"First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check."

This must be parody.

Sam, I had just highlighted the EXACT same bit to quote.

I am not certain if the original poster has thought this one through from a military standpoint, or even put it in the perspective of history, but it sounds to me like a combination of neo-con "80% doctrine" and the final solution.

I would hazard a guess that it had escaped the original poster's mind that the people doing the rounding up would be the very same Shi'a militia people in army/police uniforms and the problem woudl be solved all right.

With every Sunni rounded up killed and tossed into ditches on the side of the road.

They are doing this now, and Sunnis return the favor, just not in as big a number any more.

It would definitely solve the problems in Iraq, no more Sunnis, they could just declare themselves a Shari'a state and be part of Iran.

Not to mention the"joy" it would bring to all the Sunni nations that used to be sort of friendly to the U.S., Jordan and the Saudis spring to mind first, I doubt Egypt would be too pleased either.

My Mandarin sucks... but dew neh loh moh says it all in Cantonese.

I think Herod should institute a nation-wide census.

Then try to catch Moqtada Al-Sadr on his way to Bethlehem.

Oh... wait... wrong fantasy/fairy tale.

Never mind.

=====

BE: "...The most important goal of the the coalition should be to figure out how the fledgling Iraqi military could most effectively take over control in major urban areas."

Jeezus.

You're aware of the fact that most of the Iraq military and the civil police are muderous Shitte vigilante maniacs?

That's THE problem with this "we'll stand down when they stand up" BULLSHIT. [aka Bush-shit]

Genocide in Iraq - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

=====

BE's BEST SUGGESTION: "...The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely..."

Please change "Baghdad area" to "Middle East"

Thanks,
The Editor

Very naive.

A (More) Real $trategy: depopulate Baghdad with re-enriched depleted uranium dust sprayed from Piper Cubs...draft Pussy Galore

...but first send in 500,000 Swiss mercenaries

Blood in the water attracts.....

I knew this article was going to attract some of the nattering nabobs.

Yes, it's a naive idea and probably wouldn't work terribly well, but it's an idea. I don't see any of you perpetual bitchers coming up with anything better.

As for Shark's claim that the police and military are Shia dominated, it's a popular claim, but untrue. Regional police groups are Shia dominated, but the national police are more balanced and the military has a strong Sunni element.

Dave

nattering nabobs...if that was aimed at me,I'm hurt Dave(LOL)haven't heard that in a long time. the perpetual bitchers think they have an answer: GET OUT!! I do agree the situation is messed up but I don't believe that is an option either.There's a psychological value to this conflict as well as actual physical involvement and by "picking up and coming home" we send a message also. Giving the mindset of the Middle East and the propaganda that is played out over there,what do you think that message is? Does"No mas" ring a bell? This nabob is getting all his fingers and toes back in the boat cause like I said "blood in the water attracts.....(BTW that was a joke intended for the shark)(I think he has a sense of humor....you've been on the receiving end of it,right?)

The best idea so far is to split the country into in to Shi'ia-stan, Sunni-stan and Kurdistan, nationalize the oil industry and issue equal shares of stock to every man, woman and child alive now and born in the next (x) amount of years, with the company's Board of Directors being 2 from each -stan.

The only ones who aren't going to be pleased about that are the Turks, toss them the bone of joining the EU as long as they play nice and let their Kurds sort themselves out as to where they want to live.

Oh ...look! NO genocide! Of course, no one gets any no-bid contracts for building anything or permanent military bases for eternity, but no genocides, and the fighting stops pretty quickly while they get everything worked out.

How's that? Now, say my name, bitch.

hate to snark and run but:

*Oh ...look! NO genocide!*

says you and what army - ?

*Of course, no one gets any no-bid contracts for building anything or permanent military bases for eternity,*

oops - too late

Well, troll, it is my thinking that by removing the source of the disputes(who runs everything) and dividing up the oil assets among ALL the citizens , you deliver financial motivation to make it work as well as remove the political sources of conflict motivations.

