• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi Sunnis Trained by U.S. Return to al Qaeda

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hundreds of members of the Awakening Councils, a collection of United States-allied Sunni sheiks and their militia forces, have quit or been dismissed from their positions in the past few months, the New York Times reported Saturday.

Iraqi government officials say that the fighters, known as Sahwa, have left as a result of an intensive recruiting campaign by the Sunni insurgency and rejoined Al Qaeda. Many have extensive knowledge of the U.S. military, the Times said, adding that it is possible that thousands of the fighters who are working for the government are simultaneously assisting the insurgency.
FoxNews.com - Report: Sunni Allies in Iraq Quit to Rejoin Al Qaeda

Will be interesting to see how the Government handles the defection.
As they were trained by Western Soldiers, no doubt many will have working knowledge of how they operate.
 
Yep! We'll be going back in a few years.

Looks like that political solution that was touted as the answer to ending the war isn't going to work out so well.
 
Right, and like there was any other viable solution to such a fundamental problem.

What the hell are we supposed to do, occupy Iraq indefinitely? Annex it? Kill millions of innocents and pave the whole country?
 
Right, and like there was any other viable solution to such a fundamental problem.

What the hell are we supposed to do, occupy Iraq indefinitely? Annex it? Kill millions of innocents and pave the whole country?
That's generally how it works, yes.
 
The news story is pretty vague, so its hard to really understand what its specifically talking about. However I do know that the Iraqi Army is roughly 200,000 strong, and then there's the Iraqi Police, so I think they can handle a few hundred men with some training.
 
All of the above.

I've never heard anyone suggest a better option.

I've got a better option.

We get the hell out of there and stop making targets out of ourselves.

We return only if Iraq represents a threat to our nation, and do so only to destroy the threat and leave again.
 
I've got a better option.

We get the hell out of there and stop making targets out of ourselves.

We return only if Iraq represents a threat to our nation, and do so only to destroy the threat and leave again.
Why so spineless? It's a bit silly to whine about how people don't like you, or how people want to hurt you. That's politics, baby.

Iraq under Hussein was detrimental to American interests, and I'm glad to see him go. To leave Iraq to Iraqis would be more of the same.
 
This isn't about wanting people to like me.

This is about not wanting my countrymen walking around there with targets on their backs, and also not wanting us to commit mass murder.

The solution is simple: Leave, until such time as Iraq poses a threat to our security.
 
This isn't about wanting people to like me.

This is about not wanting my countrymen walking around there with targets on their back, and also not wanting us to commit mass murder.

The solution is simple: Leave, until such time as Iraq poses a threat to our security.
Yeah, I don't see the point in wrapping the country or our soldiers in bubble wrap.

The only responsible thing to do is bring the resistance in Iraq to its knees, and then either rule it directly or install a ruler in line with our interests.
 
Well, in the last several years we've failed to bring the resistance to its knees, mainly because they're not dumb enough to use tactics we're accustomed to.

We can't really install a puppet, or it won't last. We also can't afford to rule Iraq from thousands of miles away, otherwise we'll end up suffering the kinds of losses and setbacks and frustrations we are now for the foreseeable future.
 
Well, in the last several years we've failed to bring the resistance to its knees, mainly because they're not dumb enough to use tactics we're accustomed to.

We can't really install a puppet, or it won't last. We also can't afford to rule Iraq from thousands of miles away, otherwise we'll end up suffering the kinds of losses and setbacks and frustrations we are now for the foreseeable future.
I sort of agree on both counts. After all, armies aren't very useful when they're being hampered by politics on the homefront. Whining about civilians and exit strategies (already!) is going to hurt any war effort. We could definitely install a puppet, though, I don't see why not.

As for the cost: war is fairly cheap. The only reason we can't afford it is because of all the fiscal nonsense that went on in the Bush administration at the same time.
 
Because neither the people of Iraq nor Iraq's neighbors would tolerate it. The puppet wouldn't survive a week.
Right, because there is no such thing as deterrence, and there's no possible way to silence dissent. Seriously, it's not that hard to do. It might collapse eventually, but then we could just repeat the process.
Um, really?

Cheap compared to what?
I forget exactly how much the war costs, but I do remember that it was hardly a number worth blinking at. Wars don't break banks like real estate speculation.
 
Last edited:
Right, because there is no such thing as deterrence, and there's no possible way to silence dissent. Seriously, it's not that hard to do. It might collapse eventually, but then we could just repeat the process.

If having tens of thousands of heavily armed troops in the country doesn't serve as a deterrent in general, how do you figure we'd deter someone from murdering or overthrowing our puppet specifically?

I forget exactly how much the war costs, but I do remember that it wasn hardly a number worth blinking at. Wars don't break banks like real estate speculation.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeah. Come back and make that argument again when you not only remember how much it costs, but also have a reputable source you can reference.
 
If having tens of thousands of heavily armed troops in the country doesn't serve as a deterrent in general, how do you figure we'd deter someone from murdering or overthrowing our puppet specifically?



Yeeeeeeeeeeeah. Come back and make that argument again when you not only remember how much it costs, but also have a reputable source you can reference.
Armed troops mean nothing when you don't have the will to deal with opposition ruthlessly.

Anyway, Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says roughly 700 billion in direct costs. That's really not very much. I'm more worried about what we're going to spend on entitlements when Boomers retire.
 
The news story is pretty vague, so its hard to really understand what its specifically talking about. However I do know that the Iraqi Army is roughly 200,000 strong, and then there's the Iraqi Police, so I think they can handle a few hundred men with some training.

Well Obama sent 100,000 US troops to finish off the last 100 Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Never heard you say anything against an Obama policy so you must have thought that was the correct ratio of US to Al-Queda fighters.
 
FoxNews.com - Report: Sunni Allies in Iraq Quit to Rejoin Al Qaeda

Will be interesting to see how the Government handles the defection.
As they were trained by Western Soldiers, no doubt many will have working knowledge of how they operate.
Not all that surprising. The US military bankrolled the Sahwa in Anbar province as a mercenary force. I imagine these monetary stipends have been reduced dramatically, or even terminated, with the US exit.
 
Right, and like there was any other viable solution to such a fundamental problem.

What the hell are we supposed to do, occupy Iraq indefinitely? Annex it? Kill millions of innocents and pave the whole country?

No, we kill off the insurgents, until al Qaeda is a dirty word, just like Nazi is in Germany and Facisimi is in Italy.

Wars can't be won politically The only way to win a war, is to kill the enemy, with the maximum amount of violence. Had we done that in 2003, we wouldn't still be talking about this. There damn sure wouldn't be an insurgent presence in Iraq.
 
Well Obama sent 100,000 US troops to finish off the last 100 Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Never heard you say anything against an Obama policy so you must have thought that was the correct ratio of US to Al-Queda fighters.

Obama didn't send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. Stop trying to prop that idiot up with untruths.
 
This isn't about wanting people to like me.

This is about not wanting my countrymen walking around there with targets on their backs, and also not wanting us to commit mass murder.

The solution is simple: Leave, until such time as Iraq poses a threat to our security.

How are we to recognize that threat? After Americans get killed, or before?
 
I feel so scared that I seem to be on the same side of this issue as Apdst.
 
Obama didn't send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan. Stop trying to prop that idiot up with untruths.

OK he increased the troop level to 100,000 happy. Does that really change anything except for political hacks. We still have 100K American kids risking their lives. For what, so another cheap politician can follow through his B.S. on the campaign trail.

I find this worse than anything done the last two years. It is one thing to piss away a few trillion dollars. But to allow kids to be killed to prove this is the war we should have fought is totally f***** up!
 
Back
Top Bottom