Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Troop Surges, everything old is new again.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:45 AM
Original message
Troop Surges, everything old is new again.
What is that old saying, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results or something along those lines.

It somewhat amuses me to hear all of the discussion and hub-bub about having a "surge" of troops to help quell the violence recently. If we just had a few thousand more troops, everything would be great!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/world/middleeast/16mi...

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major surge in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.


Then there's good ole boy Senator McCain:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

"Without additional combat forces, we will not win this war," McCain said, describing inadequate U.S. troop numbers to clear insurgent strongholds, stem sectarian violence and train Iraqi security forces. "We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them."


It just strikes me with deja vu to hear these discussions, it almost seems like I've heard these stories somewhere before.

From May 2004

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmusa/is_200405/a...

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military force in Iraq will remain at 138,000 troops through the end of next year, an acknowledgment that the Iraqi insurgency is more stubborn and dangerous than generals thought earlier this year.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters Tuesday that he approved 20,000 extra troops at the request of Gen. John Abizaid, top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.


From Nov. 2004

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1119/p03s01-usmi.html

Amid a spike in violence in Iraqi cities coinciding with the Fallujah offensive, the US military is now planning to boost combat forces to secure the country for elections in January.
The US is likely to expand the force by thousands of GIs in coming weeks by delaying the departure of more experienced units from Iraq as fresh troops rotate in, military officials say.

The overlap would create a temporary surge in American forces - which now number 141,000 in Iraq - to cope with an expected wave of insurgent attacks aimed at disrupting the polling. More US troops are required as Iraqi security forces remain highly vulnerable to attacks and intimidation. This was underscored by a rash of insurgent strikes on police stations in Mosul, Baqubah, and other cities in the past week, when attacks nationwide rose to 50 percent higher than the average in recent months.



There are tons more articles, but you get the idea. We've been told for the last several years that just a few additional thousand troops will quell the violence. It always seems that the magic number is 20,000-30,000 troops. The end result is that nothing changes, the violence grows, and more soldiers die needlessly in Iraq.

Why does the media continue to spew back the same ideas to us over and over again and expect us to believe that this time things will be different? This time things will go right.....maybe this time.....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Surge" = PC term for "escalation".
Edited on Sat Dec-16-06 11:52 AM by Tierra_y_Libertad
Just as LBJ's troop increases were to "help" the South Vietnamese, and we were assured that the U.S. had no territorial or economic interests in S.E. Asia.

Bullshit decorated as ice-cream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-16-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. So in rightwing world
the reason we lost Vietnam is because we decided to not throw another 200,000 troops into that mess after the 68 Tet offensive. They are determined to do it right this time, so we will surge, voters be damned, the Democratic congress will do nothing other than vote more money for more carnage, and our murderous involvement in Iraq will continue. The problem it seems can be fixed if we just kill enough Iraqis.


There will be no end to this war before 1-20-09.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 21st 2017, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC