More Troops May Be Needed In Iraq

[ECH1969]

The top American commander in Iraq says more US troops may be needed to curb violence in Baghdad.

Gen George Casey spoke to reporters Wednesday as he welcomed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on an unannounced trip to Iraq.

Casey said he's consulting with the Iraqi government on how to counteract the rash of violence in the capital both by al-Qaeda terrorists and Shiite death squads.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/3336186.html

[goodhue]

absurd

[saigon68]

11. They still, have a few Iraqis to beat to Death

[Monkeyman]

13. Hey Brother VVAW Randy Barnes and Moneyman say HI

[saigon68]

28. Hi all

I'm still here raising a ruckus

And hopefully some conscience

[Bucky]

34. Yes and no. The general is correct and is being logical. The war is absurd

The general's understanding of the logistics they need to get the job done that they are currently charged with is spot on. For ideological reasons, Rumsfeld has consistantly left this mission undermanned. So we're in a paradox that we have too few troops in a place where we ought to have none. And in the disgusting postition of watching Bush leave thousands of Americans understaffed and undersupplied in a killzone for political reasons.

I guess we could bring all our troops home, but the sad fact is that that would actually increase the rate that Iraqi civilians are being killed at. Should we save a few hundred American lives in a war that Americans started at the cost of several thousand Iraqi lives? It seems to me that an immediate pull out comes out to saying that each American life saved is worth the cost of 10 Iraqi lives lost. If we were at war with Iraq, I'd consider agreeing with that. But we're supposed to be there (according to the latest shifting rationale) to save Iraqis.

To complicate matters, some Iraqi ministers have started negotiating a ceasefire-for-amnesty deal with some (but not all) of the insurgent groups, but the US kyboshed those talks because one concession the rebels were asking for was exhoneration from having murdered US civilians and torture-executing captured US troops. There is no right and wrong in Iraq anymore. The only valid measure of any policy choice right now is how low it will keep the total body count.

[IA_Seth]

45. Nice post.

And I agree. It's decision time....and we have to now make a decision between riding this out as a complete failure (status quo), bringing our troops home now, or giving the military leaders what they need to succeed in their current mission (to secure Iraq for the Iraqi people).

Now, I don't even have to mention the first option, "staying the course" is about the dumbest thing that we could possibly do (and unfortunately the most likely given our current leadership).

So the decision left is to either bring them home, or give them the tools they need to succeed at the mission they've been given. I don't know about you, but 90% of the soldiers I know or have spoken to (regardless of political affiliation, and most of these are Dems) WANT to succeed at their mission. We have the choice of bringing them home, and literally saving some of their lives and most likely increasig the violence toward Iraqi civilians, or increasing troops strenght, adjusting the 'mix', and increasing (starting?!) diplomatic measures such as cease-fires and amnesty programs to help stabilize a region that we've inflamed with war and violence.

To save the most human life, leaving now is not the answer. To save the most human life, we have to get this situation under control NOW, which will require a complete change in direction.

In my opinion, anyway.

[midnight]

You are so right.

That is an absurd request, because we want our troops home-NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[midnight]

50. You are so right.

That is an absurd request, because we want our troops home-NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bemildred]

1. Soil suggested to have high dirt content. nt

[hatrack]

2. General reveals - hydrogen lightest element

Water wet, rocks hard.

Film at eleven.

[BOSSHOG]

3. More traffic cops in a civil war - BUT

those American Kids dying are volunteers and more Americans get killed in car wrecks and those coming home are faking their PTSD. Also the pay raise for active duty personnel is 2.2 percent (less than COLA). Incredible evidence of how "conservatives" support our troops.

[cgrindley]

4. Immediate Withdrawal is the Only Answer

It wouldn't take more than a week and no more Americans would die pointless deaths.

[midnight]

51. I agree.

Bring them home NOW!

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. I wonder how many are really there right now. Who could honestly say?

[Barkley]

22. I know more men in Iraq than went to the Million Man March in '95

and I'm Black!

So 140,000 is not right, especially if the same people are being
rotated in and outta of Iraq.

[partylessinOhio]

6. Nasty! He must be dreaming or having a nightmare.

[grytpype]

7. I'd say if we TRIPLED our troops we'd have a chance of winning the war.

But no one is talking about that.

[arcane1]

9. only by tripling the number of Iraqis we murder over there

[daleo]

10. 3X150,000=450,000

Those are Viet Nam numbers. That would require a draft. And there would still be little realistic prospect of prevailing long-term (i.e. Viet Nam).

The neo-cons are hoping that the Iraqis get tired of war, but I doubt they will be the first to throw in the towel.

[Jacobin]

20. "winning" meaning exactly what?

We had 500,000 troops in Viet Nam for years and dropped more bombs than in WWII. Oh, and those S. Vietnamese troops we trained...don't forget them.

Attempting to insert a puppet government into a country that hates you by force simply will not work. Ever.

[grytpype]

23. I think we had chance at one point.

I think if we had enough troops to impose order right after toppling Saddam, and didn't dissolve the army and policy, and held elections right away, we had a decent shot (not a sure thing by any means) at setting up a democratic Iraq (at least temporarily).

