More U.S. troops to Iraq

BobMcGee123 · 01-05-2007, 05:39 PM

Bush is considering a 'surge' in US troops to Iraq. For a long time, I thought it was a good idea. In fact, I thought it was the only realistic solution to quell the sectarian violence.

Now, I'm not so sure.

I don't think that the US can realistically maintain an increase in troops in Iraq (I believe this is why it's called a 'surge,' it is not meant to be permanent).

I think that an increase in the number of troops will lead to more US casualties.

I think that increasing the number of troops may be effective, for a while, but won't lead to any permanent results.

I actually think that the US would do well to start either withdrawing troops from Iraq, or a massive redeployment to Kuwait. I think that the Iraqis are embroiled in a civil war (call it what you want), and that they've got their own ........ to sort out. Hussein was a bad guy, he's gone, regardless of whether you agreed with it, but I don't think US troops should have to babysit Iraqi civilians. It's not clear who is perpetuating the violence, who is in charge, where the front line is, or why we're there.

I just finished the Iraq study group report (a quick read, something like 90 pages). There are some 70+ suggestions made in it, most of it is mundane reading. What became exceptionally clear to me after reading it is that there is no military or economic solution that will work. They speak of 'political reconciliation' as the only realistic step towards progress in Iraq, which essentially means everyone over there getting along and playing nice. I don't believe this will happen until they have their little civil war. We had ours, it's their turn.

My attitude would be different if I believed there was some military or economic solution which could 'easily' make a difference.

Discuss.

Not exactly about the troop surge, but still related:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Nodtveidt · 01-05-2007, 06:07 PM

Inerestingly enough, the Iraq study group report states that the number of US troops in Iraq should be steadily decreased until a complete withdrawal. The fact that Mr Warmonger intends to do just the opposite proves that he STILL doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks. All the crap he spewed in November was just that...crap. You're looking at the same jackass package as before, only now the package comes in a different color.

Mario F. · 01-05-2007, 06:24 PM

I'm not sure the current civil war (I call it this way. And I laugh at who calls it otherwise) will be enough. Traditionally minority groups become dangerous when separated from power. Saddam success as an Iraqi leader capable of maintaining some form of unity to the nation was partially because he was from the minority sect and because he adopted a dictatorship.

The Shias are the majority in Iraq. They were some 62% of the population 5 years ago, with the Sunni just 33% (according to the Times World Desk Reference). The war followed by the current bombings is poised to change these numbers but the Iran friendly Shias will always be a majority.

What worries me is that by giving the seat to the Shias, the US has effectively strengthened Iran's influence in the region (around 90% Shia population!). I don't believe for one second the Iraqui Shias will remember for long US help in putting them in charge of the country. Iran will make sure of that. I, for one, am one of those who believes this whole mess is not over. It just started.

On the other hand US must have lost some points to Saudi Arabia too. It has to! Maybe not among the current "dictatorship" there. They are more interested in money than religion or sect. But certainly from a large part of the population. Saudi Arabia vast majority, some 85% 5 years ago, are Sunni.

Whatever happens, more soldiers, less soldiers, leaving now, or staying for longer, will always be used as an excuse by those who hate America. And all this, all this mess, was predicted. Many warned against this. They were labeled liberals (It still confuses me trying to use this word as an offense), pacifists (another confusing one), and enemies of the nation!

Kennedy · 01-06-2007, 12:21 AM

@Bob.

I supported (note the past tense) the invasion of Iraq. I, however, believe we pussy-footed around and screwed up. Moving in fast, kicking butt and takin' names (IMO) would have been more effective, less loss of US life, and would have given a stronger message to anyone else in the world that might consider attacking the US.

At this point, however, we've screwed up so royally (I don't really know whom to blame for the slow action that we took) that we have become counter-productive. We, however, should not leave these people to total anarchy as this could lead to serious problems and possibly another who would be as bad as Saddam (or possibly worse). So, we rest on the blade of a knife. If we are not extremely careful, we're going to screw some country over. . . and I'm afraid that it will be us. . . that whole thing of making those countries that hate us already hate us even more. . . World War III anyone?

**Dave_Sinkula** · 01-06-2007, 12:27 AM

Don't you mean WWIV?

Kennedy · 01-06-2007, 12:37 AM

Funky. . . while I slept through the 80's & 90's someone renamed the "Cold War", WWIII???????

Govtcheez · 01-06-2007, 07:28 AM

Congress doesn't want the troops increased, the people don't want the troops increased, Generals Abizaid and Casey didn't want troop increases (and were fired because of it). The only person who wants the increase is Bush, which you'd hope would tell him something.

**Bubba** · 01-06-2007, 10:07 AM

I have a supervisor who has been called back to Iraq. 40,000 more troops are going to Iraq. My only hope is that now we will give them a clear cut mission instead of just 'fight terror.'

With a mission we will know when to get the heck out of there which IMO we are far beyond that time now. I'm not sure they are in all out civil war yet but they will be if we pull out as is. So if we pull out now, we lose and we lose big. If we stay, we lose, and we lose big. Either way we are not going to win the way we would like to. We will probably end up pulling out of an extremely unstable region only to go back 10 years later to do the same.

But if we pull out as it is right now, we will 100% for sure be back later and be known for creating one of the most unstable regions in the world.

Govtcheez · 01-06-2007, 11:37 AM

So the choices are "stay and leave a legacy of destabilizing the region even more than it was" or "leave and leave a legacy of destabilizing the region even more than it was"?

Us staying there on a long term or permanent basis is only going to increase hatred of us even more and create more insurgents. The Iraqi government has shown absolutely no will to create solid police forces to patrol the cities; the ones that they do have are full or corruption and people only interested in getting revenge.

Remember in the 04 election where Kerry was blasted for "not having a plan"? Bush's plan has been "hang out there and get shot at", and now it's changed to "more people hang out there and get shot at". Awesome.

Nodtveidt · 01-06-2007, 11:43 AM

The troops should have never entered in the first place. But hey, what's done is done, and now there's a mountain of problems to deal with as a result. So how do they deal with the problem? BY CREATING MORE PROBLEMS! Gotta love it! All hail King Bush!

Mario F. · 01-06-2007, 02:23 PM

This is the same man whose logic for dealing with forest fires is to cut down the trees.
But seriously, I'm not sure Bush will be able to send more troops even if he wants to. Wouldn't he need the Congress approval for this?

Govtcheez · 01-06-2007, 02:30 PM

> This is the same man whose logic for dealing with forest fires is to cut down the trees.

This is pretty standard practice all over the world.

> Wouldn't he need the Congress approval for this?

He needs approval for funding, and anyone voting against it will be seen as not supporting the troops.

Mario F. · 01-06-2007, 02:52 PM

> This is pretty standard practice all over the world.

Hmm... this is going against the topic. My bad for introducing it. However that's incorrect, Gov.
Trees don't start fires. The practice around the world is to clean the woods of dry and dead organic matter or garbage. Not to cut down trees.

Fountain · 01-06-2007, 04:02 PM

You are not the only ones over there. Not by a long shot. Try to remember this. Whilst the topic is about US troops increasing in number, try to look at your so called 'allies' activities. Oh, and Govt talks the most sense, I mean come on, we stay we bad, we go we bad. Personally I say shoot what you can (viable target) and look after your self. There is NO easy answer, and the OP should either sign up to be elected, or not post teasers that are not answerable.

BobMcGee123 · 01-06-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

He needs approval for funding, and anyone voting against it will be seen as not supporting the troops.

