What should the next administration do in Iraq?

[Darth Wong]

OK, we all know that the Bush Administration's reign of terror will soon end, barring an unlikely turn of events such as the declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution. This means we'll be looking at a new administration shortly, but whoever this new administration is, it will inherit the Bush Administration's nightmarish legacy of ballooning debts, multi-trillion dollar long-term war obligations, virtual destruction of American international goodwill, and the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

So what should they do about all of these issues, particularly Iraq? Whoever the next administration is, it will face the same problems. Have the various candidates articulated any kind of feasible ideas about what to do? Or are they all blowing various different shades of sunshine up America's ass rather than articulating a real plan? If they have no plan, what would you suggest that they do?

[Lonestar]

OK, we all know that the Bush Administration's reign of terror will soon end, barring an unlikely turn of events such as the declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution. This means we'll be looking at a new administration shortly, but whoever this new administration is, it will inherit the Bush Administration's nightmarish legacy of ballooning debts, multi-trillion dollar long-term war obligations, virtual destruction of American international goodwill, and the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

So what should they do about all of these issues, particularly Iraq? Whoever the next administration is, it will face the same problems. Have the various candidates articulated any kind of feasible ideas about what to do? Or are they all blowing various different shades of sunshine up America's ass rather than articulating a real plan? If they have no plan, what would you suggest that they do?

Declare victory and go home. "All objectives have been met, adios motherfuckers."

Now, the more practical option(as in, the world wouldn't be screaming at us as much as the blood flowed in the streets of Baghdad) will be to drastically reduce our troop presence to solely a training capacity.

[Vympel]

Pull out of Iraq completely. Declare it's no longer in their interests to stay, it's formenting terrorism (cite the reports that confirm this fact) and let the chips fall where they may.

A new right-wing narrative has sprung up to insist on remaining in occupation of Iraq in the long-term- and that is that "so and so million Cambodians were killed when the US pulled out of Vietnam."

Fucking stupid, but there you are.

[Yogi]

Declare a timetable and stick to it. Also, have a process that allows refugees trying to flee Iraq to immagrate to America.

[CaptHawkeye]

Declare a timetable and stick to it. Also, have a process that allows refugees trying to flee Iraq to immagrate to America.

This is going to be a difficult one to run over with Americans even in the long term. American society has never been friendly to immigration influx. It's been made even worse as a result of cultural bias and fear of "zomg teh terrorists".

[Nova Andromeda]

--The following are some ideas of the top of my head (read not thought through really, but hopefully useful for discussion):

-What next administration can do will largely depend on who it is. A secular progressive could plausibly argue to the rest of the world that the U.S. will follow a radically different course with some credibility. The fact of the matter is that we in the U.S. are fighting the same fight that has been raging for over 200 years between the progressive secularists and the conservative theocrats. The world needs to be made to understand this and that Bush is what happens when they sit on the sidelines.
-The next administration needs to clean up the gov. as rapidly as possible. They would be well advised to replace absolutely everyone appointed by Bush. They also should probably fire most people hired during Bush's reign as well and hire new people. This should be done immediately to help minimize any ongoing damage said people are doing.
-While replacing gov. people, the new administration could vigorously pursue all the crimes of the past administration using the expanded powers Bush gave the executive branch. Hopefully, this would allow that administration to push a rational agenda through congress by crippling conservative (read corrupt) opposition. The rule of law also needs a vigorous reinstatement.
-I can't think of anything that can be done about Iraq by itself. The new administration needs to select a strategy to deal with irrational fundamentalist populations. This may mean supporting extremely harsh secular governments that severely restrict human rights. It may also mean gettings ones hands dirty and fighting insurgent forces with one's own insurgent forces. However, the populations in question needs to see a light at the end of the tunnel: a state for the palestinians, economic fair play for others, etc.
-Domestic finances should be paid for by the businesses and wealthy individuals currently enjoying so much right now. This means drastically raising the taxes on all the wealthy as well as reclaiming wealth lost to corps like Haliburtan.
-World trade needs to be addressed. I think a "fair trade" idea is good. That is, setup a system that bases the level protective traffis, etc. on how much the country in question exploits it's population. This would have to be done in concert with other nations though or the U.S. would probably lose out.
-Global warming needs to be addressed immediately. This probably means cutting defense spending severly to address the problem.
-I'd love to see the power of the ignorant masses severly curtailed while we're at it. One idea I is to prosecute media such as Fox News for running gov. propaganda and blatantly lying at every opporotunity.

[Coyote]

The thing is, I can see almost anything happening between now and then. A year and a half is an eternity in the world of political survival. As fantastic and unlikely as it may seem, I would not entirely rule out a last-minute pullout or massive withdrawal/redeployment to Kuwait touted as "victory" so George Bush can try to bouy the chance for GOP candidates.

But going on the likely prospect that things will largely continue as is, I'd bet on a withdrawal of all but training and some support cadre from Iraq, with redeployments to Kuwait, and maybe in Kurdish areas, which would be waiting to re-invade if the situation called for it. That way we're not "abandoning the mess we made". We'd go Kosovo-style from there, with air support provided by US warplanes, helicopters, and the occassional Ranger/Special Forces strike team flying in to act as "fire brigades".

There are so many problems with the way the war has been handled that at this point pretty much any plan-- even full overnight pullout-- can be spun into utter disaster.

[brianeyci]

Present a false dilemma.

Say to the American people the following (in particular the followers of Bush): you have two choices. Support me in withdrawing from Iraq, a terrible decision that was brought on by President Bush's shortsightedness, or declare that the only way to stabilize Iraq is a draft. If the American people do not want a draft, then we must leave because our objectives will never be met.

In fact, I would use this method of attack in the campaign. I would actually be dishonest and attempt to paint my Republican opponents as pro-draft (it actually isn't being that dishonest: by saying they want to stay in Iraq until it's stabilized, the most logical and necessary condition is a draft.) I would turn the entire issue of Iraq into yes draft or no draft. Even if they didn't support a draft, I would say that by being Republicans, they are supporting a draft. I would be even more dishonest and say that the Republicans know that black people would be the prime targets of a draft, and therefore their "policy" is racist.

The entire campaign would be framed for a so-called knockout moment where I asked Guiliani or whoever, "Do you or do you not want to stay in Iraq and save it! And will you support a draft to do it? I will not support a draft. I do not want the American people to pay for generations for the mistakes of one George Walker Bush."

As a non-American, nothing more would please me than an all encompassing fair draft dragging those potato chip high definition television armchair warwhores out and their families to serve in the hellhole that is Iraq. In fact, nothing more would please me if the American people bled for generations as a whole, since that's what they put on Iraq. If you ask me what I would suggest to Americans, from a non-American point of view, you break it you own it. Correction, sane Americans think that way.

[Rye]

I would get everyone out by the end of the year, let everyone know this and offer training to the iraqis till all the guys had left. Then I'd make it clear that in future, there won't be any more of these types of invasions unless our allies have been invaded or about to be invaded. The military should be more defensive than offensive, and so, in line with that, it's time to cut military funding to help deal with the debt caused by Shrub et al.

[Nova Andromeda]

As a non-American, nothing more would please me than an all encompassing fair draft dragging those potato chip high definition television armchair warwhores out and their families to serve in the hellhole that is Iraq. In fact, nothing more would please me if the American people bled for generations as a whole, since that's what they put on Iraq. If you ask me what I would suggest to Americans, from a non-American point of view, you break it you own it. Correction, sane Americans think that way.

-You forget that about 1/3-1/2 of the U.S. was always strongly against the war. If only there were some way to force those who supported and enabled the war to pay for it (the cost in blood and treasure) as well.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

OK, we all know that the Bush Administration's reign of terror will soon end, barring an unlikely turn of events such as the declaration of martial law and suspension of the Constitution. This means we'll be looking at a new administration shortly, but whoever this new administration is, it will inherit the Bush Administration's nightmarish legacy of ballooning debts, multi-trillion dollar long-term war obligations, virtual destruction of American international goodwill, and the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

So what should they do about all of these issues, particularly Iraq? Whoever the next administration is, it will face the same problems. Have the various candidates articulated any kind of feasible ideas about what to do? Or are they all blowing various different shades of sunshine up America's ass rather than articulating a real plan? If they have no plan, what would you suggest that they do?

Prepare plans for the withdrawal of all American forces in Iraq to positions on the frontier of Iraqi Kurdistan and recognize its independence. A formal treaty of mutual defensive alliance between Kurdistan and the United States would then be signed. Recognition would be offered to the Shia south as the Republic of Basra and the Sunni centre as the Ramadi Arab Republic or whatever the hell they want to call it. Baghdad would be divided via the Tigris river, with the predominantly Shia east bank going to the southern republic and the predominantly Sunni west bank going to the central republic.

