Bush wants 20,000-40,000 more troops
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
Bush this upcoming week is expected according to both the AP and BBC to announce his new stradegy for Iraq which will be most likely 20-40 thousand more troops.
Yet the military can only guarantee 9,000.
Anyone think Bush will be able to pull it off?
Simple math idea here people. For those who continue to support Bush and this failed policy, how is he to pull this off?
Again, the military is now saying it can only give him 9,000 more. This will have major consequences
Yet the military can only guarantee 9,000.
Anyone think Bush will be able to pull it off?
Simple math idea here people. For those who continue to support Bush and this failed policy, how is he to pull this off?
Again, the military is now saying it can only give him 9,000 more. This will have major consequences
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
well, i guess our entire national guard will be in iraq...this pisses me off...we're there, so we can't go back in time and change that. the problem in iraq is the U.S. presence there. GET OUT! get out soldiers out of harm's way.
how does he pull it off? they offer even bigger re-up bonuses for those out or about to be out...and they send back troops that have already been there 2 and 3 times.
from my window to yours
It won't happen.
-Enoch Powell
How do you figure?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
In order to gain security, there needs to be overwhelming force to stop the violence. This has always been the case and this administration should have known this from the beginning. Their continued neglect for fundamental security has allowed this sectarian violence to grow to this point. This is an effort... possibly a last ditch effort to try to fix the problem that they failed to work on due to their arrogance or ignorance.
More troops are a requirement... and has always been a requirement. This may be a case of too little, too late. Trying to disarm the Shi'ite militias of Muqtada al Sadr, as well as weeding out the sectarian elements in the current Iraqi Security Forces is a difficult and complex task. The Shi'ite majority leadership that was Democratically elected does not appear to want a shared, secular society. They seem more bent on vengance, than co-operation. These situations have been compounded by our denial that there even was a problem and the neglectful tack we have taken so far. This elevated number of troops should have been deployed there in 2003... and in 2007 may be too late to implement. We are responsible for all of the results we are seeing today because we failed to consider the possibility of something othere than some sort of magical outcome from our actions. Nothing else seems like it was considered a viable outcome other than the best case scenaio. Which leads me to ask, "Where were the 'Middle East experts' in the planning and implementation phases of this operation"?
...
The escalation of U.S. troops need to be clearly defined. Doing more of what we are currently doinfg will yield no positive results. The first thing I would focus on is fixing the problems we've created by allowing just anyone to join the Iraqi Security Forces. The Bush/Rumsfeld solution of concentration on sheer numbers, rather than quality recruits have lead us to train soldiers who basically act as sectarian militias with their own agendas at hand, rather than the goals WE wished to see. Quantity rarely overcomes quality and in the case of the military... it never works.
So... increasing the number of our troops will do little or nothing unless they are tasked to clean up the mess we have created with their military and police forces. Our guys are in a shitty situation and we have tasked them to solve a very tough and extremely complicated problem.
I know Bush and his supporters want 'No timetable' assigned to our military, but I beleive that we NEED to set certain goals with deadlines and measurable results clearly defined. If those tasks cannot be completed, we need to come to the realization that this is a failed policy and at some pont... we will need to cut our losses and concede that this is a lost cause.
I hope this succeeds... but from what understand about military strategies and Middle Eastern culture... we will need closer to 300,000 to 400,000 troops to completely secure the place. I know the resulting escalation will result in higher death tolls, but if the increase is short termed, then there is a possibility that the Bush dream of Iraq being more like England, than Iran may come true. But, being the realist that I am... I fear that the increased deaths will only result in more loss of life for a dream... not a real world reality.
Hail, Hail!!!
Have his daughters enlist, among other Congress people's sons and daughters, and then they may be able to pull it off.
..he will draw it out until his presidency ends. Then he will walk away and leave the mess to the next president. He doesn't want a timetable for an exit strategy... he would need to admit defeat. But what would be victory? There is no victory for the US in this mess.
I read an interesting article about this: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574148,00.html
Yeah that sounds about right. If the democrats get in at the next election you can already picture Bush rewriting history and his whole administration in 5 years time talking about how stable and secure Iraq was at the time they left office.
Bush has never defined 'victory'... Bush's War supporters cannot deifne it either. Neither has any idea what 'victory' means. About the closest definition I have heard is, 'A Stable Democracy in the Middle East'... what does hat mean? Is there a stable Democracy there already... Egypt... Lebannon... Syria? If not, what is it supposed to look like?
'The Job' is also unclear... what exactly is the Job that is supposed to be 'Got Done'?
That's why this thing is so fucked up... the main objective is vague, at best, so there are not clearly defined tasks that our military can execute. Right now, the guys over there are trying to referree a battle between religious sects.
The question in he beginning should have been asked... 'Can a Democracy emerge from a culture that wants a Theocracy'?
Hail, Hail!!!
mission accomplished! um...not quite yet. much more liberating left to do.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
:(
the cultural divide is magnified by our presence...
That is my take on the thing... you can change the regime, but you cannot change the culture. Think of it this way... say a monarchy takes over and replaces the U.S. Government. How many Americans would accept this change and bow down to the new King and give up the rights that they have been granted all those previous years? NONE except the really, really stupid ones.
...
as for iraq... as you have stated... those fuckers have been at it for centuries. Us going over there and expecting them to change is ludicrous.
But, security CAN be achieved if you do the following.
START ALL OVER AGAIN.
Take away all of the guns from the Iraqis and disband their Forces.
Then, re-hire the ones that are not part of a militia... which will require a long and difficult screening process.
In the meantime... SECURITY will still be an issue. 400,000 quality solders can do the trick. Secure the border, protect the assets (oil fields and pipelines), protect the rebuilding sites.
This should be complete in about 20 years, if we fast track it.
...
I'm guessing Bush never wanted a realistic time table because in reality... a 'victory' in Iraq is about 20 to 30 years from now.
Hail, Hail!!!
That may do the trick, but now that these militia have been armed, by us, it's going to be mighty hard to get those weapons back. Take the Badr Brigade, which is affiliated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq has many of it's memebers fully integrated into the Iraqi police force. The SCIRI which is lead by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim also has strong ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. So you know that they have no interest working with the Sunnis but rather enacting as much payback as humanly possible. Even with starting over how can you possibly root out and nullify centuries of mutual hate. Rectifying our mistakes is going to be a huge uphill struggle, one that will be made even more difficult by the Iraqi government's unwillingness to put aside differences for their country's greater good.
I hear you.
I think it is pretty idiotic... our guys kick down doors and confiscate weapons only to hand them out to the same guys after we've 'trainned' them. That was Bush's/Rumsfeld's plan. Train as many of them as quickly as possible because of the huge mistake they made in the first place by dis-mantleing the Iraq Army. One mistake was made worse by a second mistake to fix the first one.
And I laughed when I would hear Rumsfeld and Bush bragging about 320,000 trainned Iraqi troops... when not ONE of our guy were able to come home for good. I couldn't believe they thought we were so stupid to believe that shit.
Hail, Hail!!!
You know what, it's unfortunate but a lot of people where stupid enough to believe it.
Please... don't remind me... I was starting to feel good about us Americans, again.
Hail, Hail!!!
dude, visit the "somalia breaking news" thread.