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.
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.
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.
12-22-2006 06:02 PM
