Exactly what I was thinking. That would lead to middle eastern nations, and other nations that we have tenuous relations with (i.e. North Korea), to be become bolder in their actions.

Your focus is too narrow. First of all you talk about Arabs as a homogenous grouping-they are not, they are, have been, and for the foreseeable future seem to be more identified with their tribes than their "country" or any other political grouping. Second we are not looking to deal with "moderate" Arabs but moderate "Islamists" the bulk of whom are not Arabs at all. Personally I do not think that there is such a beast as a moderate "Islamist", there may however be folks who practice a version of Islam that is somewhat less "stringent" than what the Q'uaran directs. Sort of like the various tenets practiced throughout everyother religion. We do not need to boost the support of the US among moderate Islamists but eliminate support of Islamic Fundamentalism within the muslim community-that is the center of gravity for this entire effort.

COL. JM,

I think most Americans tend to view Arabs as a homogeneous people, often the terms, "moderate arabs," is used in the media or other places.

I would like to offer an article about tribes and arabs. It's a good description of the mentality or culture in the arab lands.

http://stevenpressfield.com/content/op-ed2.asp

My .02 FWIW

Emboldened muslim extremists use it as a tool to show young recruit base that the war against the infidels is a success. "We've ejected the Infidels from the Fertile Crescent, we are victorious!!!"

Madrassas become bigger business and attract a broader demogragphic to include women (already see an anomoly in AFG with this).

Arabs are Arabs and will stay on the IZ warfront and expand their base of power to meet their bigger goal of influencing their extremist version of the caliphate to take Israel.

Something to the affect of mobile trainers become more common and share their tales of "Glorious Jihad". This is good for recruitment, everyone wants to be a good Muslim. What better time than now. High payoff vs. threat.

Afghanistan would receive more US Troops, but will still be under the auspices of NATO (Need Alcohol To Operate due to the large Euro contingent) and ISAF (also regarded as I Suck At Fighting). Political barriers would still provide the same problems in gaining approvals to kill (what we do best).

That is to say that the AFG Gov't even lets us expand our troop levels without losing popularity among moderate Islamists who'd point out that were are indeed still infidels and the AFG Gov't is in bed with us.

Iran, go figure how much more they stand to learn if one battlefield shuts down. We know very little about them, they know way too much about us. This is gonna hurt us for a long time to come.

Hmmm, we go from guerilla conflict to more recognizable military structure (War of Movement). They would maintain the guerilla cells to keep a flexible force on hand, but would definately gain more popularity with a military force. The jihadists have been looking for broad acceptance in the mass public. Use of a successful Jihad in IZ pushes this and people may second guess their initial thoughts and support for the US. Fight for identity is now a mute point, fight for acceptance is coming to fruition, and fight for Pashtunistan (primary area they'd fight first, my belief) would become the new Jihad warfront.

Gents, I could talk for hours (and have). This could go good or bad depending on one key component:

Political acceptance here and abroad. Without the Dems accepting expansion, the world Politicians being in agreement, and the AFG government, nothing would fall into place for a success.

IMO the problem with the “moderate Arabs” and or the “moderate islamist” is they are not in power and never will be in power especially if we leave them to the “free range” insurgents/terrorists/jihadists etc.

Once we leave these free range jihadists will change their TTP’s. They will continue to be free range jihadists until they realize they must band together and form larger tribes or small armies and target the C&C of their tribal enemies. And the world will see a level of brutality not anticipated by the west. It’s going to be a race to be the king of the hill and only the strongest will win.

And, for a short time, we (the United States) will see a terrorist “reprieve” and the only reason why will be they are currently engaged in the struggle for their own tribal dominance. (Our own democrats will say this reprieve/peace is because of them and their current rule of the US Gov.)

When we leave certain middle eastern islamic countries will fund, equip, train and attempt to command their tribal cronies in Iraq. IMO iran and a few other ME countries have most likely already set up their own guerrilla networks and once we leave they will infiltrate iraq in a bid to take control through their “tribe” of choice. They are already doing just that but we are not allowing the strings of the free range jihadists to be tugged/influenced too greatly by any one country.

Once we leave and our own “countrymen” tell the world we failed in our attempt to set free the people of iraq we lose credibility/authority on a global scale. Democracy also loses credibility. The message will be that the USA does not finish what it starts and democracy doesn’t work for everyone will be the new islamic jihadists /middle eastern battle cry.

