1. Create a pro-West, pro-business regime. 2. Exploit the vast oil reserves that were previously inaccesible. 3. Gain another staging area (military bases=diplomatic leverage) for the Middle East. 4. Liberate a bunch of oppressed people.
It's entirely possible to create another South Korea out of Iraq if we put in the time. Given the vast resources and determination of the US, it is <b>impossible</b> for us to fail to achieve all four of the above goals in the long run. The only problem is determination.
Iraq was an important country in an area deemed extremely important to American interests. The American government and its agents will obviously advance American interests. If that means invading a country, ousting a dictator, and imposing a regime friendly to us, then that's what will happen.
It'll be interesting to see the <b>history</b> lecture on Iraq, and not the massive <b>current events</b> one we've been getting for five years.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1605671:date=Feb 11 2007, 10:07 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 11 2007, 10:07 PM) [snapback]1605671[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There are (broadly) two possible outcomes of the war in Iraq:
1) Our strategic goals are eventually acheived, at whatever cost 2) Our strategic goals are never acheived
As of yet, neither possibility has been realized yet. It is disingenuous to compare the cost of war versus the benefits of the current incomplete state. It really ought to be compared to the benefits of the completed war. Granted, there is a chance that those benefits may not materialize, but that makes the war a Gamble, not a Waste. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This may be due to the general bias of news reporting towards tragedy, but it seems to me that there's a vanishingly small possibility of Iraq being a secular democracy when we leave. People literally cannot leave their homes. Even in the event that the Maliki government stays in power, it would take a South Africa-like miracle to keep the country from dissolving into a lengthy and brutal civil war, and I think the violence that has already occurred pretty much precludes that as a possibility. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Given the vast resources and determination of the US, it is impossible for us to fail to achieve all four of the above goals in the long run. The only problem is determination. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Vietnam?
Vietnam was mismanaged, and the only thing that kept us from crushing the North Vietnamese was the fear of another intervention by China. No offensives went into North Vietnam. We were chasing them into their ratholes, but would go no further north. Even the bombing raids we sent up to the north hit isolated spots instead of juicy targets. The Cambodian incursion just further proved how badly the war was dealt with. Instead of hitting them at their home (something the military excels at), we tried chasing them all over the Ho Chi Minh trail.
And another point, we were near the height of our relative strength (30% of the world economy, and 10% of it went towards the military), do you seriously think that we would have lost from a <b>military</b> standpoint? Considering today we're around 20-25% of the world economy and about 4% of it goes to the military...and we still spend more on our military than the next 12 nations <b>combined</b>.
The United States, since the past 60 years, could never lose a war it deems necessary to win. It is simply a matter of the resolve of the people.
Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people.
<!--quoteo(post=1605790:date=Feb 12 2007, 01:44 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]1605790[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> do you seriously think that we would have lost from a <b>military</b> standpoint? Considering today we're around 20-25% of the world economy and about 4% of it goes to the military...and we still spend more on our military than the next 12 nations <b>combined</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1605790:date=Feb 12 2007, 02:44 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]1605790[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ruin that free hand? Don't you mean "keep it in check?" Safe from your enemies, but not from your own people? Once you have an antagonistic view of your own people, <u>you're doing it wrong.</u> The government and the military MUST serve the people, <u>never the other way around.</u>
Thaldarin, these facts should be common knowledge to anybody who studied American history at the college level. It's no secret that in the past, military spending far exceeded today's budget in relative terms. We were at a historical low during the end of the Clinton administration, and we haven't increased that much more since Bush.
Do you seriously need me to provide sources stating our defense expenditure and GDP, both past and present?
It's no secret that the United States alone can project an overwhelming amount of force in a short amount of time. Who else spends 400-500 billion on the military per annum? The runner up is China with a paltry 60 (official figure cited) billion. And every country after that spends even less. Can you really doubt my assertion that the United States spends more on her military than the next 12 nations combined?
But if you insist...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_military_spending_2005_%28horizontal%29.svg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwi...rizontal%29.svg</a> These numbers are backed up by the official figures cited in the CIA world factbook: <a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html</a>
As for my assertion that the US had commanded 1/3 of the world economy (our relative strength in this regard peaked under Truman), I can't find any immediate source on the internet. But the history books I have read (both mandatory and in my own free time) can confirm it. Right now, you'll have to accept it unless you find a credible source saying otherwise.
lolfighter, I never meant to suggest that the United States government and its agencies and organizations were out to screw the American people. But it can't be hard to believe that a lot of what the US government does is to advance the interests of the aggregate American public. Sometimes when the government acts on behalf of the people, the people might disagree, but ultimately, it is for the best. This is why our democracy is representative, not direct, because having public opinion mandate policy is dangerous and useful only to demagogues and tyrants.
