PDA

View Full Version : 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IV)?

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.

VirtualAce
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
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."



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.



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.



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."

VirtualAce
01-06-2007, 10:02 PM
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.

Kennedy
01-06-2007, 10:07 PM
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.
So, your on active duty, eh? If so: Be safe, good luck, come back alive.

VirtualAce
01-06-2007, 10:12 PM
No but several people I know are going back. Several officers and enlisted friends, family, and co-workers are going back ASAP.

They can more than get the job done....if they are given clear cut orders.

BobMcGee123
01-06-2007, 10:22 PM
I wish them the best of luck.

Dave_Sinkula
01-06-2007, 10:41 PM
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.

BobMcGee123
01-07-2007, 10:59 AM
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.'

indigo0086
01-07-2007, 12:21 PM
It appears the Dept. of Defence has thought of a new strategy in the war on terror

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

BobMcGee123
01-07-2007, 12:23 PM
Thanks for your utterly useless contribution. I'm sure the Army did that intentionally, and that they enjoyed every minute of it.

Mario F.
01-07-2007, 02:39 PM
> 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.

BobMcGee123
01-07-2007, 03:55 PM
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.

Mario F.
01-07-2007, 04:39 PM
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.

VirtualAce
01-07-2007, 09:26 PM
The strategy will change or at least should change according to my sources. But I must add those sources are bound by confidentiality agreements that they have signed so they cannot reveal much about it. There were certain topics we simply could not discuss and understandably so b/c it may place other troops in harms way should the information get in the wrong hands.

I think you will see a shift in our strategy in the Iraq conflict.

g4j31a5
01-07-2007, 10:21 PM
>> 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? :D

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.