It’s going to be a mess for a few years, maybe less depending on the level of brutality employed. Once the dust settles in the "New" iraq the islamist jihadists will once again make plans to target the west and this time with a vengeance.

There will not be one Iraqi that has not been brutalized by the 5-7 years of war and once “united” (and I use that term loosely) they will speak with one voice. That voice will be one of extreme hate for the United States and its allies. I have little doubt that the reigning regime will be the “moderate islamists” or moderate anything.

If we do not stay and finish this our children’s children will be the ones paying a heavy price. The next time the jihadists attack it will not be a few thousand dead……

Team Sergeant

Exactly.

Even after we dumped the Vietnam War back in the laps of the Vietnamese, widely viewed globally as "cutting and running", the impression of the US was damaged. Despite the huge tactical and strategic forces deployed across the planet in opposition to the Soviets, we were seen as weak. The Army and the people in it, were crushed and defeated in spirit for many years. When I came in in 1979, the Army was seen as a place for losers and misfits. I had a platoon full of dopers, racists of all colors, drop-outs, and general malcontents. People changed into civvies before going home so that their neighbors would not know what they did for a living.

We had to win in Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm before shaking that rep, and the mere loss of 18 men in Mogadishu after which we "withdrew" started it all over again.

I do not want to see this happen, but I fear if we leave before accomplishing our mission, we weaken the image of the US, the national will of the country, the core of the military and how it will be perceived domestically and internationally.

After the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Axis of Weasels walked lightly and had their hats in hand. Now they kidnap and kill our soldiers with impunity. Why? Because we have shown weakness.

It would be better for us internationally to kill everyone in Iraq as a statement of power than to cut and run declaring the war lost. If we pull out before killing every bad guy there (and more arrive or are created every day), then we are going to see the NKs, Iranians, and their ilk developing nukes full speed ahead in clear violation of any treaty we might negotiate with them. Because we will be seen as weak, and the only way we can shake that is to show some power on a grand scale, like nuking the shit out of the Iranian or NK nuclear sites. They will attack us overseas and here at home, as our demoralized and defeated military hides in shame.

No, we have to win this before mentioning coming home, put a strong personality in charge (our Saddam), or just start lashing out at everyone who crosses us, beginning with the Iranians, and damn the consequences. To do otherwise is to doom our children to finishing this later and at much greater cost, probably on our own soil. And get started on an alternate energy program.

"Power flows from the muzzle of a gun." Or walk softly and carry a big stick, preferably with a pointy nail in it.

TR

Nasser's message of pan-Arab nationalism was able to trascend tribalism and draw a broad following (so is the Islamist message for that matter), so the tribes may not be an impassable stumbling block in the same way that the perceived evils of democracy (embodied by Iraq) are. Second, by empowering secular Arabs you provide a visible alternative to the youth who might eventually become Islamists. Alternatively, it is not unreasonable to imagine an Islam-based government that is moderate (in the sense that it is not jihadist) in the same way that a seperation of church and state developed gradually in European history.

Whatever the case in the long-term, in the short term there's no hope of moderation by anyone as long as the US occupation is suffocating all arguments for anything but jihadism.

TS/TR - Even assuming your "mega Lebanon" (for shorthand) scenario comes to pass after a US withdrawal, our special operations forces will remain to conduct the CT mission and assure that no jihadist elements gain significant control of the state or of any large territory (ie Al Anbar). Furthermore, continued training/support to the secular elements, most importantly the Iraqi Army, will prevent the state from slipping fulling into jihadist control.

(All this RED work is making me hungry...I'm going to go get a sandwich. I'll post my own opinions eventually.)

I wouldn't count on that.

When Congress says "OUT" they may mean completely. No US troops remaining. How many US military personnel remained in VN after 1973? And internal CT ops are the province of the Iraqi government, not us.

Furthermore, when we cannot control the jihadis with over 100,000 troops in country supporting the HN forces, I am not sure that we will be able to prevent their taking over after we are gone. Do you really think that they are all going to go back to whatever they did before the conflict started? Or will they turn Iraq into a religious state and then export terrorism against us around the world?

The Iraqi Army is proving to be of limited value, not sure that they can stand against jihadis, insurgents, and foreign troops after we leave. How did the ARVNs do after we left, with many more years of training, equipping, and support?

IIRC, Nasser was a ruthless dictator and was able to hold the people together by stringent control measures, threats, and intimidation.

Make sure that your assumptions are viable and realistic before making them. IMHO, flawed, overly optimistic assumptions are how we got to where we are in Iraq today.

