I have thought long and hard about the best options available to the coalition forces as they attempt to combat a seemingly unrelenting terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully (though ironically) won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections and daily public opinion polls.
My opinion of the US-led effort to date is more favorable than most, but it is hard not to notice the opportunistic undertones in many of the recent converts to the anti-war bandwagon. Unfortunately, because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy, the situation has become impossible to rationalize through the media and the Administration is likely to face growing opposition unless it can take radical and innovative steps toward achieving a viable long-term solution to the violence that has ravaged Iraq. At the same time, it is essential for any change in military strategy to take into account the increasingly bold regime in Iran, which has decided to defy international consensus and press forward with its nuclear program, not to mention the constant infiltration of suicide bombers and arms the country has been supplying the Iraq insurgency.
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. I have concluded that the most practical and potentially effective option would be a two phase redeployment of forces. 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. A story I have recently read in Forbes suggests that this is exactly the type of strategy that the coalition is now considering. 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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Sam Jack
"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.
2 - D'oh
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.
3 - SHARK
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
4 - SHARK
For those who prefer REALITY to Fluffy, Distracting, Delusional EUPHEMISMS:
When you read or hear the word "SURGE" -- please change to "ESCALATION."
LBJ -- who stares up from Hell -- thanks you.
-- The Management --
5 - Bliffle
Very naive.
6 - troll
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
7 - The Haze
Blood in the water attracts.....
8 - Dave Nalle
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
9 - The Haze
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?)
10 - D'oh
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.
11 - troll
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
12 - D'oh
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)
13 - lee Richards
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
14 - Bliffle
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.
15 - Deano
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.
16 - Sisyphus
"...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.
17 - D'oh
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.
18 - Brian
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...
19 - D'oh
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?
20 - SHARK
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
21 - Brian
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.
22 - Franco
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
23 - RogerMDillon
"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.
24 - D'oh
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.
25 - Baronius
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?