American forces would stay in place long enough to insure that the population transfers took place without unnecessary bloodshed, and would then withdraw as planned into Kurdistan. If the Sunni and the Shia chose to refuse to accept the partition, their further fighting would be ignored. If anyone tried to attack Kurdistan, we're quite capable of blasting them into next week defensively, since that means conventional operations. The Turks would receive guarantees that the borders of Kurdistan would be permanently fixed at just Iraqi Kurdistan, as long as they allowed the free flow of American troops. Otherwise I'd just bribe Assad.

We'd establish a permanent base in Kurdistan on the same terms as Japan, et. al., keep a few squadrons of fighters there and some special forces, mostly, probably a regiment for security purposes, then withdraw the rest of the troops once the situation had calmed enough that nobody was preparing to threaten Kurdish independence. Keep a few thousand advisors with the peshmerga to continue training them up properly, and start offering them joint deals carefully calculated with the Turks--we sell Turkey 100 Abrams, we sell the Kurds 50, that sort of thing, like we do right now to keep the peace between Egypt and Israel, selling arms to both to maintain a calculated balance of power so neither feels to threatened.

And I suppose partition in the south either works, or it doesn't, but either way we'd be entirely gone from South of Mosul by summer of 2010--around a year and a half (from January of 2009) should be sufficient to at least implement it and then make our withdrawal north, and that finishes things up nicely before the midterm elections. A complete withdraw from Kurdistan, save for the permanent forces assigned there (which would number only around 5,000) would be completed probably in another two years, long enough to force the the rest of the mid-east to acknowledge the quite permanent existance of the country.

As for the south? Let them fight, or gone on their own existances in their respective countries. The Sunnis can, massively outnumbered, go ahead and attack to gain oil resources or whatever, like that will work; the Shia can vengefully press their advantage. Or join in a union with Iran. The Sunnis can go crazy on their own populace. Whatever. As long as they respected the demarcated boundary of the independent Republic of Kurdistan it simply wouldn't be any of our business. And the Kurds, the only people in the mid-east who still like us, won't mind having American troops around--strictly as guests to defend the country against foreign threats. The peshmerga would deal with all internal security/terrorist issues. No more searching goddamned houses for our boys, at any rate.

We owe it to the Kurds to guarantee their independence. The rest of Iraq can go get themselves fucked. They want to, after all.

I imagine we can sign an exclusive import contract with the Kurds, too, might as well now that we're there; we're guaranteed to get all their oil, and they can have the fields as a national concern and reap all the profit from it. That will be effectively the same as increasing the size of the strategic oil reserves by the size of the Mosul fields. Main problem is getting it out of a landlocked country; oh, well, I don't mind playing the Syrians and Turks against each other when things get bad to see who's willing to take less of the shipment as the price for letting it through...

Not a bad situation, altogether.

[brianeyci]

-You forget that about 1/3-1/2 of the U.S. was always strongly against the war. If only there were some way to force those who supported and enabled the war to pay for it (the cost in blood and treasure) as well.

In other words you say that only the Americans who supported the war should pay for the war.

Doesn't work that way pal. You, being Americans, broke it, you own it. If Americans who didn't like George W. Bush are forced to pay crippling taxes and perhaps even participate in a draft, well tough. Don't like it, move to another country.

Everybody else in the world thinks that Americans as a whole should pay. Why not Americans? Everybody's jumping off the Bush bandwagon now, but he used to have much more support.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

We'd establish a permanent base in Kurdistan on the same terms as Japan, et. al., keep a few squadrons of fighters there and some special forces, mostly, probably a regiment for security purposes, then withdraw the rest of the troops once the situation had calmed enough that nobody was preparing to threaten Kurdish independence. Keep a few thousand advisors with the peshmerga to continue training them up properly, and start offering them joint deals carefully calculated with the Turks--we sell Turkey 100 Abrams, we sell the Kurds 50, that sort of thing, like we do right now to keep the peace between Egypt and Israel, selling arms to both to maintain a calculated balance of power so neither feels to threatened.

