More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Libbies say LESS troops!
Hawks say MORE troops!
Generals say SAME troops!

I say, why not BOTH? Here is what I mean.

We currently have about 120-130,000 in Iraq. We are training Iraqi's as fast as we can, but it's like trying to run up the down escalator. We are simply unable to do it fast enough, at the current pace. A temporary influx of, say, another 75-80,000 troops, mainly specialists for training, would greatly enhance the training process. This significantly raises our troop levels to around 200,000, which is not out of the realm of possibility, and it isn't a level we can sustain for a long period, but it's doable.

We then go to the Iraqi's and present a timetable for completion of training, and let them know, we are leaving in phased withdrawals as soon as this time is up. Say it's 18 months... 12 months, whatever... we begin reducing the troop levels in substantial numbers, until we are completely withdrawn and the Iraqi's stand on their own.

In the meantime, we can continue to appeal to the UN and French, or whoever wants to help us, in training Iraqi's and getting them in a position to defend themselves, or motivating them to do so, if that is the problem. I actually think the main problem is the mentality of a fragile and oppressed people right now. It's somewhat like rescuing a 30-year-old from abusive heinous parents who kept him penned in a cage in the attic his entire life, and expecting him to just get a job and function normally in society. We have to be a little more patient with the Iraqi people, and their ability to do what we take for granted. Democracy is not easy to establish in 6 months, it's especially not easy to establish in the heart of the Muslim world, and we are depending on sheep to become lions.
 
I think the only 2 viable options are:

1. Leave quietly and accept defeat.

2. Leave and turn the country into a glass parking lot.


I support either.
 
Dixie said:
Libbies say LESS troops!
Hawks say MORE troops!
Generals say SAME troops!

I say, why not BOTH? Here is what I mean.

We currently have about 120-130,000 in Iraq. We are training Iraqi's as fast as we can, but it's like trying to run up the down escalator. We are simply unable to do it fast enough, at the current pace. A temporary influx of, say, another 75-80,000 troops, mainly specialists for training, would greatly enhance the training process. This significantly raises our troop levels to around 200,000, which is not out of the realm of possibility, and it isn't a level we can sustain for a long period, but it's doable.

We then go to the Iraqi's and present a timetable for completion of training, and let them know, we are leaving in phased withdrawals as soon as this time is up. Say it's 18 months... 12 months, whatever... we begin reducing the troop levels in substantial numbers, until we are completely withdrawn and the Iraqi's stand on their own.

In the meantime, we can continue to appeal to the UN and French, or whoever wants to help us, in training Iraqi's and getting them in a position to defend themselves, or motivating them to do so, if that is the problem. I actually think the main problem is the mentality of a fragile and oppressed people right now. It's somewhat like rescuing a 30-year-old from abusive heinous parents who kept him penned in a cage in the attic his entire life, and expecting him to just get a job and function normally in society. We have to be a little more patient with the Iraqi people, and their ability to do what we take for granted. Democracy is not easy to establish in 6 months, it's especially not easy to establish in the heart of the Muslim world, and we are depending on sheep to become lions.
Click to expand...

oddly enough, I do not think that your proposal is without merit. I do wish that the administration had considered these sorts of consequences when they rushed into this war in the first place.
 
Nah I wasn't really being sarcastic. Reality is tough but I don't think there is much we can do.

The US can defeat any country but we can't make them live peacefully with each other.

The sooner our politicians figure that out, the better off we'll be.
 
Blackflag said:
Nah I wasn't really being sarcastic. Reality is tough but I don't think there is much we can do.

The US can defeat any country but we can't make them live peacefully with each other.

The sooner our politicians figure that out, the better off we'll be.
Click to expand...
I certainly hope you don't view option (2) as viable. ;)
 
Battleborne said:
he was being sarcastic...thats all we have left after all this in-house fighting!
Click to expand...
This "in-house fighting," as you put it, is all the proof required that the war against Iraq was unprovoked -- or insufficiently provoked, if you prefer -- and illadvised. Had it been a just war there would have been far less controversy.

That's the other lesson of Vietnam: the people often know better than their leaders do.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
This "in-house fighting," as you put it, is all the proof required that the war against Iraq was unprovoked -- or insufficiently provoked, if you prefer -- and illadvised. Had it been a just war there would have been far less controversy.

That's the other lesson of Vietnam: the people often know better than their leaders do.
Click to expand...


Hey Ornut... sit down, take a deep breath, and take this in... it doesn't matter now. We've already had that debate, and your side won. The point is now settled, and we have moved on. The current debate, is what to do now. You can join the rest of the people who give a flying fuck, or you can continue to wallow in some sort of sour and bitter little pity trip, I don't really care either way. Continuing to try and argue a point that has been settled, is not very "progressive" if you ask me.
 
