More troops in Iraq

[MAS]

From what I understand, President Bush is going to propose sending more troops to Iraq after the new year begins. Anyone who understands the military and the Middle East cannot doubt the wisdom of this initiative nor the President himself. Unlike Vietnam or Korea, this time we're going to fight to win and reject the namby pambies like Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton and all the other little Neville Chamberlains. If we can get another 30,000 troops over to Iraq, victory will be in sight. Let's get behind this effort.

 

[ACamp1900]

I will stay out of internet political threads for the most part but regardless we Must finish the job... especially if the whole problem, according to those anti Bushites, is Just War Theory... and man power is the most obvious way to clean up and get out rightfully (or Justified if you will)

 

[marv81s]

how about the iraqi's showing us that they want to have their own country.

They have better start standing up for themselves, or it doesn't matter how many troops we send in around Baghdad, most of the country is secure, its just that area that is out of control.

I support the war, and all the troops there, without question. I am just fed up with the Iraqi people showing no sense of wanting to govern themselves and have their own country.

 

[TheIrishHammer]

I will stay out of internet political threads for the most part but regardless we Must finish the job... especially if the whole problem, according to those anti Bushites, is Just War Theory... and man power is the most obvious way to clean up and get out rightfully (or Justified if you will)

The end game, as it were, was doomed to failure from the beginning. People refect back in "horror" at the firebombing of Dresden or the A--bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki, but the fact of the matter is that if you want to totally control an area you've decided to occupy it's best to completely break the population before doing so.

This didn't happen. God forbid there's collateral damage.

 

[Zephyr]

I think after 3 years or so the Iraqi's would ball up and take control of their country and future of Iraq??? I am totaly 100% behind our troops and completing the mission...

 

[sonomairishfan]

how about the iraqi's showing us that they want to have their own country.

They have better start standing up for themselves, or it doesn't matter how many troops we send in around Baghdad, most of the country is secure, its just that area that is out of control.

I support the war, and all the troops there, without question. I am just fed up with the Iraqi people showing no sense of wanting to govern themselves and have their own country.

you must recall that our forces totally disarmed the iraqi police and military shortly after the invasion. with all of the bungling that happened in DC it has become almost impossible to arm the so called iraqi army/police. in the two years that it has taken us to arm and supposedly train the iraqi army, the extremists have been flooding arms in across the unprotected boarders. so it is hard to place all of the blame on the iraqis. we were in charge of protecting their borders and training them. we did not do that job. it is very hard to defend yourself when you have no weapons. the only people with weapons are the warlords/extremists, the US soldiers and a fraction of the Iraqi police/army. and remember it took about a year and a half for our own soldiers to get the proper tools to function there. i.e. armor for battle, armor for humvees and many other basic needs.

also it is very hard for a country to govern themselves when a government is put in place by an outside nation. the elections that happened were very minimal in turnout. i totally agree that we must find some sort of a solution to this problem. i just don't think that the current administration has a plan. they've been at it for quite some time now with no results. it's time for them to allow the military decide the plan. the politicians know nothing about occupation/war as proven previously in Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq.

get somebody with competence to plan a strategy for the sake of the fine US men and women there serving our country. "staying the course" has gotten us nothing.

 

[ACamp1900]

The end game, as it were, was doomed to failure from the beginning. People refect back in "horror" at the firebombing of Dresden or the A--bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki, but the fact of the matter is that if you want to totally control an area you've decided to occupy it's best to completely break the population before doing so.

This didn't happen. God forbid there's collateral damage.

again from the detractors standpoint, the problem is based upon Just war theory... all I'm saying... collateral damage is indeed a factor in their minds... anyway... I agree, but many don't, and with that I am done with this here thread... not much for politics in CFB mess boards

 

[MAS]

The end game, as it were, was doomed to failure from the beginning. People refect back in "horror" at the firebombing of Dresden or the A--bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki, but the fact of the matter is that if you want to totally control an area you've decided to occupy it's best to completely break the population before doing so.