In any case, I believe that my knowledge of American history far outstrips the vast majority of people on this board, so in the future, unless I post something truly unbelievable, don't ask for my sources.
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
edited February 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd be willing to bet that very little of the equipment used in iraq was purchased specifically for it. The military has a huge amount of fixed assets, and they are depreciating faster than they normally would. Consider the all the missiles we launched during the initial invasion. Very few of those are likely included in the direct monetary expenditures for the war because they were assets already owned by the military, but those missiles now no longer have any value. Replacing them would cost money, and so that has to be factored in to the costs. The same applies with ammunition, vehicles, bodyarmor, or really anything non-perishable that the military uses. It is all getting "used up" and costs money to replace that isn't a direct expenditure yet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'd be betting wrong. The military had almost no Uparmored (M1113/M1114) HMMWVs before the war. The few in existence were in Afghanistan/other conflict zones/units that needed vehicles like that (armored cav units for example). HMMWVs were designed for use as transport vehicles behind the lines or light scouts, not heavily armored weapons platforms like they're being used as currently. There are thousands of these vehicles in CENTCOM right now, whereas in 2002 there were none. A lot of equipment in country was acquired with the purpose of sending it to CENTCOM (iraq/afghanistan/horn of africa).
A lot of expenditures are included in the budget already. What is not included for the most part is the GS/Depot level maintenance required on vehicles that spend a lot of their time in Iraq, and replacement of those vehicles. That cost is going to be ongoing long after the Iraq/Afghan conflicts are over, especially by the Guard and Reserve that already were short of equipment. Upwards of 40% of the invasion/1st rotation units were Guard/Reserve, and most of them left all of their equipment behind for the next unit, including things like Bradly IFVs and Abrams MBTs, stuff that's not quickly replaced. That's the type of stuff that will take a while to replace, not the bombs and bullets.
Also note I did the math and we beat the next 13 countries in military expenditure with around 100 billion to spare. Suffice it to say that we pretty much outspend the planet in military, not just the next X number of countries.
<!--quoteo(post=1605813:date=Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]1605813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]In any case, I believe that my knowledge of American history far outstrips the vast majority of people on this board, so in the future, unless I post something truly unbelievable, don't ask for my sources. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I believe my knowledge of american history far outstrips yours, so in the future, unless I say pigs can fly, don't question me. This goes for any other subject too.
You will have to accept that people will ask for your sources, particularly if you post something they don't like. Asking them to just take your word for what you say, especially when you're arguing against them, just won't work here.
<!--quoteo(post=1605813:date=Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]1605813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]lolfighter, I never meant to suggest that the United States government and its agencies and organizations were out to screw the American people. But it can't be hard to believe that a lot of what the US government does is to advance the interests of the aggregate American public. Sometimes when the government acts on behalf of the people, the people might disagree, but ultimately, it is for the best. This is why our democracy is representative, not direct, because having public opinion mandate policy is dangerous and useful only to demagogues and tyrants.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never meant to suggest that they were out to screw the american people, merely that they were out to further their own private interests, or the interests of those hiding behind them in the shadows. Sadly, this is nowadays the main mode of operation of pretty much any western government (case example: former german chancellor Gerhard Schrder), but this is not their stated purpose. Their stated purpose is to serve the people, and they repeatedly and consistently fail to do so.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1605790:date=Feb 12 2007, 08:44 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]1605790[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Vietnam was mismanaged, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As is Iraq. Explain to me how we can fix that with military force. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The United States, since the past 60 years, could never lose a war it deems necessary to win. It is simply a matter of the resolve of the people.
Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This war is no longer about enemies of the United States, and sheer military force will not win it. It will take a lot more than firepower and determination to get the various factions in Iraq to come to a peaceful resolution and support the government.
<!--QuoteBegin-Moultano+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Moultano)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This war is no longer about enemies of the United States, and sheer military force will not win it. It will take a lot more than firepower and determination to get the various factions in Iraq to come to a peaceful resolution and support the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very well, what <i>does</i> it take then? And are you willing to support actually <i>doing</i> that?
<!--quoteo(post=1605813:date=Feb 12 2007, 03:35 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 03:35 PM) [snapback]1605813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Thaldarin, these facts should be common knowledge to anybody who studied American history at the college level. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not American nor would I be interested in American history at college level. So it's not common knowledge really.
