How to secure Baghdad?

[troubledgoodangel]

The media have just reported that "49 % of Baghdad's territory is secure, but that there is doubt if the Iraqis will be able to hold it." Let me preface this comment by saying that the American troops are fighting under the most difficult conditions imaginable. They don't know who is the enemy, and they confront the extremely high temperatures, besides. What is more, neither Samson, or the Spartans, or the Mongols of Genghis Khan, had to fight with the roadside bombs under their feet! It takes a great courage and sacrifice to fight under these conditions! It is sad that the U.S. soldiers are paying with their blood for something that will be lost. Yet I see a solution to this problem, if only the Iraqis would listen. They have plenty of idle, unemployed men and women in Baghdad. These people should be put to work, for it it is for the security and well-being of the common people like them that this fight is on. I have heard Prime Minister al-Maliki's complaints (and the U.S. Generals' complaints), "that there aren't enough troops to hold the areas freed from the insurrection." My suggestion to the Iraqi government would be: you have a half-million of unemployed young men and women on the streets of Baghdad. In two weeks, you could double your army by creating a parallel 300,000 strong National Guard with these people! Announce a voluntary recruitment right now ... with a 100 dollars gift in advance for those who sign. A National Guard could help the Iraqi army to hold these areas! Give each unemployed young person a 100 dollars a month and a badge. Provide them with expert commanders, and give their commanders walkie-talkies, so they can call in help. Add them to the Iraqi units, and let them be under direct Iraqi army control and tutoring. The Iraqis know how to communicate with their own, and it is their fight! The fight, as I said, is for the ordinary people. Let them have a chance to contribute to the fight!

[kaima]

The employment idea is good but four years too late. When we moved in we took all of their army and turned them into unemployed, trained former military. We took their political power structure and destroyed it without replacing it or employing the talent that was suddenly unleashed.

We cleaned up the weapons of mass destruction, we accomplished all of the other goals that GW Bush set out to do. Now we should declare the war won, turn it over to the Iraqis and set our troops up in the few permanent bases we want in the more remote reaches of Iraq and declare victory.

Kai

[leslie]

Kai
There were no weapons of mass destruction found by either the inspectors before Iraq was invaded nor afterwards. What we have done, as we are doing also in Afghanistan is meddle in the affairs of another country - we should look to our own. One argument is that these places are breeding grounds for terrorists, but invasion and killings in Iraq and Afghanistan have not stopped terrorists worldwide. OK, Saddam Hussein had many of the Iraqis killed when he was alive and in power - but how many Iraqis have died since he was toppled - in this case killed by their fellow Iraqis.
We would be much better coming out of both countries and spending the millions of pounds and dollars that are being expended on making our own borders secure and seeking out the terrorists who enter and develop in our midsts. We have little chance of making either of those two countries safe and peaceful = let's make sure our own are so. Both the US and UK still think they are the guardians and saviours of the world - let us guard and save ourselves.
What ideas has Troubledangel got to ensure that the employment she suggests would not result in an army half of whom were Sunni and the other Shia - both trained and armed so they could better kill each other.
Yes Kai, let us declare the war is won (or lost - who cares) and all our forces come home - all of them.

[troubledgoodangel]

Nothing can be guaranteed in Iraq. But my feeling is that, if one unarmed man or woman were attached to each armed Iraqi, the chances are that they would not kill each other. On the contrary, there would be a drastic increase in security, intelligence ... and hope. This is what my plan calls for, supplementing the 350,000 strong Iraqi army with another unarmed 350,000. If it doesn't work, so be it. But if it does, it would help many innocent women and children in Baghdad to get food on the table. There have been so many things tried, why not try one more? And by the way, I am a male Troubledangel, not a "she."

[leslie]

Troubledgoodangel
Sorry for the error in your sex - but I still don't agree with you and I feel what you suggest about one armed. one unarmed is just not realistic.
Leslie

[bescheid]

Troubledgoodangle, Leslie and Kai

In Actuality, I agree with you all, for what you are proposing makes good sense. But, good sense is not what the war in Iraq is about. It would so appear as to be stupidity being confused as a virtue.

