Support for more troops - yes or no? |
| Posted by: h@ts | | More troop - yes or no or stay the same?
Anyone into the idea of more troops and one final push to do - whatever the plan might be now or coming soon?
Polls show there is no support in Iraq for American troops, and that includes the Kurdish areas of Iraq. A majority of Iraqis want us out. A majority support attacks on US troops. So how will more troops help other than more targets to shoot at and blow up?
What's to achieve with this troop number increase, and lets not get into the fantasy that we can achieve a Western style, democratic, US and Israeli friendly state at the end of it?
| quote: |
White House: more U.S. troops in Iraq under consideration, no rift with Joint Chiefs
WASHINGTON -- The White House said Tuesday that increasing U.S. troops in Iraq is an option under consideration and denied that there are differences with the Joint Chiefs of Staff over that idea.
White House press secretary Tony Snow emphasized that no decisions have been made about changing U.S. policy in Iraq.
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO37440/ |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | Seems like Bush wants to send more troops to Iraq (unless he's saying this because he knows the Dems will block it?)
So regardless of what Iraqis want or what Americans want should Bush get his way?
| quote: |
President Wants to Increase Size of Armed Forces
By THOM SHANKER and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: December 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — President Bush said Tuesday that the United States should expand the size of its armed forces, acknowledging that the military had been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/w...=rssnyt&emc=rss |
I see Bush is still using the Islamic extremism message - like it means anything that anyone can understand in regard to Iraq. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Support the troops: always.
Supporting more troops going over there: I don't know.
Will more troops save lives? Will more troops just make a longer casualty?
It seems to me that while Bush hasn't said whether he will send more troops or not, the overlying idea is that more troops will help achieve this lofty, makeshift goal in Iraq.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | | I don't know that sending more troops over there is the answer. When are we going to start bringing our troops home, and allowing those people to figure it out, and we stop trying to dictate another country? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | What some of the dolts are yapping about is saying to achieve some semblance of victory over there now we need to bolster the Iraqi security force and secure certain areas which will somehow magically make all the factions stop bombing each other. We can only do that with more troops. It's a sorted state of affairs.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | America has less to fear from the disaster it's unleashed in Iraq than many of its neighbours. Whatever happens in the Gulf, the US is still armed to the teeth with more military hardware than most of the rest of the world put together, so what does it really have to fear, compared to some of the Gulf states?
The idea of leaving Iraq and the region to its own fate seems like an absolutely appalling idea, but staying in Iraq and sending in more troops just seems insane.
| quote: |
Eric S. Margolis, December 4th 2006
But if and when Washington announces `phased withdrawals’ of US forces from Iraq, the already shaky morale of American troops there will plummet. Who wants to risk life or limb for a phased withdrawal?
This is exactly what I saw happen to US forces in Vietnam after President Lyndon Johnson announced military victory was no longer his goal. No GI wanted to be the last soldier killed in a lost war started by bungling politicians. I organized a protest in officers’ school over Johnson’s `no-win’ policy that ended up getting 200 of us sent to `death units.’ (see my column on Gen. Ware in my `Archives’ for more on this interesting story).
Once Washington utters the dreaded `w’ word - withdrawal’ - Iraqis working for the US occupation will decamp to the Sunni or Shia opposition. Iran’s influence in Iraq will soar. America’s Arab allies – nastily described as `fat women’ by a jihadist web site – will panic.
Actually, they are panicking already, and with good reason. America’s defeat in Iraq by a bunch of rag-tag Sunni guerillas is going to electrify the Muslim World and jeopardize the continued rule of all the US-backed despots, generals and feudal monarchs who so badly misgovern the Mideast. Wherever he is, Osama bin Laden must be smiling broadly. His master plan is working right on schedule.
But President Bush keeps insisting `no retreat.’ He still seems unable to see the writing on the wall in Babylon.
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archive...ite_house_1.php |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #6 :
What some of the dolts are yapping about is saying to achieve some semblance of victory over there now we need to bolster the Iraqi security force
-HECK! |
Victory in Iraq could come down to simply finding a way to leave the country without setting the whole Middle East on fire. I don't see that the US has much choice but to start unconditional negotiations with Iran. I very much doubt Bush will EVER do that, so get rid of Bush. What use is he anymore anyway? (saying that, what use was he EVER?).
