Why do you think they're asking for more troops?

[kentuck]

Do you think they believe they can "win" the war with 20-30,000 more troops? I doubt that is their reasoning. In my opinion, they believe "something" is going to cause an upsurge in violence. They will need more troops just to keep it under some semblance of control - not to win.

What is that "something" that might create an upsurge in violence? Seems I recall there is an execution planned for some time in the future for a former dictator? Until that happens, don't mention anything to Mr Bush about "withdrawing" any troops. That is his model for victory - when Saddam is executed.

Normally, we would not be so cynical about such an important decision as sending more troops into a lost cause. However, this is not about America. It is not about victory. It is not about how many more American troops must die. It's about a power game that Mr Bush has invented in his own sick mind.

[flying_wahini]

1. you are dead on correct .

the execution of Saddam is going to start a huge storm of controversy.

[Deep13]

2. To help with the Vietnamization, er, I mean Iraqization of local forces.

Remember how adding a few dozen thousand more troops in the mid 1960s won the war for us in Vietnam before it got out of hand?

Hmmm, neither do I.

[annabanana]

12. "Lyndon Johnson told the Nation. . .

Have no fear of escalation
I am trying everyone to please

And though it isn't really 'war'
We're sending 50 Thousand more
To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese"

[timetoleave]

13. Perfectly said

[newyawker99]

23. Hi timetoleave!!

Welcome to DU!!

[LaurenG]

3. There is NO "winning" this. It will have to be

soothed and corrected through diplomatic means. More troops will only inflame the situation.

I don't know why they think it will help. Those who are fighting our troops aren't coming out in uniform stating what their purpose is, they look just like part of the general population.

I really think Kerry has the answer to this, at least in part. Yikes!

[BOSSHOG]

4. Plain and simple in bush's case

He's telling whomever he thinks is the enemy that his dick is bigger then theirs. Of course, he has to verbalize that but the actions are showing something far different. The man is too ignorant to sit down and talk and too arrogant to admit he is/was wrong. And why the hell do we have a Secretary of State if there is no action coming from that department on this war issue?

[valerief]

5. The longer the war commitment, the more money they can drain

from the treasury.

[lazyriver]

7. Bingo n/t

[OregonBlue]

6. I assumed it meant they are going to go after Al Sadr and they need

more troops to do it.

[kentuck]

8. But Al Sadr is a big part of the "majority" government...

He is Shiite.

[OregonBlue]

9. That's true but it's his militia that are causing the problems. Bush has

been meeting with other members of government to get buy-in for going after Al Sadr.

[iconoclastic cat]

11. Oh, no he's not. They're going after him.

Baghdad Residents Hit By Robo Calls (TPM): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[kentuck]

16. And who is "they"??

If the calls are "originating out of the country"? Who could possibly be behind such an act?? Yes, the Americans hate him but there is no proof that the Iraqi people hate him - except maybe the Sunnis? He is maybe the strongest leader of the strongest gang in Iraq at the present time, with the possible exception of the US military gang.

[madokie]

10. you mention that when Saddam is executed. well I'm just not ready to see

his hanging on every telecast for days to be honest about it and I know they will. bastards that they are

[global1]

14. What Doesn't Figure Is Why McCain Is Supporting Sending In More....

troops? I believe that he is shooting himself in the foot with this one.

He might have been asked by * to support sending in more troops in exchange for help by *Co to get him elected in '08. I think he is totally wrong if this is the case. As indicated - this is unwinnable. Sending in more troops now just creates more targets. More targets = more deaths. More deaths = even more support to pull out. McCain is on the wrong side of this issue.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. So that when they don't do it he can claim they didn't listen

to him. "If they'ld done it my way, we would have had victory! I promise never to send troops in without a clear plan and exit strategy." *The base goes wild and middle-aged soccer moms swoon!*

What I'd like to know is where they're planning to get these troops from.

[kentuck]

20. Yep...

Politics,pure and simple.

[Virginia Dare]

15. It's easier for them to send more people to die...

then to admit they're wrong.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

17. so they have enough to cover the withdrawl

that's my hope.

[Wiley50]

19. They Are Planning To Go Ahead With attack on Iran Soon

That's what's up with the new Saudi activity too.

Probably a false flag attack here blamed on Iran

Or Israel will attack and we will intervene
to protect them from Iran's retaliation

It's all that can save the neocons from the wrath of Dem congress

Mark my words

It's coming soon

[kentuck]

21. So, are they going to use the troops presently in Iraq to invade...

Or will it just be air attacks? We know by now that wars cannot be won in the air only. Explain how we are going to attack Iran? Will Israel do it for us, so soon after they could not whip the Hezbollah in Lebanon? How do we attack? Do we draft a new Army?

[OregonBlue]

27. I agree. I think that's what they're planning and are rounding up

support. I also think that is why Dems and Specter are going to Syria. They know what's up and are doing the homework they should have done last time.

[immoderate]

22. Iraqis need more targets?

They can kill us over there, so they don't have to kill us here.

--IMM

[Disturbed]

24. Al Sadr is the "new" Bad Guy.

If the US Forces cannot kill him and try to fight the Mahdi Forces, millions of Shiites might join the fight against the US Forces. I feel that another Grand Fiasco is about to unfold.

[immoderate]

25. Bush is vamping until he can find the right SNAFU.

--IMM

[libodem]

26. To punish us for trying to help our troops get out.

[spanone]

28. Time to march on Washington? Crawford? This man MUST be stopped.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Propping up a failed war with more bodies. LBJ did the same.

Followed by Nixon.

All in the vain hope that some sort of miracle will occur and in the end the dream of the Iraqis and the rest of the Middle East will somehow forget about the carnage we produced and sing the Hallelujah Chorus to the troops while flinging roses at them.

[CoffeeCat]

30. It's Bush showing us that he won't be countermanded...

This is Bush's rebellion against the voters who rejected Iraq and his failed policies.

This is Bush saying, "Oh yeah. You don't want my war? You don't like my policies?
You think you're rejecting me? Hardly. I'll increase the size of this war, despite
what you said you wanted in the election. You're shit. I'm the king and all of you
are meaningless ants."

There's no logical or strategic-military reason for sending 30,000 additional troops. 30,000 is a meaningless
number that will make absolutely no difference.

Bush is a psychopath. We stopped the flow of "supply" to his pathological mind, when
we rejected him in the last election.

We're all being punished for that, and now he's attempting to replenish his "supply"
with revenge, anger and control.

[misternormal]

31. More of the same....

... Not a damn thing has changed since the election...

Not long ago more troops were sent to Baghdad, and the trouble there worsened..