Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Two retired Generals discuss withdrawal

  1. Nov 22, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Worth the watch.

    See
    Monday, November 21, 2005
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I thought a few of the more interesting moments came when Odom stated that no matter how this works out, the Sunni's are going to be slaughtered by the Shiite; that this and many ramifications were "infinitely forseeable" before attacking, and finally, that most of these concerns were rendered unavoidable and academic from the moment that we attacked.
     
  4. Nov 25, 2005 #3
    Great discussion.

    Very informative.
     
  5. Nov 26, 2005 #4
    the way it is painted in the interview, the scene is vary bleak. the first option is to try to make things better while staying in there, fighting an up-hill battle and the other option is stand back and let this frail state of affairs collapse and reconstruct it with a stable foundation. the former option will take a heavy toll on the american force in the region but that will be the brunt of the casualties (all things associated). the second option includes a significantly larger amount of bloodshed among the sunni population and to a lesser degree, also the shiites.

    i foresee the blame panning out like this. if the amercians leave asap and all hell breaks loose it will be seen as they came in, threw order (for what its worth) out the window and left the region when they lost their appetite, making american forign policy look vary much less conducive to world peace then before the war. if they stay in there and somehow manage to stabilize the region before they leave, the american people will insist it was not the place of the usa to take the burdens of the region, whereas the rest of the world will consider the action noble although misguided. however, if the american force stays there for a few more years then decides to leave without stability after all, the american people will be even more upset and the rest of the world will think they screwed up in every way and are not only vary unpeacefull but also incompetent.

    all 3 of these scenarios are considering no WMDs turn up. if they do turn up, there will be many big investigation into weather they were really found or if they are someone else's WMDs, if they are still the real deal then everyone will appologize for ever doubting and lets not play the blame game and lets move on.


    the only way to win is to stay in and pull off a miracle
     
  6. Nov 26, 2005 #5
    It would not require a miracle. Just a better strategy.

    You cannot beat an insurgency with force alone.

    The most effective method has been to divide the country into zones.

    White zones: Safe zones where reconstruction efforts can be directed. When those outside see how much better things are in white zones it undermines support for the insurgency.

    Grey Zones: Zones that are contested militarily. Multiple patrols and military presence, active engagement with the insurgents.

    Black zones: Areas that are abandoned to the insurgents and isolated. As conditions worsen for the people in the black zones support for the insurgency will erode.

    As it is we have a green zone where the contractors who should be rebuilding the country are hiding using the contract money for security personnel instead of the reconstruction effort.

    Of course had the administration listened to the military and gone in with a larger force. Had they turned over the reconstruction and occupation to a competent people. The insurgency would not be near what we are seeing today.

    Of course if they had listened to the military, they would not have been able to rush in. It would have taken at least another 30-90 days to mobilize another 100-150 thousand troops. they could not have concealed their lies and exaggerations about intelligence for that long and they would not have had enough support to invade in the first place.
     
  7. Nov 27, 2005 #6
    You want to think this through a bit?
     
  8. Nov 27, 2005 #7
    Yeah. Why are you assuming insurgent-abandoned areas will worsen continuously?
     
  9. Nov 27, 2005 #8
    With a genuine effort to rebuild the country, white zones will become stable and grey zones will become white zones. This will free up the military to change black zones into grey zones.

    All of it depends on a genuine and also perceived genuine effort to help all of the people. Creating a capitalists paradise like the CPA tried to do in the beginning of the occupation will just fuel the hatred toward the occupiers.
     
  10. Nov 27, 2005 #9
    Historically when you isolate an area so it can receive little or no outside assistance, conditions deteriorate.
     
  11. Nov 27, 2005 #10

    Art

    User Avatar

    It seems one cruel dictatorship in Iraq has now been replaced by another. It is possible that state terror will 'quieten' the insurrection as it did under Saddam but it can hardly be claimed to be the beacon of freedom and democracy that was promised following Saddam's removal.
    In this new Iraqi democracy it appears the way for the gov't to win an election and maintain it's grip on power is to ensure all of it's opposing candidates are dead.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Two retired Generals discuss withdrawal
  1. Spanish Withdrawal (Replies: 25)

  2. Souter plans to retire (Replies: 34)

Loading...