraq between the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis and evolve some sort of a confederation before withdrawal of all forces.

Option 3. A planned withdrawal of all coalition forces by Sep 08, under a set timetable whatever the situation.

Option 4. Continued indefinite occupation of Iraq by American forces and the ‘coalition of the willing’ till democracy (sic) is fully established.

These were the options being discussed. Have any members here on ATS got any other ideas or options that could help sort out the Iraq imbroglio?

As for me, I think option 1 is the best bet, despite the dashing of American Corporate hopes of making their trillions from Iraqi oil as also America’s loss of prestige and a bruised super power ego!

Cheers!

In my opinion option 4 is the only way to go.History will blame and condem the US actions if a stable government isn't firmly in place when the US leaves Iraq.What ever happend to persavering despite the enormity of the challenge?Where is America's pride to finish any task it set for itself?To pull out of Iraq without the Iraqi governments blessing would only further damage the US's world image.
I worry how history will see the US's actions if they leave Iraq in a violent humanitarian crisis.I'm not worried for myself but for the future generations that will have to contend with the worlds condemnation of US actions taken by previous generations.

I'm with Option 1. Even if things get temporarily worse (which they might) the country would eventually settle down and organize itself. As it is, there will be upheaval as long as we're there. There's always going to be someone who wants us out of there and who's more than willing to die to do what they can to make us leave.

I don't give a flying foo what "History thinks of us". I'm not worried about our image or how we look. Our people (and far more Iraqis) are dying every day. That doesn't compare to our "image".

We look like we screwed up royally because we did. It's time to cut our losses and take a different tack.

Oh yeah...option 1 would work really well......

Let's name a couple of places that it has worked......

Sudan
Somilia

These are just 2 out of many that show if it is a civil war it will not calm down after a couple of months......wishful thinking.

We must stay the course........the fact that some leaders in the US support the insurgency by their comments and actions, give the insurgency/terrorists the will to keep on fighting.

God forbid this country had this attitude during WW2....we would all be speaking German.......

I would have say option 2
Let’s start an international conference with all interested parties and partition Iraq along ethnic boundaries, Iraq is a made up country with artificial boundaries. If the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites don’t want to live together why force them.

option 5:

phased withdrawl until january 09, with an international peacekeeping force set to replace american troops in lower numbers and primarily to train iraqi police forces

I'm for a mixture of otion 2 and a variant of option 3.

A phased withdrawal over 5 years, while putting more emphasis on
training the Iraqis and making them capable of taking care of them-
selves, and focusing more on diplomacy and defence, and establishing
the seperate zones.

I see Option 1 as doing nothing more than delaying the problem. If we pull out now we will just be back in a few years with many more troops facing a much more deadly enemy. That's if we are lucky. If we are unlucky we will be fighting the much more deadly enemy here in the US.

Option 2 has some logic to it since the three different groups in Iraq don't seem to want to live together. The problem I see with this idea is drawing the dividing lines of the three areas. No matter where the lines were drawn different groups would not like it and declare an endless jihad to recover "their" land.

Option 3 is nothing more than a slower, more painful version of Option 2. If we, in the end, choose to abandon Iraq we should leave as fast as we possibly can.

As sad and tragic as it may be, I think Option 4 is the best for the long term. The Middle East has been a festering cauldron of trouble for years. We have been able to dance around and avoid getting drug into the swamp for a long time. (Several Presidents have done this both Republican and Democrat) Unfortunately, our dancing time eventually had to end whether it was in Iraq or Syria or Iran.

My proposal for Option 5 would be to launch a massive air strike against Iran and completely wipe out all of their nuclear sites as well as all of their military. This could be done at very little risk to US forces. We do not need to invade Iran with ground forces. The reason for such a drastic attack would be to eliminate the main force behind a large part of the trouble in the Middle East. Without Iran to support Hizbolla, Syria and all of the other troublemakers I think the entire region would calm down to a large extent.

