Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: IPAndrews on December 20, 2006, 11:37:02 am
-
Bush is obviously considering genocide but what novel solutions do you the enlightened denizens of HLP have to the problems in Iraq?
Disclaimer: this thread is not intended to be a heavy political debate but the fact that it is not intended to be a heavy political debate is not intended to offend people who like heavy political debates. Thanks for listening!
-
Nuke 'em all! :drevil:
Nah. Bush was crazy when he went in to beginwith. He can either a) stay at it and try to force it, or b) run off and let Iraq tear itself up. Option a is going to cost him mucho $. And option b will either result in complete annihilation of the species Homo Sapiens in the area of middle-east, or the people there will just come to their senses and learn to love each other, either way there would be peace in the end.
You can read between the lines that I've lost much of my interest on this subject because of the lack of noticeable progress in both peace, and genocide.
-
Hmm, it's tricky. The situation is messed up enough due to years of lacking the will to do the right thing, so stuff that would have worked shortly after the invasion was completed would not do so now.
First, let's look at some facts: A) Some parts of Iraq are more hostile than others, and B) The US/Brits (Yes it's a large "Coalition of the Willing", I know, but aside from the British everyone else is just there for show) don't have the manpower in place to be everywhere and keep everyone safe, nor do they have the means to send enough extra troops to achieve that during this lifetime.
So, if I were in charge, focusing my efforts on the less hostile areas to get proper infrastructure, police forces etc. up and running there would seem mighty tempting. Leave the hostile areas to rot, for the time being. Then once one area is in more-or-less working order and has a functioning Iraqi police and army presence to deal with day to day stuff, pull out most of my own troops and move on to a new, adjacent area, and repeat. Of course, this would also involve spending the same kind of money on improving people's lives as is currently being spent destroying them.
Then when the time comes, use brute force on the hostile areas, saturating them with troops to the point where anyone who even peeks out a window while holding a gun is asking for a bullet. Then basically repeat the same process there, just with vastly greater troop protection for the various civilian workers.
Would work like an amphibious invasion really, establish a beachhead, then expand out from there. As conditions start to improve, the recruitment base for the insurgency starts to shrink, and they should eventually be marginalized without any real campaign to eradicate them. Foreign fighters would still be a problem, but Iraqis living a fairly decent life under US occupation would be much less likely to aid them than Iraqis wishing they were killed during the fighting due to the ****ty conditions they live under.
-
Of the Iraq study group's recommendations, I would go with the long-haul option. This is the scenario they describe in their recommendation (iirc):
- A short term, but substantial, increase in troop numbers
- Concerted efforts to ensure safe handover of urban security
- After the initial troop boost is rotated out again, remaining forces concentrate on border security and extra-urban operations.
-
1/ Deploy mass airdrops of custard. Everyone likes custard, right?
2/ Switch all existing artillery rounds with apple crumble.
3/ Send Vernon Kay to Iraq. There's not a single problem that can't be relieved by beating the **** out of The Annoying Bolton Twat, and it would give the Iraqis a true cause for unity.
-
I'll leave it to Gary Brecher, the coolest military geek evor... :yes:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html (http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html)
Ownt please.
-
I'll leave it to Gary Brecher, the coolest military geek evor... :yes:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html (http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html)
Ownt please.
That was appalling. And hilarious.
-
Damn. That guy is a geek... :wtf:
But I have to admit, that made sense...
-
I'll leave it to Gary Brecher, the coolest military geek evor... :yes:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html (http://www.exile.ru/2006-November-17/how_to_win_in_iraq.html)
Shhh, keep it down. If everyone starts reading the eXile it'll no longer be obscure and hip and then I'll have nothing to feel superior about.
But yeah, that's pretty much the only way the US could accomplish a military victory in anything less than a decade.
-
ahh what someone put as a sig on some other site.
man causes problems, no man, no problem. - J. Stalin. (btw wasnt exactly what he said but close enough.
then in the end its b, either way iraq has to work its own problem not using the us and uk as body armour.
-
Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
-
thats the one. thanks.
-
ahh what someone put as a sig on some other site.
man causes problems, no man, no problem. - J. Stalin. (btw wasnt exactly what he said but close enough.
then in the end its b, either way iraq has to work its own problem not using the us and uk as body armour.
Not “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”?
-
i might sound like a cold hearted bastard, but these people have to sort there own problems out and if they die so they die.
-
i might sound like a cold hearted bastard, but these people have to sort there own problems out and if they die so they die.
So you're saying it's okay for bigger nations to go into smaller nations, wreck up the joint, and then cheese it back home without having to take responsibility for their actions?
-
i might sound like a cold hearted bastard, but these people have to sort there own problems out and if they die so they die.
Presumably you'd be happy to see Northern Ireland return to a cycle of reciprocal sectarian violence, then?
-
Thank you from trying to twist my words to your advantage, im SAYING mister know it all: is that iraq has a miliary and goverment the usa and the united kingdom are not needed any longer, soon enough we will have to pull out anyway so either way iraq has to live with its own problems, get it?.
if you want to do that, so be it thats not my problem if you want to restart the northen ireland conflict.
-
Presumably you'd be happy to see Northern Ireland return to a cycle of reciprocal sectarian violence, then?
Yes, actually. Movie villains are getting too generic these days, we need to spice it up, and bringing back the IRA would do the trick. They could even be retroactively blamed for 9/11 and then the whole Iraq war could be relocated to a more pleasant, more alcohol-filled location.
-
Thank you from trying to twist my words to your advantage, im SAYING mister know it all: is that iraq has a miliary and goverment the usa and the united kingdom are not needed any longer, soon enough we will have to pull out anyway so either way iraq has to live with its own problems, get it?.
if you want to do that, so be it thats not my problem if you want to restart the northen ireland conflict.
All-caps words aside, the strength of the Iraqi military is dubious at best, thanks to the dismantling of it following the war (including the dismissal of non-Baath loyalist generals and officers). The strength of the government is dubious thanks to the consequent security situation, the undemocratic election process, Iranian influence, and the apparent tolerance (or at least huge amount) of sectarian violence from the security services. There is a rather obvious necessity for some stabilising influence, and it's rather obvious that the Iraqi government alone cannot perform that task (it is equally obvious that US, UK, etc troops' actions are only serving to exacerbate the problem).
Moreso, the question remains as to what the 'run away and hide from responsibility' strategy would achieve. At the very least it would humiliate US attempts to 'democratise' the middle east, and hand a huge victory to terrorism (even if the insurgency and looming civil war is primarily of internal origin) - an unpalatable result for the US and their allies. Moreso, it would likely serve to destabilise the surrounding countries, and have an economic (oil) impact on the UK/US/etc - not to mention the reduced political influence from said humiliation.
The fundamental issue is that the US/UK created Iraqs problems by invading without any sort of coherent plan to create a stable democratic country nor to withdraw in an organised retreat. It's easy to play the game of just hiding and 'letting the Iraqis sort it out' when you're not the one whose families will die in a civil war; put it in the context of the similarly tribal - if not quite analogous in scale, type and tactics - sectarian 'warfare' of Northern Ireland and I would say it puts a lot clearer context on what you're suggesting.
-
what im suggesting is that its not my problem and im point out whats true, iraq will have to sort its own problem out, after we have finished our problem.
good aldo 14. good :).
-
what im suggesting is that its not my problem and im point out whats true, iraq will have to sort its own problem out, after we have finished our problem.
good aldo 14. good :).
It is our problem, that's the whole point.......
-
withdrawn :)
-
How about just splitting the darn country according to religious / tribal boundaries - that is doing it without drawing the new boundaries with ruler?
-
Moreso, the question remains as to what the 'run away and hide from responsibility' strategy would achieve. At the very least it would humiliate US attempts to 'democratise' the middle east, and hand a huge victory to terrorism (even if the insurgency and looming civil war is primarily of internal origin) - an unpalatable result for the US and their allies. Moreso, it would likely serve to destabilise the surrounding countries, and have an economic (oil) impact on the UK/US/etc - not to mention the reduced political influence from said humiliation.
The fundamental issue is that the US/UK created Iraqs problems by invading without any sort of coherent plan to create a stable democratic country nor to withdraw in an organised retreat. It's easy to play the game of just hiding and 'letting the Iraqis sort it out' when you're not the one whose families will die in a civil war; put it in the context of the similarly tribal - if not quite analogous in scale, type and tactics - sectarian 'warfare' of Northern Ireland and I would say it puts a lot clearer context on what you're suggesting.
Except it's so totally not just an internal Iraqi problem, when it's so clear that external forces (Iran, Syria, AQ, and now apparently Saudi Arabia) are pushing and pulling at the various factions inside Iraq to cause more friction, instead of less. To draw comparisons, in the post-WWII era, there were also insurgencies around the world as remainders from the defeated nations fought little skirmishes here and there. But those eventually weakened and died out within a few years, largely because of the reconstruction efforts that (primarily) the US was fostering in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere.
Well, we're pushing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, too, and also doing our level best to get an Iraqi government that's representative of all aspects of Iraqi society on its feet. But sectarian violence is increasing, and it's not from within...in fact, there was a stretch of time where it seemed that Iraqis were settling into the idea of representative government and letting diplomacy resolve their differences. Not anymore...if anything, the increase of Iran's "boisterous" public nature has directly correlated with the increase in Iraqi sectarian violence, and there's no chance that that's a coincidence. And now the Saudis are declaring their intention to step in on the side of Iraqi Sunnis if the US takes forces away.
We're not talking civil war...we're talking war.
-
How about just splitting the darn country according to religious / tribal boundaries - that is doing it without drawing the new boundaries with ruler?
You'd get fighting over the new boundaries, natch. There'd also be a danger of continuing warfare even with 'hard' boundaries, plus the Turks would go ape**** at the prospect of a Kurdish nation next to them, and I'm not sure how Iran would react (possibly consuming the Shia 'nation'). There's perhaps a large issue over the oil in Iraq, which every side would want access to. Finally, there's in itself perhaps a risk that division on enthnic grounds would simply serve to polarise the sectarian divide.
Autonomous / devolved regions could perhaps work, but I'm not sure if they aren't already in place for the Sunni/Shia (obviously they are for the Kurds).
Except it's so totally not just an internal Iraqi problem, when it's so clear that external forces (Iran, Syria, AQ, and now apparently Saudi Arabia) are pushing and pulling at the various factions inside Iraq to cause more friction, instead of less. To draw comparisons, in the post-WWII era, there were also insurgencies around the world as remainders from the defeated nations fought little skirmishes here and there. But those eventually weakened and died out within a few years, largely because of the reconstruction efforts that (primarily) the US was fostering in Germany, Japan, and elsewhere.
Well, we're pushing reconstruction efforts in Iraq, too, and also doing our level best to get an Iraqi government that's representative of all aspects of Iraqi society on its feet. But sectarian violence is increasing, and it's not from within...in fact, there was a stretch of time where it seemed that Iraqis were settling into the idea of representative government and letting diplomacy resolve their differences. Not anymore...if anything, the increase of Iran's "boisterous" public nature has directly correlated with the increase in Iraqi sectarian violence, and there's no chance that that's a coincidence. And now the Saudis are declaring their intention to step in on the side of Iraqi Sunnis if the US takes forces away.
We're not talking civil war...we're talking war.
The Iraqi insurgency has always been a predominantly internally, ummm, 'supplied' war. Yes, there are exterior sources of funding, etc, but it's still mainly from within Iraq and by Iraqis. That's been long known, I believe, by the CIA et al.
Even with the 'democratic' elections, polling security was being handled in areas like Sadr City not by the Us or Iraqis, but by the militias - what security there is in Iraq seems almost to reside from the reliance upon ethnically defined militias killing anyone different. We've seen a classic pattern - regardless of prodding by outside forces - of Iraqi resistance (be it objection or actual taking up arms) in response to heavier US tactic which can and undoubtly will be seen as oppressive. Not to mention that having one minority group oppressing the majority, and then removing all forms of security and government, was always going to lead to problems.
It's worth nothing, too, that Irans' boisterousness has increased as Iraqs' collapse into anarchy has shown the US army to be not just less of a viable threat, but also less willing or capable to launch another war. In other words, whilst you can say Irans' outspokeness (if it's the right term) leads to rising violence in Iraq, you can also say the struggles of US forces in Iraq embolden Iran to act as they do. With the US rapidly rolling into Baghdad, Iran could fear a similar defeat - with the US now entrenched in a losing (or at least indefinately stalemated) quagmire that worsens every day, Iran can feel a lot less under threat and a lot more free to act up.
Also probably worth noting that the current ruling party in Iraq is quite friendly towards Iran, I believe.
I'm not aware, though of internal civil war in europe post WW2; can you give some examples please? Sounds interesting. :)
-
How about just splitting the darn country according to religious / tribal boundaries - that is doing it without drawing the new boundaries with ruler?
You'd get fighting over the new boundaries, natch. There'd also be a danger of continuing warfare even with 'hard' boundaries, plus the Turks would go ape**** at the prospect of a Kurdish nation next to them, and I'm not sure how Iran would react (possibly consuming the Shia 'nation'). There's perhaps a large issue over the oil in Iraq, which every side would want access to. Finally, there's in itself perhaps a risk that division on enthnic grounds would simply serve to polarise the sectarian divide.
Autonomous / devolved regions could perhaps work, but I'm not sure if they aren't already in place for the Sunni/Shia (obviously they are for the Kurds).