This is something I read about in the Iraq study group report. Funding for the war falls under the category of 'emergency appropriations' or something to that effect. As you said, anyone voting against it is seen as not supporting the troops, being unpatriotic, etc. Because the funding falls under this special category, it does not fall under intense scrutiny before being passed. It doesn't show up in the national budget (not even under DOD spending). One of their suggestions was to include funding for these wars in the budget...there's actually no clear figure how much has actually been spent, everything you hear on the news is a rough (but probably accurate) guestimate. $2 Billion a week seems to be a roughly accurate figure.

pg 91
"The public interest is not well served by the government's preparation, presentation, and review of the budget for the war in Iraq.
First, most of the costs of the war show up not in the normal budget request but in requests for emergency supplemental appropriations. This means that funding requests are drawn up outside the nomral budget process, are not offset by budgetary reductions elsewhere, and move quickly to the White House with minimal scrutiny. Bypassing the normal review erodes budget discipline and accountability."

Quote:

You are not the only ones over there. Not by a long shot. Try to remember this. Whilst the topic is about US troops increasing in number, try to look at your so called 'allies' activities.

What point are you trying to make? I don't think there are any other countries that are planning such a massive increase (either in absolute or proportional terms). I do feel grateful for the help we've received from the UK, Canada, Ukraine, Poland, Spain, Italy, Japan and South Korean troops that have made their ways into our Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Did I forget any countries?

I was able to convince my girlfriend that China was sending a million troops to baghdad. Man, she's stupid.

Quote:

here is NO easy answer, and the OP should either sign up to be elected, or not post teasers that are not answerable.

You're either incredibly brilliant, or an idiot.

Quote:

Inerestingly enough, the Iraq study group report states that the number of US troops in Iraq should be steadily decreased until a complete withdrawal.

They actually said they might support a 'surge' to stabilize Baghdad. Here's the exact wording, page 73:

"...we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term 'occupation.' We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq (which has just been replaced) determines that such steps would be effective."

01-05-2007, 05:39 PM	#1
BobMcGee123 ∞ Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 970	More U.S. troops to Iraq Bush is considering a 'surge' in US troops to Iraq. For a long time, I thought it was a good idea. In fact, I thought it was the only realistic solution to quell the sectarian violence. Now, I'm not so sure. I don't think that the US can realistically maintain an increase in troops in Iraq (I believe this is why it's called a 'surge,' it is not meant to be permanent). I think that an increase in the number of troops will lead to more US casualties. I think that increasing the number of troops may be effective, for a while, but won't lead to any permanent results. I actually think that the US would do well to start either withdrawing troops from Iraq, or a massive redeployment to Kuwait. I think that the Iraqis are embroiled in a civil war (call it what you want), and that they've got their own ........ to sort out. Hussein was a bad guy, he's gone, regardless of whether you agreed with it, but I don't think US troops should have to babysit Iraqi civilians. It's not clear who is perpetuating the violence, who is in charge, where the front line is, or why we're there. I just finished the Iraq study group report (a quick read, something like 90 pages). There are some 70+ suggestions made in it, most of it is mundane reading. What became exceptionally clear to me after reading it is that there is no military or economic solution that will work. They speak of 'political reconciliation' as the only realistic step towards progress in Iraq, which essentially means everyone over there getting along and playing nice. I don't believe this will happen until they have their little civil war. We had ours, it's their turn. My attitude would be different if I believed there was some military or economic solution which could 'easily' make a difference. Discuss. Not exactly about the troop surge, but still related: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq __________________ argus triad mingus Last edited by BobMcGee123; 01-05-2007 at 05:45 PM.
BobMcGee123 is offline

01-05-2007, 06:07 PM	#2
Nodtveidt Insane Game Developer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Isabela, PR Posts: 105	Inerestingly enough, the Iraq study group report states that the number of US troops in Iraq should be steadily decreased until a complete withdrawal. The fact that Mr Warmonger intends to do just the opposite proves that he STILL doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks. All the crap he spewed in November was just that...crap. You're looking at the same jackass package as before, only now the package comes in a different color. __________________ Code: cout << "Language comparisons are dumb"; echo("Language comparisons are dumb"); PRINT "Language comparisons are dumb" alert ("Language comparisons are dumb")
Nodtveidt is offline

01-05-2007, 06:24 PM	#3
Mario F. (?<!re)tired Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 5,661	I'm not sure the current civil war (I call it this way. And I laugh at who calls it otherwise) will be enough. Traditionally minority groups become dangerous when separated from power. Saddam success as an Iraqi leader capable of maintaining some form of unity to the nation was partially because he was from the minority sect and because he adopted a dictatorship. The Shias are the majority in Iraq. They were some 62% of the population 5 years ago, with the Sunni just 33% (according to the Times World Desk Reference). The war followed by the current bombings is poised to change these numbers but the Iran friendly Shias will always be a majority. What worries me is that by giving the seat to the Shias, the US has effectively strengthened Iran's influence in the region (around 90% Shia population!). I don't believe for one second the Iraqui Shias will remember for long US help in putting them in charge of the country. Iran will make sure of that. I, for one, am one of those who believes this whole mess is not over. It just started. On the other hand US must have lost some points to Saudi Arabia too. It has to! Maybe not among the current "dictatorship" there. They are more interested in money than religion or sect. But certainly from a large part of the population. Saudi Arabia vast majority, some 85% 5 years ago, are Sunni. Whatever happens, more soldiers, less soldiers, leaving now, or staying for longer, will always be used as an excuse by those who hate America. And all this, all this mess, was predicted. Many warned against this. They were labeled liberals (It still confuses me trying to use this word as an offense), pacifists (another confusing one), and enemies of the nation! __________________ Originally Posted by brewbuck: Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster. Last edited by Mario F.; 01-05-2007 at 06:26 PM.
Mario F. is offline

01-06-2007, 12:21 AM	#4
Kennedy Jaxom's & Imriel's Dad Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Alabama Posts: 877	@Bob. I supported (note the past tense) the invasion of Iraq. I, however, believe we pussy-footed around and screwed up. Moving in fast, kicking butt and takin' names (IMO) would have been more effective, less loss of US life, and would have given a stronger message to anyone else in the world that might consider attacking the US. At this point, however, we've screwed up so royally (I don't really know whom to blame for the slow action that we took) that we have become counter-productive. We, however, should not leave these people to total anarchy as this could lead to serious problems and possibly another who would be as bad as Saddam (or possibly worse). So, we rest on the blade of a knife. If we are not extremely careful, we're going to screw some country over. . . and I'm afraid that it will be us. . . that whole thing of making those countries that hate us already hate us even more. . . World War III anyone?
Kennedy is offline

01-06-2007, 12:27 AM	#5
Dave_Sinkula Just Lurking Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 5,006	Don't you mean WWIV? __________________ 7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one. 40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
Dave_Sinkula is offline

01-06-2007, 12:37 AM	#6
Kennedy Jaxom's & Imriel's Dad Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Alabama Posts: 877	Funky. . . while I slept through the 80's & 90's someone renamed the "Cold War", WWIII???????
Kennedy is offline

01-06-2007, 07:28 AM	#7
Govtcheez Mayor of Awesometown Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MI Posts: 8,826	Congress doesn't want the troops increased, the people don't want the troops increased, Generals Abizaid and Casey didn't want troop increases (and were fired because of it). The only person who wants the increase is Bush, which you'd hope would tell him something. __________________ -Govtcheez govtcheez03@hotmail.com
Govtcheez is offline

01-06-2007, 10:07 AM	#8
Bubba Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,817	I have a supervisor who has been called back to Iraq. 40,000 more troops are going to Iraq. My only hope is that now we will give them a clear cut mission instead of just 'fight terror.' With a mission we will know when to get the heck out of there which IMO we are far beyond that time now. I'm not sure they are in all out civil war yet but they will be if we pull out as is. So if we pull out now, we lose and we lose big. If we stay, we lose, and we lose big. Either way we are not going to win the way we would like to. We will probably end up pulling out of an extremely unstable region only to go back 10 years later to do the same. But if we pull out as it is right now, we will 100% for sure be back later and be known for creating one of the most unstable regions in the world.
Bubba is offline