And I think if we tripled our forces now, we could secure some of the urban areas.

Of course no one will ever know for sure.

[pokercat999]

40. There will always be more of "them" willing to die for their

freedom than we are willing to kill, to take it (freedom) away from them.

[Bucky]

36. We only have about 550,000 troops in the whole army. As to you 450,000

Under pre-Iraq Pentagon calculations, occupying a country takes three times the number of troops you want to have on the ground in-country. If you need 150,000 soldiers and Marines, then you need 450,000. You want one third in-country, one third gearing up for the next rotation over there, and another one third recuperating from their last rotation in.

A couple of years ago the Army sped up this rotation schedule to increase the total number of troops on the ground. Waits between rotation were reduced by a few months (I forget the exact number) and rotation duty in-country was increased from from 6 to 7 months. It's more efficient, if you measure that by amount of time you have soldiers on duty. But if you're talking about how fatigued your troops end up getting, then it's obviously less efficient.

By the way, these atrocities that we're hearing about are mostly happening among troops who were on their second or third rotation in-country. If your name is Dick Cheney, now would be a good time to tell me to go fuck myself.

[Bob3]

8. More Progress

Expect more noise about North Korea to come out of the White House to try and bury this story.

[Caution]

12. no shit sherlock

I've been saying that since day fucking 1.

[Raydawg1234]

17. delete please

[Jacobin]

21. I'm glad they didn't listen to you.

The number of troops will simply increase the number of targets. They don't want us or the puppet government we installed there. They want to be able to have their civil war, see who ends up in control and deal with a different Iraqi strongman leader.

Its inevitable. Iraqis are not and will not fight to protect the puppet goverment we installed in the Green Zone.

[saigon68]

35. YesThose Quisling police biting the dust in regular numbers

Look at what happened in France in 1943

[azurnoir]

14. Of course they need more troops

considering everything that has happened in the past 36 hours-the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, the US announcement that we hold Iran and Syria responsible for the situation in Israel and the announcement that GWB will allow Gitmo detainees to have Geneva rights(just knew something bad was about to happen) and well Iraq makes a really good staging point for the rest of the ME

[MrPrax]

15. Needed for the expanded front...

now opened up by Israel in the ME...they got Lebanon, Syria and Iran to worry about.

Looks like it's co-ordinated from the beginning...

You went from a simple kidnapping at a Gaza checkpoint to:

U.S. Blames Syria, Iran for Kidnappings

ROSTOCK, Germany -- The United States blamed Syria and Iran on Wednesday for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants and an eruption of violence along the southern border of Lebanon.
...
"We also hold Syria and Iran _ which directly support Hezbollah _ responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence," Jones said. "Hezbollah's terrorism is not in Lebanon's interest.

WP

Steady and rapid escalation so that central trigger is forced down the 'memory hole'...Shalit is probably dead and they know it and of course Olmert's government won't take the blame on the fact that it's methods failled utterly to release him, unlike was previously the case, where Israel regularly and freely negotiated with the various groups for prisoner releases.

Israel's actions have been consistent with an overall escalation of a crisis...

[Raydawg1234]

16. Bush and co. don't really want to "win" the war. They just want

an excuse to have permanent bases like in South Korea.

So I doubt they will send more troops, it would be bad for them politically. And so much for listening to the commanders on the ground.

[JackDragna]

18. Hallelujah!

More troops in Iraq means more freedoms for them! For us! Tripleplusgood!

[Rex]

19. More troops needed since March of 2003.

Either send in a million or pull them all out, any other way is just negligence for the safety of our troops.

[grytpype]

25. Don't know about 1,000,000, but we sure needed more troops.

Gen. Batiste, who commanded the 1st ID in Iraq before giving up a promotion so he could resign and speak out against the conduct of the war, said we would have needed at least 340,000 troops plus the Iraqi security forces to secure the country after the invasion. Bush/Cheney/Rummy sent in less than 1/3 of that, and lost the war.

[Rex]

27. They took 500k in GW I

and that was without long term occupation. Long term occupation of 26 million people who hate your guts is gonna take twice that number IMO.

[Bucky]

32. Just because a few generals say... well, a lot of generals... well, all of

Oh never mind.

Yeh, to occupy Iraq we need a lot of troops. Had this been done in 2003, when Zinni and Clark and several other experts were saying "send more troops" we probably wouldn't have such a successful insurgency to fight against.

By the by, in a couple of days, expect this general to release a statement saying that we will probably be able to finish the mission with present troop levels.

[Rex]

47. It defies logic

How the hell Rummy is still in charge is beyond me. I guess generals have no say in running the war.

[Kikosexy2]

24. Well send...

Jenna, Barbara, jr. and George III, and Neo Nazi nut-heads and to relieve all prisons, hard-core, lifers in prison to fight this illegal war--they won't be missed...really...

[saigon68]

29. NO send this little Mother Fucker Pierce Bush

I'd love to be his Drill Sgt

[Bucky]

31. Kid who called us racists b/c we thought Iraq wasn't ready for democracy?

Yeh, he needs to serve his country real bad.

