{OT} why we cannot leave iraq

The problem is not that it is "getting a little dicey", it's that this President and his henchmen have no ideas about how to improve things in Iraq or Afghanistan.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems *exactly* what out current admin has done! Good quote :-o

...

We can't leave because it's now worse off than when we invaded it.

And prospects for improvement are dim. Google "devlin marine intelligence anbar province"

Here's one of the hits:

If I were Bush, I'd re-read that 18-page letter Ahmedinejad sent him and think about whatever's in it in a new light. Iraq is some 60% Shi'ite Muslim. Iran is some 97% Shi'ite Muslim. If Bush could swing a deal that wasn't terminally painful to get Iran's politicians and clergy to discourage sectarian violence against the Sunnis, he'd be wise to do it.

"classified assesment"??

This stuff is so much fun. If it's a classified assesment, how did it get pasted all over the internet?

Your ideals are admirable but you cannot negotiate with people who have shown over and over again they do not respect any deals they have made in the past. To do as you suggest will merely open more doors for the radicalists to spread their influence. Iran's political advisors are so savvy that any deal made with them will end up working to their advantage. Besides, how can you expect rational negotiations with a leader who publicly announces the Holocaust as a myth? Even if he privately believed that by expressing it publicly he has lost all credibility. And that doesn't even take into consideration all the other outrageous claims Mr. Ahmadinejad has made in his short tenure as President. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust the mullahs and their agenda; they have brought nothing but misery and death to millions of people since they have come into power.

Interesting article in yesterday Raleigh News and Observer. Turns out that the reason why generals aren't asking for more troops is that they have been told that their mission is only to train Iraqi forces and NOT to put down insurgency. So basically Bush is sacrificing Iraqi lives, thousands per months, to avoid putting the necessary number of troops in Iraq to put down the insurgency. He doesn't have the guts to reinstitute the draft and put the 300000 to 400000 troops we need to win. Sounds like Bush's own Vietnam. If we aren't going to win it, then get the hell out.

I'm unaware of any deals that they've abrogated. They may have chosen not to honor deals made by the Shah.

Our political advisors aren't as smart? Well, I imagine Karl Rove doesn't know Iran like he knows Alabama. And that's part of the problem, the whole Bush team thinks they can make over the Arab and Muslim world but they don't know the first thing about it.

If he privately believed it, wouldn't it by hypocritical to pretend otherwise? I think it's mostly Muslim posturing. Bush should find a way to steal his thunder. There are a couple of problems, though, with this... First, most modern Germans know NOTHING about this. It doesn't get taught in school. Second, there is a noisy minority here and in Europe that are also Holocaust deniers. They get tolerated to some degree. It should be a matter of public policy to enforce "truth" in history. Truth is good. We don't have any way of dealing with that, partly because the Administration has zero respect for academics. Finally, they've got the oil and we want it. Their power is directly related to our inability to curb our appetite for oil.

Which millions are those? We KNOW about the 130,000 Iraqi civilians who've died for whom we are directly responsible. Iran hasn't gone to war with anybody that I'm aware of.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act for one. That does throw other regimes into the mix also.

You've proved my point already. Besides, those people have been at this kind of game for millenia and we are mere newcomers when it comes to manipulating the political scene.

It may be posturing, but I doubt it. He has said it more than once. He has also thrown gatherings to promote the idea more. He truly is a dangerous man.

1. Iran/Iraq war. Granted they were attacked, but the waves of human bodies including children they sent to the front lines to act as shields devastated a couple of generations.
2. Countless of their own citizens from the time they came in power in order to squash any uprisings. This is a terroristic regime ever since they came into power in 1978. Mostly terrorizing their own people.

They haven't necessarily broken that pact, at least not in any truly significant way. Yet. They're enriching their own U235/8 mix but, so far, only to 5% U235. Clearly, this IS a potentially dangerous path but, at present, they don't have a bomb. It's more likely a Pakistani weapon - or a Pakistani weapons designer - is going to help terrorists obtain a bomb.

I don't see how, unless your point was that the Bush team is incompetent (it would be unlike you to argue that). The problem with negotiating with Iran is that the Bush team is ignorant and talent and knowledge are not as highly valued as loyalty and familiarity and opposition to gay marriage.

To say we can't field the same quality of negotiator or strategic planner is to say we're pretty stupid, indeed.

His #1 goal is to be a leader of the Islamic world. That colors his rhetoric. As I said, WE have such people in our midst. It would be easier to shoot down Ahmedinejad on this if we were all on the same page.

Umm... yeah, they were ATTACKED. This isn't the Iranians bringing misery and death to people, this goes back to Hussein but we enabled that bit of adventurism on his part.

They were supposed to surrender?

