| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
 |
|
Shall we have another go at this?
| Quote: |
TOKYO: Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.
He also said he sympathizes with the troubles facing U.S. President George W. Bush.
"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible," Kissinger told The Associated Press in Tokyo, where he received an honorary degree from Waseda University.
The faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex, he said.
"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."
But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam War who has also advised Bush on Iraq, warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.
"I am basically sympathetic to President Bush," he said. "I am partly sympathetic to it because I have seen comparable situations."
During his tenure under President Richard Nixon, first as national security adviser and then as secretary of state, Kissinger faced a similar challenge in formulating policy for a Vietnam War that was increasingly unpopular at home.
He oversaw a gradual U.S. pullout from Vietnam through a strategy also planned for Iraq, where U.S. troops are training their Iraqi counterparts to take fuller control of security. He also negotiated directly with North Vietnamese leaders on ending the conflict.
Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors � including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.
"That is the sort of framework out of which it is conceivable that an agreement should emerge," Kissinger said. "One needs to be prepared to negotiate with adversaries."
Kissinger said that fighting in Iraq is likely to continue for years, and that America's national interest requires an end to partisan bickering at home over war policy.
"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action." |
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/01/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Iraq-Kissinger.php
What viable solutions are left? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
What viable solutions are left? |
1) War of attrition/genocide. Kill every muslim male, from baby on up.
2) Pull out and hope Iraq doesn't become Somalia/Afghanistan but with massive oil revenues to fund a new phase of the jihad, taking it back to the American heartland.
Bush never foresaw any of this? Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Bush never foresaw any of this? Why? |
I think we all know why. Right?
There must be a better outcome possible then total disaster.. A three state solution?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bush? You are right that Bush never foresaw anything. Bush isn't in charge, is he? (Rhetorical.) I believe the Cadre saw exactly what would be likely to occur. But as the PNAC papers suggested, they hoped for a "New Pearl Harbor." They lusted after it. Nah, they knew exactly what they were doing. Victory in Iraq would mean leaving Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bush? You are right that Bush never foresaw anything. Bush isn't in charge, is he? (Rhetorical.) I believe the Cadre saw exactly what would be likely to occur. But as the PNAC papers suggested, they hoped for a "New Pearl Harbor." They lusted after it. Nah, they knew exactly what they were doing. Victory in Iraq would mean leaving Iraq. |
I dunno. I waver between thinking...
a) that this was all deliberately planned chaos, along the lines of Mao's Cultural Revolution, or...
b) that the war architects were so blitzed out on their "schoolhouse rock" understanding of how democracy develops that they really did think that they would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi populace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There must be a better outcome possible then total disaster.. |
What, besides optimism, makes you think that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bush? You are right that Bush never foresaw anything. Bush isn't in charge, is he? (Rhetorical.) I believe the Cadre saw exactly what would be likely to occur. But as the PNAC papers suggested, they hoped for a "New Pearl Harbor." They lusted after it. Nah, they knew exactly what they were doing. Victory in Iraq would mean leaving Iraq. |
I dunno. I waver between thinking...
a) that this was all deliberately planned chaos, along the lines of Mao's Cultural Revolution, or...
b) that the war architects were so blitzed out on their "schoolhouse rock" understanding of how democracy develops that they really did think that they would be welcomed with open arms by the entire Iraqi populace. |
Actualloy, both. It just wasn't Dumbya who dreamed any of it up. They probably panick every time he wakes up, realizes he's president and actually wants to exert some power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It just wasn't Dumbya who dreamed any of it up. They probably panick every time he wakes up, realizes he's president and actually wants to exert some power.
|
Have you seen the movie American Dreamz(sic)? It didn't really work as comedy. However, allowing for caricature and exaggeration, something about it's portrayal of the Bush admin just sort of rang true. Maybe had to do with the fact that the actors all really looked like the real-life people they were supposed to be portraying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There must be a better outcome possible then total disaster.. |
What, besides optimism, makes you think that? |
Hope? Guilt? I don't really know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
travel zen
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
America has to pullout of Iraq.
Nothing to do there except take casulaties, make more enemies, face humilitation and be seen as the agressive Empire.
Besides, what has America got to do with Iraq? Nothing. Kissinger is right, anyone can see that.
This is a street scene in Iraq now:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a strange kind of selective perception that seems to be going on at the top, as well. The invasion of Iraq has lead to "total chaos"; 600,000 dead civilians, the country in a mess, an escalation in terrorist activity and motivation against the West worldwide, serious damage to Britain and the UK's reputation across Europe, billions in wasted dollars...yet withdraw from Iraq is resisted because it would lead to..."total chaos".
At a basic psychological level something very strange is going on at the top. Why is one kind of "total chaos" perfectly acceptable, but the other kind isn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding a pull out, how does one prevent Iraq from being the next Afghanistan but with oil revenues to finance a jihad emboldened by a great victory against the USA?
What's the expression? It takes two men to restrain a chimp, but four men to let the now enraged chimp go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Iraq is like condomless sex with a stranger, who knows who you are, where you live and how to find you. You're taking a HUGE risk with STDs, and if you're too stupid to know when to pull out you're gonna give birth to an even bigger mess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freethought wrote: |
| Iraq is like condomless sex with a stranger, who knows who you are, where you live and how to find you. You're taking a HUGE risk with STDs, and if you're too stupid to know when to pull out you're gonna give birth to an even bigger mess. |
I liked ddeubel's analogy (one he actually rejected): Iraq is a huge pile of crap the US has laid, and all the USA can do now is keep the flies away and keep the flies from using it to breed out of control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: Re: Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq |
|
|
OK
Hybrid Iraq Solution
Many propose solutions to what is going on in Iraq. Some say withdraw, some say divide Iraq up into a loose confederation. and the administration says "stay the course". Perhaps the best solution is a hybrid model of three solutions. One The US ought to withdraw from Iraq but not to the US but to Kurdistan. From there Iraq ought to be broken up into a loose confederation, Once US forces are in the Kurdish areas the US ought to " stay the course".
The only country that the US would need the approval of is Turkey. Something probably can be worked out.
To control Iran the US ought to keep 12,000 US troops in Kuwait at the same time.
This way the US would have a big military base in the mideast. The US would have a new muslim ally.
The Kurdish area of 5 or 6 million people will be declared "free"
From there the US could start of policy of roll back of the Bathists , the Khomenists and the Al Qaedists .
The US have some forces to control Iran.
The US would not be subjected to guerrilla attacks by the insurgents.
The US could help the Kurds build up a democracy. and help them massively beef up their military power. The US could this way get a similar outcome from the Iraq war as they got from the Korean war. The US would not control southern Iraq , but it would gain many of the strategic objectives of the original war As for the Sunni triangle let them duke it out with the Shia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