This didn't happen. God forbid there's collateral damage

Agreed. Reticence in exacting damage upon innocents can have terrible consequences. Had we not firebombed Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we'd all be eating with chopsticks now. We need leaders with the courage to disregard collateral damage and proceed towards victory. Collateral damage is unavoidable and regrettable (moreso when it involves Americans), but is as necessary as this war in protecting our freedoms and the American way of life elsewhere.

 

[guff]

The end game, as it were, was doomed to failure from the beginning. People refect back in "horror" at the firebombing of Dresden or the A--bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki, but the fact of the matter is that if you want to totally control an area you've decided to occupy it's best to completely break the population before doing so.

This didn't happen. God forbid there's collateral damage.

Wow! a thoughtful comment without a smart aleck remark.

I now believe in Christmas miracles.

That said, you're right. I'm not sure Americans have the stomach for war and the necessary destruction that comes with it. So we fight politically correct wars. Where's William T. Sherman when you need him?

 

[MAS]

Wow! a thoughtful comment without a smart aleck remark.

I now believe in Christmas miracles.

That said, you're right. I'm not sure Americans have the stomach for war and the necessary destruction that comes with it. So we fight politically correct wars. Where's William T. Sherman when you need him?

Exactly. I'm glad we still have people like you around. Just reading your comments I know you're the type of strong individual who would sacrifice your own young ones for a larger cause (thy're cute as buttons, BTW). If that's what was called for, I know you would perform such a sacrifice of your children for democracy and freedom. Furthermore, you would undoubtedly put yourself in battle.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

The guys at The Weekly Standard are under the impression that Baghdad needs 50,000 more combat troops for it to be secured. I guess the problem is that though "sweep operations" are pretty successful, since there aren't enough troops, in order to move into and secure other sections, they have to completely leave the territories they just secured... and when they do that, the insurgents return.

I support sending 50,000 troops if that's what's needed. But I don't support sending a compromise force of 30,000 if that's 20,000 too few to get the job done. If they are willing to go with the 50,000, then I think it's at least worth trying before we essentially give up and leave.

Even if it does work, though, guys are still going to be killed...and that means we won't have much time to see real results.. but hopefully, we could leave to the security forces (who suck) a more stable Baghdad to work with..

Also, from what I understand, the Green Zone is heavily fortified, practically impenetrable, under high surveillance, and most importantly, SAFE. I think that with more troops, they should try and systematically expand the Green Zone, with all the surveillance and security that it is already accustomed to. For a lack of better terminology, that would esentially make Baghdad one big "concentration camp".... now, I'm not trying to make allusions to WWII...concentrating the civilian population of an insurgency is a pretty old method, one that we ourselves tried in the Phillipines, and had some success with.

I wouldn't mind completely kicking the residents of Anbar province into Syria, either. But, we're not going to do that because we want to fight sheer brutality with the Kappa Alpha Order's sense of propriety.......unfortunately, that won't work.

But one thing we all can agree with is that Marv's avatar absolutely kicks ass.

 

[TheIrishHammer]

The guys at The Weekly Standard are under the impression that Baghdad needs 50,000 more combat troops for it to be secured. I guess the problem is that though "sweep operations" are pretty successful, since there aren't enough troops, in order to move into and secure other sections, they have to completely leave the territories they just secured... and when they do that, the insurgents return.

I support sending 50,000 troops if that's what needed. But I don't support sending a compromise force of 30,000 if that's 20,000 too few to get the job done. I think it's at least worth trying before we essentially give up and leave.

Even if it does work, though, guys are still going to be killed...and that's means we won't have much time to see real results.. but hopefully, we could leave to the security forces (who suck) a more stable Baghdad to work with..

Also, from what I understand, the Green Zone is heavily fortified, practically impenetrable, under high surveillance, and most importantly, SAFE. I think that with more troops, they should try and systematically expand the Green Zone, with all the surveillance and security that it is already accustomed to. For lack of better terminology, that would esentially make Baghdad one big "concentration camp".... now, I'm not trying to make allusions to WWII...concentrating the civilian population of an insurgency is a pretty old method, one that we ourselves tried in the Phillipines, and had some success with.