As for the south? Let them fight, or gone on their own existances in their respective countries. The Sunnis can, massively outnumbered, go ahead and attack to gain oil resources or whatever, like that will work; the Shia can vengefully press their advantage. Or join in a union with Iran. The Sunnis can go crazy on their own populace. Whatever. As long as they respected the demarcated boundary of the independent Republic of Kurdistan it simply wouldn't be any of our business. And the Kurds, the only people in the mid-east who still like us, won't mind having American troops around--strictly as guests to defend the country against foreign threats. The peshmerga would deal with all internal security/terrorist issues. No more searching goddamned houses for our boys, at any rate.

We owe it to the Kurds to guarantee their independence. The rest of Iraq can go get themselves fucked. They want to, after all.

I imagine we can sign an exclusive import contract with the Kurds, too, might as well now that we're there; we're guaranteed to get all their oil, and they can have the fields as a national concern and reap all the profit from it. That will be effectively the same as increasing the size of the strategic oil reserves by the size of the Mosul fields. Main problem is getting it out of a landlocked country; oh, well, I don't mind playing the Syrians and Turks against each other when things get bad to see who's willing to take less of the shipment as the price for letting it through...

Not a bad situation, altogether.

The Turks and Iranians will NOT be happy with a Kurdistan and if by anything will goad both to join forces against us. The Turks will definitely take action and stationing troops in the Kurdistan will lead to severe tensions. Then the Iranians might join in the fun.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Turks and Iranians will NOT be happy with a Kurdistan and if by anything will goad both to join forces against us. The Turks will definitely take action and stationing troops in the Kurdistan will lead to severe tensions. Then the Iranians might join in the fun.

Good. Our troops will finally get a chance to slaughter massed conventional forces after years of mucking around fighting an unseen enemy in Iraq. We can resupply through the air by going over Iraq if we have to and we can massacre concentrated armour and mechanized infantry all day long. If they attacked they'd be playing directly into the strengths of the US Army.

Which is why they won't.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Turks and Iranians will NOT be happy with a Kurdistan and if by anything will goad both to join forces against us. The Turks will definitely take action and stationing troops in the Kurdistan will lead to severe tensions. Then the Iranians might join in the fun.

Good. Our troops will finally get a chance to slaughter massed conventional forces after years of mucking around fighting an unseen enemy in Iraq. We can resupply through the air by going over Iraq if we have to and we can massacre concentrated armour and mechanized infantry all day long. If they attacked they'd be playing directly into the strengths of the US Army.

Which is why they won't.

And the Iranians can happily tell their proxies to wage guerrilla war against the Americans and they have shown no compunction in sending people to Kurdistan to do so. They have already been a couple of bombings thus far.

[Enforcer Talen]

I like Duchess' ideas. Majority of troops leave, keep the bases so we're prepared for the next war, and let the civil war proceed on its course.

[Nova Andromeda]

-You forget that about 1/3-1/2 of the U.S. was always strongly against the war. If only there were some way to force those who supported and enabled the war to pay for it (the cost in blood and treasure) as well.

In other words you say that only the Americans who supported the war should pay for the war.

Doesn't work that way pal. You, being Americans, broke it, you own it. If Americans who didn't like George W. Bush are forced to pay crippling taxes and perhaps even participate in a draft, well tough. Don't like it, move to another country.

Everybody else in the world thinks that Americans as a whole should pay. Why not Americans? Everybody's jumping off the Bush bandwagon now, but he used to have much more support.

-Why exactly do you want to punish those people who opposed the war and Bush policies in general? One should try to make people responsible for their actions and NOT circumstances beyond their control. Sounds like you're out for blind vengence.

[brianeyci]

-Why exactly do you want to punish those people who opposed the war and Bush policies in general? One should try to make people responsible for their actions and NOT circumstances beyond their control. Sounds like you're out for blind vengence.

1. A draft targeting those who supported Bush only would be political persecution, not to mention impossible to implement as you mentioned.

2. The only way a draft would be practical would be to target the American people as a whole.

3. Therefore I support punishing the American people as a whole.

Do you get it yet? You are American, if an American draft starts you must bear the responsibility. You are American, if taxes are raised for generations you must bear the responsibility. He is your President, you live with him, he is your leader.

The fact that a draft is impossible and the American people do not have the willpower to stay for the generations it would take to fix it is another matter entirely of course, but in a perfect world with justice Americans would pay for their gallavanting around the world like madmen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the Iranians can happily tell their proxies to wage guerrilla war against the Americans and they have shown no compunction in sending people to Kurdistan to do so. They have already been a couple of bombings thus far.

