Let's start our own think tank on how to end the war in Iraq. How can we bring the troops home while maintaining stability in the area. All ideas are welcome. Who knows, we may find a solution that works for everyone.

THE POLITICAL FEVER "END THE WAR NOW PROJECT"

Think tank:
"a research institute or organization employed to solve complex problems or predict or plan future developments, as in military, political, or social areas."
Think tank - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Let's put our heads together on this one!

On Edit: I want to clarify one thing. ALL suggestions are accepted and important. I don't want this thread to become a slam fest for wonderful suggestions. Thanks.

I propose removing the majority of US forces, reducing them to between two and five thousand soldiers, located on one or two bases (as opposed to the current hundreds of thousands and the dozens of planned bases). This would remove the concept of American tyranny in the region, while still giving us a quick response team to step in if things start falling to pieces. If we pull out entirely the entire country is going to dissolve, and while I'll admit it isn't entirely our business, we should at least attempt to prevent total collapse. The small force will be able to take action against terrorist leaders or dictatorial leaders until the region is semi-stable and we can withdraw the remaining troops.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

My thoughts on the topic are as follows. (Also this is a really great idea, seriously one of the better posts I have seen on a message board.)

The US needs to strive to enable the Iraqi people. Help them understand that this is there country and it is there duty to protect it.

How do we go about doing this?

Well first we need to get some Social Scientists into Iraq to assist the commanders in the field on how to relate to the local leaders. I am not talking about just the Generals but everyone from Petarus to the guys guarding the shanty towns. Winning over the local leadership is a huge step to us being successful.

Also we need to remove our selves from city limits and let the Iraqi people patrol and police themselves. We would pull back to the edge of town to supply perimeter support and check points. The US would not be manning the checkpoints that would be up to the Iraqi police, we would remain more for backup.

I will expand on this much more tomorrow but it is rather late and I need to work in the AM.

Get that brain rested. Your think tank needs you.

Here is how we do it. Say we are sorry for interfering where we should not have, we will stop now. Then pull our troops out and let the mess work itself out.

I propose bringing home 1/2 of the troops immediately, and redirect 1/3 of the war budget into domestic programs designed to rehabilitate veterans that have been affected by this war, both physically and mentally.

Also, a mandate for servicemen and women to have better training using their weapons on the firing line in order to use less bullets. Introduce the "One Shot, One Kill" bill, which would reduce the amount of money spent for ammo. The money saved would also go towards rehabilitation programs for veterans.

The "One shot, one kill," is a nice idea, but it's not how modern warfare works. I don't want to clutter this thread up with irrelevancies, but this deserves pointing out. A good deal of ammunition is spent in covering fire and "flushing out" enemies, which is an integral and essential part of modern tactics. Also, if you've ever tried targetshooting, you'll know that it is difficult to be dead-on precise with a rifle at 100 yards when benched (meaning you are sitting down on a bench/table sort of deal with sandbags to steady the barrel of the gun on), let alone when running, dodging, or being shot at. Also, the military only spent some $.231 billion on M16 cartridges in 2007, which, while a large number, is a tiny percentage (.231/983 = .023%) of the overall budget.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

Our impasse is in trying to create a "Little America" in the middle of the middle east. So there is one president, who is Shia Muslim. Iraqis are represented in the legislature in proportion to their numbers, so the legislature is Shia Muslim dominated. So far, the Sunni Muslims have been marginalized and disempowered by this situation, and their only empowerment has been in insurgency.

The Iraqis themselves wrote a constitution calling for semi autonomous provinces. So, why not make this more like their country and their government. Each province has a province leader. Having one president is abolished in favor of having a ruling council of province leaders. Therefore, the Sunnis would have Anwar province and their own leader at the top level as an integral part of national decision making. Instead of representation being proportional to numbers, each province would elect the same number of legislature that would meet at both the provincial level and at the national level to represent their province.

The problem with any of this is a fair distribution of oil revenues. No easy answer here, as the Shia and Kurdish regions have almost all of the oil fields.

However, this arrangement does skirt around the Turkish issue with a independent Kurd nation.

Also more dead Americans. I'm not in support of the war in Iraq, but yanking the funding will hurt the soldiers long before it reaches the policy making levels. Yank the funding for the war and the troops lose ammo and weapons and even transport home. You, sir = fail.

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.