Talking point - OK , so how would you run Iraq now?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Jun 25, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Following the President's speech yesterday (More of the same) and with us seemingly committed to staying in Iraq until hell freezes over, here's the talking point.

    "If you were in charge of determining policy for Iraq , what would you do to improve the situation"

    What would you do to ensure security and the well being of the indigenous population?

    What would you do to ensure we could withdraw with a stable entity in place?

    How would YOU improve the situation?
  2. Replace the Coaltion chain of command with a UN one to work alongside the Iraqi Army. Switch to blue helmets and draw in Muslim nation troops. Publicise it widely (Al Jazeera etc) as a US eating of humble pie after many mistakes and a fresh start - reinforce this by sacking Rumsfeld. It might just work.
  3. The population need to do more themselves.

    I was out on Telic 2, I heard a quote from a miltary media ops guy who said that in speaking to an Infantry Tom the guy had suggested that..

    " they bus the population down to Kuwait and show them what they could have!"

    Maybe then they could see what they could be enjoying...

    Its an interesting thought.

    Thing is the locals need to do more than apply for jobs working for the coalition.

    Blue helmets or Muslim troops could not hurt, we were asked by the locals whether the latter would be arriving in the future. Thing is the locals need to buy in more.
  4. Try getting the basic infrastructure working, i.e. water and electricity to be on constant as a priority, if they have the basics, they can then improve on the other stuff and could stop some of the unhappy feelings of the population.

    It will never stop the insurgents etc. but if you keep the law abiding citizens happier they might be more willing to work and to not help the insurgents as much.

    Give some Iraqi companies the contracts instead of the decidedly dodgy way they are awarded now.
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Stop beating about the Bush, as it were. Yanks aren't the problem, Syria and the yank-haters are.

    Threaten Syria's leaders with personal assasination unless they stop the insurgents crossing the border. Which they could - IF they wanted. That would give the Iraqis a chance to start building their Country up, via the Government that they elected, in what were probably the only democratic elections ever to have taken place in an Arab country.....

    Give the poor buggers a chance, and stop whinging about the Septics. At least they had the balls to go in and sort Saddam out (with T Bliar at their heels, of course). We haven't the balls to do the same to Zimbabwe, where things are even worse. We still send asylum seekers back there, for God's sake :x
  6. Just a few things ...

    "Yank-haters" come in from outside - but there are an awful lot who've lived in Iraq all their life. People whose family got zapped at a checkpoint as part of US "force-protection" measures, people whose job went away with nothing to replace it (ie the old Iraqi Army) in a country with no social security, people who can't understand why the world's only superpower can't provide services at least as well as Saddam did and make the streets as safe as Saddam did - you get the picture. Insurgencies can only flourish in a tolerant population.

    Syria (and Iran) back the insurgency as if US troops are bogged down in Iraq they're not crossing the border. That kind of threat has convinced the regimes in Syria and Iran that their survival depends on US failure in Iraq. How will more threats help ?

    Elections mean nothing to someone without food, water, shelter, basic services and security. Provide those and maybe the locals will give us credit for letting them vote. Otherwise it's just another example of how completely out of touch the occupiers are. They want working hospitals, we give them a purple finger.

    And as for a working Iraq, the Kurds are just waiting for an opportunity to leave and set up their own state. The Sunnis and Shia arguably have more in common with their co-religionists in other countries than each other - not a receipe for a happy ending. The country was nailed together by outsiders, the population have not yet been given a chance to decide whether they think that's a good thing.
  7. napier

    napier LE Moderator Reviewer

    We made too many mistakes too early (not enough troops, disbanding the Iraqi Army, etc.). Iraq would only work as a colonial model, with westerners providing the discipline and guidance. Even with the current levels of investment, financial and military, the place is condemned to be a basket case.

    Some progress was being made (down south at least) when UK PLC was in charge and had control over the various govt depts, incl police. We were in too much of a hurry to pass the buck back to the Iraqis and too much still required fixing. Now that the idle dish-dash lifters are in control, we can't sack/influence anyone so nepotism and intimidation rule.
  8. I would make sure that the basic infrastructure was brought back up to scratch sharpish. A lot of the insurgency is fed by the general populations anger at not having things like water, electricity, jobs, houses and healthcare. Get them sorted and a lot of th etrouyble would die down.
  9. Dear Agent_Smith!

    It seems to me that you don't understand situation at all. There are too few (if any) "insurgents" among Kurds with or without water, electricity and so on. They dont regard Americans as occupants, rather as temporary allies (though infidels). By contrast Sunnis will regard Americans as occupants with or without water, electricity and so on.

    As to Shia's then they are something intermediate. They will thank USA for water and electricity but will not go to die for American interests.

    What is right action (for Americans) in current situation? They just have made it.,,2089-1669601,00.html

    Better later than never. So called "insurgents" showed their power. They are indeed real power and have right for power. Without it all attempts to resolve Iraqi problem would fail.
  10. Ran across this article a while back about the whole Iraq situation that compared it to the British Empire in India. Don't agree with it fully on some points but it's certainly food for thought.
  11. Sergy, the majority of the unrest (apart from the suicidal islamists) in Iraq can be traced back to the fact that they dont have basic infrastructure in place. Water, electricity, jobs, schools, Hospitals. Once you get all these things sorted, you deny the unrest a strong source of fuel.

    As with all cases of internal-strife, once the general poplation are happy, only a small amount of psychos will still want to fight. Then we can target them specifically and eradicate them.
  12. Well the Yanks will do a runner, sooner or later. Stuck by S. Vietnam untill that became politically unacceptable to the US voter. Will the GOP win next election ? would the Dems be so Gung Ho ? I don't think so. King George and his court actually semed to have thought that they would be welcome by the Iraqi peopl welcomed as liberators, I always remember Comical Ali with that captured trooper saying 'Where the Iraqi folks wellcoming you ?'
    1,7xx troops dead now, many more mangled and tangled and time will jack the butchers bill up at a staedy rate.
    If Blur has any sense he'll get the Brit troops out on sum deal, like deploy to Ganistan and be big part of Euro troops there.
    A Yankee leader could then claim he had got Nato fully committed in that part of the DMOCRATIC process and with Iraq run by its own democraticaly elected parliment the washing the hands of Iraq would become politically more easy.
    Still go on the oil reserves theory, untill I hear better.
  13. Put Saddam back in charge
  14. At the risk of being too facetious for these hallowed halls (cries of No!), I would bull-doze, fill in with "as-dug" and hand it over to APCOA as an overflow car-park for the Kuwait Olympics of 2032. This car-park will also be a handy staging area for invasions of Iran or Syria...

    More pertinently, insurgency will continue as long as the status quo is perceived as being movable or impermanent. The idea that we can disengage in the life of this government or indeed the next is quite ridiculous. Look at the temporary involvement in Bosnia (the clock is ticking up to fifteen years) and then think again. Only years of increasingly successful Iraqi-led government will change this scenario, from one where insurgency is a threat to the staus quo, to one where it is for example a dangerous but only annoyingly dangerous intrusion on the life politick of Iraq - analagous say to the role ETA has in Spanish political circles.
  15. Well we have different wies on this. Nothing wrong with it and at least I admit that water, electricity, jobs, schools, hospitals really are very important.

    Well we have different wies on this. Nothing wrong with it and at least I admit that water, electricity, jobs, schools, hospitals really are very important.

    I don't see popular uprising in Iraq. Mainly Iraqis are neutral (just now). Those whom you call psychos are fighting and will fight anyway.

    PS. Sorry, now I see that my previous post was tactless.