The peshmerga can deal with that. They're the locals, they're the ones who will be good at counterinsurgency, and it will be as hard as fuck to maintain a guerrilla war in a country where everyone hates you. We'll have a full withdrawal (except for a single heavily fortified base which we have little reason to leave as it's just there to support some F-16s and A-10s to aide the Kurdish Army) in a fairly short period of time--as soon as we've armed and equipped the Kurds to fight conventionally against other conventional opponents. Once they can defend their country on the ground, we can leave except for providing air support. They don't even have to be particularly good or well-equipped; by the time we're done savaging any future invasion forces into Kurdistan from the air, there won't be much left to clean up.

[Nova Andromeda]

The fact that a draft is impossible and the American people do not have the willpower to stay for the generations it would take to fix it is another matter entirely of course, but in a perfect world with justice Americans would pay for their gallavanting around the world like madmen.

-Just like I thought. Your out for blind vengence against Americans in general. This has nothing to do with Bush and his policies. You recognize that neither your general draft or my selected draft are realisitcally possible, but you obviously prefer a general punishment of Americans as opposed to those supporting Bush policies. Apparently, you're as bad as the neocons and think that people should be treated as a monolithic groups that are either all good or all bad regardless of one's ability to discern shades of grey and dispense justice accordingly.
-You know the conservatives in the U.S. played up this sort of anti-americanism during and after the Clinton years. It fucking HELPED elect Bush, et al by strengthening nationalism and unilateralism (Bush/Republican preferred policy) in the U.S. as opposed to multilateralism (Clinton/Democratic preferred policy).

[brianeyci]

A draft is not realistically possible now only because the American people have their heads up their ass. If they took responsibility for their actions, they would support a draft.

What is it with you Americans and lack of collectivism? Is it because you think collectivism is communism, that there's no such thing as the group? The concept that if the group does something wrong, the members of the group should pay, is unfair for you? Well too fucking bad, you choose to self-identify with that group, you choose to be American. You join a street gang, you choose to be a member of that gang.

Not to mention that the idea large swaths of the public bashed Bush or did everything in their power to prevent Bush from invading Iraq is bullshit. He had very high approval ratings when he gave out his "you're with us or against us" speech. That Americans were too stupid to see the consequences that the rest of the world did is too bad.

Here's the crux of it -- it will be impossible to individually target those Americans who supported Bush, so Americans in any practical sense must be punished as a whole. My idea of a draft, although quite impractical, is more realistic than singling out every single Bush supporter and shipping him out. Americans should pay, end of story. That you can't accept that means your head is in your ass. And yes, if you are American, that means you pay.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if Brian wants us to stay in Iraq then I'm sure he'll be okay with 19th century British Empire rules of conduct for our draftees. We'll start demolishing the houses of suspected supporters of insurgents and seizing their property and shooting their cattle, and summarily executing any man found on the street carrying a weapon. People from problem areas will be relocated to concentration camps just like the British did to the Boers, etc. No doubt he'll be highly satisfied by our strict imitation of the peace-loving Commonwealth.

[Imperial Overlord]

The Turks won't like the Duchess's plan, but they'll live with it. Their territorial integrity is guaranteed under it (and that's understandably very important to them) and while they don't like the idea of any kind of independent Kurdistan that is secondary concern. As long as they aren't serving as base for heavy guerrilla activity in Turkey, the Turks will probably suck it down. They won't like it at all, but their worst fears will have been dealt with.

[brianeyci]

I'm aware that a draft is quite impractical. The core of my idea is that Americans should pay, and if not in the form of a draft then some other way. Although, in an ideal world, there would be a draft and the political and social willpower to fix what was broken.

I don't think you should stay in Iraq, because the political and social willpower to stay there long enough to fix the problems is not there. What I mean is if a draft ever comes, I'll be clapping with glee and laughing at every Republitard who has to pay for his mistakes. Especially the college white trash Republitards, the kind who ruined the country with the CPA in the early days.

That kind of shit sounds like the kind of thing you would support Duchess. Israel demolishes houses, shooting people on sight who have weapons (I assume you would issue permits for 1 AK per house), etc? .

[Enforcer Talen]

Bryan, in Fallujah we already have weapon permits and curfews. On a tactical level, I would want to do even more, presuming I had the troops.

However, I dont see it as our interest to be there at all, bases aside. You seem to be coming at this from a moral perspective, and that has very little importance in politics, particularly in the case study of Iraq.