It's also not impressive the amount they spend nor is there any need to spend that much, it just shows clearly how hyped up America is in terms of security and also explains the reason people over-reacted with the Boston "Bomb threats" to that cartoon character. A little off topic but still knowing your budget is so much more than others, especially based to your economy really is far from impressive.
The US military only ever attacks nations they believe will be easy targets and they think they can win. Still they always think they can win yet seem to lose or make situations worse (relation: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). I don't see how you can be so proud of war-hunting nation.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited February 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1605849:date=Feb 12 2007, 01:18 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Feb 12 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]1605849[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Very well, what <i>does</i> it take then? And are you willing to support actually <i>doing</i> that? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't have a good solution, and I'm not sure there is one. At the end of the day, the militias have to feel that it is in their self interest to participate in the political process. They have to feel that they have more to gain politically than by fighting amongst each other. Accomplishing that will take a lot of negotiation, compromise, and probably a very charismatic leader.
My perception of it is that the Sunni insurgents are unlikely to join the government because, being a minority of the country, they can't expect to have as much power in any proportional representation system as they have as thugs. It's promising that Maliki now intends to reign in the Shia militias, but as disconnected as they are, it will likely require more than the actions of any leader to get them to change their behavior. Essentially everyone's fighting because they feel their particular interest threatened which compounds with a lot of racism. The Shia militias believe they are defending themselves against Sunni attacks, and vice versa even as they commit acts of unspeakable butchery. The only thing these groups have in common is opposition to Coalition forces controlling the country, and so it seems unlikely that putting more troops on the ground will have a positive effect. The withdrawal of coalition troops may even be something we can use as a bargaining chip.
The strategy will have to be worked out by someone with a lot more understanding of the subtleties of the power-structures and interests involved, but it's clear that we can't kill all of the militants. In many regions they are the dominant security forces. Anything we do has to have a lot of carrot along with the stick, or we'll just back people further away from moderation. I would suggest the following: The Maliki government should arrest the most vicious Shia militias, and simultaneously, reach out to those that could be incorporated into Iraq's security forces with employment. I believe it is important for perception that these arrest be done by the Iraqi government, and not by Coalition forces. Coalition forces should then shift their role to be primarily protecting civilians rather than making offensive moves, because the latter just convinces militants that they are essential. Then the Iraqi government will have to start bargaining with the Sunni insurgents, and will have to at least offer amnesty, and likely some guarantees of representation or self-rule. The best case scenario I think is a slow reciprocal demilitarization.
This assumes however that Maliki has the power and resources without Coalition help to make the necessary arrests, and has enough power to make significant bargains. I'm not sure that this is true. The second part we can probably help him with, but in the first we will have to take a secondary role, or I doubt there will be any progress.
Its just too bad we don't have any politicians suggesting plans like that, right? They seem to be split between "we support Bush" and "lets run away and hide".
It IS tragic. If politicians were merely as smart as NORMAL people, this world wouldn't be half as messed up as it is. Heck, imagine if we got a genius in office. Sadly, anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of power should under no conceivable circumstance be allowed to - yet they constantly are.
Comments
1. Create a pro-West, pro-business regime.
2. Exploit the vast oil reserves that were previously inaccesible.
3. Gain another staging area (military bases=diplomatic leverage) for the Middle East.
4. Liberate a bunch of oppressed people.
It's entirely possible to create another South Korea out of Iraq if we put in the time. Given the vast resources and determination of the US, it is <b>impossible</b> for us to fail to achieve all four of the above goals in the long run. The only problem is determination.
Iraq was an important country in an area deemed extremely important to American interests. The American government and its agents will obviously advance American interests. If that means invading a country, ousting a dictator, and imposing a regime friendly to us, then that's what will happen.
It'll be interesting to see the <b>history</b> lecture on Iraq, and not the massive <b>current events</b> one we've been getting for five years.
There are (broadly) two possible outcomes of the war in Iraq:
1) Our strategic goals are eventually acheived, at whatever cost
2) Our strategic goals are never acheived
As of yet, neither possibility has been realized yet. It is disingenuous to compare the cost of war versus the benefits of the current incomplete state. It really ought to be compared to the benefits of the completed war. Granted, there is a chance that those benefits may not materialize, but that makes the war a Gamble, not a Waste.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may be due to the general bias of news reporting towards tragedy, but it seems to me that there's a vanishingly small possibility of Iraq being a secular democracy when we leave. People literally cannot leave their homes. Even in the event that the Maliki government stays in power, it would take a South Africa-like miracle to keep the country from dissolving into a lengthy and brutal civil war, and I think the violence that has already occurred pretty much precludes that as a possibility.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Given the vast resources and determination of the US, it is impossible for us to fail to achieve all four of the above goals in the long run. The only problem is determination. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vietnam?
