Once again the terrorists have given President Bush an opportunity to defeat them, but this could be the last time that happens for quite some time. The brutal torture-murders of Privates Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker in Iraq have angered Americans and put the country in a vengeful mood. On the heels of the demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes a call by many for the U.S. military to take the fight to the enemy.
But what does that mean?


There can be no victory in Iraq without security. Coalition forces are fighting a counter-insurgency campaign that requires a strict discipline to succeed. First, the chaos must be stopped, and the only way to do that is by imposing martial law, where authorities have the right to intern anyone and impose shoot-on-sight curfews. The new Iraqi government should do this immediately in cities like Ramadi that harbor terrorists.


Now, critics of tough anti-insurgency methods will say that if they are implemented, then we are no different than Saddam Hussein. And those critics have a small point. For almost 25 years, Hussein managed to control insurgencies against him by using brutal totalitarian methods. So we know those work in Iraq. The difference is that Hussein used murder and torture, while the coalition would not. Martial law is a legitimate tool of social control in any dangerous situation; it is a short-term strategy to allow the new government to curtail violence.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly062606.asp

God we are fucked.

You are an Iraqi Insurgent living in Ramadi?
And do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we"?

"we" as in the US in America if our best answer to winning in Iraq is shooting Iraqis out after curfew on sight, 4 years into the occupation.

Well the "highly" (/laugh) trained Iraqi police force most certianly could at least try the curfew idea.

Rest assured, they'll be indoors by 8pm every night.

Yes, the "highly trained Iraqi Police Force" never misses an episode of Law and Order: Tikrit. Escapism at its finest.

BO is a blowhard.

The difference is that Hussein used murder and torture, while the coalition would not. Martial law is a legitimate tool of social control in any dangerous situation; it is a short-term strategy to allow the new government to curtail violence. Martial law may work for a week, but any longer and the citizens will turn against it...

"we" as in the US in America if our best answer to winning in Iraq is shooting Iraqis out after curfew on sight, 4 years into the occupation.

Yep, it says we are gonna shoot all Iraqis, in all of the country, if they are out after curfew.
You might want to watch the generalizations. It says imposing martial law in the sections where the insurgets seem to be working from would be a good idea.
You shouldn't presume to speak for "us".
A more proper statement would be :"I think I am screwed."
;)

Do you understand what shoot on sight means?

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly062606.asp

God we are fucked.

Its an excellent way to win the hearts and minds of the general population of Iraq. It worked so well for us in Vietnam and worked so well for the Soviets in Afghanistan and of course when the Nazis did it in places like France during WWII it worked so well for them. Theres nothing like a good old fashioned shoot on site policy to get the people on your side.

Goodness, someone needs to muzzle the polarizing forces on both sides of the fence....please


Fandros

Do you understand what shoot on sight means?

Do you understand that anyone out after a martially imposed curfew, probably doesn't have the best interest of the Iraqi people in mind?

probably

yea...

And the best way to convice the Iraqi people that we do have THEIR best interests at heart is by shooting them..

gotcha. Should work brilliantly.

Do you understand that anyone out after a martially imposed curfew, probably doesn't have the best interest of the Iraqi people in mind?

Do you understand that having any chance at reasonable success is not about shooting people?

Do you understand that shooting people is one of the methods that the insurgents use to cause disruption?

Do you understand that this is the very type of tactic that the insurgents want us to use as it strengthens their position?

Do you understand that insurgents don't give a shit about things like martial law other than to use it against those who impose it?

Do you understand that it is a tactic that just simply does not work?

Wonder what Chuck Norris would do in this situation.

Chuck Norris would roundhouse one terrorist so hard that they all would feel the pain.

Na... Chuck would walk the streets getting all the terrorists to fire at him and basically wasting all their bullets, thus bringing peace to the Middle East.

Jack Bauer on the other hand would basically interogate EVERYONE he saw and get names and locations of other terrorists until he got through all of them, and of course all this would be resolved in 24 hours.

Seriously though, Martial Law while it sounds all good and stuff, it is just going to take one death of an innocent or an appearing innocent to cause an uproar in all the folks in Iraq. This could cause more insurgents or those that were sitting on the fence to go to the other side.

Jack Bauer steps on Elvis' blue suede shoes.

Do you understand that anyone out after a martially imposed curfew, probably doesn't have the best interest of the Iraqi people in mind?

Like a pregnant woman or injured person on their way to the Hosptial.....

Like a pregnant woman or injured person on their way to the Hosptial.....

Birth that baby at home, it's been done that way for thousands of years....:D
And I've seen ambulances over there, although I'm sure the insurgents would start using those to get around in, to circumvent the curfew.
*warning, sarcasm ahead*
Well, let's just continue to let them put roadside bombs out every night, or better yet, completely pull out, and let the whole stinking mess come crashing down...