It would also be much easier to "referee" as three distinct nations as opposed to the artificial construct that Iraq has always been,which is a primary source of those conflicts amongst the three peoples living there.

Somebody asked for other suggestions, while not offering any of their own.

I'm open to any better ideas, but assert that my proposal is one helluva lot better than anything out there so far. Such as current policy, the policy to be announced this week (which is linked here in the last comment)

Well, Dave, if you're saying that anyone's amateurish, naive, illogical and unworkable ideas are just as good as, or better than Bush's, I will certainly agree!
Carpe Diem

For Invasion supporters who worry that pulling out of Iraq will diminish US respect and power abroad, there is an obvious rejoinder: holding the current administration and their flunkies responsible and dishing out strong punishment will establish the Iraq invasion as an abberation, not to be seen again, hopefully. If that means impeachment, so be it.

That doesn't preclude any non-frivolous foreign invasion of a troublemaker in the future, indeed, it gives greater legitimacy. Just as we can blame the whole Vietnam thing on that scoundrel LBJ, we can blame it all on GWB and his nefarious band of dissemblers. That frees the rest of us, including incipient politicians, from a heritage of guilt and allows us more freedom to act in the future.

But that plan depends on us having the moxy to impeach Bush/Cheney.

As for Iraq, who really cares? Look at it from a realpolitik viewpoint: maybe it'll turn into years of civil war and death for Iraqis. Not bad. Maybe it'll fall to Iran. Not too bad. We already are willing to attack Iran, it's just a bigger task.

I'm not going to comment on the immense impracticability of rounding up everyone over the age of 16...others have beaten that premise up quite throughly, but I will comment on:

"because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy"

Unforseeable? Unforseeable? I pray that this post was mislabled a parody because literally every single difficulty the US has encountered in Iraq was perfectly forseeable and, in most cases, Predicted quite accurately but ignored by the Administration.

"...terrorist insurgency ... won the "hearts and minds" of American voters..."

C'mon. Is this really your interpretation of the last election? Sounds like you've bought into Bush's warped notion that anyone who doesn't support him, ipso facto, must therefore support the terrorists. It's a fallacious argument, as is your characterization of the majority of American voters.

Oh Sisyphus, did you read the original poster's bio?

He worked for Hastert as an intern, among other things. A card carrying acolyte and proud member of the spin machine. Just not as bright as some of the others.

I suppose I articulated my idea in a crude way, so let me clarify (for those of you who think your so fucking smart, previous comment in particular. How could anyone be taken seriously anyway when they identify themselves with a Rush music video?).

"First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check."

Ok, I concede that there are Orwellian overtones in this rash and unqualified statement, but to clarify, I think there are ways that such a program could be implemented without "rounding up" anyone, at least initially. If, for example, the government were to allow Iraqi's to turn themselves in, it seems logical that only the nefarious individuals will then remain at large. Thus, it would be perfectly appropriate to then round up whomever. If the country is truly in a state of civil war, I do not understand why so many of you dismiss such a program off-hand without at least considering the possible merit in allowing the generally well-intentioned Iraqis distinguish themselves from the jihad-driven radicals.

Secondly, regarding the comments on dividing the country into three different territories based-upon sectarian lines, I wonder where you suggest these lines be drawn? I think that any such policy would likely involve the eviction of several hundred thousand Sunni or Shiite Muslims in the Baghdad area so as to keep these territories homogeneous. I do not see how this is any better, or less Orwellian than anything I have proposed. But maybe I'm wrong, and I would be very interested in hearing how such a policy would be implemented without either mass eviction or isolated regions of Sunni surrounded by Shiite.

More to follow...

First, Brian..I am that fucking smart, you might want to listen to the lyrics in that link, they say quite a bit.

Next, any kind of "round up" during a civil war only ensures that whomever does the rounding will kill off those they want. As I stated, it IS happening every day as we speak.

As for how to divide things up, that would be a political process and negotiations among the various factions wouldn't it?

Yes, some people might chose to relocate, or not..if they are satisfied with where they are and the governments to be instituted. A lot less of an inconvenience than being killed, don't you agree?

BrianE: "...If, for example, the government were to allow Iraqi's to turn themselves in, it seems logical that only the nefarious individuals will then remain at large."


The number "allowed" that ACTUALLY WOULD turn themselves in is probably numerically equivalent to the weight of Dennis Hastert after he's barfed up a young, partially digested boy.

Maybe not that much.

====

Here's a thought: how 'bout we ban, collect, and destroy all weapons in Iraq?

How many countries allow their citizens to celebrate a wedding by shooting AK-47s into the air?

[Shark thinks "oh, never mind." when he envisions Charleton Heston holding an NRA rally inside the Green Zone.]

====

PS: Welcome to Blogcritics, Brian. We're a tough crowd. A lot tougher than those at the Young Republican Breakfast Prayer meeting at yer alma mater.

But stick around; we need more laffs.

xxoo,
S

D'oh, I apologize for not recognizing the intellectual depth of the lyrics in that rock classic. Sounds like you have it all figured out, so far be it for me to pull you off your high horse.

Anyway, to get to the substance of your suggestion, I understand the merits of negotiation and allowing the political process to create a reasonable compromise between the factions, but I do not understand how this is going to end the current violence, which I believe should be the priority of any change in policy. I don't see the merit in negotiating under the current circumstances. I agree completely that a negotiated long-term settlement allowing Iraqi's to choose their own destiny being a preferred alternative to death. However, I see no circumstances arising in the near-term which would allow such a rationally arrived at political solution to emerge.

Also, it seems your comments are predicated on the fact that all of the current violence is driven by domestic factors, which I completely disagree with. Just as well intentioned Iraqis should be given the opportunity to distinguish themselves from those who are less well intentioned, I think that those who represent the foreign elements of the insurgency must be smoked out if any political process is ever to begin. Foreign fighters are unlikely to ever stop using terrorism regardless of the agreements reached by the countries different factions.

Brian, I can't say that I agree

The US military on the ground and facing Iraq everyday, along with coalition forces, and the already trained 220,000 greater Iraqi security forces and police have all learned tremendous lessons and gained insights into both what works and does not work, and just about everything in-between, especially this last year.

This first hand experience has covered the whole gamete of everything from how well the new Iraqi Government along with the developing Iraqi Security Forces and Police have been intertwined and struggling with traders within both, and the challenges the Iraqis face in restoring order under the new Iraqi constitution. These major accomplishments already achieved, even with their internal problems, are immense mile stones of paramount significance.

What stands out most in this hard learned and yet invaluable experience is that our military on the ground, still believe today, that with their help, Iraqis themselves can and will restore both political and civil order to Iraq. Our military is not saying that it will be easy, they are saying that they believe it can be done. Those are the facts.

The only question now worth asking is, do we have the political will to let them see it through? And when I use the words "political will" I am specially referring to handling all partisan politicking with the power shift in Washington during a time of war.

So fare all I have seen are political self-centered preservation, face saving, and anticipating positioning for blame pointing which this opinion pieces clearly participates. Its disgusting and I believe whole-heartedly that 99.9% of all US boots on the ground in Iraq are just as discussed with these antics.

We don't need any more political posistioning. We need to finish this job based on the experance our soldigers and their generals have learned and we need to support those troops on the ground 110% because right now, they belive they can do it.

I offer up the following two links to support my assertions.


What is our military really saying?

WASHINGTON (CNN) November 15, 2006 - Top U.S. general: We can stabilize Iraq


Are our leaders listing to the military experts on the groud or playing political posistioning.

CBS Face the Nation January 6, 2007 - Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Iraq

"How could anyone be taken seriously anyway when they identify themselves with a Rush music video?"

As far as I know, no one from Rush voted for the US to go to war, which makes them smarter than Hastert.

Brian - no apologies needed, nor asked for.You might want to refrain from judging books by their cover, and focus on content instead.

