Strategists UP!

NousDefionsDoc · 04-20-2007, 19:50

So, libs want to pull out of Iraq. Most of them I believe support staying in A-stan. Have they thought this through? What happens in A-stan if we runaway from Iraq?

**Kyobanim** · 04-20-2007, 20:18

A-stan gets a bunch more troops?

NousDefionsDoc · 04-20-2007, 20:22

Which side?

brandonm · 04-20-2007, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

So, libs want to pull out of Iraq. Most of them I believe support staying in A-stan. Have they thought this through? What happens in A-stan if we runaway from Iraq?

All the insurgents from Iraq go to Afghanistan and it becomes the new Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

A-stan gets a bunch more troops?

I doubt those same Dems that want to pull out of Iraq would approve of sending those troops to Afghanistan. One of the reasons they want to pull the troops out of Iraq is to get the boys back home.

Basically, Iraq is THE warfront for terror right now. If we pull out of there it goes somewhere else. Afghanistan, Europe, United States... I don't know about you guys but as a future soldier I'd much rather fight and die for my country in Iraq than fight and die for my country in the U.S.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-20-2007, 20:27

Well, I'll say one thing for you Sluggo, you got balls....

x-factor · 04-20-2007, 20:29

Let me preface by saying that I don't support pulling out of Iraq, but the argument (I would think) goes something like this:

1) Pulling out of Iraq allows us to focus our limited resources on a country where the population is more supportive of US/NATO troops on their soil...by extension, we can win definitively in Afghanistan (implicitly including capturing/killing of UBL and Zawahiri).
2) By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.
3) Pulling out of Iraq also allows us to "reconstitute" the "broken" military.
4) Pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi government and populace to reconcile and the other countries in the region to assist in reconstruction, all out of their own self interests in avoiding a civil and/or regional war.

Bear in mind I think all of these are poorly reasoned and pulling out would be a disaster for everyone but Iran. However, if you guys want to work through the argument, I'm happy to play the RED CELL.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-20-2007, 20:31

Afghanis are not Arabs.

x-factor · 04-20-2007, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Afghanis are not Arabs.

I know. My bad, is should have typed that out better. The argument goes that a pullout from Iraq will boost support for the US among moderate Arabs, which will help us in Afghanistan and the GWOT in general.

Quote:

3.) Not sure exactly what you mean by this, please expound.

This is specifically the Jack Murtha argument that says that the military, especially the Army, is overdeployed to the point that our ability to project power and/or respond to crises elsewhere in the world is compromised. Therefore, pulling out of Iraq would allow us to rebuild the military and preserve our long term military superiority.

NousDefionsDoc · 04-20-2007, 20:52

How will moderate Arabs help us in A-stan?

Murthra
"I can't issue you that because if somebody comes in and asks for it, I won't have it to issue to them."

**The Reaper** · 04-20-2007, 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

How will moderate Arabs help us in A-stan?

Murthra
"I can't issue you that because if somebody comes in and asks for it, I won't have it to issue to them."

Murtha was an S-4?

TR

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 04-21-2007, 05:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

I know. My bad, is should have typed that out better. The argument goes that a pullout from Iraq will boost support for the US among moderate Arabs, which will help us in Afghanistan and the GWOT in general.
.

Your focus is too narrow. First of all you talk about Arabs as a homogenous grouping-they are not, they are, have been, and for the foreseeable future seem to be more identified with their tribes than their "country" or any other political grouping. Second we are not looking to deal with "moderate" Arabs but moderate "Islamists" the bulk of whom are not Arabs at all. Personally I do not think that there is such a beast as a moderate "Islamist", there may however be folks who practice a version of Islam that is somewhat less "stringent" than what the Q'uaran directs. Sort of like the various tenets practiced throughout everyother religion. We do not need to boost the support of the US among moderate Islamists but eliminate support of Islamic Fundamentalism within the muslim community-that is the center of gravity for this entire effort.

JGarcia · 04-21-2007, 07:04

COL. JM,

I think most Americans tend to view Arabs as a homogeneous people, often the terms, "moderate arabs," is used in the media or other places.

I would like to offer an article about tribes and arabs. It's a good description of the mentality or culture in the arab lands.

http://stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed2.asp

x-factor · 04-21-2007, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Moroney

Your focus is too narrow. First of all you talk about Arabs as a homogenous grouping-they are not, they are, have been, and for the foreseeable future seem to be more identified with their tribes than their "country" or any other political grouping. Second we are not looking to deal with "moderate" Arabs but moderate "Islamists" the bulk of whom are not Arabs at all. Personally I do not think that there is such a beast as a moderate "Islamist", there may however be folks who practice a version of Islam that is somewhat less "stringent" than what the Q'uaran directs. Sort of like the various tenets practiced throughout everyother religion. We do not need to boost the support of the US among moderate Islamists but eliminate support of Islamic Fundamentalism within the muslim community-that is the center of gravity for this entire effort.

Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.

brandonm · 04-20-2007, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

Let me preface by saying that I don't support pulling out of Iraq, but the argument (I would think) goes something like this:

1) Pulling out of Iraq allows us to focus our limited resources on a country where the population is more supportive of US/NATO troops on their soil...by extension, we can win definitively in Afghanistan (implicitly including capturing/killing of UBL and Zawahiri).
2) By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.
3) Pulling out of Iraq also allows us to "reconstitute" the "broken" military.
4) Pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi government and populace to reconcile and the other countries in the region to assist in reconstruction, all out of their own self interests in avoiding a civil and/or regional war.

Bear in mind I think all of these are poorly reasoned and pulling out would be a disaster for everyone but Iran. However, if you guys want to work through the argument, I'm happy to play the RED CELL.

1.) May be true but we've been looking for Osama (possibly dead...) in that region for 6 years now and not much luck there. I doubt you'd want that war in Afghanistan either.

2.) I don't believe pulling out of Iraq will suddenly patch up any "damages" done to our international relations. In my opinion, it will just give Iranians and other Arab countries something to point to and say "See, the Great Satan can be defeated!" and could be a catalyst to more aggressive policies by Middle Eastern countries.

3.) Not sure exactly what you mean by this, please expound.

4.) Fair point, but from what I have heard and read the Iraqi security forces still have a way to go before they are capable of providing the security to prevent the country from falling into total chaos.

x-factor · 04-21-2007, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by x-factor

1) Pulling out of Iraq allows us to focus our limited resources on a country where the population is more supportive of US/NATO troops on their soil...by extension, we can win definitively in Afghanistan (implicitly including capturing/killing of UBL and Zawahiri).

Pulling out of Iraq would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan and potentially, to win decisively. Even so, the "win in Afghanistan instead" argument is a red herring. Its better to continue with a grinding draw in both than to lose in Iraq.

Quote:

2) By pulling out of Iraq we rehabilitate our international image thereby renewing the US/European friendship, adding Arab support, and sapping the jihadist movement of its cause celebre.

This is also a fundamentally flawed position. Pulling out of a stable Iraq (which i would assume is everyone's goal) would rehabilitate our image in the Arab world because it would prove what we've said the entire time, that we were not their to exploit, but to liberate. Pulling out at this stage will be viewed as an unequivocal defeat. Not only that but any horrors that follow will be blamed on the US by all sides: Sunnis will blame us for empowering the Shia, Kurds will blame us for abandoning them (again), the religious Shia will blame us for empowering the Sunni, the secular Shia will blame us for abandoning them, and the rest of the world (esp Europe) will continue to blame us for upsetting the apple cart in the first place.

In short, the damage to our international reputation is already done. The only way to mitigate it is to persevere to some sort of positive end.

Quote:

3) Pulling out of Iraq also allows us to "reconstitute" the "broken" military.

While its true that the military needs a certain amount of reconstituting after the incredibly wearing op tempo of the last 5 years, this argument puts the cart completely before the horse. Having a superior military is a means, not an end. Pulling out to reconstitute the military amounts to pulling out to reconstitute just to go back in in 5, 10, or 15 years and under worse circumstances.

Quote:

4) Pulling out of Iraq will force the Iraqi government and populace to reconcile and the other countries in the region to assist in reconstruction, all out of their own self interests in avoiding a civil and/or regional war.

TR said it best: overpositive assumptions got us into this mess. Hoping that a withdrawal will prompt a national reconciliation is pie in the sky. Polling and anecdotal reporting clearly shows that the only thing stopping an all out civil war is a tenuous trust in the impartiality of the US military. Faith in the neighboring countries' good will is likewise a pipe dream. Lebanon could not be clearer proof of that.

In my opinion, TS (1119) and TR (1124) nailed the most likely scenario to follow a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq: a mega-Lebanon governed as city-states and regional warlords beholden to outside powers. Whether that situation would evolve into something else is more difficult to see.

Ethnic cleansing could reorder the demographics and create three relatively homogeneous states or the Shia majority could succeed in establishing order over the whole country, but I think its most likely that the country would just continue to limp along in a state of general neo-feudal chaos, just as Lebanon has.

A key question is where the next center of jihad would be following a US withdrawal from Iraq. There'd be a certain amount of flow back to Afghanistan, but I think its more likely that jihadists, using Iraq as a base, would target Jordan and/or Lebanon as the next logical step. Lebanon offers a staging area for attacks against Israel as well as an opportunity to kill "Crusaders" (meaning the European peacekeepers) on Muslim soil. Jordan also offers the same opportunity to strike Israel, as well as allowing them to "encircle" Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, going after Jordan give the jihadists a chance to campaign against King Abdullah, the most vocal and visible moderate/Westernized/apostate ruler in the Muslim world. Add to this the emotional satisfaction in "avenging" Zarqawi and I think Jordan would find itself under siege very soon after the fall of Iraq.