Seriously though, Martial Law while it sounds all good and stuff, it is just going to take one death of an innocent or an appearing innocent to cause an uproar in all the folks in Iraq. This could cause more insurgents or those that were sitting on the fence to go to the other side.

An interesting way to conserve ammo for the insurgents......just force people to leave their homes after curfew at gunpoint, and let the coalition folks shoot them.

There are only two possible solutions. Iraq needs to be divided up into 3 separate countries with dmz's and individual armies. Or we need to leave and let them fight it out. There is so much deep seeded hatred and vengeful plotting by all parties in Iraq, that there is no way to keep them all together and have a peaceful coexistance. If the administration would have done even the slightest amount of research, they would have known this long ago.

There are only two possible solutions. Iraq needs to be divided up into 3 separate countries with dmz's and individual armies. Or we need to leave and let them fight it out. There is so much deep seeded hatred and vengeful plotting by all parties in Iraq, that there is no way to keep them all together and have a peaceful coexistance. If the administration would have done even the slightest amount of research, they would have known this long ago.

While I agree this may indeed be the eventual outcome (if the Sunni have enough of an Army to secure a third portion) we would not be able to sign off on the Kurds having their own country without putting immense stress on our relations with Turkey, who have been supportive of us in most of our efforts in the Middle East.

The problem with leaving them to fight it out among themselves is that it would invite Syria, Iran, Turkey, and possibly a few others to choose up sides to support and there would be potentially an even more widespread conflict.

The absence of any meaningful United Nations action regarding Iraq is telling of the impotence and agenda of the formerly respected body.

While I agree this may indeed be the eventual outcome (if the Sunni have enough of an Army to secure a third portion) we would not be able to sign off on the Kurds having their own country without putting immense stress on our relations with Turkey, who have been supportive of us in most of our efforts in the Middle East.

You are quite correct about the Turks hating the Kurds. They'd just as soon shoot them as anything else.
When I was participating in Operation Provide Comfort, I heard more than a few stories about the Turks killing Kurds that tried to cross the border into Turkey. If the Kurds get the oil rich part ot Iraq that is the ancestral home of the Kurds, Turkey will indeed pitch a fit.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Saddam was a necessary evil.

I don't think it's clear at all Phel. Sorry and I think you'll find out more as more documents are translated.

Fandros

Read a quote from some "high ranking" official type dude (was a long time ago shortly after Saddam was toppled).
Said sure Saddam was a cruel sadistic bastard, exactly the kind of person needed to keep that region under control.
Looking at the secular violence going on there now there's some validity to what Phel was trying to say

I wouldnt say Saddam was necessary. I would say though, that he was useful when the goal was preserve the Status Quo in the Middle East.

After 9/11 some people decided they were going to transform the Muslim world and the status quo was no longer desireable, so they removed him.

Its just that status quo is looking pretty good right now.

The status quo always looks pretty good. People are reluctant to change, unless they see that not changing will hurt them more.
A battle of perception is the most difficult to wage.

If there ever was a "status quo" with Saddam, it was a very long time ago... certainly not anytime during the quadzillion UN resolutions telling Iraq to act better or else...

Yet another pipe dream you guys want to rewrite history with so you don't have to face reality.

Oh reality...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060626/insurgents_peace_060626/20060626?hub=World
Seven Sunni Arab insurgent groups have contacted the government to declare their readiness to join in efforts at national reconciliation, a key Shiite legislator said Monday.

The seven lesser groups, most of them believed populated by former members or backers of Saddam Hussein's government, military or security agencies, have said they want a truce, Hassan al-Suneid, a lawmaker and member of the political bureau of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, told The Associated Press.And in case you're worried about Maliki's amnesty offer...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700427.html?sub=AR
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed Tuesday that no one who has killed Americans or Iraqis would be pardoned under his government's national reconciliation plan.I think we're walking steadily down Bush's path to victory very nicely now. Faster please...

Looking at the secular violence going on there now there's some validity to what Phel was trying to sayI'm thinking you mean "sectarian." There's little that's secular about any of it. =)
I think we're walking steadily down Bush's path to victory very nicely now. Faster please...
At best, we're tumbling down the mountain after trying to ski it with roller skates and a party dress. We may meet the route at the bottom with our asses intact, but it's hardly by following the "path to victory."

Yea I meant sectarian did I.

Yet another pipe dream you guys want to rewrite history with so you don't have to face reality

Nope not trying to re-write anything. I just keep in mind that history is a slanted view depending on your perspective. I take nothing in documented history as an absolute truth.
Your view of the history of Iraq in the last 20 years most likely taken from blogs, opinion pages and conservative leaning web sites differs massively from that of an Iraqi the same age as you are. who's perspective is more valid? hell take any 2 Iraqis at random and you'll get 2 completely differing views as well. wich will differ vastly from the historical view of the Iranian next door.
The real truth always lies somewhere between the lines. how often do you look there?