I wish there was a peaceful, diplomatic way to settle things in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East but I just don't see it happening. There are probably 50 ways for the Middle East to erupt into a huge regional war and maybe three options for avoiding it. The odds do not look good.

Originally posted by itguysrule

My proposal for Option 5 would be to launch a massive air strike against Iran and completely wipe out all of their nuclear sites as well as all of their military. This could be done at very little risk to US forces. We do not need to invade Iran with ground forces. The reason for such a drastic attack would be to eliminate the main force behind a large part of the trouble in the Middle East. Without Iran to support Hizbolla, Syria and all of the other troublemakers I think the entire region would calm down to a large extent.

Do you really think that the problem of terrorism will be eliminated, at least to a great extent, by bombing Iran back to the stone age? It may be an option but I feel things will get far worse than what they are!

You can destroy a country but not a nation. Retribution will be severe and would be ingrained in the Iranian psyche and no stone will be left unturned to hit back at the US. Considering the asymmetric force levels that prevail, the only option for Iran would be to bleed America by protracted terror attacks on its assets.

And its not only American interests that would be harmed, but also the world economy which would face a meltdown, what with oil prices hitting the $150 per barrel level, and possibly $200 if its a protracted conflict. Additionally, there will be total destabilization of the Middle East leading to the rise of terrorist groups vying for space and domination.

And then probably we would finally see the rise of the next anti Christ (A terrorist leader) who would make Osama look like a tyro!

I feel the only solution would be to withdraw all coalition forces immediately and let the Iraqis decide their future. If there's a civil war, so be it! It'll finally settle down in time. Apart from Oil, what are the other American interests in Iraq for them to hang around? Nix. Yes, and as I said earlier the American oil corporations would lose probably trillions of dollars in the process.

But are American oil corporations more valuable than American lives? 3,500 soldiers killed and counting. For how long?

You know the situation there is so messed up that I didn't even feel like replying to this thread..

..but I did..just to make the above point.

I know my Option 5 is awful and would cause horrendous death and destruction. My fear is that it may be the best option we have available. I believe we are making a terrible mistake trying to battle terrorists or insurgents or whatever you want to call them on a one on one basis. Our fight should be with the country as a whole rather than trying to pick out the fighters and not kill the innocents.

The message to Iran should be brutally simple – stop your nuclear program and supporting Hizbolla and other terrorist groups or we will destroy your country. That is how we finally defeated Japan in WWII. They didn’t surrender because of the Atomic bombs that were used on them – they surrendered because the Emperor TOLD them to surrender. The people would have fought until we killed every last one of them. The Atomic bombs convinced the Emperor that the country would be destroyed and he made the decision.

We can never kill enough terrorists or insurgents to stop them. We have to convince their leaders that we have both the will and the ability to destroy their whole world. We have to understand that not everyone in the world views life as we do. If someone fears and respects only brute force and military power it is ridiculous to negotiate with them. We must speak their language no matter how repugnant it may be to us.

I’m sure a great majority of ATS members will disagree with my point of view but there it is. Maybe I am wrong and things are not as bad as I see them to be.

Option 1-

This option will wash our hands of the issue but I think it would only allow the oppression of the weak there.

Option 2-

There will still be civil war with this option. These sects do not want to co-exist with one another.

Option 3-

Flat out will not work. This is like saying we are going to prosecute people for murder in the US until 2010..after that everything is fair game. Why does it make sense to people to let the enemy know when we are going to leave? All they will have to do is play the waiting game.

Option 4-

I think this is one of the only valid options. This is a tough choice because more people I know will die certainly get killed. I myself may even be next but I think this is what we have to do.

No matter what is decided I will support it because that is my job. However, I believe that there will be consequences for any of them. We will just have to wait and see I guess.

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Option 4-

I think this is one of the only valid options. This is a tough choice because more people I know will die certainly get killed. I myself may even be next but I think this is what we have to do.

No matter what is decided I will support it because that is my job.

