Author Topic: Start Withdrawal Soon, or One Last Stand?  (Read 953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

domer

  • Guest
Start Withdrawal Soon, or One Last Stand?
« on: December 11, 2006, 04:15:31 PM »
For the bulk of our troops and our combat responsibilities, one perhaps dominant line of thought is start withdrawing and end our front-line involvement for those that remain. On the one hand, the danger is a ferocious bloodbath and instability that will permeate the region, causing larger, more intractable problems. On the other hand, however, is the quite plausible proposition that this fiasco will play out anyhow according to its own logic and dynamics with the US having precious little influence on the outcome.

Leaving saves our lives and treasure, and frees us to more directly address a comprehensive strategy (a strategy beyond Iraq) in the wider conflict with violent Islamic radicals. Staying will cost us lives, but MAY save some Iraqi lives and give us a chance of preventing regional turmoil featuring, most likely, an open Sunni-Shiite belligerency. But, quite honestly, it might not no matter what we do.

Mucho

  • Guest
Re: Start Withdrawal Soon, or One Last Stand?
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2006, 06:15:21 PM »
Please do not even suggest aone last stand to the Bushidiot. That stand would likely be nuclear in a big way and the Freepers in here would applaud I am sure.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Start Withdrawal Soon, or One Last Stand?
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2006, 09:28:12 PM »
Withdrawal could work .

The Civil war aspect of the conflict would grow exponentaily and the death dealing would become staggering.

After a few months of Iriqui on Iriqui violence we cold reinvade and occupy a country with many fewer belligerants.

This strategey tends to maximise collateral damage , but other than that "redeployment" has a lot to reccomend it.