Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Plan B?
PowerPointRanger    7/20/2007 12:14:11 PM
We've heard much talk about a "Plan B" in Iraq, but I'm not sure most people realize exactly what it is. Obviously the US has not been pleased with the Shiite Government for a lot of reasons. 1) Death squads--some factions within the government have obviously supported these in various degrees. The US doesn't want them. 2) Poor relations with the wrong countries--the Shiites have not got on well with their Sunni neighbors like Saudi Arabia (and other US allies). They have also made overatures to Iran (an enemy). 3) Corruption--The Shiites seem willing to all but shut out Iraqi Sunnis from any government service. 4) Reluctance on reconciliation. 5) Don't want to share the wealth--they've been tight fisted with oil revenues. So what is plan B really? The US has begun arming some Sunni tribes on the premise that they will fight al Qaeda. But is there more to it? Arming Sunni sends a message to the Shiite government. First, it lets them know, if they can't get their act together, they can be replaced (with Sunnis who have more experience). Second, it lets them know our patience is running out. Arming the Sunnis places competitive pressure on the Shiites. (FDR was know for the tactic during WWII. He would, for example, put Nimitz in direct competition with Mac Arthur & offer increased support to whichever was more successful). It also shows good faith to the Sunnis & lets them know that the invasion was nothing personal (that we are not simply joining in on the tribal warfare). The significance of this is that if the Shiites can't get it done, we would be willing to work with the Sunnis now that Saddam & most of his goons are gone. Neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be more happy with this. The Iranians will hate it. (As will Iraqi Shiites). Obviously we don't want to go this route, but demonstrating a willingness to do so will pressure the Shiites to get it done.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Mike From Brielle       7/20/2007 6:47:53 PM
The only Plan B as far as I can see involve useing the same Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP's, from what I see they seem to be CAP, QRF, Stingray, Pheonix, with some initial clearing operations) that are presently being utilized in the surge.  We have to get the country to stabilize and the surge TTP's are the only way to go.  Otherwise we might be able to have a smaller force there but it will be there indefinetly (this is just what we got finished doing and didn't we all agree it didn't work- not to mention it will hand the initiative back to our adversaries who'll we'll only be reacting to and leave them breathing space to plot new tactics to confound our purpose- also this will again be a variable long term drain on American resources) which is not desirable for anyone and if we're to stabilize the coutry, like I said, we're going to have to use the surge TTP's anyhow.  If they contuinue to be succesful ( and I believe they are and will continue to be) after about a year we should be able to transfer more of our forces to training up the Iraqis up and this will also give more time for the Iraqi governmentg to gets its stuff together then we can start withdrawing our troops to perhaps some mutualy agreable number.  But they need some breathing room for that.
 
This needs troops!
 
This should have been done three years ago.  Isn't it funny how the two Secretaries of Defense with the best business credentials were probably Rumesfeld and McNammara. 
 
Perhaps we should take this opportunity to start composeing Iraqi brigades out of battalions of Shitte, Sunni, and Kurd.  Over time after we've learned appropriate lessons we go to tri-partite Battalions, Companies and so on and so on to see what the problems are at each stage of force integration.  Initial training should be rigorous.
 
As we get the Iraqi forces more up to speed they can displace American and Allied forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc       7/20/2007 7:13:02 PM
Odds are more troops will be requested
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    Demoncraps Plan B   11/16/2007 10:17:59 AM
Well, since the surge has clearly been very successful in killing or capturing a bunch of al Qaeda, getting the militias to go to ground, at least temporarily reducing the violence in Iraq, and thus giving the local authorities a respite (and experience) to build and train internal security forces, the scum in Congress are forced into more drastic action to try to stay ahead of the wavefront.  Since things at least look better than they did six months ago, apparently they think they need to do something so they can generate some excuse for being able to claim responsibility if things actually go well ("We cracked down on the Administration and the Pentagon and made them come up with a more effective course of action"), yet can still blame the Administration if they do not ("We told you all along this was a bad idea").
-----
 
Nov 16, 9:30 AM EST

Congress to Hold Off on War Money
 

 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats said Friday that money for the Iraq war should be tied to troop withdrawals because the Baghdad government has not taken advantage of the security provided by U.S. forces.
"We have done our part," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "The Iraqi government has not done its part."
 
"And in the meantime, while more than 150,000 of our troops have been policing a civil war in Iraq, we have become more vulnerable overseas," she said.
 
The Senate was voting Friday on a $50 billion bill that would pay for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - about one-fourth of the amount that President Bush has requested - but which would also require that troops start coming home. The measure sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008.
 
The House passed the measure, 218-203, on Wednesday.
 
The Senate also planned to vote on a proposal by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, that would give the military $70 billion without strings attached.
 
Neither measure was expected to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to advance.
 
Democrats said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send Bush a bill.
 
Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats' conflict with the White House on the war.
 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans will be responsible for not passing war money by Christmas.
 
"The president, refusing to be held accountable for his disastrous war policy, is threatening to reject both our reasonable approach and that money, leaving our military empty-handed," Reid said in a statement on Thursday.
 
In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.
 
"The days of a free lunch are over," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
 
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that unless Congress passes funding for the war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.
 
Gates, who met with lawmakers on Wednesday, said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move funds around to adequately cover the costs of the continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
"There is a misperception that this department can continue funding our troops in the field for an indefinite period of time through accounting maneuvers, that we can shuffle money around the department. This is a serious misconception," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.
 
As a result, he said he is faced with the undesirable task of preparing to cease operations at Army bases by mid-Februar
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics