Well we've been hearing about this for a few days now and I'm suprised it hasn't come up here yet -
Critics slam possible Iraq troop boost. What do you think?
Personally - although increasing troop count in Iraq is a majorly unpopular idea, and although it makes me feel dirty and ashamed to say these words - Bush may be right - at least with this idea. Really this should have been done a long time ago - like from the start of the "war" on though to this point. But we need the extra manpower in a big way(I wonder if we have enough total in the civil war grows any bigger). Really we should never have been there - but since we are I really only see two options as far as our troops go -
1. More troops to help stabalize things - if that is possible at this point. Plus it may hopefully improve troop morale a bit(I'd feel better with more people who have my back) for those troops already there.
2. Get the troops out. Obviously this is a bad option given what is gonna happen once we do. If things get much worse in Iraq - this is gonna be the only option that we're gonna be forced into.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think that this is a magic fix for all Iraq's problems, but hopefully it should help. Granted in COULD help insurgents as a propaganda tool as well - but I hope the pros of increased ground force will outweigh that con. There is alot more gonna need done to fix this thing(if it can be fixed at this late stage), but at least it is a start.
Well throw your opinions in.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Bush may be right?
Dare I say: in 2003/4 Kerry stated that troop commitment would be upped under his command. Only took Dubya 3 stupid years to twig that there would have to be more boots on the ground. Hell, I think I was talking about that in mid/late 2004 after it became pretty clear that there was no way to secure the country, deliver aid, prevent sectarian violence, train and equip a Police force and Military that was loyal to IRAQ first... with 90,000 troops. I'm wondering when the NOLA Levee upgrade idea will sink in... Probably in 2010, but that'll be a little late.
My thoughts:
Putting a Navy guy in charge of two
GROUND WARS is a recipe for disaster. [
Link]
Putting another ex-Navy guy who proposed outsourcing US Intelligence (to China and India) in charge of the CIA is a
BAD F**KING IDEA [
Link]
More troops may be a partial solution, but a sane TOD schedule would help a lot more.
More troops from the US/UK is an idea, but, the UN would probably allow a lot more flexibility, and take away the US vs. Islam epithet.
How about committing a few more troops in Afghanistan, and get the f**king Germans, British and French to cycle duties with Canadian and US forces in the south.
My only other idea: Embed Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in a 2 person team in the middle of Tikrit or Baghdad.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 05, 2007 9:34 PM
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Bush may be right?
Dare I say: in 2003/4 Kerry stated that troop commitment would be upped under his command. Only took Dubya 3 stupid years to twig that there would have to be more boots on the ground. Hell, I think I was talking about that in mid/late 2004 after it became pretty clear that there was no way to secure the country, deliver aid, prevent sectarian violence, train and equip a Police force and Military that was loyal to IRAQ first... with 90,000 troops. I'm wondering when the NOLA Levee upgrade idea will sink in... Probably in 2010, but that'll be a little late.
Hey - I NEVER SAID IT WAS BUSH'S IDEA - I'm not even sure if that concept is possible.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:My thoughts:
Putting a Navy guy in charge of two GROUND WARS is a recipe for disaster. [Link]
Putting another ex-Navy guy who proposed outsourcing US Intelligence (to China and India) in charge of the CIA is a BAD F**KING IDEA [Link]
More troops may be a partial solution, but a sane TOD schedule would help a lot more.
1. Most likely yes - but we'll see when we see.
2. Definitely. But hell most of this countries leaders and businessmen are owned my China now anyways - might as well make it official lol.
3. Yep I basically said the same thing - partial fix. But a partial fix is a vast improvement over "stay the course" (Titanic, anyone?).
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:More troops from the US/UK is an idea, but, the UN would probably allow a lot more flexibility, and take away the US vs. Islam epithet.
It would be a step in the right direction for sure, but... lets face it this wouldn't improve their attitude that much - because they'd just use the standard "Islam vs The Western World" (with all non-"Western world" UN soldiers being viewed as "Western Puppets"). But yes - if Iraq should have been invaded - this is how it should have been from the start.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:How about committing a few more troops in Afghanistan, and get the f**king Germans, British and French to cycle duties with Canadian and US forces in the south.
I Agree with all of that.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:My only other idea: Embed Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in a 2 person team in the middle of Tikrit or Baghdad.
Look I'm all for the idea of getting that "lovely" couple into harms way as much as the next guy - but those idiots are gonna get our soldiers killed!! You think that the insurgency has propagana now...
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
If we are to send more troops, Bushs daughters, along with any lawmkers who support this war kids, should be the first ones to go.
I'm tired of everyone else families having to hear their kid was killed, while Washington continues to send more ttroops, mainly not their kids.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
Bastardking3000 wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Bush may be right?
Dare I say: in 2003/4 Kerry stated that troop commitment would be upped under his command. Only took Dubya 3 stupid years to twig that there would have to be more boots on the ground. Hell, I think I was talking about that in mid/late 2004 after it became pretty clear that there was no way to secure the country, deliver aid, prevent sectarian violence, train and equip a Police force and Military that was loyal to IRAQ first... with 90,000 troops. I'm wondering when the NOLA Levee upgrade idea will sink in... Probably in 2010, but that'll be a little late.
Hey - I NEVER SAID IT WAS BUSH'S IDEA - I'm not even sure if that concept is possible.
I know.. I know... It was my idea.
As an aside: when Dubya is talking, Cheney's lips move, check that sh*t out.
Quote:
2. Definitely. But hell most of this countries leaders and businessmen are owned my China now anyways - might as well make it official lol.
I just think it's a poor idea all around... I mean, they f*ck up at least as often as they succeed as it stands. I don't think the answer is out sourcing. Doing the right thing the right way at the right time.
Quote:
It would be a step in the right direction for sure, but... lets face it this wouldn't improve their attitude that much - because they'd just use the standard "Islam vs The Western World" (with all non-"Western world" UN soldiers being viewed as "Western Puppets"). But yes - if Iraq should have been invaded - this is how it should have been from the start.
It'd help because you could get Egyptian and Turkish forces (Assuming you don't have problems with Egyptian Copts and Muslims.. shouldn't be a problem) possibly helping out. Turkey can also help out as part of the NATO agreement. Either way, I'm pretty sure that most non-thought impaired Muslims can see that it's not a matter of making Islam bend to the Great Satan's word, but keep different sects from killing each other and make life better for people that need help.
Quote:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:How about committing a few more troops in Afghanistan, and get the f**king Germans, British and French to cycle duties with Canadian and US forces in the south.
I Agree with all of that.
[Jules Winnfield]You a smart muthaf*cka
Quote:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:My only other idea: Embed Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter in a 2 person team in the middle of Tikrit or Baghdad.
Look I'm all for the idea of getting that "lovely" couple into harms way as much as the next guy - but those idiots are gonna get our soldiers killed!! You think that the insurgency has propagana now...
I just want to see those idiots draw fire, or hide like cowards. Either way, stripping Limbaugh of his Viagra and oxycontin, and Coulter of her veil of moral superiority and her illusions... it can be nothing but good.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
just some thought's... i'm all for an increase if,
they use more of them for training the Iraqi army better and get them some better equipment !
i also see that the extra manpower may well " indeed " be needed, when it's time to finally
get the hell out of there. if history has it's way. pull outs are often seen by the enemy as a great
time to attack.
also ... stop pushing the enemy around from one end of Baghdad to the other, and use a big enough influx to crush them outright .how many troops are you gonna send ? 10,000 ? 30,000 ?
if the plan is to use the surge to try and crush the enemy, you'll need a huge amount of @ss Kickin legs on the ground. i don't think those numbers will cut it .... and that's only ...., IF .. you can weed em out ....
and finally ... i'm all for an increase if, .. by some incredible miracle this will
stop all the hatred between Shia and Sunni's .. so Good Luck there ...
Peace-keeping and long term rebuilding... it's about the best that can be hoped for right now. Think of it as a Turkey/Greece or Balkans-type situation with a lot less infrastructure.
As much as I wanted to believe that it would stay together, I can't say with any real honesty to myself that Iraq is going to be the same country in 10 years as it is now. I can honestly see either Sunni's or Shi'ia either wiping each other out, or more likely agreeing to cede into separate nations based on geography.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Seems diplomatic talks to bring everyone to the table and reach a agreeable medium is apparently out of the ? for bush.While this ultimatley would be a good start for the time being it would not solve the issues currently on going.It's a civil war and more troops even if on every corner will not stop or restrict bombs going off and ied's etc.Talks in addition to our supporting stability to iraq's police military doing there freaking job would over time help and help them walk on there on with out the US holding there hand.More man power is not the answer.
The important point: Less troops is not the answer either.
- Stabilise the border with Lebanon and Iran,
- Equip and train a nationally Loyal police and military (both are happening already, but the problem is it's happening in Jordan)
- Stabilise or separate conflicting religious and ideological factions,
- Promote infrastructure renewal, and use IRAQI contractors, materials and labour when at all possible and feasible.
- Promote economic growth and fiscal competition by allowing the political leaders to decide on oil contracts and whether or not to join OPEC (FCOL the 2nd largest oil fields in the world are there, spread the wealth!)
- Push for a finalised constitution.
This isn't going to happen over night... not at all... BUT it will require more boots on the ground, and more of a concerted effort by the US, Britain, and other concerned members of the UN.
The time wasted dicking around with doing things the wrong way oughtta be over by now.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
We know that the possibilities of at least one soldier out of 21,000 will die in Iraq.
And even if we have high tech weapons to fight a war and win the war we do not use them.
We always wait for the enemy to attack first because we cannot tell who is the enemy and who is not.
The Iraqi people are not cooperating or helping the US to fight this war.
And I think maybe they don’t give a rat’s ass about democracy.
If I was an Iraqi citizen, I would joint their military to help fight the war or do something about it.
Why do we have to send 21,000 more troops?
Why can’t Iraq come up with 21,000 people, train them to fight terrorist?
If 21,000 Iraqis do not care about the war, then why should we?
And if we can not tell who’s the enemy and who is not, lets just drop a huge nuclear bomb and say “Look, we tried to help you Iraqi people, yall don’t give a @!#$ so why should we? And come back home
And we should drop an extra bomb in Iran just in case they want to take over Iraq
but that would be too easy and cruel.
This sounds like a pretty big mess.
it reminds me of the Mexican border.
Mexico doesn't care about Mexicans crossing the border to the U.S because they can't control it.
Iraq doesn't care about terrorist because they can't control it.
Or maybe they do care but they still can't control it or whatever
-God bless America
Robby002 wrote:We know that the possibilities of at least one soldier out of 21,000 will die in Iraq.
Important to note that the soldiers know it too.
Robby002 wrote:And even if we have high tech weapons to fight a war and win the war we do not use them.
O RLY? Seems to me that the high tech weapons are useless when the bad guys are in the same areas, buildings and rooms as other people. They don't wear the "BAD GUY" hats, or even uniforms. This is why it's called irregular combat.
Robby002 wrote:We always wait for the enemy to attack first because we cannot tell who is the enemy and who is not.
Part and parcel of the non-uniformed combatants/irregular combat. Sucks but you're not the one setting the rules in that war.
Robby002 wrote:The Iraqi people are not cooperating or helping the US to fight this war.
And I think maybe they don’t give a rat’s ass about democracy.
O RLY? And you've been in touch with regular Iraqis on a daily basis when? BTW, did you notice that the Iraqi election had a better turn out than the last American general election? 99.8% vs 52% (IIRC)
Robby002 wrote:If I was an Iraqi citizen, I would joint their military to help fight the war or do something about it.
And risk reprisals against your family in the process. Basically, of the troops that are there now, NONE were part of the previous military. Same with the police.
Robby002 wrote:Why do we have to send 21,000 more troops?
Because without the extra troops, the 50,000 or so that are there now would be systematically overwhelmed, and the country would spiral into open civil war.
Robby002 wrote:Why can’t Iraq come up with 21,000 people, train them to fight terrorist?
Because:
1: None of the recruits can be of previous regime military or police
2: None of the recruits can have ideology that leans towards radical sectism.
3: The military and police are being trained in JORDAN by NATO troops, they are given only the most basic training, and if they live long enough, they get more training. do you see how this would be a deterrent to getting into this? Let's completely forget that the people would likely LITERALLY be fighting against neighbours.
Robby002 wrote:If 21,000 Iraqis do not care about the war, then why should we?
There were at LEAST 32,000 police and 60,000 military trained for the Iraqi army in the last 2 years. My count might be off, but that's over 90,000 Iraqis. Seems they're pretty concerned. Let's also completely forget that they are the invaded, and they cannot leave the country, Americans can go home at some point.