And another point, we were near the height of our relative strength (30% of the world economy, and 10% of it went towards the military), do you seriously think that we would have lost from a <b>military</b> standpoint? Considering today we're around 20-25% of the world economy and about 4% of it goes to the military...and we still spend more on our military than the next 12 nations <b>combined</b>.
The United States, since the past 60 years, could never lose a war it deems necessary to win. It is simply a matter of the resolve of the people.
Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people.
do you seriously think that we would have lost from a <b>military</b> standpoint? Considering today we're around 20-25% of the world economy and about 4% of it goes to the military...and we still spend more on our military than the next 12 nations <b>combined</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I ask, your source of stats on this fact?
[...]Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ruin that free hand? Don't you mean "keep it in check?"
Safe from your enemies, but not from your own people? Once you have an antagonistic view of your own people, <u>you're doing it wrong.</u> The government and the military MUST serve the people, <u>never the other way around.</u>
Do you seriously need me to provide sources stating our defense expenditure and GDP, both past and present?
It's no secret that the United States alone can project an overwhelming amount of force in a short amount of time. Who else spends 400-500 billion on the military per annum? The runner up is China with a paltry 60 (official figure cited) billion. And every country after that spends even less. Can you really doubt my assertion that the United States spends more on her military than the next 12 nations combined?
But if you insist...
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_military_spending_2005_%28horizontal%29.svg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwi...rizontal%29.svg</a>
These numbers are backed up by the official figures cited in the CIA world factbook:
<a href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html</a>
<a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php" target="_blank">http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php</a>
As for my assertion that the US had commanded 1/3 of the world economy (our relative strength in this regard peaked under Truman), I can't find any immediate source on the internet. But the history books I have read (both mandatory and in my own free time) can confirm it. Right now, you'll have to accept it unless you find a credible source saying otherwise.
lolfighter, I never meant to suggest that the United States government and its agencies and organizations were out to screw the American people. But it can't be hard to believe that a lot of what the US government does is to advance the interests of the aggregate American public. Sometimes when the government acts on behalf of the people, the people might disagree, but ultimately, it is for the best. This is why our democracy is representative, not direct, because having public opinion mandate policy is dangerous and useful only to demagogues and tyrants.
In any case, I believe that my knowledge of American history far outstrips the vast majority of people on this board, so in the future, unless I post something truly unbelievable, don't ask for my sources.
You'd be betting wrong. The military had almost no Uparmored (M1113/M1114) HMMWVs before the war. The few in existence were in Afghanistan/other conflict zones/units that needed vehicles like that (armored cav units for example). HMMWVs were designed for use as transport vehicles behind the lines or light scouts, not heavily armored weapons platforms like they're being used as currently. There are thousands of these vehicles in CENTCOM right now, whereas in 2002 there were none. A lot of equipment in country was acquired with the purpose of sending it to CENTCOM (iraq/afghanistan/horn of africa).
A lot of expenditures are included in the budget already. What is not included for the most part is the GS/Depot level maintenance required on vehicles that spend a lot of their time in Iraq, and replacement of those vehicles. That cost is going to be ongoing long after the Iraq/Afghan conflicts are over, especially by the Guard and Reserve that already were short of equipment. Upwards of 40% of the invasion/1st rotation units were Guard/Reserve, and most of them left all of their equipment behind for the next unit, including things like Bradly IFVs and Abrams MBTs, stuff that's not quickly replaced. That's the type of stuff that will take a while to replace, not the bombs and bullets.
Also note I did the math and we beat the next 13 countries in military expenditure with around 100 billion to spare. Suffice it to say that we pretty much outspend the planet in military, not just the next X number of countries.
[...]In any case, I believe that my knowledge of American history far outstrips the vast majority of people on this board, so in the future, unless I post something truly unbelievable, don't ask for my sources.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I believe my knowledge of american history far outstrips yours, so in the future, unless I say pigs can fly, don't question me. This goes for any other subject too.
You will have to accept that people will ask for your sources, particularly if you post something they don't like. Asking them to just take your word for what you say, especially when you're arguing against them, just won't work here.