As a person, I am not against war, but only if necessary, and this war is not nor ever were, necessary and for this bit of stupid, a great many American warriors are being wasted for nothing.

The Camel riders of Arab pulled a good one on Mr. President Bush with the use of America to pull their fat out of the fire to eliminate the now dead Hussein. The very man the Americans placed into power some long years back.

To begin with, the Kuwaiti royal family attempted to foreclose on unsecured loans to the Iraqi government and with this, straight faced to the Americans of non-complacency of cross drilling into Iraqi oil fields. They were caught by then President Hussein and this was the invitation of invasion by the Iraqis. But of course this would not be made public because of the common good of oil prices. The remainder is simply history with the truth of the matter destroyed with the death of Hussein.

At this time, I was in Syria as an employee of Deutz AG import/export. In actuality, we actually sold a good many deutz air cooled motors as stand alone pumping/generating systems. We had two offices, the primary was in Damascus and our operating office {import/export} was in Aleppo. My photo as depicted here was taken at Madinat ath Thawrah, a city off the lake of {Buhayrat al Asad} this would be the river of fed as that of the {Euphrates}. [have I confuse you yet?].

At this time, my self and others were simply amazed with the stupidity of the American invasion of Iraq.. in actuality, we thought perhaps the news was just a mistake. But, unfortunately not to be.

But then, the failure to not seal off all boarder of Iraq, was another simple lack of understanding. All was not in order of logic and common sense.

Now, well it is a problem of the Americans and those following into this tar baby of a mess, to extract them selves out on their own accord. If stupid is a virtue, then let it be the stupid to correct their mistakes.

Charles

[troubledgoodangel]

I am not saying that they go in twos, one armed and one unarmed. All I am trying to convey, is that it is time that these people be put to work! Billions have been spent on training and arming the Iraqis. Now we are getting the word that the Iraqi army "needs help." Why not spend a few more millions on a neighborhood watch corps speaking the Iraqi language, to help the Iraqis?

[kaima]

Leslie, we started the war with a big lie, so let's complete it with a big lie. We won. We got rid of all the weapons of mass destruction - the proof of that is that none exist today. We deposed a nasty dictator, we brought democracy to a place where it has no cultural roots and it is a wild success! We took a land where there were no links to Al Quida and created a great training ground for their fighters. We demonstrated to the world the weakness of the US military, which previously was seen as invulnerable. We distracted out troops from hunting the true Al Quida in Afghanistan and our buddy Bin Laden is still running around as a great excuse to spend more money on war profiteers.

You go to war with the president and the cowardly war mongers (draft dodging was their training ground during Vietnam) you have and not the president you wish you had. In addition to turning everything else upside down, you call yourself neo-con while implying 'conservative' while borrowing money in violation of every conservative principle that ever existed, and sell it to the people with the loaded time bomb of haivng China come back and dictate our foreign policy when we are deeply in their debt - using the 'financial strings pulling' that we have enjoyed for so many decades to dictate other's policy.

So keeping with this fine policy, we can declare victory and cut and run as Ronnie Reagan did after 250 Marines were blown up in Lebanon. We will just invent a new name for it, and we will be at peace with ourselves and won't have to admit that so many have died for a lie.

Kai

[troubledgoodangel]

This month, the Brookings Institution has released a new innovative "soft partition" alternative to the plan B for Iraq. The Brookings Institution plan, I think, is a step in the right direction. Iraq has long forfeited its right to being a sovereign state. This right is always lost wherever a people chooses to kill each other for "political gains." The sectarian violence that ensues in such cases is endless, and the bloodshed becomes a sure case against sovereignty! The U.S., with the U.N.'s backing, should start implementing the first phases of soft partition without delay!

[varsovian]

Wasn't the South Vietnamese Army supposed to take over the Good Fight in the early 70s?
Heavily-funded, well-trained, no will to fight and die to ensure continued foreigh domination.
Le jaunissement de la guerre ... tried earlier by the French.