I wouldn't mind completely kicking the residents of Anbar province into Syria, either. But, we're not going to do that because we want to fight sheer brutality with the Kappa Alpha Order's sense of propriety.......unfortunately, that won't work.

But one thing we all can agree with is that Marv's avatar absolutely kicks ass.

You sound like you're 20....am I right?

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

You sound like you're 20....am I right?

Thanks

 

[m-araim]

I think after 3 years or so the Iraqi's would ball up and take control of their country and future of Iraq??? I am totaly 100% behind our troops and completing the mission...

If you are 100% behind the troops, then ask them what ought to be done and do not assume that they want to stay. The so called 'finish the job' the mission is not in controll if the troops. I mean "we leave when Iraqis can defend them selfs! the mission goal depends on the iraqis not the troops. I support the troops 110%, thats why I whant to change the political leadership that was inept the last six years.

 

[ShivaIrish]

Agreed. Reticence in exacting damage upon innocents can have terrible consequences. Had we not firebombed Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we'd all be eating with chopsticks now. We need leaders with the courage to disregard collateral damage and proceed towards victory. Collateral damage is unavoidable and regrettable (moreso when it involves Americans), but is as necessary as this war in protecting our freedoms and the American way of life elsewhere.

As I've said before, I'm a pacifist (not trying to pick a fight--just stating where I'm coming from). But even non-pacifists have to follow just-war theory (as ACamp pointed out). To me it is disgusting we can even think about disregarding human life, and toss it aside for the "greater good." Furthermore, doing something like that would still end up perpetuating the violence, and increase ill-will toward America. (I also disagree from an historical perspective, that we'd be eating with chopsticks if not for the atom bombs.)

I also worry about the mentatality of protecting "the American way of life elsewhere"--is that the only way of life?--should it not just be protected in America, letting other areas live like they want (as long as it's not against basic human rights)?

 

[ACamp1900]

If you are 100% behind the troops, then ask them what ought to be done and do not assume that they want to stay. The so called 'finish the job' the mission is not in controll if the troops. I mean "we leave when Iraqis can defend them selfs! the mission goal depends on the iraqis not the troops. I support the troops 110%, thats why I whant to change the political leadership that was inept the last six years.

 

[m-araim]

As I've said before, I'm a pacifist (not trying to pick a fight--just stating where I'm coming from). But even non-pacifists have to follow just-war theory (as ACamp pointed out). To me it is disgusting we can even think about disregarding human life, and toss it aside for the "greater good." Furthermore, doing something like that would still end up perpetuating the violence, and increase ill-will toward America. (I also disagree from an historical perspective, that we'd be eating with chopsticks if not for the atom bombs.)

I also worry about the mentatality of protecting "the American way of life elsewhere"--is that the only way of life?--should it not just be protected in America, letting other areas live like they want (as long as it's not against basic human rights)?

I totally agree. By going there and trying to occupy a country against the will of its will eventully make you into a war criminal, the case of abu graib and the killing of the civilian family in Haditha and then fabricating the insident as combat casualty when it was pure cold blooded execution

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

From what I understand, President Bush is going to propose sending more troops to Iraq after the new year begins. Anyone who understands the military and the Middle East cannot doubt the wisdom of this initiative nor the President himself. Unlike Vietnam or Korea, this time we're going to fight to win and reject the namby pambies like Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton and all the other little Neville Chamberlains. If we can get another 30,000 troops over to Iraq, victory will be in sight. Let's get behind this effort.

Namby pambies like Jim Baker?

Are you nuts?

Baker and Scrowcroft orchastrated our last little jaunt over there...ummmm hello.

Sending more troops now is a waste of time and lives. It shoulda have been done 3 years ago...the damage is done. Give the Iraqis one year, then get the fuck out.

