07/16/2007 06:40:50 PM EST

We need a troops surge

posted by acroso

Up, down or stay the course?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Link 

BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.

Making no predictions, Marine Gen. Peter Pace revealed that he and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force are obliged to consider various troop-level scenarios before September, when Bush will receive an assessment of the Iraq situation from his top commander there, Gen. David Petraeus.

"We're (doing) the kind of thinking that we need to do and be prepared for whatever it's going to look like two months from now," he said in an interview with two reporters traveling overnight with him from Washington aboard an Air Force C-17 cargo jet.

"That way, if we need to plus up or come down" in numbers of troops in Iraq, then the details will have been studied and the military services will be in position to carry out whatever policy Bush chooses, Pace said.

He mentioned no potential range of increases or decreases in force levels. Another possibility being considered, he said, is maintaining the current level of troops for some period beyond September.

< A plug for Plug-in Hybrids by Sherry Boschert | DOWNLOAD free Turks Live In Seattle >
 Display:
We need a troops surge | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
Why are we calling this a surge? (none / 0)
I wish someone would note the amount of US forces being added to this "surge" COMPARED to the amount of forces Britian has pulled out. A surge indicates an increase of forces, but really isn't this a "replacement&qu ot; of forces? Britian has stated they will pull out by the end of 2007. What, are we planning more "US surges" to compensate for their withdraw? To quote Bush in his 2004 campaign "this is just common sense".
We were told "We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to over here." Now, we can't bring home the troops because we are told "they will follow our troops home". Are we sacrificing our troops now to keep our homeland safe? Is that what that means? So much for supporting them!

by Grace on 07/17/2007 06:27:32 AM EST

hmm (none / 0)
We could pay Blackwater to have its own surge along side of our forces.

by acroso on 07/17/2007 06:37:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Holding action (none / 0)

At this point the only goal I think is to keep the war churning away until Bush can scuttle away from further responsibility.  He made the mess, now it's up to the grownups to cleanup after him.  Don't be surprised to find him sniping from the sidelines afterward and blaming his successor for their "failure" to "win" in Iraq.

Their only (distant) hope to actually effect a real change would be to double or triple the number of people there.   We don't have the troops, the money, or the public support for such an increase.  A draft would be the death rattle of the Republican party.  They know it, we know it.  It will never happen.  They're far, far more scared of the political fallout of a draft than they are of the supposed "existential" threat.

by bfaul on 07/17/2007 09:28:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
honestly (none / 0)
I really doubt 500,000 troops would do it. If it would then I might be for that, but I think it would just be digging us deeper into the hornets nest.

by acroso on 07/17/2007 10:37:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I feel sure you're right about that (none / 0)

I don't honestly believe it would either.  My real point is that it's pointless to attempt it in a half-hearted way.  I'm dead set against continuing this war.  The only sensible thing to do in my opinion is to ask the real experts on warfare if the situation is retrievable.  If they say yes, then get an assessment of what it would take to pull it off.  Get the most realistic numbers possible.  Then your choices become clear.  If it's shown the situation is  irreversible, you know what to do.  If the numbers of troops necessary are beyond what is available, and there is no public support for a draft, you know what to do.  If the cost is astronomical and the public doesn't want to pay for it, you know what to do.

by bfaul on 07/17/2007 12:22:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Military solution != permanent (none / 0)
There is no chance that a military solution to Iraq would be permanent.  You might be able to pacify the WHOLE COUNTRY with 500K more troops, but it would never last.  As soon as we left they would start right back up again.  Some kind of radical change in strategy is needed for Iraq to turn into anything resembling a salvageable situation.

by jarett on 07/17/2007 01:57:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
displacement (none / 0)

Cenk wrote a article on displacement. They seem to be enacting the Biden plan all by themsleves although with the heavy handedness of the Mahdi army pushing it.

 Whatever the final solution is it will be each group split off on their own. Sunnis allied with the Saudies and the Shites allied with the Iran. The Kurds off on their own fighting the Jordanians. Sounds like a plan for absolute chaos.

by acroso on 07/17/2007 05:21:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
pusing the back of the envelope (none / 0)

I was looking at this and it made me wonder about how many grunts we have for an occupation.

The Army has 10 active duty divisions, so that is between 100,000 and 200,000, and there are 189,000 reservists.  Lets count all the reservists as potentially "boots on the ground."  Let's use the higher numbers.  That's 389,000 front-line soldiers.

The Marines have 3 active duty and 1 reserve division. so between 40,000 and 80,000.

Use higher numbers and it adds up to 469,000 soldiers.

(The size of the US Military altogether is about 2,500,000, but that includes Navy, Air Force, and National Guard, and all the people in the Army and Marines who work in the Pentagon, or whatever, but aren't part of a division.)

We don't actually have 500,000 troops, as far as I can see. 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/18/2007 06:04:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
National Guard (none / 0)
We're already sending National Guard people to Iraq. What does their inclusion bring the total to?

by acroso on 07/18/2007 07:25:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Missed it by *that* much (none / 0)

I was about to write that I had included them, but fortunately I went back and checked, and i didn't.  There are 333,000 in the Army National guard.  Oops.

That brings the total, using the method I was using, to about 780,000, which is a pretty big difference.  But I was purposely estimateing high (20,000 in a division, all reservists counted) to show that even if you did that you wouldn't make it to 500,000

I think the real number is about half that, but I don't know, and don't know how to find out

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/18/2007 10:49:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe next time (none / 0)
when we are punched in the nose, we will have an intelligent president who is willing to take out the people who did it instead of focusing on his own political agenda. The current president continues to insist that we invaded Iraq to fight al Qaeda even though Bin ladden and Saddam were enemies. Ken, you do know why UBL was told to leave Saudi Arabia don't you?

The facts are that al Qaeda has been able to re-group in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan thanks to Bush and his dysfunctional crew. There are still less than 2000 al Qaeda members in Iraq which is not enough to claim any type of base in that country and al Qaeda has gained a new lot of recruits thanks once again to Bush. Also, if we were to leave tomorrow, the Shiite militias would take care of the al Qaeda problem for us in Iraq.

Ken, lets have some facts this time instead of the propaganda you here on Rush's radio show.

by z1p101 on 07/18/2007 11:27:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oops (none / 0)

hear on Rush's radio show.

Just answer the questions and I do not require a yes or no answer like your "special" friend.

You could just give the al Qaeda in Iraq but not in Afganistan quesion up any time you please. 

by z1p101 on 07/19/2007 12:40:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
WND (none / 0)

Like clockwork, another haard to believe story out of WMD comes out.

Last week they featured Al Qaeda baking children in Iraq. This week the terrorists are crucifying Christians.

 

Report: Christians crucified by terrorists in Iraq
Believers in Jesus said to be nailed to crosses, tied with ropes, set ablaze

 

Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists, according to a Dutch member of Parliament studying the war-torn country.

Several Iraqi Christians "are nailed to a cross and their arms are tied up with ropes. The ropes are put on fire," Joel Voordewind told BosNewsLife, an online news agency focusing on Christians and Jews in difficult circumstances.

According to the site, Voordewind described how a person, who "survived" a crucifixion, "even showed holes in his hands," apparently from nails.

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.co m/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=56726 

by acroso on 07/17/2007 09:30:39 PM EST

We need a troops surge | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: