Yes, only if the Americans would use their magic wands.
Maybe Soviet style is the correct method of fixing the situation but the U.S. is not going to go down that route. If people want to kill other people indiscrimently the U.S. at this point can't stop it totally. The U.S. is like a levee and unfortunately it's being breached, keeping that analogy in mind, what do you think is going to happen once the U.S. leaves? As I said in 2003 and repeated in 2004 (as seen below), secure security was a nessassary for Iraq to be a success, at this point how do you get there? There are elements, both foreign and domestic, in Iraq who want civil war and their are several sides broken up in franctions so diplomacey is that much harder. A additional commitment of troops by the U.S. that would be needed to make the 'levee' acceptable is highly unlikely. Some form of international emergency coalition is needed for deployment but there is no movement. Either way the U.S. is going to get blamed if they stay or not, afterall the levee get's the brunt of the blame for it's failure not the storm itself. And while I agree the U.S. does share part of the blame the amount that is being thrown at it is disproportionate in respect to everything that's going on.
On the other hand if the U.S. backsoff, does the violence flare up but quickly die out as they are able to come to some agreement without the 'occupiers' around? What do you think, are shiites going to share power in a way that Sunnis can accept without the U.S. proding them to do so?
~~~
....you need to * secure security* before freedom can truly come about. That means training Iraqis to police their country, it means letting the everyday Iraqi know that they can speak up against the militants and turn in information about them without worrying about his or her family being brutally murdered. The Iraqis have to secure Iraq not Americans, they can only help, and those attacking the U.S. and beheading foreign workers don't give a damn about Iraqs security.
The iraqi police are not properly trained, not yet anyhow,
but saddams gone, so the question is, what are US solidiers there for now? isnt it to provide security and restore order, until the iraqis are able to stablise internally..ie. get things back to normal as possible..? what are they doing to stop or calm down the chaos? i have a bad feeling they are hiding behind the iraqi police force..
^
It's a fine line on what they can do. The soviet style of steamrolling to stop these deaths would probably work but that's not going to happen. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink.
but saddams gone, so the question is, what are US solidiers there for now? isnt it to provide security and restore order, until the iraqis are able to stablise internally..ie. get things back to normal as possible..? what are they doing to stop or calm down the chaos? i have a bad feeling they are hiding behind the iraqi police force..
^
There is it again. The whole 'U.S. is responsible for Sunnis killing Shiites and vice-versa'. Believe it or not the U.S. does not have mind control powers.
Soviet style would mean crushing entire towns without reguard for anyone who might be there and I know you really don't want that to occure. The U.S. does not operate in that fashion, the days of firebombing cities are over.
As far as it not working is because it was done wrong in the first place and while lessons from the mistakes can be taken so it's not repeated in similar fashion next time around, new applications and adaptation needs to be brought foward and put into practice. Multinational meetings are a good direction and that process is picking up steam and likely to occure before too long.
Only Cambodia in the 1970s and El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s can compare to the barbarity and savage nature in which fellow countrymen are killing each other
It's not that bad....yet....but the potential is there if a full blown civil war breaks out.
Soviet style would mean crushing entire towns without reguard for anyone who might be there and I know you really don't want that to occure. The U.S. does not operate in that fashion, the days of firebombing cities are over.
As far as it not working is because it was done wrong in the first place and while lessons from the mistakes can be taken so it's not repeated in similar fashion next time around, new applications and adaptation needs to be brought foward and put into practice. Multinational meetings are a good direction and that process is picking up steam and likely to occure before too long.
i didnt say any of the sort. My point was that they are responsible for security, not for sect. killings..well not directly anyway...but indirectly resp. definitely.
the americans have either been starving or killing iraqis for the last three decades.
the US middle east policy is a strange one
they watch every tiny move not inline with their policy, and we hear about it. theve chosen for the civil war to happen. no ifs or buts. you either agree with the US policy or you dont.
these lands are less developed, hot weather places. every middle eastern, south asian and far east country is wide open to manipulation.
the united states on the other hand knows about and monitors every tiny movement in many countries.
as for you personally, dont bother writing whether you support the civil war policy or not. we already know. israel supporters will think its decreasing the threat, i know its multiplying but at a cost