Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Exit strategy; When is the job done?
Topic Started: Apr 14 2004, 02:51 AM (449 Views)
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Theres been a bit of talk over here in the media about exit strategy, when are american and other troops allowed to get out of Iraq, when is the job done?

Note: This is not a thread for weighing the pros and cons for the war in Iraq, we've already done that to death.

Can the Americans start to pull back after handover in june, Iraq is slowly returning to normal, they have something of a police force, rebuilding infrastucture will take time. Is the precensce of the troops the main reason for aid workers being taken hostage, will this abait as the troops pull out.

It seems to me their has to be a point where we leave some of it up to the Iraquis, yes there may be some pain in forming their new country, but i very much doubt there will be an all out civil war.

No matter what the americans do, I think it is inevitable that the country is split into Suni, Shi'ite and Kurd teriitory/nations. The Shi'ites have a big grudge over the Sunis as they were in control with Saddam as the leader, that grudge wont go away quickly - better to split the country up. The Shi'ite teritories may be be annexed by Iran, but is that such a bad thing, at least Iran is stable.
Are there enough Kurds to protect themselves?
Shi'ite and Suni territories anrent balck and white, they are all mixed up , but hey a few skirmishes here and there, not an all out civil war.

When is the job of the americans done? i think it is pretty close, hand over in 2 months, take on a peace keeping role and gradually pull out, they country may not be paradise, but they've got to stand on their own two feet sometime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
anon_persona
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Yup, I heard 211 days to a significant pull out yesterday. Bush Administration seems to be holding to this. The main thing will be training and education the Iraqis - how to conduct a democratic representativeship, how to remember about minority rights, how to police their nation, how to take care of their facilities.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
when are american and other troops allowed to get out of Iraq

The day after we get out of Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
We have a very big challenge if we hope to pull out soon. If you look at the way democracy has envolved in most countries it takes years to bed down to a settlement that everyone is happy with. Thats without having a powerful outside influence trying to derail the process.

People often say look at Germany after WW2 but from what I know there were no remnants of the Nazi regime causing trouble for years after. There were no foreign fighters sent to undermine democracy. It was also basically a Christian state which helped in terms of our relations.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Why do people whant to pull out so soon? Do they not understand that would be the worst thing to do
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
anon_persona:
Quote:
 
I heard 211 days to a significant pull out
That looks like 11/11/2004 isn't that about the same time of the Presidential elections ? or shortly afterwards ?
Do you have a reliable link to confirm that.

I think Proton is asking what are the parameters and attributes that must be satisfied for the coalision's occupating forces to be concidered to have completed their task to a level that is acceptable to the Pentagon and the Whitehouse , and to a lesser extent , No.10 and Canberra ?

Dandandat:
It is obvous that the current USA lead occupation forces have worn out any welcome they might have (and I am not sure that they were largely welcomed in the first place) with a significant part of the Iraqi population.
Seems that the uprising is becoming more and more widespread by the day.
Staying could inflame the situation.

Time to replace the leadership and much of the forces and replace them with multinational peace keepers perhaps.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Do you have a reliable link to confirm that

Or even better, a reliable resource? (Sorry Somerled, couldn't resist. ;))
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Fesarius :
Yep - I'll pay that. Exactly right and that's what I meant ;) :loling: .
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dandandat
Apr 14 2004, 08:02 AM
Why do people whant to pull out so soon? Do they not understand that would be the worst thing to do

Yes , but they cant stay there for years otherwise the Iraqis will become dependant on the US troops for security, there has to be some point where we let go and gradually fall out, I think that should be within a year.

Remember the invasion, from memory I think america lost 12 troops ( ABG will tell us if that is incorrect), but over 500 have lost their lives during the occupation.

Even if America pulls out too early, then has to go back in a year later. It will mean less casualties than the same period occupying the country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Okay, the Germans had our troops in there till the end of the Cold War, if it weren't for Russian tanks being situated on the border of East Germany, we would have probably been gone a long time ago. In any case, except for protection from Russia, Germany did not become dependant on US troops. Japan was somewhat different because we forbade them from carrying out any military action. We forced the issue there. The Iraqis will likely be more then glad to see the Coalition troops leave. However, with a democracy in place, they will hopefully see how much better their country is now. Freedom is an awfully tempting carrot.

As for moving out then moving back in, not only does it take a lot more money to move an army rather then keep it in place, but if we leave then come back when things go south, we will have taken one step forward and two steps back in terms of accomplishing our goal. We'll be back where we started from with a petty dictator ruling Iraq.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
fireh8er
Member Avatar
I'm Captain Kirk!
Dwayne
Apr 14 2004, 04:12 AM
Quote:
 
when are american and other troops allowed to get out of Iraq

The day after we get out of Japan, Germany and South Korea.

You got that right!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 14 2004, 05:41 AM
People often say look at Germany after WW2 but from what I know there were no remnants of the Nazi regime causing trouble for years after. There were no foreign fighters sent to undermine democracy. It was also basically a Christian state which helped in terms of our relations.

They were called the Nazi Werewolves. These people were Nazi dead-enders that had not been caught by the allies, were responsible for varied attacks, and were never successful in spreading widespread rebellion.

The Japanese also had an underground resistance movement that was much more successful, which resulted in the Germans regaining control of their nation much sooner than the Japanese.

And here's an image of a January 1946 issue of Life Magazine, which should invoke a bit of introspection and maybe even cause an epiphany amongst the naysayers...
Posted Image

And here's the cover from a January 1946 issue of The Saturday Evening Post...
Posted Image
Notice the upper right-hand corner - "How We Botched the German Occupation"


The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
It is true that up to two years after the end of the war we still had peacekeeping duties in Japan and Germany, but not with this level of loss of life and property. Also there were huge flaps about ex-Nazis getting positions in gov't; here there are flaps about ex-Baathists but to a large part, they've been quelled.
Personally, don't think the situation is safe enough to leave in two months. It's not even safe enough for the UN to move back.
If we leave too early, we could end up with another Taliban; we have to slog it through.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I think we'll be there at least until actual elections held for a permanent government. They are planned for January 2005, but at least one UN envoy is worried that if the level of violence continues that the interim government may have power for a longer period of time (courtesy of a BBC report I heard on the radio this morning).

We'll only realistically be able to withdraw significantly once there has been a transition to an elected government. Until then we'll havee troops on the ground in varying numbers necessary to keep the lid on it (or put back on as needed)...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Adrian
Apr 14 2004, 06:51 PM
It is true that up to two years after the end of the war we still had peacekeeping duties in Japan and Germany, but not with this level of loss of life and property. Also there were huge flaps about ex-Nazis getting positions in gov't; here there are flaps about ex-Baathists but to a large part, they've been quelled.
Personally, don't think the situation is safe enough to leave in two months. It's not even safe enough for the UN to move back.
If we leave too early, we could end up with another Taliban; we have to slog it through.

You're missing the point entirely ... the point is, resistance is to be expected.

And another thing, no one in the Bush Administration said there wouldn't be resistance, nor did they say it would be easy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus