Thread: More U.S. troops to Iraq

AFAIK the 40,000 troops have already been activated and/or notified and this supervisor was just one of them. So it's not a matter of if Bush can or cannot, it is a matter of he has.

I don't blame Bush for anything except the fact that we were told the wrong reasons by his admin for invading Iraq which really killed his credibility. It has been on the books for sometime and I remember when I lived near Fort Hood in Texas several years before we invaded Iraq. Tanks were just rolling out of Fort Hood and they were on the firing range every night...keeping me up till the wee hours in the morning. I knew something was up then but did not know what it was. So even if 9/11 had not have happened we still would be in Iraq...but we would have been told the real reasons instead of using 9/11 to mask them.

I'm not against going into Iraq but I am not happy with being lied to as to the reasons, not having a clear cut mission while we have been there, and a total failure of listening to our military leaders who are telling the 'suits' and the politicians what needs to be done and how....and yet it falls on deaf ears.

It is our military this time saying we need to change strategies unlike during Vietnam when our military would not admit their current strategy was simply failing. They have more than admitted this and yet they are not given any new mission. We need direction and goals in Iraq instead of a blanket 'fight terror' which suspiciously sounds like a modern day police action instead of a mission oriented military operation. Police actions never work and just get good soldiers killed.

I wish them the best of luck.

Originally Posted by Bubba

I'm not against going into Iraq but I am not happy with being lied to as to the reasons, not having a clear cut mission while we have been there, and a total failure of listening to our military leaders who are telling the 'suits' and the politicians what needs to be done and how....and yet it falls on deaf ears.

It is our military this time saying we need to change strategies unlike during Vietnam when our military would not admit their current strategy was simply failing.

I don't know whether or not it is the military that could not complete its missions in either Vietnam or Iraq. It seems that "public opinion" weighs a much greater role.

Which is to say, "Walter Cronkite declared failure and failure followed suit." And the "old media declared failure at the start, and will stop at nothing until it follows suit." Or somesuch.

There seems to be much ado about 'going in with the forces necessary' -- but that means nothing that the western world can stomach today. It was doomed to some sort of failure from the start, true, but that is because of ourselves more than the leader(s) of any country.

Until we understand the meaning of 'war', we are not truly engaging in it. And more drawn out versions of the same will occur.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. But can't. Until that changes we're ........ed.

I don't know whether or not it is the military that could not complete its missions in either Vietnam or Iraq. It seems that "public opinion" weighs a much greater role.

Perhaps Bubba is referring to the fact that we've been restrained from attacking the Mahdi Army, Muqtada Al Sadr's followers, for political reasons (Al-Sadr being a backer of the Iraqi PM, Maliki, and having connections to some 30 parliament seats in Iraq). Although, upon writing this, the PM has announced a new campaign in Baghdad to attack Sunni insurgents as well as 'Shia militias.'

Thanks for your utterly useless contribution. I'm sure the Army did that intentionally, and that they enjoyed every minute of it.

> the PM has announced a new campaign in Baghdad to attack Sunni insurgents as well as 'Shia militias.'

That campaign was successful to a point. According to the Al Jazeera, 30 elements of the Shia militia were killed by the Iraqi army yesterday after fightings in Baghdad. I'm not sure however if it's true. Not doubting the news station, but the source; The Iraqi government itself.

I read it was 30 sunni insurgents. I think we might have to like, you know, wait for the fighting to finish before we start arguing about it.

Probably. I unfortunately didn't catch the news on either BBC or CNN that day. Was most of the day out. But Al Jazeera was mentioning Shias.

It is however a good sign they are using the armed forces instead of the police forces. For one, it gives more credibility to their supposed interest in dealing with the civil war by their own means. It also reaffirms the notion the country is being ravaged by a civil war, not insurgency anymore.

>> I don't blame Bush for anything except the fact that we were told the wrong reasons by

CMIIW,but isn't Bush's main reason Oil?

BTW IMHO, all that Bush has and will be done will be fruitless if he couldn't solve the main cause. And it couldn't be solved by a way of violence. Also I think more troops == more problems.