What is wrong with this idea for Iraq?

[tinfoilinfor2005]

This morning on CSpan one of the "experts" in Iraq policy was talking about possible ways to find an end to the conflict in Iraq. He didn't agree with the surge, but felt that pulling out now would cause even more bloodshed and chaos. And I think we basically agree that, yup, it would. Sorry we're there, shouldn't be there, but can't get out without much more of the same.

Anyway, his thought was that we should send in more troops, but not on the streets and not to fight, but as a military installation, on the side. The Iraqi's take care of their own country and their own civil war. We are only there to monitor any invasion from bordering countries. In other words, Iraq decides it's own fate. Iran crosses the border, we intervene. Syria crosses the border, we intervene. Etc. But we are only there to insure that Iraq survives, regardless in the end who the Iraqi people choose to lead the country.

Sounded pretty sane to me, but in a country where insanity rules, why wouldn't this work? Just interested in your ideas.

[David Dunham]

1. That makes sense.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

2. You're right, it does.

That pretty much means that no one will ever consider it.

Back to the old drawing board. :dunce:

[LSK]

3. uhhh, that was the ISG Report conclusion...

[tinfoilinfor2005]

7. Well, then, my apologies to the ISG.

I didn't read the report but heard James Baker on the msm outlining his ideas when it first came out. I pretty much zeroed in on his tongue-in-cheek assessment of dubya as a "dumb shit" and heartily agreed when he spoke of the importance of ongoing talks with all the countries involved.

I understood his (their) plan to be a gradual withdrawel of troops, where as the proposed plan I listened to this morning called for more troops, but only in the role of mediation as opposed to outright combat.

[lvx35]

4. Its like a truck crashed into the side of a house

it shouldn't be there, but as soon as we back it out the roof is coming down. I say fugetta bout it, its screwed. We don't have the moral authority to occupy Iraq in any way, even in side installation, unless the Iraqi people VOTE for us to be there. The person who drunk drives the truck into the house simply is not the person to guard the house and ensure its safety, its nonsense.

[LynnTheDem]

5. No.

What do the IRAQIS want?

Us out of their nation.

Period.

[Imagevision]

6. Bush will be sending in 20,000 new targets - will it be reported on actual new carnage?

or will Bush msm attempt to say that less troops are being killed by snipers, I.E.D's, R.P.G.'s - I believe Bush will continue to lie and state that adding more troops actually caused the US. troop deaths to go down!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

9. Kind of like our wonderful economy under bush

(despite the deficit that we will pass on for many generations).

But what the heck...we'll all be dead by then...:crazy:

[mmonk]

8. Conflicts don't end without separation.

Whenever a government gains power under a foreign occupation, there is seldom peace for that government and seldom do they hold.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Establishing an imperialist outpost in Iraq was the problem. It is not the

solution. As for identifying Iraq as "a country where insanity rules," apart from reflecting extreme bigotry and ignorance, a far, far, far better case can be made for characterizing the US as a country where insanity rules.

Bloody, murderous, vicious insanity. The kind of insanity that sends hundreds of thousands of trained killers into a land far away that had never shown any sign of being a threat using a whole series of lies. Lies, obvious to any who cared to look, that were promoted as gospel by its elite and accepted as reality by an easily deluded and irrationally frightened populace.

The US is truly a country where insanity rules, literally.

[malaise]

12. Bingo n/t

[JVS]

11. lets just leave