What is your job? To die fighting for YOUR country or for the Iraqis? For the oil cartels and corporations? For the neo-con grand agenda of the so-called New World Order? Sadly, you're just a pawn in the chess game.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

Option 4-

I think this is one of the only valid options. This is a tough choice because more people I know will die certainly get killed. I myself may even be next but I think this is what we have to do.

No matter what is decided I will support it because that is my job.

What is your job? To die fighting for YOUR country or for the Iraqis? For the oil cartels and corporations? For the neo-con grand agenda of the so-called New World Order? Sadly, you're just a pawn in the chess game.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by mikesingh]

I do what I do so that people in this country can have the freedoms that they currently have. People like myself die so that people have the rights to talk down to us and tell us we are baby killers and murderers. I do it because I believe in something that is bigger than myself. I am an educated person and for you to call me a pawn is absolutely rediculous. I have a mind of my own and would be the first to object if I sense something bad.

Just because we serve our country does not mean we are mindless peons that don't have a mind of our own. Because we serve does not mean we have to agree with or even like the leaders we serve. People that have never served in the armed forces will never understand why we do what we do.

Just to throw another option out there, not that, at this point, there are any good ones:

How about we stay in Iraq, but just to provide border security and protect the fledgling government from collapse? That would put the pressure on the Iraqis to settle their differences among themselves without regional interference. Let's face it, the only government they have is the one we installed and let them pretend they elected.

I think eventually Iraq will partition into three states with a coalition federal gevernment to insure fair sharing of the oil revenue. They have to start with the government they have, and we need to get out of the way.

Option X:
Stage false flag operation.
Distract public from Iraq, blame it on Iran.
Exit stage right.. into Iran..
(not exactly what I would suggest)

No one really cares what's going on
in Afghanistan now that we're in Iraq..
With the way the media jumps from one
story to the next hot topic, Iraq would
be yesterday's news FAST.
"Iraq war what?"

What better way to fix a problem than to
pretend there no longer is one?

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst

People that have never served in the armed forces will never understand why we do what we do.

Right on! I've been in the Army for 30 years! So I should know!!

Originally posted by mikesingh
Option 1. An immediate withdrawal of all American and coalition troops from Iraq and leave the Iraqi’s to sort out their problems.
Option 2. Divide Iraq between the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis and evolve some sort of a confederation before withdrawal of all forces.
Option 3. A planned withdrawal of all coalition forces by Sep 08, under a set timetable whatever the situation.
Option 4. Continued indefinite occupation of Iraq by American forces and the ‘coalition of the willing’ till democracy (sic) is fully established.
These were the options being discussed. Have any members here on ATS got any other ideas or options that could help sort out the Iraq imbroglio?

None of the above and here is the reason why:
If you pull out of Iraq, it will explode the middle east, as those countries, that surround Iraq, will move in, and start a larger war. Iran will want to move in to take control over the oil fields, and use the protection of the Shias as an excuse. To divide the country into 3 seperate countries, and you have the same problem as Turkey will move in, as they do not like the Kurds. We can not continue on the same course as it will cost use Trillions in the long run.
The solution that I can offer, and I know it will not be a popular one, but pull out all of the rules that hold the military in check, tell the soldiers and commanders there they can do ANYTHING to quell the population. Set an example out in the country somewhere and then look at the general population and state, if you do not settle down, we will continue on in the entire country. Now this will upset the general population, but it will force them to work together, and set the conditions for the troops to leave. It would be a matter of time, prolly within a year and all will be calmed down enough for the troops to leave.
Saddam ruled through fear, using it against the people of Iraq, for many years, so the population would not raise up. Now they have the freedom to do anything they want, and in a country where old transgretions are not forgotten, you have to put the fear into them that someone worse than Saddam is in power. It will focus the people of Iraq and force them to calm down fully.

Just my thoughts.

Option 5

Claim Victory, Time for strategic redeployment come home and protect the homeland.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by whaaa]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
People that have never served in the armed forces will never understand why we do what we do.

Right on! I've been in the Army for 30 years! So I should know!!

Thank you to both of you for your service to our country. Even if I may disagree with you on occasion I will never disrespect your service.