You state; "Also, it seems your comments are predicated on the fact that all of the current violence is driven by domestic factors, which I completely disagree with."

Now, I am wondering about your information here. As far as I have been able to determine, the commanders on the ground and the Intelligence community place outside influences between 5-10% of the total active insurgents. A very minor factor in the overall scheme of the civil war in question.

By all means, smoke out the foreign factors,and deal with them. Of course, you do realize the difficulty involved with having US troops who do not speak the language going door to door looking for these folks?

Which would appear to preclude the US leading such a mission. Thus it would be left up to the local Iraqi forces. The difficulty arises due to the fact that the other 90-95% of the insurgents ARE locals, and as has been reported, these same people, in military and police uniforms supplied with US weapons, are doing a large part of the killings of civilians.

I might suggest you try and read up on what the actual facts on the ground are, and not the spin. While it is difficult to gain a complete picture without being there oneself, there is plenty of material from unimpeachable sources which completely shatters the fanciful fantasy of your proposal much more than I have here so far.

Brian, how would you manage the border security? Most of the borders are great big stretches of nothing. Checkpoints can only do so much without massive air support. You're right that we could pretty well seal up the borders if we didn't do anything else, but we'd be risking a collapse of Baghdad.

As most of Iraq is stabilized, which should be a greater priority, Baghdad or the borders?

Brian: "...your comments are predicated on the fact that all of the current violence is driven by domestic factors, which I completely disagree with."

Well, you're out and out fucking wrong there.

You're completely deluded if you think the current sectarian split/massacre/civil war isn't the biggest "violence" problem.

Jeesus, Brian, do you read the papers?

Watch the news? How about, um...

A PENTAGON REPORT?

"The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who briefed journalists on the report. "We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence. . . . That is the premier challenge facing us now."

Seriously, man, if you wanna come here and blow Optimistic Smoke up our ass about Iraq, we've already got TWO Human Tsunamis named Dave Nalle and Franco.

Yer an amateur compared to them. Take a number and have a seat.

"The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely, along with all other coalition forces, and set up new bases along the border with Iran and Syria, where most of the terrorists are infiltrating the country."
- Brian Edwards

Oh really? And are you waiting for that action to take place before you enlist, or is there some other reason you haven't joined up yet?

Corrected bad link from post #22

WASHINGTON CNN November 15, 2006 - Top U.S. general: We can stabilize Iraq

Here's a thought: how 'bout we ban, collect, and destroy all weapons in Iraq?

And then we issue them flowers to put on their graves instead.

You can't ban weapons when you can't control the borders of a country or the flow of weapons INTO that country or the threat from armed neighbors.

Iraqis actually NEED those weapons to defend themselves. You'd have them go like lambs to the slaughter, clutching a flower and sining kumbaya.

Dave

Dave is right. In this one thing, anyhow.

Iraq's Repairman

The doors have been taken off our Blackhawk helicopter to accommodate heavy machine guns, so there's a blast of 100-degree heat blowing in everyone's face at 100 miles an hour. Block after block of Baghdad slips by, rooftop laundry flapping wildly in the backwash of the chopper's rotor blades.

Only a fool wouldn't consider the possibility of an Iraqi insurgent down there, armed with a surface-to-air missile or a rocket-propelled grenade. That's why the Blackhawk flies fast and low, says General David Petraeus, shouting over the roar of the engine.

By painful experience, pilots have learned the insurgents won't have time to fire if the helicopter skims the tops of buildings, appearing and disappearing quickly.

General Petraeus is on his way to visit a military training program, where Iraqi officers like Col. Shaker Faris are trying to create effective fighting units from scratch. Colonel Faris's men are among the soldiers who eventually are supposed to take over from U.S. forces in Iraq, and it's General Petraeus's job to make that happen.

Iraq's Repairman

Folks, I'm terrible with names, and people change their online names all the time. So pardon me if I'm a few steps behind. But has MCH ever said anything, anything at all, other than calling people chickenhawks?