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | I have a question where exaclty are the extra troops coming from? are we talking about the US sending soldiers it already has back to Iraq or are we talking about a recruitment drive? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | There are large numbers of troops stationed throughout the world. I'm sure they would come into play. So would the reserves and National Guard.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #10 :
I have a question where exaclty are the extra troops coming from? are we talking about the US sending soldiers it already has back to Iraq or are we talking about a recruitment drive? |
If this war is as important as Bush claims then maybe he should bring back the draft and reverse the tax cuts that so generously benefited the very rich the most.
A lot of commentators have made the point that although a lot of people supported the Iraq war, only a few have felt ANY personal effect from it or sacrificed ANYTHING.
What is military recruitment like at the moment? Does the US have the troop numbers (that's front line troops) to substantially increase them and are the American people willing to pay for it, especially as it is more than likely just going to mean very little chance of any success?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Lawless | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #12 :
What is military recruitment like at the moment? Does the US have the troop numbers (that's front line troops) to substantially increase them and are the American people willing to pay for it , especially as it is more than likely just going to mean very little chance of any success? |
THIS American, right here, is NOT willing to pay for it. I don't think that we should be sending in more troops. Let some other country push their people to go, because it's really time that America takes care of her own people.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | We really don't have a choice. Unforunately we can't allocate our tax dollars one way or the other. If that was the case schools would look like Trump tower and the congressman and senators would be making minimum wage.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | | The amount of troops Bush is speaking of sending will accomplish little. Unless he’s willing to send in a significant force the only thing we’ll see is much of the same.
If we send in enough troops we still wouldn’t be able to squash the violence unless we put Iraq under a police state. Iraqis would then view us more negatively (if that’s possible) for them having to live under US siege.
Sending in more troops is not the answer. Training Iraqis to take over Iraq will take decades if at all. The only solution is political but when you have a leader who doesn’t want dialog with key players, I’m afraid we’re in for more rough roads ahead. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
oneofpeace said this in post #15 :
Sending in more troops is not the answer. Training Iraqis to take over Iraq will take decades if at all. The only solution is political but when you have a leader who doesn’t want dialog with key players, I’m afraid we’re in for more rough roads ahead. |
Totally agree with you. Sending in more troops is never going to be anything more than papering over the cracks. A political solution has to be found, and as soon as possible before neignbouring countries feel they have no choice but to support either the Sunni or Shia factions. If this happens then the worst case scenario is the conflict spirals outside Iraq.
I've yet to hear anything from Bush or Rice that inspires optimism. They're still stuck in the "war on terror" rhetoric BS syndrome that was really tiresome three years ago.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #16 :
Totally agree with you. Sending in more troops is never going to be anything more than papering over the cracks.
|
It seems to me that if more troops would solve the problem they should have already been added. The presumption that the problem has been allowed to build to a breaking point for lack of troops seems like a major blunder. Bush always said that he left it to the generals as to whether or not they needed more troops. Were all the generals wrong about what they needed?
Letting things get this far out of hand, and then sending in more troops in a big, public grandstand decision seems more like symbolism than substance. I think it sets itself up for failure.
When you think about it, this announcement that we don't have enough troops in Iraq is an admission to the enemy that they are winning; which is almost like adding more combatants to their side.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #17 :It seems to me that if more troops would solve the problem they should have already been added. The presumption that the problem has been allowed to build to a breaking point for lack of troops seems like a major blunder. Bush always said that he left it to the generals as to whether or not they needed more troops. Were all the generals wrong about what they needed?
|
The generals wanted something like twice the number of troops that Bush intended to send in, up to 400,000. Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz, and no doubt Cheney made sure a smaller leaner force was used and one they presumed would be welcomed with flowers and cheering crowds - hence the low number. When things started to go wrong, to send in more troops would have been admitting to this error, so Iraq was allowed to descend into the chaos we see today. Eventually, 3 years too late, Rumsfeld was sacked.
| quote: |
| Letting things get this far out of hand, and then sending in more troops in a big, public grandstand decision seems more like symbolism than substance. I think it sets itself up for failure. |
You could be right, and the same was tried in Vietnam and all it did was continue the war for years more than necessary, but the options are limited. Bush has stated he will not talk to Iraq's neighbours.
| quote: |
| When you think about it, this announcement that we don't have enough troops in Iraq is an admission to the enemy that they are winning; which is almost like adding more combatants to their side. |
The Shia pretty much control the South, the insurgents control many towns in the West, and the terrorists carry out bombings every day. Whoever is winning, it's clear that the US have lost.
| | Reply To this Message
|
Iraq Forum: Support for more troops - yes or no?
|