Had we done it right from the beginning we would be preparing to leave already. It's time to give the Iraqis notice...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

If you are 100% behind the troops, then ask them what ought to be done and do not assume that they want to stay. The so called 'finish the job' the mission is not in controll if the troops. I mean "we leave when Iraqis can defend them selfs! the mission goal depends on the iraqis not the troops. I support the troops 110%, thats why I whant to change the political leadership that was inept the last six years.

Yup...you hit the nail on the head.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Also, from what I understand, the Green Zone is heavily fortified, practically impenetrable, under high surveillance, and most importantly, SAFE.

It's not...people die there all the time... My ex-boss worked there (he was an 0-4) and he talked about all kinds of people who died there constantly.

The key when recording attacks...as his C.O. explained to him...was to NOT record mortar attacks. There were hundreds daily, but if they did not count them, the # of attacks went down on paper.

Which still left many soldiers very very dead...but things looked fine aside from that little detail.

 

[marv81s]

I think you'll find that a very large majority of the troops over there want to stay till the job is done. You know what your getting yourself in to when you sign up, and the re-enlistment rate is at an all time high. Believe me, you don't sign the contract expecting a 4 to 6 year vacation to club med.

The US has an all voluntary military, nobody got drafted and sent over there. I will admit that we have some national guard troops over there and some of them are in over there heads, but I remember a certain president that drastically reduced our military because as he put it, "there was no feasilble threat to the US national security". Now we are more dependent on our reservist and national guard troops than we should be. Those troops may bitch about being over there, but I think you'll find a large majority, say 90% or a little more want to be there till the mission is a success.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think you'll find that a very large majority of the troops over there want to stay till the job is done.

This war will never end until we leave. We need to stay until the Iraqi government is armed enough to at least put up a fight in the ongoing civil war over there.

But so long as we stay, there NEVER will be peace. We are the motivator behind all the crazy bastards recruiting suicide bombers, etc. Once we leave the civil war will rage another couple of months and then be done.

 

[marv81s]

I would say Iran is more of a motivator than the US is. They are fueling the insurgency and working OT to fuel a civil war. Our US troops are barely the targets anymore.

Once we pull out, you can count on Iran taking that Iraqi gov't down. I always will believe that going there was the right thing to do, and I wish when I was in they would have told us to keep going north, but different mission at the time. But this war was planned by too many politicians and not enough generals. I wish all the people, dems and repubicans, would just let the generals fight this war with their strategy and not theirs, or the press's.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I would say Iran is more of a motivator than the US is. They are fueling the insurgency and working OT to fuel a civil war. Our US troops are barely the targets anymore.

What are you talking about? The insurgency is Sunni. The Iranians are Shiite. They have NOTHING to do with the insurgency. They have A LOT to do with arming Shiite militias against Sunni insurgents.

Once we pull out, you can count on Iran taking that Iraqi gov't down. I always will believe that going there was the right thing to do, and I wish when I was in they would have told us to keep going north, but different mission at the time. But this war was planned by too many politicians and not enough generals. I wish all the people, dems and repubicans, would just let the generals fight this war with their strategy and not theirs, or the press's.

I agree...but it's long since time for that to be feasible. But it was lost for many of the reasons that you listed above. Generals were directed by politicians way too much. Iraqi experts were ignored...etc.

 

[marv81s]

I made a mental error on that when I typed it, my bad. I was referring more to the "civil war" and should not have typed in the insurgency. My mistake.

What are you talking about? The insurgency is Sunni. The Iranians are Shiite. They have NOTHING to do with the insurgency. They have A LOT to do with arming Shiite militias against Sunni insurgents.



I agree...but it's long since time for that to be feasible. But it was lost for many of the reasons that you listed above. Generals were directed by politicians way too much. Iraqi experts were ignored...etc.

You would think that we would have learned to let the military handle strategy planning for military operations from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam. Obviously not. Politicians might cost us this war too.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I made a mental error on that when I typed it, my bad. I was referring more to the "civil war" and should not have typed in the insurgency. My mistake.

No worries.

You would think that we would have learned to let the military handle strategy planning for military operations from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam. Obviously not. Politicians might cost us this war too.

Agreed...they say they won't be too involved...then they do. They can't help themselves.