#33 -- Baronius

That same thought has been increasingly going around in my head too. He might have some sort of software that trips a prewritten chickenhawk responses to BC when tripped by a set of word filters.

If that's the case he should get off the beta 1.0 version and pay for an upgrade.

BTW, I liked your comment in #25, your on the ball.

Re #33-34 Baronius, Franco;

How many wars have been won by writing endless words of empty rhetoric?

But has MCH ever said anything, anything at all, other than calling people chickenhawks?

Basically, no.

How many wars have been won by writing endless words of empty rhetoric?

At least one. The War of 1812, which was a draw but politicians on both sides successfully painted it - through endless empty rhetoric - as a huge victory to the public on both sides.

Dave

Nalle;

Tell that to the families of the 500,000 who were killed in WWII. I'm sure they'll be happy to learn their loved ones could've spared their lives by staying home and writing letters instead.

Just a thought about the whole 1812 thing, just how many were killed BEFORE the whole "empty rhetoric" thing?

But I digress...

Since the challenge was put out for alternatives, and I supplied one, I would like to read what the challenger thinks should be done.

"He might have some sort of software that trips a prewritten chickenhawk responses to BC when tripped by a set of word filters."

Yeah, there's just something about reading military strategy from a 23-year old college geek, whose only experience is having worked for one of the GOP's biggest chickenhawk draft dodgers, Dennis Hastert.

I like D'oh's original idea of nationalizing & issuing equal shares etc. as being the most logical, but it won't work simply becawz when you get down to brass tacks the Iraqis LIKE slaughtering each other. It's what they DO for recreation & have for the past 10,000+ years, except for brief interludes of enforced peace by parties such as the Brits & Saddam Hussein. The only way it is going to stop is if the Iraqis are left to themselves to realize that they're just killing themselves into a hole, and that when they've weakened themselves sufficiently, outsiders will come in & take over. Right now they're like 5-year-olds, too barbaric, stupid, & tunnel-visioned to realize that if they don't stand together they're surely going to all go down together - a point none of them can seem to grasp.

So let them. They're supposed to be adults, and we've poured in more than what we ever "owed" them in terms of funds to rebuild their stinking pisshole country (most of which never had decent modern facilities to begin with outside of Hussein's immediate surroundings anyway). In any event, we owe them nothing - nada - zilch. If they can't stand on their own by now, they deserve richly to go under, as expeditiously as possible. We sure shouldn't be wet-nursing them at this point.

As for Bush, he's planning on a "new" speech tonight, but from what Snow & the WH have already leaked it's still just another version of "stay the course" with amplification. Same old Bush-shit, as Shark says. Nothing new there. It will be amusing if Teddy K's proposal to cut off W's war funding at the knees passes. It's about time. IMO, all the billions Bush has poured down the Iraq rathole in the name of his overinflated ego & desire to be a War Prez like Poppy should have been spent HERE to re-build America's aging infrastrctures. Cripes, by now we would have had brand new power grids, roads, & cities, & be well on our way to finishing up the resurrection (only better) of New Orleans ... except that anything benefitting US citizens doesn't seem to catch W's limited attention span, does it?

D'Oh,

I have been following all of the comments and have thought about your proposal and the others a lot over the last couple days, but just haven't had the time to respond properly. I can assure you that a reply will be coming shortly...

As for MCH, I'm curious if you think military service should be mandatory? Also, have you ever fought in a war? You seem to be a really angry and spiteful person, so I was wondering if this was due to a serious case of PTSD? I think you should try a sedative and reserve comments for intelligent responses to the ideas put forth, as opposed to just throwing around ad hominems.

Speaking of angry, spiteful ad hominems:

"I suppose I articulated my idea in a crude way, so let me clarify (for those of you who think your so fucking smart, previous comment in particular. How could anyone be taken seriously anyway when they identify themselves with a Rush music video?)."
- Brian Edwards

(might wanna check the mirror once in awhile, brian)

Brian E, I know you think you're a calm, fair, objective, little Republican who doesn't deal in insults, etc -- but this little bit from your essay above:

"...terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully... won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections..."

is one of the more antagonistic and offensive lines I've read around here in a long while.