Dixie said:
The point is now settled, and we have moved on. The current debate, is what to do now. .........Continuing to try and argue a point that has been settled, is not very "progressive" if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Clearly you've moved on. I on the other hand care about our troops and won't consider the matter closed until they are home and Iraq has the stability she once had before your $hit for brains president invaded.

-PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW.
 
Dixie said:
Hey Ornut... sit down, take a deep breath, and take this in... it doesn't matter now. We've already had that debate, and your side won. The point is now settled, and we have moved on. The current debate, is what to do now. You can join the rest of the people who give a flying fuck, or you can continue to wallow in some sort of sour and bitter little pity trip, I don't really care either way. Continuing to try and argue a point that has been settled, is not very "progressive" if you ask me.
Click to expand...


We've already had that debate, and your side won


Its been mere weeks since you last posted that Iraq was the greatest military victory in american history; that we "found" the WMD; and the Iraq was going to be al qeada's "vietnam".
 
Cypress said:
We've already had that debate, and your side won


Its been mere weeks since you last posted that Iraq was the greatest military victory in american history; that we "found" the WMD; and the Iraq was going to be al qeada's "vietnam".
Click to expand...

:p I know. Dixie's reads get better and better.
 
Onceler said:
I forgot the "greatest military achievement" thread; that was about as surreal as it gets....
Click to expand...

One of these days someone will have to show you the 1/3s thread. That was a classic. In 1000+ posts in one thread, Dixie tried to convince us that 1/3 is merely an abstract concept, lacking any physical manifestation.
 
Well I guess it will be up to Democrats what Iraq becomes. If you want to flush it all down the crapper and turn it into the worst debacle of all time, you can, but the Democrats hold all the cards at this point, and they will ultimately bear their share of responsibility for what Iraq becomes.

I would think they might want to consider, trying to find a way that America can come away from this war, differently than they came away from Vietnam. Like maybe, with some sense of victory and honor in freeing a nation? Just maybe, Democrats will be able to put down the koolaid for a bit, and focus on what is truly "best for America" instead of foaming at the mouth to get back power.
 
LadyT said:
One of these days someone will have to show you the 1/3s thread. That was a classic. In 1000+ posts in one thread, Dixie tried to convince us that 1/3 is merely an abstract concept, lacking any physical manifestation.
Click to expand...


You talk like Oncie is a n00b or something.... he's an old timer pinhead, he's just had to change names to save face, or whatever reason pinheads change names.

The post you are talking about is on the "other" board, and it remains a monument to a profound psychological point and theory I proved about pinheads. Over the simple and elementary point that 1 could not be divided equally, without remainder, pinheads set an all-time record in arguing against me. I managed to keep the thread going for weeks, never wavering from that rather simplistic point, and enduring every sort of argument you could imagine, presented to "prove me wrong" on this. It was side-splitting hilarious to me, that people would go to the extremes they did, simply because they didn't want to admit I was correct.
 
"Well I guess it will be up to Democrats what Iraq becomes. If you want to flush it all down the crapper and turn it into the worst debacle of all time, you can, but the Democrats hold all the cards at this point, and they will ultimately bear their share of responsibility for what Iraq becomes. "

I have been saying for a long time that this is what we can expect from the cons. It will never be Bush's fault. If Iraq disintegrates, it will be because the Dems messed it up, or because his successor didn't stay the course. It will never be because it was a boneheaded, incredible miscalculation to start with, that had little if any chance of success from the get-go.

I mean, really...taking a country like Iraq & thinking you can just make a democracy happen with your military. What arrogance....blame the Dems all you want, but this is & always will be Bush's baby....
 
Dixie said:
The post you are talking about is on the "other" board, and it remains a monument to a profound psychological point and theory I proved about pinheads. Over the simple and elementary point that 1 could not be divided equally, without remainder, pinheads set an all-time record in arguing against me. I managed to keep the thread going for weeks, never wavering from that rather simplistic point, and enduring every sort of argument you could imagine, presented to "prove me wrong" on this. It was side-splitting hilarious to me, that people would go to the extremes they did, simply because they didn't want to admit I was correct.
Click to expand...

yada yada yada. I agree, it was side-splitting hilarious.
 
Based on what I have read and emails from iraq I vote for more troops. Which is what the troops there are saying. (though not the generals)

And they need to be put along the syrian and iranian border and stop the men and material being brought in through there. It can shorten the stay by years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top