TR

Oh sure-that will happen when they start to use the Q'uaran as a coaster for a cold beer:rolleyes: The "US occupation" -give me a break!

On another thread I read where smeone wrote " A Method to their Madness"...

The Iraninan Government is playing their games to draw attention away from something...

What could it be...

The fact that they have been and will continue supplying the insurgenets in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

Then you have Palestine, Lebanon and on and on.

The pain we are feeling now comes from a previous presidency that allowed arms to be built up while trying to play housemaid in other regions only after those areas were allowed to get to the state that was as crazy as it was.

Then, when they decided to act it was a stage show that disgusted any and all true soldiers attempting to perform their jobs with their hands tied. (bosnia, serbia, somolia, haiti and so forth...)

Now, no matter what the press or anyone else wants to say, Our country (not just our president), our country with the full support of CONGRESS went to war againts an OPPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP that has, was and would have continued the develpment of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons programs. They would used and would have continued to use them and sell them to be used around the world. You might think we found nothing...But you don't know what was tracked being moved out...

Now that we have taken care of that part of the mission, the rest of the mission has only begun. Anyone that reads history will see that in these regions the people only know force. The feudal (spelling?) systems go back generations. In mind and custom these are still the nomadic people of biblical times.

For the US to COMPLETELY withdraw, looking at this from the common, "I just shoot straight" laymans terms, will result in a vacuum that will have us, as a country right back there fighting for MORE ground than we have already in the future, if not the very near future.

STAY! FIGHT! FIGHT the way that they would. Take the gloves off, and rule in the manner that they are acclimated to. Is that not what we are taught and we teach to our SF soldiers and commanders...

When we go in, and we are in support of an insurgent or goverment troops backed by our government we advise but defer to the customs of our hosts...though they may be far from our own.

Those of you that will remember EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS and a few other places that cannot be mentioned here know what I am refering to. This does not make us what the Liberals and Dems want to portray us as... It is getting the job done on the terms and with the hands that are being delt to us.

Now if you do not think that IRAN will fill that void as well as support the ongoing operations in Afghanistan you need to read between the lines a little more.

Afghanistan accomplished two things for us. Getting to the Taliban and getting a hold on WMD prolifiration and developing technologies sales that were coming out of Pakistan. WE PUT THE PAKISTANIS ON NOTICE...

It was kind of like this, "Play or Pay." "If you choose not to PLAY the full recources of the United States Military will be brought forth upon you."

It also allows us the ability to have pressure on other areas within those regions where we need it and the abitlity to snoop and poop a little easier in the region as well.

This is war - strategy is to stay in the fight and win. If it takes us into other areas so be it.

If we do not. Keep your eye on the Saudis as well as the Iranians, Syrians, Lybians etc... They are up to NO GOOD. Funding for all of this shite has to come from somewhere. And why are the Saudi's so interested in Nuclear Technology - very quietly interested...

Our CIC did not and does not make these decisions lightly and without the advise and information needed to justify the ways and the means...

Stay, Fight, Win...

Every democratic withdrawal plan thats been floated has a disclaimer about leaving special ops in or near Iraq to conduct CT and the Vietnman comparison isn't really valid here. As for the Iraqi government and CT ops, its not likely that they'd block any actions against Al Qaeda elements.

I don't really think any of this (well 95% of it, anyway). I'm just helping you guys get a workout.

The ARVN were doing alright until we pulled their funding and air support. That puts us back at the question of "complete withdrawal" vs "withdrawal of major combat troops".

This is true (certainly thats how he dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood), but he also had a wide measure of genuine popular support until his armies got waxed by the Israelis.

The real me says: Nail on the head here.

The RED CELL says: Are your assumptions that Iraq will fall into the mega-Lebanon scenario and eventually sprout an extremist government any more realistic? What about your assumption that continued US presence has hope of improving the situation?

X-Factor - I hope your "own" opinions are of a higher intellectual caliber than your "Red Cell" agitations. Your current game reads like a page from the Democrat play book. It conveys the impression of a complete failure to understand the adversary's motivations and a lot of wishful thinking about their intentions and probable courses of action. That may be your intent, but it is not to the standards I expect of a discussion intended to inform and/or influence the core members (QPs and SF Candidates) of this board. If you insist on continuing this farce, base your "role playing" on a genuine appreciation/understanding of the enemy. It's what we expect of our analysts.