01-06-2007, 11:37 AM	#9
Govtcheez Mayor of Awesometown Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MI Posts: 8,826	So the choices are "stay and leave a legacy of destabilizing the region even more than it was" or "leave and leave a legacy of destabilizing the region even more than it was"? Us staying there on a long term or permanent basis is only going to increase hatred of us even more and create more insurgents. The Iraqi government has shown absolutely no will to create solid police forces to patrol the cities; the ones that they do have are full or corruption and people only interested in getting revenge. Remember in the 04 election where Kerry was blasted for "not having a plan"? Bush's plan has been "hang out there and get shot at", and now it's changed to "more people hang out there and get shot at". Awesome. __________________ -Govtcheez govtcheez03@hotmail.com
Govtcheez is offline

01-06-2007, 11:43 AM	#10
Nodtveidt Insane Game Developer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Isabela, PR Posts: 105	The troops should have never entered in the first place. But hey, what's done is done, and now there's a mountain of problems to deal with as a result. So how do they deal with the problem? BY CREATING MORE PROBLEMS! Gotta love it! All hail King Bush! __________________ Code: cout << "Language comparisons are dumb"; echo("Language comparisons are dumb"); PRINT "Language comparisons are dumb" alert ("Language comparisons are dumb")
Nodtveidt is offline

01-06-2007, 02:23 PM	#11
Mario F. (?<!re)tired Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 5,661	This is the same man whose logic for dealing with forest fires is to cut down the trees. But seriously, I'm not sure Bush will be able to send more troops even if he wants to. Wouldn't he need the Congress approval for this? __________________ Originally Posted by brewbuck: Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Mario F. is offline

01-06-2007, 02:30 PM	#12
Govtcheez Mayor of Awesometown Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MI Posts: 8,826	> This is the same man whose logic for dealing with forest fires is to cut down the trees. This is pretty standard practice all over the world. > Wouldn't he need the Congress approval for this? He needs approval for funding, and anyone voting against it will be seen as not supporting the troops. __________________ -Govtcheez govtcheez03@hotmail.com
Govtcheez is offline

01-06-2007, 02:52 PM	#13
Mario F. (?<!re)tired Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 5,661	> This is pretty standard practice all over the world. Hmm... this is going against the topic. My bad for introducing it. However that's incorrect, Gov. Trees don't start fires. The practice around the world is to clean the woods of dry and dead organic matter or garbage. Not to cut down trees. __________________ Originally Posted by brewbuck: Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Mario F. is offline

01-06-2007, 04:02 PM	#14
Fountain Much older and wiser Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Engeeeerland Posts: 1,158	You are not the only ones over there. Not by a long shot. Try to remember this. Whilst the topic is about US troops increasing in number, try to look at your so called 'allies' activities. Oh, and Govt talks the most sense, I mean come on, we stay we bad, we go we bad. Personally I say shoot what you can (viable target) and look after your self. There is NO easy answer, and the OP should either sign up to be elected, or not post teasers that are not answerable. __________________ Such is life.
Fountain is offline

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
It Does Not Matter If We Do Not Find WMDs in Iraq	zahid	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	17	06-17-2003 08:58 PM
Painfully true but funny...	shaik786	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	8	04-01-2003 03:39 PM
"iraq war- the unspoken truth"	Commander	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	65	02-25-2003 11:54 PM
War with Iraq - Read this article if you're interested	Davros	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	4	01-26-2003 12:10 AM
Follow Iraq, North Korea trying to mess the World.	KingoftheWorld	A Brief History of Cprogramming.com	81	01-14-2003 07:12 AM