Have you got a source for this? None of my Iranian friends has ever mentioned this and it's not something I've seen in the papers. The level of oppression doesn't appear to meet, let alone exceed, that of the Shah's regime. If you said they don't have the same level of freedom that we enjoy, yes, I'd have to agree with you there, but the level of vioilent oppression is, as far as I know, quite low.

In the past I have mentioned living in the Middle East for 7-8 years at one time. That was Iran during the Shah's time. I was there from

1971-1979. When the mullahs took over they executed thousands of people almost immediately. These people included government officials of all levels, suspected government officials, Baha'i people, people they had grudges against, anyone that was accused of being a spy and so forth. In many cases their family members were thrown into prisons or executed also just to ensure there would be no reprisals. I know this because every night they would broadcast the executions and show the bullet-ridden bodies on TV to drive home their message. We were not able to leave until August 1979, just a few months before the hostage crisis began. I still have friends back there that we keep in contact with who have lived through the past 27 years of constant horror and repression. Your friends may or may not have lived through those times so it is conceivable they don't know the difference. I'll bet if you have them call home and talk to their parents and such they will confirm what I tell you.

I was there in the late '70's.

Did you live in Tehran? What street or neighborhood?

I hadn't thought about the Ba'hais in this context, lately. I do dimly recall there was some talk of explicit oppression of them after '79. Some consider them apostates and I don't know if there are formal civil penalties but, as you probably know, in Islam the penalty for apostasy is death.

That's more the result of fighting a revolution than anything else, I don't think you could characterize that as systematic oppression by the new regime.

I'll look into this. I'm not in contact with anyone in Iran but I have friends who are.

What does the above mean?

You mean to say they were as ruthless as Joe Stalin?

Tehran. We lived right across from the Peace Corps.

You are one of the rare liberals that a person can have a decent conversation without it becoming a shouting match or insults being hurled around. I enjoy your posts although I don't usually agree with your viewpoint.

Naturally occurring uranium (U) is a mix of U-238 and U-235. The U-238 isotope, which is most of the U you find naturally (like, almost all), is unsuitable for use in weapons. U-235 is the hot stuff but you have to process the mix to separate out the U-238 to get it in useably pure form. Chemically, they're identical, so you can't do the separation chemically. However, U-238 is heavier, so it gets gasified in some way and then centrifuged (or diffused) to siphon off a mix richer (enriched) in the heavier isotope. Richer than normal U mix (like 5+% U-235) is suitable for reactors. A mix of U that's something like 80+% U-235 is suitable for weapons. Enrichment is a difficult and slow process.

I'm sure Wiki will tell you more.

Worse, they were supposed to be holy men. Stalin made no pretense of caring a whit about anyone's soul.

Hm. I'm not sure where that is. Or was. I'd guess way up Pahlavi but not too far north of The Chattanooga.

Thanks.

In which case, did you look at Colonel Devlin's assessment?

If we accept his assessment, which is a lot like Annan's, what do we do? Yes, I'm asking in all sincerity. Your original post pointed out that we can't leave. Then what can we do?

Colonel Devlin's assessment could readily lead one to the conclusion that we have been reduced to two unpleasant choices.

We can retreat. But that's a loss. And that's hard on the Iraqis. Although one might try the argument that it would force the Iraqis to find a solution of their own but the solution they choose just might be genocide of the Sunnis.

If we stay, it's a stalemate. If, as you said, we can't leave, do we simply accept the stalemate option and wait a year, five years, ten years, hoping for something to change? What might change? What could we be doing parallel to change the environment?

Well, there is one other option; we put more troops in (presuming we can; I'm sure it would take at least a year to get draftees in, so this would have to be done with Regulars and current Reserves). Bear in mind, that doesn't guarantee a win. However, I figure that monthly casualties would not increase but I'm not sure. The upside - I don't think the insurgents could increase the tempo of their operations, at least not rapidly and an increased US presence should stifle their capability and help secure the border against incoming support. The downside - if we go with additional troops, our military presence, is one of the things that inflames Arab and Muslim anger, so insurgency might be encouraged and might grow and overmatch our increased presence. It's tough to say how it would play out. It would also be the sell job of the century, politically. I can't imagine the President could get 400,000 troops into Iraq. Politically for the President, it would be close to suicide (of course, he's a lame duck in another two months).

Or do we reject Devlin's assessment? Do we have grounds for rejecting it?

I receive some e-mail at work_for_the_future on Yahoo!

All names have changed since then but it was Takhte-Jamshid Ave -- Very near Kakh Circle. Tehran University was at the end of our road and we saw demonstrations and government forces fighting with students. It wasn't a pleasant sight.

You are assuming this fella Devlin is right.