To this point all of your arguments have ignored the fact that a small group (in any culture), willing to use violence to further their agenda, can control any number of passive onlookers. Every strategy calling for influencing "moderate" Arabs fails to account for this fact or key aspects of Islamist culture (us vs. them). No, I don't believe in a monolithic Islam, at least not internal to the peoples of the ME despite the appearance (to us) of a “unified” Islam fighting the West. The "Are We At War With Islam" thread explores the question/problem in detail.

Nassar's pan-Arab dream died with him - at the hands of Islamist fanatics IIRC. The primary reason it existed in the first place is because Nassar wanted to revive Egypt's status (for his own ends) in regional power politics. Every attempt to revive pan-arabism since his assassination has been for similar reasons and any temporary success has been more a reflection of the "cult of personality" than any true desire on the part of Arabs in general for a trans-tribal/trans-national identity.

Let’s focus the discussion to help soldiers and those who support them to understand the probable implications of emerging national (US) policies and how the enemy can be expected to exploit anything they will perceive as weakness.

Peregrino

ETA: You posted while I was still typing. Somewhat better. Real "Red Cell" work is a lot more involved than parroting somebody else's playbook to incite a knee-jerk reaction.

Peregrino - NDD's original question was "have they thought this through?" I'm expressing the counterargument from the "pro-withdrawal" opinion in the US domestic debate about the war, not playing from the jihadist position...which I thought was the desired tact. If my arguments have ignored a critical factor, its because the "pro-withdrawal" element does not see it as a critical factor. The point of the last page and a half, I think, is: yes the pro-withdrawal crowd has thought this through, but they're working from a very different set of assumptions about how the enemy thinks and how Arab/Muslim culture operates.

In anycase, I think you're right that politics part of the discussion has run its course by identifying specifically where the pro/con positions on withdrawal diverge. I'll redirect in my next post.

Pulling out of Iraq would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan and potentially, to win decisively. Even so, the "win in Afghanistan instead" argument is a red herring. Its better to continue with a grinding draw in both than to lose in Iraq.

This is also a fundamentally flawed position. Pulling out of a stable Iraq (which i would assume is everyone's goal) would rehabilitate our image in the Arab world because it would prove what we've said the entire time, that we were not their to exploit, but to liberate. Pulling out at this stage will be viewed as an unequivocal defeat. Not only that but any horrors that follow will be blamed on the US by all sides: Sunnis will blame us for empowering the Shia, Kurds will blame us for abandoning them (again), the religious Shia will blame us for empowering the Sunni, the secular Shia will blame us for abandoning them, and the rest of the world (esp Europe) will continue to blame us for upsetting the apple cart in the first place.

In short, the damage to our international reputation is already done. The only way to mitigate it is to persevere to some sort of positive end.

While its true that the military needs a certain amount of reconstituting after the incredibly wearing op tempo of the last 5 years, this argument puts the cart completely before the horse. Having a superior military is a means, not an end. Pulling out to reconstitute the military amounts to pulling out to reconstitute just to go back in in 5, 10, or 15 years and under worse circumstances.

TR said it best: overpositive assumptions got us into this mess. Hoping that a withdrawal will prompt a national reconciliation is pie in the sky. Polling and anecdotal reporting clearly shows that the only thing stopping an all out civil war is a tenuous trust in the impartiality of the US military. Faith in the neighboring countries' good will is likewise a pipe dream. Lebanon could not be clearer proof of that.

In my opinion, TS (1119) and TR (1124) nailed the most likely scenario to follow a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq: a mega-Lebanon governed as city-states and regional warlords beholden to outside powers. Whether that situation would evolve into something else is more difficult to see.

Ethnic cleansing could reorder the demographics and create three relatively homogeneous states or the Shia majority could succeed in establishing order over the whole country, but I think its most likely that the country would just continue to limp along in a state of general neo-feudal chaos, just as Lebanon has.

A key question is where the next center of jihad would be following a US withdrawal from Iraq. There'd be a certain amount of flow back to Afghanistan, but I think its more likely that jihadists, using Iraq as a base, would target Jordan and/or Lebanon as the next logical step. Lebanon offers a staging area for attacks against Israel as well as an opportunity to kill "Crusaders" (meaning the European peacekeepers) on Muslim soil. Jordan also offers the same opportunity to strike Israel, as well as allowing them to "encircle" Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, going after Jordan give the jihadists a chance to campaign against King Abdullah, the most vocal and visible moderate/Westernized/apostate ruler in the Muslim world. Add to this the emotional satisfaction in "avenging" Zarqawi and I think Jordan would find itself under siege very soon after the fall of Iraq.