And just HOW is the war going?

[michaeledward]

I hear talk of the recognition of the three seperate nation states within Iraq. We will simply occupy Kurdistan and slap down up risings in Shii-stan and help when we can with Suni-stan. Its the original plan actualy.
Sean

Whose original plan?

Actually, I don't think we will need to occupy Kurdistan. Currently, there are like 15 Coalition soldiers stationed in Kurdistan (Ok, that's an exaggeration - but not much of one).

The bigger issue will be if we can convince Turkey to accept an independent Kurdistan. The Turkish Kurds could create a bit of a problem if their brethren South of Border get their own state.

Shiastan - as you call it - will more likely be an annex to Iran. This, of course, would be unacceptable. I am not a religious expert, but I believe that there are twelve Grand Ayatollahs among Shia Muslems. Currently, eight live in Iran. Annexing Southern Iraq would unify the Shia considerably. Saudi Arabia would not like this, nor Kuwait or the UAE and probably some other Sunni states.

Suni-stan would be a problem. There are no known oil reserves in this part of Iraq. All the resource is in Kurdistan and Shiastan. If the Sunni's don't get a piece of the pie, they are bound to make trouble. Assuming they could be convinced the Shia weren't going to exterminate them.

So, again, we must ask, Whose original Plan?

Certainly, it was not the plan of the President, who two months before the invasion didn't understand the ethnic and religious factions in the country he was about to invade. His incuriousness has injured us all.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Whose original plan?

Actually, I don't think we will need to occupy Kurdistan. Currently, there are like 15 Coalition soldiers stationed in Kurdistan (Ok, that's an exaggeration - but not much of one).

The bigger issue will be if we can convince Turkey to accept an independent Kurdistan. The Turkish Kurds could create a bit of a problem if their brethren South of Border get their own state.

Shiastan - as you call it - will more likely be an annex to Iran. This, of course, would be unacceptable. I am not a religious expert, but I believe that there are twelve Grand Ayatollahs among Shia Muslems. Currently, eight live in Iran. Annexing Southern Iraq would unify the Shia considerably. Saudi Arabia would not like this, nor Kuwait or the UAE and probably some other Sunni states.

Suni-stan would be a problem. There are no known oil reserves in this part of Iraq. All the resource is in Kurdistan and Shiastan. If the Sunni's don't get a piece of the pie, they are bound to make trouble. Assuming they could be convinced the Shia weren't going to exterminate them.

So, again, we must ask, Whose original Plan?

Certainly, it was not the plan of the President, who two months before the invasion didn't understand the ethnic and religious factions in the country he was about to invade. His incuriousness has injured us all.

We would occupy Kurdistan at their invitation with almost no opposition, we exit the Shii territory and the Sunni. We have always known a Kuristan was inevitable and embracing it is better than continuing the current plan of action. Since I was taught the Kurdistan problem during the early nineties in college, I imagine someone in the government has prepared for the inevitability and the answer to your question would be "that" person.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

We would occupy Kurdistan at their invitation with almost no opposition, we exit the Shii territory and the Sunni. We have always known a Kuristan was inevitable and embracing it is better than continuing the current plan of action. Since I was taught the Kurdistan problem during the early nineties in college, I imagine someone in the government has prepared for the inevitability and the answer to your question would be "that" person.
Sean

Sean,

In the early nineties, there were different people running the executive branch of government. Those people had the wisdom to not invade and occuppy Baghdad.

All of the language that has brought us to this point, by the people who have brought us to this point, has been about a unified Iraq, establishing a Jeffersonian Democracy and stabilizing the region. (How's that workin' out for us?)

And, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue hasn't shown a tendency to a) read reports by prior residences of that address, b) be able to change course based on facts on the ground and c) recognize incompetent leadership and make changes toward competence.

Oh, and, of course, if we look to the history of this board, you might find an argument or two from yours truly ... a couple of years old at this point ... for the three state solution. So, yes, there are people who have thought about it, but I'm not sure they are the right people, right?

Mike

EDIT

I did some poking around ... ... found this post, from a couple of years back .... take a look.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=217003&postcount=29

END OF EDIT

 

[jazkiljok]

timelines for success? forget about it. how about failure?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/06/iraq.main/index.html

 

[jazkiljok]

Iraq?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14798662/

Afghanistan?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14813354/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14823099/

 

[jazkiljok]

soon to come: moat with alligators.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14847580/

 

[michaeledward]

Although this is not NEW news to anyone who has been paying attention. One has to think what might be different, if different choices related to this article were made three and a half years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html

Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people

 

[jazkiljok]

more troops needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912976/

meet the new enemy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912050/

 

[jazkiljok]

please forgive me for keeping this rather dried up thread alive.

the war is killing people as we speak and most aren't terrorists, many young men, women, children who may not have had it great under saddam, but certainly didn't have it this bad. and it's costing our country in everyway imaginable; in the lost of american lives, the maiming and suffering that thousands must now endure, the wrecking of careers, families and businesses, the money that is tossed in an endless pit to shady contractors and corrupt officials.

the incompetent, intellectually indolent, self-righteous egoistical people who are running this sad show-- who never planned for anything, gave into whimsical scenarios of quick success, painted rose strewn streets for themselves as they continually disengage from the rest of the planet-- they may be in a dream world which rewards them 50 years from now with their visionary leadership.

but the rest of us have to live with this crap now.



http://www.slate.com/id/2150337/nav/tap1/

 

[The Master]

So, with more and more evidence being released that continues to show that reality, and the Bush Administration are no where near each other, at what point can the country demand a recall election? Can it?

 

[michaeledward]

So, with more and more evidence being released that continues to show that reality, and the Bush Administration are no where near each other, at what point can the country demand a recall election? Can it?

The United States Constitution does not allow for a 'Recall Election'.

The Remedy offered in that document is Impeachment. Impeahment can be called for any High Crime and Misdemeanor. The President's intentional lies in his State of the Union Address of 2003 are sufficient, in my opinion, to meet that standard.

That the House of Representatives and Senate are controlled by the Republican Party is a principle reason that investigations have not gone forward. The President has exercised veto power exactly one time in almost six years. Logically, we can deduce that the majority party in Congress are working almost exactly in line with the President's desires. If Congress diverged from the President's desires at all over the last three sessions of Congress, the President would have had to use that Veto power more frequently.

For the past six years, our country has effectively had a one party government. You like ... hmmm... what other one party governments can we think of ... aahhh.... damn, one party govenrments just seem to be escaping me at the moment .... but you know what I mean, right?

 

[crushing]

For the past six years, our country has effectively had a one party government. You like ... hmmm... what other one party governments can we think of ... aahhh.... damn, one party govenrments just seem to be escaping me at the moment .... but you know what I mean, right?

Like USA 1993-1994?

Not that Democrats and Republicans are all that different in the US political duopoly anyway. Their ideology just shifts a little depending on the party of the sitting president (some call it flip-flopping). For most of the 90s it was the Democrats that were all for expanding wiretapping and launching preemptive attacks against countries while the Republicans railed against such policies. In 2001 the Republicans stood on the shoulders of those that came before and ran with it and now the Democrats are opposed.

Anyway Michael, I'm with you on thinking that gridlock isn't a bad thing. Judging by your quote above, it doesn't appear that you want Democrat or Republican control of all the branches. Right?

 

[michaeledward]

For most of the 90s it was the Democrats that were all for expanding wiretapping and launching preemptive attacks against countries while the Republicans railed against such policies.

Conitinuing to spread disinformation, I see.

The Democrats may have been working toward expanding wiretaps .. but always with judicial oversight. You know .. "Warrants", the 4th Amendment. That type of thing.

And, I think the attacks from the Bill Clinton were "retalitory", not 'Pre-emptive" -- unless you buy the 'wag the dog' theory, so often espoused by the Right --- you know, preemptively distracting from Monica's dress.

No need to let facts get in the way of a good attack meme.

 

[crushing]

Conitinuing to spread disinformation, I see.

The Democrats may have been working toward expanding wiretaps .. but always with judicial oversight. You know .. "Warrants", the 4th Amendment. That type of thing.

And, I think the attacks from the Bill Clinton were "retalitory", not 'Pre-emptive" -- unless you buy the 'wag the dog' theory, so often espoused by the Right --- you know, preemptively distracting from Monica's dress.

No need to let facts get in the way of a good attack meme.

Wow, I thought I was agreeing with you on something and you still try to find a way to try to insult me again. Oh well, if that is your wont. With your response I have a feeling that you aren't so opposed to a one party rule, you are just opposed to a 'wrong' party rule.

I'm not talking about Operation Infinite Reach as being pre-emptive. My comparison of the warmongerig throughout the Clinton/Bush years wasn't between Al Queda/bin Laden and Hussein, but between Milosevic and Hussein.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Clinton Doctrine, upon which the Bush Doctrine is built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/29/doctrine.html

I prefer President Clinton over President Bush, but I won't be so loyal to Clinton and his party (or any President and his corresponding party) to not be critical of them when they make mistakes or do things with which I disagree. In a previous thread you mistakenly saw it as a defense of Bush when I was being critical of both.

 

[michaeledward]

Wow, I thought I was agreeing with you on something and you still try to find a way to try to insult me again. Oh well, if that is your wont. With your response I have a feeling that you aren't so opposed to a one party rule, you are just opposed to a 'wrong' party rule.

I'm not talking about Operation Infinite Reach as being pre-emptive. My comparison of the warmongerig throughout the Clinton/Bush years wasn't between Al Queda/bin Laden and Hussein, but between Milosevic and Hussein.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Clinton Doctrine, upon which the Bush Doctrine is built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/29/doctrine.html

I prefer President Clinton over President Bush, but I won't be so loyal to Clinton and his party (or any President and his corresponding party) to not be critical of them when they make mistakes or do things with which I disagree. In a previous thread you mistakenly saw it as a defense of Bush when I was being critical of both.

I understand that you were attempting to agree with me. But you were either unintentionally or deliberatly mis-representing information. You have repeatedly asserted President Clinton's attempt to expand wiretapping, but never mention judicial oversight. Warrants were always part of the plan in the 90's. Under President Bush, such wiretaps have been warrant free, in violation of the 4th Amendment. You may choose to see that as a small matter. I do not.

The 'Clinton Doctrine' to which you refer, seems to be about humantarian intervention. President Clinton behaved badly in retrospect to Rawanda. (He continues to misreprent what occurred under his watch in '94). I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the "Bush Doctrine" (aka the 1% Doctrine) about military action is akin to the earlier subject.

We will pre-emptively act to avoid the Shi'ite from slaughtering the Sunni is the same as we will pre-emptively act to prevent Saddam Hussien from giving imaginary weapons to his imaginary ally, al Qaeda.

Sadly, the mission in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - may soon turn to a Clinton Doctrine operation. But it was never described or designed as such.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Dont forget the Somalia fiasco.

And never criticize Clinton in front of mike.

 

[crushing]

I understand that you were attempting to agree with me. But you were either unintentionally or deliberatly mis-representing information. You have repeatedly asserted President Clinton's attempt to expand wiretapping, but never mention judicial oversight. Warrants were always part of the plan in the 90's. Under President Bush, such wiretaps have been warrant free, in violation of the 4th Amendment. You may choose to see that as a small matter. I do not.

It would appear that something in the system is broken if there is no way to get judicial review of policies that violate the 4th Amendment.

 

[michaeledward]

Dont forget the Somalia fiasco.

And never criticize Clinton in front of mike.

I have not forgotten Somalia.

Who was who sent the US Military to Somalia, again? The First President Bush authorized US troops to the country in August of 1992. In December of 1992 (after being defeated in the Presidential Election) President Bush increased the number of US troops and the scope of their mission. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he inherited the Somalia situation.

The question asked last week, is why was their no retaliation for the Cole. The answer is two fold - first, the Intelligence Agencies would not make an ascertation as to whom was responsible until after Clinton left office (January 25, 2001). But, futher, even working from the assumption that it was al Qaeda, President Clinton remembered the foreign policy he inherited from his predecessor. He decided not to begin a campaign which he would have to leave to his successor; especially without the Intelligence Communities backing as to the target of the retaliation being correct.

The plans for retaliation and roll back of al Qaeda, were created though. They were presented to NSA chief Rice and assistant NSA chief Hadley during the transition.

So, if you want to critizice President Clinton, go right ahead. But have the facts correct.

 

[michaeledward]

It would appear that something in the system is broken if there is no way to get judicial review of policies that violate the 4th Amendment.

I agree.

This is why I think there is a difference between the two program concerning expanded wiretapping. One allows for judicial oversight, one does not.

 

[HKphooey]

I have not forgotten Somalia.

Who was who sent the US Military to Somalia, again? The First President Bush authorized US troops to the country in August of 1992. In December of 1992 (after being defeated in the Presidential Election) President Bush increased the number of US troops and the scope of their mission. When President Clinton took office in January 1993, he inherited the Somalia situation.

The question asked last week, is why was their no retaliation for the Cole. The answer is two fold - first, the Intelligence Agencies would not make an ascertation as to whom was responsible until after Clinton left office (January 25, 2001). But, futher, even working from the assumption that it was al Qaeda, President Clinton remembered the foreign policy he inherited from his predecessor. He decided not to begin a campaign which he would have to leave to his successor; especially without the Intelligence Communities backing as to the target of the retaliation being correct.

The plans for retaliation and roll back of al Qaeda, were created though. They were presented to NSA chief Rice and assistant NSA chief Hadley during the transition.

So, if you want to critizice President Clinton, go right ahead. But have the facts correct.

Yeah he just refused to send more back up for the troops who were stuck there.