[saigon68]

38. Yes that's the little Cock Sucker

Pierce Bush-Bush's nephew goes on the TODAY Show to defend his uncle over the Ports

Pierce Bush-Bush's nephew goes on the TODAY Show to defend his uncle over the Ports deal
Pierce, son of Neil Bush appeared on the TODAY show Saturday to defend his uncle over the Ports deal.

Brown: Have you heard from the President or anyone from the White House about this?

Pierce: No, I'm kind of surprised that they haven't. Normally you know-the stuff- hot button issues kinda hits the forefront you know-maybe get a call or something, but um.. I haven't heard from them...
"If he was against the ports deal, I don't know if I would've written the letter."

The White House refused to comment on the letter writing. The president's nephew is familiar with Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. His father's company, Austin-based Ignite Learning, has investors in the UAE, and Neil Bush has taken his son there. Pierce Bush insisted his latest letter had nothing to do with his father's business interests.

[Kikosexy2]

49. Send all

Bushies and Cheneys....torture them and then bomb shit out of them...

[midnight]

52. Does anybody know why he isn't?

What is his age, who's kid is he, and is he just busy like Cheny was?

[0007]

56. Ya forgot Noelle!



[retread]

26. This will be buried and forgotten as we draw down troops in advance of

the midterm elections.

[Bucky]

33. If the brass in Iraq are saying we need MORE troops, then drawdowns will

then drawdowns in total troop strength is basically leaving a lot of American forces under staffed and unsupported in the middle of an ugly kill zone for the sake of pure politics. Jesus Christ that's unbelievable. No, worse, it's completely believeable. I'm the first to say we oughtn't be there, but if our troops are there, we should at least give them the support they need to survive.

[LynnTheDem]

30. Sounds so familiar...more troops killed in Iraq than during first 5 yrs

of 'Nam. And now more troops needed to kill & be killed in Iraq.

Yep, that's what happened in 'Nam, too.

Choppers off the GreenZone roof, baby.

[Bucky]

37. Re: choppers off the roof... the VC didn't have TOW missiles

Bad as it was, the exit from Vietnam may end up looking pretty calm compared to how we end up exiting Iraq.

[saigon68]

39. It won't be a Picnic

[Joe Bacon]

41. But Grover Norquist says we should hire mercenaries!

Grover says we should CONTRACT OUT the military to the third world, yeah, hire people for $100 a month with no other benefits.

Grover never read Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", did he?

[saigon68]

42. he is an Asshat

[VegasWolf]

43. Should be, "More DEATHS may be needed in Iraq." nt

[saigon68]

44. There will be more, many more, That's for Sure

As long as the chimp is steering the boat with his foot

[Auntie Bush]

46. Get our troops the hell out of there NOW! Why is it our responsibility

to break up a civil war...especially after we go it would just break out again. We Dems predicted this would happen long ago and anyone with half a brain could have known this would happen. Only a strong ruthless man could hole that country together. Let them work out their own problems. BUSH is an IDIOT to have started this fiasco!

BRING OUT TROOPS HOME NOW!

[stanwyck]

48. The army has already admiited to drastically

lowering their standards for enlistment. (Today's USA Today).
Just since the time my son enlisted in the Marines, 4 years ago, the Marines have shortened the combat/infantry training following boot camp.
Lowering standards and cutting corners is no way to run the military.
We're already seeing the disastrous effects of troops having 3-4 tours.
This is a mess. We're now so over-extended, we're vulnerable. Our threats to Iran and Korea ring hollow. Bush knows we can't follow through - except through the air.
And then what?

[Megahurtz]

53. UGH!!!

This makes me so mad!:mad:

Why is it, that "We, The People" have no control over anything anymore?:banghead:

[Oak2004]

54. I have a peculiar question here

Iraq for decades had one of the largest, most battle hardened, armies in the world. Those soldiers are still there, aren't they? I mean, they didn't just vaporize.

So then why do we have to train their army? Couldn't the Iraqis just offer those soldiers their jobs back, or at least hire a few of the old soldiers to train their own army?

(... of course, we could instead be trying to build a puppet state with an army loyal to the US and prepared to carry out coups on command when necessary. But the US would never do that, now would we? :sarcasm: )

[outofbounds]

55. I watched CSPAN last night

I thought Kerry was effective when questioning the U S ambassador there. Obama is one sharp fellow too. The ambassador seemed to have little respect for Boxer though. The Ambassador seemed to want more troops in Baghdad. From watching this I get the image that the U.S. has allowed the Iraqi government to loose the respect of the people in as far as being able to control and secure the area.
The closing statements were along the lines of Biden saying we have got pull out around Sept.

The U.S. Ambassador seem very shady to me. Since he got there a little over a year ago insurgence has has escalated. He was the Ambassador to Afghanistan before his role here and was talking directly with Iran in that position. Since he left Afghanistan the war has escalated there as well. I get the feeling that the Ambassador is part of the problem. He had no answers, no ideas as to how to bring the three sect's to working with each other.

This was the Senat hearing on Iraq. Senator Obama seemed to be one sharp guy to me.