True, but people didnt live in a single nation until some larger power forced them to do so (like Ottomans), they didnt like it then and they sure didnt like the 'colonialistic' (ruler drawn) border lines drawn to the Middle East by Europeans after WW1. Same continued in Husseins time when people were forced by gunpoint (more or less) to co-operate... They didnt like each other back then. They dont like each other now. They most likely wont like each other in the future either.
I didnt say it would have been a good solution - but it might reduce the internal conflict in the Iraq... at the risk of increasing chances of external conflicts.
-
How about just splitting the darn country according to religious / tribal boundaries - that is doing it without drawing the new boundaries with ruler?
You'd get fighting over the new boundaries, natch. There'd also be a danger of continuing warfare even with 'hard' boundaries, plus the Turks would go ape**** at the prospect of a Kurdish nation next to them, and I'm not sure how Iran would react (possibly consuming the Shia 'nation'). There's perhaps a large issue over the oil in Iraq, which every side would want access to. Finally, there's in itself perhaps a risk that division on enthnic grounds would simply serve to polarise the sectarian divide.
Autonomous / devolved regions could perhaps work, but I'm not sure if they aren't already in place for the Sunni/Shia (obviously they are for the Kurds).
True, but people didnt live in a single nation until some larger power forced them to do so (like Ottomans), they didnt like it then and they sure didnt like the 'colonialistic' (ruler drawn) border lines drawn to the Middle East by Europeans after WW1. Same continued in Husseins time when people were forced by gunpoint (more or less) to co-operate... They didnt like each other back then. They dont like each other now. They most likely wont like each other in the future either.
I didnt say it would have been a good solution - but it might reduce the internal conflict in the Iraq... at the risk of increasing chances of external conflicts.
To be honest, I'd agree it's the best solution in principle (self-determination is a basic human right, after all), but the political and regional consequences could make it one of the worst ones in action. The way things are going, of course, it's looking like the de-facto resuls; civil war and either independent or assimilated ethnic regions.
-
I'm not aware, though of internal civil war in europe post WW2; can you give some examples please? Sounds interesting. :)
More just incidents of localized insurgency...Nazi holdouts, Japanese forces on outlying islands. I seem to recall hearing about one Japanese soldier who finally was convinced in something like the 1970s that the war was over. Things that I'd heard over the past couple of decades of reading wartime histories and talking to people.
-
I'm not aware, though of internal civil war in europe post WW2; can you give some examples please? Sounds interesting. :)
More just incidents of localized insurgency...Nazi holdouts, Japanese forces on outlying islands. I seem to recall hearing about one Japanese soldier who finally was convinced in something like the 1970s that the war was over. Things that I'd heard over the past couple of decades of reading wartime histories and talking to people.
Aaaah, but that's not quite the same thing as the sectarian civil war that's springing out of the Iraq insurgency, is it? I mean, I don't think those incidents - especially the ones where you have Japanese soldiers with no idea they're not at war - really amount to an exact parallel with the Iraq situation, because AFAIK those nations weren't subject to the same complete dissolution of security (and thus the anarchy and rise of powerful-esque militias like Sadrs').
-
I'm not aware, though of internal civil war in europe post WW2; can you give some examples please? Sounds interesting. :)
More just incidents of localized insurgency...Nazi holdouts, Japanese forces on outlying islands. I seem to recall hearing about one Japanese soldier who finally was convinced in something like the 1970s that the war was over. Things that I'd heard over the past couple of decades of reading wartime histories and talking to people.
Aaaah, but that's not quite the same thing as the sectarian civil war that's springing out of the Iraq insurgency, is it? I mean, I don't think those incidents - especially the ones where you have Japanese soldiers with no idea they're not at war - really amount to an exact parallel with the Iraq situation, because AFAIK those nations weren't subject to the same complete dissolution of security (and thus the anarchy and rise of powerful-esque militias like Sadrs').
But they also didn't have neighboring nations urging certain factions to rise up and attack both the reconstructors and Iraqis from other sects, which was the point that I was trying to make in the first place. Without Iran's influence in particular, I believe violence within Iraq would be much lower and I think the Iraqi government would be in much better position to bring peace to the nation.
-
Bush is obviously considering genocide but what novel solutions do you the enlightened denizens of HLP have to the problems in Iraq?
Disclaimer: this thread is not intended to be a heavy political debate but the fact that it is not intended to be a heavy political debate is not intended to offend people who like heavy political debates. Thanks for listening!
Kill Bush, problem solved!
(PS; to any Secret Services dudes, you do know I'm joking... right?)
-
This thread is now officially a heavy political debate and may indeed offend those offended by heavy political debates but not offend those not offended by said debates.