Robby002 wrote:And if we can not tell who’s the enemy and who is not, lets just drop a huge nuclear bomb and say “Look, we tried to help you Iraqi people, yall don’t give a @!#$ so why should we? And come back home
And we should drop an extra bomb in Iran just in case they want to take over Iraq
A novel if
utterly preposterous idea. Sure, let's martyr 28 million people, squander a vast energy resource, and while we're at it, utterly villify ALL Americans, and turn all international opinion against the USA. You want to be a villain, here's an idea: videotape yourself dousing a kitten with kerosene and lighting it up, and then post it on the interweb with your name, DOB, SSN, Home address, work address, and phonenumbers as well as your Myspace and Facebook addresses. Stop taking your political ideology cues from ingrates like Ted Nugent.
Robby002 wrote:
but that would be too easy and cruel.
This sounds like a pretty big mess.
it reminds me of the Mexican border.
Mexico doesn't care about Mexicans crossing the border to the U.S because they can't control it.
Iraq doesn't care about terrorist because they can't control it.
Or maybe they do care but they still can't control it or whatever
Seems that Americans care, throw money at an utterly useless border fence, and still can't control it. Iraq has NO border patrol, and few well paved roads that are not guarded... even still, they have wide open deserts, and also have to contend with Bedhouin Nomads. Did you know this?
Robby002 wrote:-God bless America
Whatever.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I made a mistake, there's currently 102,000 troops in Iraq currently. I believe the 50,000 was the number of national guard there, but I don't remember specifically the number of full-time soldiers that are deployed.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM, Bush was listening to what Rummy and the Generals on the groound were telling him. If your "go to" guys are saying they've got enough then whats he to believe? Now play nice.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:GAM, Bush was listening to what Rummy and the Generals on the groound were telling him. If your "go to" guys are saying they've got enough then whats he to believe? Now play nice.
Really... Click on the clip I posted right above you. Scarborough is a Republican anyways - so you are allowed to watch him without guilt.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Jack Bush wasn't listening to ANYONE. The "plan" that they were following wasn't even close to anything the Army, Navy, State Dept. or 4-5 major think tanks (Cato Institute (barf), Hudson Institute among them) or what most in the Senate and Congress had been saying.
I told them to do that. I also control Bush now.
You're going to see him break-dancing pretty soon.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I'm not going premium again so this will be my last post for this thread. GAM you said Kerry wanted to put more troops on the ground back before the last election. Back then Bush said we didn't need more troops cause thats what he was being told by the generals and Rummy. Come on guys don't you remember watching the press conferences with the White house spokesman defending Bush's decision to NOT send in more troops cause the generals and the "experts" all told him we didn't need anymore? I'm not talking about now, rather I was posting in answer to GAM about Kerry wanting more in a couple years ago and now Bush does.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201182.html
The problem was, and is, that the current operating philosophy was broken, and was at the outset. In order to actually secure Iraq, Bush, Rumsfeld and the Joint-Chiefs knew damned well what they needed to do... and just went along doing the wrong thing anyhow. More troops or less troops doesn't fix broken policy. You could have reasonably dumped 500,000 troops of all stripes in Iraq and still had a broken MO for dealing with Iraq. More troops is clearly not the final answer, I was also saying 3 years ago that there was a better plan needed to secure Iraq and rebuild. Hell, SAINT even pointed me to the Navy/Marines joint study of how to effectively depose a belligerent foreign leader and create a new democracy (I utterly abhor the misnomer "Regime Change").
The book stated that in order to keep civil unrest from spreading, Disseminate and rebuild essential Government services (hospitals, military and Police) and secure the borders, they'd need at a bare minimum 185,000 troops and 4 years sustained troop strength. The CENTCOM CIC
Gen. Anthony Zinni(USMC Ret.) and Gen. Tommy Franks (USMC Ret.) each stated that he'd need 240,000 (IIRC), and 2 years to get Saddam out and secure the country. What would they know? Franks got half that number and was also pressured by Rummy and company to decrease troop involvement, and basically got squeezed into standing down the 1st Cavalry Division from deployment, in 2003. To date, there is still Fedayeen Hussein, Al-qaeda, and now Sectarian terrorists (they're not INSURGENTS, they were there before the US ever invaded) chipping away at whatever there was in Iraq left standing.
This should have been avoided.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Jackalope wrote:I'm not going premium again so this will be my last post for this thread. GAM you said Kerry wanted to put more troops on the ground back before the last election. Back then Bush said we didn't need more troops cause thats what he was being told by the generals and Rummy. Come on guys don't you remember watching the press conferences with the White house spokesman defending Bush's decision to NOT send in more troops cause the generals and the "experts" all told him we didn't need anymore? I'm not talking about now, rather I was posting in answer to GAM about Kerry wanting more in a couple years ago and now Bush does.
"Back then Bush said" - enough said. Bush said alot of things that aren't true. But shall we review them all? I don't think we have the time. He said that generals and "Rummy" told him that they didn't need more troops. The part about Rumsfeld I believe... but the generals where not singing that tune. Gee... so the Whitehouse spokesperson was defending Bush by spewing lies and utter BS, but isn't that their job?! C'mon I thought you stopped being a Bush-hugger.
Look at the huge list of highly respected retired(free to speak up) military people to say that this idiot is doing everything wrong and refusing to listen to reason. Ret. General Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid(who is currently in command of Iraq but is soon retiring
because Bush refuses to listen to him) and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff actually warned against the current policy he's trying to implement - and naturally he does so anyways. I am starting to think that- at this point aka too late - sending more troops in is a bad idea. When they needed and screamed for more troops they got none but when they say - "ok don't send any troops, it will only make things worse" - then he decides to send more troops. Go figure.
IIRC I believe I read somewhere that the buildup in Iraq will partially come at a cost of lowered troop count in Afghanistan(remember that place). I could be wrong about that - but if that is so that is just about the worst thing to do at this point. That country needs more soldiers for sure - and it might not be to late to salvage it before it turns into Iraq part 2. It's getting there now - made possible by our cut-and-run(but leave a few troops behind) from there.
I hope you don't honestly still believe Bush was listening to "the experts" or "the Generals" at all. He never listened to anyone except his "yes men" - like Rumsfeld etc. He's always been that way. He hears what he wants to hear - and if you have something to say that he doesn't want to hear - you are dismissed from his presence.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
IDK guys when Kerry and other swere saying more troops were needed the generals on the ground said they didn't need more troops so they weren't sent. Now was that cause Bush told them to say that? Again, IDK. All I do know is that NOW the generals are asking for more troops and Bush wants to send them.
Seriously, what the problem is?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jack:
The problem is that the "Generals" were saying that they needed x amount of troops (which I think was 400,000) to secure the country, or 250,000 to invade, hold and prepare for rebuilding. They got half that. Kerry had actually proposed in his election campaign, a re-evaluation of the Operational Philosophy in Iraq, basically to move it from being a political device to a real military combat operation (something that Bush would know nothing about) and root out the insurgents, and keep sectarian violence down... Part of that was to commit more troops in order to rebuild faster, and train them as military & Police.
Seriously, this was one instance where the incompetents (ie. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) were running the show, and it created a real recipe for disaster. If you get a bit of time, I REALLY REALLY REALLY recommend reading Battle Ready (Zinni & Clancy), American Soldier (Tommy Franks) and Cobra II (I forget the author. It's 3 different perspectives on the whole middle east situation, and in particular, Iraq.
What's basically been happening is that troop commitments had been decreasing steadily until the situation became similar to what Vietnam became: a bad idea that just didn't die. You can dump more troops into the battle, but if you're following a poor plan, what's the point of wasting service people's lives?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
And risk reprisals against your family in the process. Basically, of the troops that are there now, NONE were part of the previous military. Same with the police.
yo! WTF?!?
It doesn't matter, everyone in Iraq is at rick.
The Iraqi citizens need to help the U.S fight the war against terrorist or the US needs to pull out.
Its up to them is what I think.
THEY ARE FIGHTING RIGHT ALONG SIDE US TROOPS!!!
Did I not make that clear enough?
Iraq's old military and police were forbidden from joining the new Military and police. They're stuck there for the long run, they wear balaclava's in 120 degree heat to keep their identities and their families safe from reprisals.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
How about dividing the country in two?
East Side Iraq:
The reprisals who retaliate against the U.S and the Iraqi people
West side Iraq:
The Iraqi people who want to help the U.S rebuild Iraq.
