Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: not really.

Fallback plans

I haven't had much enthusiasm for exploring what to do when the present course eventually fails, because of the flak I get about "defeatism". I can't see the defeatism, myself; it's smart to have fallback plans, especially when you can see that Plan A is an approaching train wreck.

Fallback plans don't satisfy the demand to think up a way to "win" in Iraq, but hey, not my fault that the present mess is so intractable that there are no easy answers. Makes sense to plan for the consequences of failure to win. That's just realism.

I've stared at the map of the region(Google), and pondered ideas like repositioning our forces to the east and west inside the country, and putting them to work building two demilitarized zones. The large scale map of the region suggests an unspoken strategic intention for invading Iraq: A pro-US Iraq, with Turkey to the north and Saudi Arabia to the south, forms a thick wall that neatly slices the Islamic world into Mediterranean and Asian components. The whole country might've been intended to be a DMZ...shame it turned into a Hyper-Militarized Zone. But a useful plan B, if we can't settle the civil war, might be to secure the borders of Iraq and prevent military travel and transportation of terrorists and weapons between the eastern and western Islamic world, and into Iraq as well. Part of Plan B involves minimizing outside influences that make things worse in Iraq, even if we end up having to let them fight it out themselves.

Having a civil war at the back of our troops on a DMZ isn't too appetizing. It might be smart to go with the option of allowing Iraq to split into its three natural states, on the theory that they'd all be more peaceful more quickly, and individually less of a threat.

Why am I talking about this on Flame? Sigh...we know we have a problem when Flame feels like a more hospitable venue for some topics than CurrentEvents.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (84 posts)