I let it go at first -- and instead, I responded with humor and mockery -- my usual technique for dealing with deluded demagogues who have well-thought-out plans for fixing the biggest Foreign Policy FUCKUP in American history -- but since you've climbed up on yer high horse, I'm here to remind you that you can't act TOO "innocent" while flinging verbal hand-grenades into a crowded room.

We parse pretty well around here.

#35 -- MCH

"How many wars have been won by writing endless words of empty rhetoric?"

Well that's a loaded question if there ever was one.

The "endless words" and "empty rhetoric" is a statement of adjectives, and from within the assertion they are used, they are negative. Boil it down and it still echoes the broken record cry of "chickenhawk"

MCH, I know you would recognize and agree to the fact that not ever citizen of a nation goes to the front lines of the battle. Many are home working the war effort and or against it, others taking care of work and families and what not.

I also would venture to guess that you would concur that the soldiers on the front line are only as effective as the nation behind them.

Thus this discussion/debate here on BC by this nations citizens and those who join it from around the world, that you call endless words of empty rhetoric has with little exception, nothing to do with chickenhawk. What it does have to do with is the heart of the nation. And that is worth discussing, every word.

I don't know why you do not choose to see it in this light and for what is really is. Granted, you may not like my comments or someone else's, but to sit on the side lines ignoring this discussion/debate by the nations citizens over and for the heart of the nation, is not showing any concern for either the soldiers or the citizens. And during wartime, they can not be so easily separated, least of all ignored.

Go ahead and call chickenhawk on everything if that's what works for you. I am not offended. And if I offended you in making comment to Baronius in #33, then I apologize.

Just my opinion.

SHARK,

I'm working on it man. I'm trying to keep these babies as short as I can. Even thought I have an obsessional slip up sometimes, I am working at boiling it down.

I expect regular progress reports from you whether I want them or not.

On another note, I have to admit you can crack me up with some of the suff you say, even though I can't sare you sentiments. BTW, its refreasing too to see you do a little more dicussion/debate with intellectual ear marks all over it.

"I don't know why you do not choose to see it in this light and for what is really is. Granted, you may not like my comments or someone else's, but to sit on the side lines ignoring this discussion/debate by the nations citizens over and for the heart of the nation, is not showing any concern for either the soldiers or the citizens. And during wartime, they can not be so easily separated, least of all ignored."

Franco,

I'm not going to discus or debate the merits of a fucking invasion/occupation I've been against since before the Deserter in Chief and his draft-dodging Vice Liar instigated it.

Especially with the likes of a Brian Edwards...not until AFTER he puts his money where his mouth is, and serves in the war he supposedly "supports."

And Brian and Franco make the mistake of trying to engage MCH in rational discussion and that's the end of meaningful discussion on this thread.

Dave

There's no rational discussion with those of you whom avoid service and choose to send someone else overseas to fight your battles for you.

There's always room for rational discussion, all it takes is for people to behave rationally.

Now, that's no guarantee that the positions will be rational, or that emotions won't rise, tempers flare and silly shit spewed. But when ANYTHING stops the process of listening and the exchange of ideas, then only the worst can occur.

Even if you think some one is dead wrong, even if they say some thing that is demonstrably not true, far better to engage and communicate than to stick your proverbial fingers in your ear and chant "lalalalalalalalalalala" until they go away.

Last I checked, Blogcritics is not spelled "V-F-W"

Even some of us vets aren't with you on this one, MCH.

I know, Clavos, I know.

But I will always believe it's wrong for people like Dave Nalle and RJ Elliott to lecture on military strategy, mock the service of any vet who opposes the war, and compare traffic fatalities to being killed in combat.

ALWAYS.

Then call 'em on being ill informed, or even hypocritical. Look MCH, I know where you are coming from, but even I agree that while you can raise a valid point, it ain't the ONLY point.

Plenty to pick on folks for in addition to being hypocritical when it comes to the military.