<!--quoteo(post=1605813:date=Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Feb 12 2007, 04:35 PM) [snapback]1605813[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]lolfighter, I never meant to suggest that the United States government and its agencies and organizations were out to screw the American people. But it can't be hard to believe that a lot of what the US government does is to advance the interests of the aggregate American public. Sometimes when the government acts on behalf of the people, the people might disagree, but ultimately, it is for the best. This is why our democracy is representative, not direct, because having public opinion mandate policy is dangerous and useful only to demagogues and tyrants.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never meant to suggest that they were out to screw the american people, merely that they were out to further their own private interests, or the interests of those hiding behind them in the shadows. Sadly, this is nowadays the main mode of operation of pretty much any western government (case example: former german chancellor Gerhard Schrder), but this is not their stated purpose. Their stated purpose is to serve the people, and they repeatedly and consistently fail to do so.
Vietnam was mismanaged, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As is Iraq. Explain to me how we can fix that with military force.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The United States, since the past 60 years, could never lose a war it deems necessary to win. It is simply a matter of the resolve of the people.
Right now, there is no other power on earth that can challenge the US military. The US military essentially has a free hand in dealing with the conflict, but public sentiments and all that kind of ruin that free hand. We're safe from our enemies, but not from our own people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This war is no longer about enemies of the United States, and sheer military force will not win it. It will take a lot more than firepower and determination to get the various factions in Iraq to come to a peaceful resolution and support the government.
Very well, what <i>does</i> it take then? And are you willing to support actually <i>doing</i> that?
Thaldarin, these facts should be common knowledge to anybody who studied American history at the college level.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not American nor would I be interested in American history at college level. So it's not common knowledge really.
It's also not impressive the amount they spend nor is there any need to spend that much, it just shows clearly how hyped up America is in terms of security and also explains the reason people over-reacted with the Boston "Bomb threats" to that cartoon character. A little off topic but still knowing your budget is so much more than others, especially based to your economy really is far from impressive.
The US military only ever attacks nations they believe will be easy targets and they think they can win. Still they always think they can win yet seem to lose or make situations worse (relation: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). I don't see how you can be so proud of war-hunting nation.
Very well, what <i>does</i> it take then? And are you willing to support actually <i>doing</i> that?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't have a good solution, and I'm not sure there is one. At the end of the day, the militias have to feel that it is in their self interest to participate in the political process. They have to feel that they have more to gain politically than by fighting amongst each other. Accomplishing that will take a lot of negotiation, compromise, and probably a very charismatic leader.
My perception of it is that the Sunni insurgents are unlikely to join the government because, being a minority of the country, they can't expect to have as much power in any proportional representation system as they have as thugs. It's promising that Maliki now intends to reign in the Shia militias, but as disconnected as they are, it will likely require more than the actions of any leader to get them to change their behavior. Essentially everyone's fighting because they feel their particular interest threatened which compounds with a lot of racism. The Shia militias believe they are defending themselves against Sunni attacks, and vice versa even as they commit acts of unspeakable butchery. The only thing these groups have in common is opposition to Coalition forces controlling the country, and so it seems unlikely that putting more troops on the ground will have a positive effect. The withdrawal of coalition troops may even be something we can use as a bargaining chip.
The strategy will have to be worked out by someone with a lot more understanding of the subtleties of the power-structures and interests involved, but it's clear that we can't kill all of the militants. In many regions they are the dominant security forces. Anything we do has to have a lot of carrot along with the stick, or we'll just back people further away from moderation. I would suggest the following: The Maliki government should arrest the most vicious Shia militias, and simultaneously, reach out to those that could be incorporated into Iraq's security forces with employment. I believe it is important for perception that these arrest be done by the Iraqi government, and not by Coalition forces. Coalition forces should then shift their role to be primarily protecting civilians rather than making offensive moves, because the latter just convinces militants that they are essential. Then the Iraqi government will have to start bargaining with the Sunni insurgents, and will have to at least offer amnesty, and likely some guarantees of representation or self-rule. The best case scenario I think is a slow reciprocal demilitarization.
This assumes however that Maliki has the power and resources without Coalition help to make the necessary arrests, and has enough power to make significant bargains. I'm not sure that this is true. The second part we can probably help him with, but in the first we will have to take a secondary role, or I doubt there will be any progress.
...
Its just too bad we don't have any politicians suggesting plans like that, right? They seem to be split between "we support Bush" and "lets run away and hide".
Sadly, anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of power should under no conceivable circumstance be allowed to - yet they constantly are.