Treaty tensions mount as Iraq tells the US it wants all troops back in barracks

The Times (UK) ^ | June 9, 2008 | Deborah Haynes in Baghdad

[Americanexpat]

My thoughts exactly. If we put our troops in that situation they will be sitting ducks for every terrorists with mortars or rockets. As far as I am concerned we have already won the war, let the Iraqis mop up the terrorists and pull our troops back to the states right after we get a signed document that they have the situation under control and do not need our troops there anymore.

[RaceBannon]

How do we even know they’re girls?...

[dervish]

Except for the quote from Ali al-Dabbagh who is really the Iraqi government spokesman.

[SolidWood]

We hear so much contradictionary blabla out of Iraq. But it’s a safe bet that the truth is always somehthing different then the MSM tells.

[Owl558]

“But history shows that your position results in the least loss of life on both sides and minimizes community damage.”

A current, real world model for your “kill everything” position is Chechnya. The Russians did indeed:

“...kill as many and destroy as much as is necessary to achieve this, “collateral damage” be DAMNED. If protest arises, armed or otherwise, you put it down IMMEDIATELY with extreme prejudice.”

In that case the damage to the community was extreme, the loss of life was far worse in proportion to the numbers of people caught up in the conflict, and fighting didn’t end because everything was destroyed.

[airborne]

My first thought when I saw this was the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut.

[gogogodzilla]

Sounds good to me. They wouldn’t be calling for us to stick in our bases if they believed there was any sort of threat to public safety.

Besides, we must eventually do so, anyway. Just look at South Korea. We did return to our barracks and bases there.

I can also imagine just how big a sh@t the Iraqi leadership would cr@p if we actually took them up on the offer...

:-P

[gogogodzilla]

There is, however, much less fighting going on...

...as there are not as many people left to wage the war.

If you rinse and repeat again and again, the fighting WILL stop, one way or the other (peace via negotiations or extermination).

[Marine_Uncle]

Malaki has to appear to satisfy a majority of Iraqi to keep his current slight popularity in tack. However. We and they do have that little problem regarding the UN mandates.
It will be interesting to see this play out. If it turns out that only minority numbers are in protest of keeping our forces in situ, perhaps a transparent force agreement will come to past. The US congress is not at all happy on how things have gone. GWB has really keeped them out of the loop for the most part. More Repubs are siding with the demowits on this issue in it's varied reported provisions.
One thing not being voiced is the huge amount of reconstruction the US military still provides in so many divergent ways that would come to a stand still if we pull out engineering groups for instance. Now if we are to continue to help them rebuild, we have to provide sufficient of warriors to protect our engineering, medical, social reconstruction groups etc..
It is a sticky situation at best.

[TADSLOS]

Shia posturing B.S.

[MinorityRepublican]

If this stands then we should immediately withdraw all US and private security forces.

I agree. That's why I'm not too concerned about all this. The Iraqi government will cave in knowing that they do not want the Iranians to fill the power vaccum if we leave prematurely.

[MinorityRepublican]

Iraq is becoming peaceful in most areas, thanks to the hard work and dedication of our troops.

Except for northern Iraq and Sadr City in Baghdad?

[Nuc1]

I see the Democrats have finally made it to Iraq, or their minions from Europe.

[BIGLOOK]

OK, I've read through the items and one thing bothers me about this restriction on US troops. Maliki just ended a three day visit to Tehran. Hmmmm...

Just what bargain did he make with the Devil?

[kidd]

You misrepresent my position. “Kill everything” (not my position) is quite different from “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” (my position).

Chechnya is the perfect example of a vastly superior military entity going into a situation with insufficient force and spineless political resolve, and allowing the conflict to linger. Russia, which once owned half of Europe and was at one time our military equal, has managed to induce anger rather than respect by making Chechnya a police state rather than a war zone. Thus, it has become a slow, drawn out process that has been damaging to both sides.

And because the Russians have chosen to police rather than defeat Muslim extremism, they have only made the worldwide conflict with Muslims worse.

I guess its a matter of philosophy: would you consider Hiroshima to be a “kill everything” position, or a “defeat the enemy with overwhelming power and quickly” position?

[dforest]

I agree with your post.

[Owl558]

Kidd, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your position. I’m just looking for a current, real-world example of the kind of campaign you want us to wage. In fact, I tend to agree with you that a total war model is probably better than going in with minimal force.

Should there be a draft? Full mobilization?

[kidd]

My original comment was made to poster Nervous Tick, in response to a general philosophy about warfare.

Nervous Tick made the point the warfare should be avoided as much as possible, but should be fully engaged if it is deemed necessary.

We are not fully engaged in Iraq...we have sufficient evidence that Iran is participating against us by proxy. A fully engaged war plan should not worry about borders. However, the political will to take on Iran is absent...thus the conflict in Iraq drags on.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This will likely have some influence:

Gulf Arabs eye Iraq role to counter Iran

And wouldn't they prefer to have American Troops in Iraq...