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

[Cypress]

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.

"based on what I have read and emails from iraq I vote for more troops."


1) FACT CHECK: Increasing Troop Levels In Baghdad Made Violence Worse

We’ve seen a “big push” in Baghdad before. In mid-June, President Bush announced a major effort to secure Baghdad, stating at a news conference that over 7,000 U.S.-led coalition troops would be moved into the city. “This operation is a joint effort to restore security and rule of law to high-risk areas in the capital city,” Bush said.

A record number of Iraqi civilians were reported killed in October. “Statistics issued by the Interior Ministry for Iraqis killed in political violence put civilian deaths last month at 1,289. That is nearly 42 a day and is up 18% from the 1,089 seen in September. September’s figures themselves were a record high.” In Baghdad, the morgue reported the official toll of violent deaths in August was 1535, a level in line with previous months.

It turns out the official toll of violent deaths in August was just revised upwards to 1535.

359 more U.S. troops have died since the Baghdad operation began. Moreover, U.S. deaths in Iraq peaked last month, the deadliest month of the Iraq war since American forces made big pushes in Fallujah in April and November of 2004.

The lessons from the last “big push” in Baghdad demonstrates that the American occupation is fueling the insurgency’s fire. A recent poll of Iraqis indicated that support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position — now six in ten. The administration is apparently ready to make the same mistake once again.


2) Russ Feingold: We Should Challenge Generals Whose ‘Assessments…Were Wrong’ »

On MSNBC today, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) contended that the generals who have been in charge in Iraq, particularly Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey, should be challenged on their current recommendations to stay the course.









thinkprogress.org

 

[Cypress]

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.

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

That's called strategic redeployment. What many progressives have argued for.

Move the troops into a force protection mode, get them out of the cities, remove them from the middle of the sectarian civil war, and deploy them on the borders, in northern kurdistan, and in kuwait.

 

[Battleborne]

Hey thats what...

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.

B/General retired David Grange said today on CNN...I like David...he was a great SF commander!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's called strategic redeployment. What many progressives have argued for.

Yeah, except your "progressives" wanted to strategically redeploy to Okinawa.

 

[Beefy]

yada yada yada. I agree, it was side-splitting hilarious.

Here is a thread where Dixie argues with his own point:

http://www.fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=16731

 

[maineman]

That's called strategic redeployment. What many progressives have argued for.

Yeah, except your "progressives" wanted to strategically redeploy to Okinawa.

not so.... Kuwait or Jordan or Saudi Arabia will work just fine.... and, as a matter of FACT, positioning some assets in Okinawa only a C-5A ride away is not at all an imprudent move...but what would an obnoxious alabama film developer who lives in a trailer park know about rapid deployment of military assets?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Wow, you are pretty much a psychic, because that is definitely how it's looking now, with the newly elected Democrat Congress and all. I personally think there is a chance for Democrats to start doing the right thing, and trying to find solutions to the problems, so we can come away with a sense of victory as a nation, because they would much rather take credit than blame. But who knows, with wacky Dems, you never can tell... they may hate Bush so bad, they do something real stupid, like completely withdraw from Iraq, and cause complete chaos in the middle east. The problem is, it's out of Bush's hands now, and everyone knows it, including Bush. Whatever becomes of Iraq, will depend entirely on the Dems, and they will be held accountable.

 

[Battleborne]

Wtf...

not so.... Kuwait or Jordan or Saudi Arabia will work just fine.... and, as a matter of FACT, positioning some assets in Okinawa only a C-5A ride away is not at all an imprudent move...but what would an obnoxious alabama film developer who lives in a trailer park know about rapid deployment of military assets?

was that really necessary to rate someone by their home of choice or need...talk about obnoxious...you take the cake...commander!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

not so.... Kuwait or Jordan or Saudi Arabia will work just fine.... and, as a matter of FACT, positioning some assets in Okinawa only a C-5A ride away is not at all an imprudent move...but what would an obnoxious alabama film developer who lives in a trailer park know about rapid deployment of military assets?

1. Prissy claimed it was strategic redeployment to the Syrian and Iranian border, but you say to move them out of the country, to Kuwait, Jordan, and SA. Murtha suggested Okinawa. Seems you have a conflict.

2. I have no problem, when we start drawing down, to redeploy to a nearby location, in case all hell breaks lose.

3. I haven't developed film since 1996

4. I don't live in a trailer park, and they are not allowed in my county.

5. I know vastly more than you give me credit for.

 

[Onceler]

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.

Wow, you are pretty much a psychic, because that is definitely how it's looking now, with the newly elected Democrat Congress and all. I personally think there is a chance for Democrats to start doing the right thing, and trying to find solutions to the problems, so we can come away with a sense of victory as a nation, because they would much rather take credit than blame. But who knows, with wacky Dems, you never can tell... they may hate Bush so bad, they do something real stupid, like completely withdraw from Iraq, and cause complete chaos in the middle east. The problem is, it's out of Bush's hands now, and everyone knows it, including Bush. Whatever becomes of Iraq, will depend entirely on the Dems, and they will be held accountable.

The Baker Commission is expected to report that any idea of "victory" should be off the table; stability is the only real goal now. Would you define that as "victory?" I expect you'll hammer the Dems regardless (and why shouldn't I expect that? You pledged that the day after the election).

Aren't you one of the cons who has said that we could have "won" Vietnam if not for all of the anti-war protesters & the decision to pull out? I can't remember exactly what happened in the aftermath....did country after country topple toward communism, a la the domino theory? Is Vietnam (where Dubya & Laura are right now) some oppressive regime today, a place unfriendly toward Americans & torn by strife?

Don't you think, at this point, having said that about Vietnam, having advocated the invasion of Iraq, and having predicted that Santorum's WMD "discovery" would "bite Dems in the ass", that you might not be exactly qualified to pass judgment on world affairs for awhile?

 

[maineman]

Re: Vietnam.... what sort of alternate ending would the neocons have wanted and how many more americans were they willing to sacrifice to get it? Here we have a neocon president pressing hard for fully normalized trade relations with Vietnam.... what more could they possibly want? What would the outcome of their alternate vision of "victory" have looked like and would it be any better than what exists today?

From my perspective, Vietnam, today, is in a relatively good place and the war protesters who were successful in stopping that hideous conflict and saving tens of thousands of American lives really created no signficant "downside".

I actually agree with Dixie's original premise that we might want to ramp up troop strength with a total focus on TRAINING and do so for a very very limited period of time....time measured in weeks and months, not years. But after that allotted time has passed, if Iraqis aren't willing to stand up for their own united sovereignty, we should admit that the entire affair was a terrible foolish mistake on the part of the Bush administration and leave Iraq to the Iraqis to solve. Thinking that a crusader christian army is going to create peace in a muslim arab nation is pure folly and we need to realize that ASAP. At this point, there are many worse outcomes than an Iraq divided into Sunni-stan, Shia-stan and Kurdistan, even if Turkey isn't particularly fond of that option. At least that way, only part of Iraq will fall under the control of the wacky theocratic shia persians in Iran.

 

[maineman]

1. Prissy claimed it was strategic redeployment to the Syrian and Iranian border, but you say to move them out of the country, to Kuwait, Jordan, and SA. Murtha suggested Okinawa. Seems you have a conflict.

2. I have no problem, when we start drawing down, to redeploy to a nearby location, in case all hell breaks lose.

3. I haven't developed film since 1996

4. I don't live in a trailer park, and they are not allowed in my county.

5. I know vastly more than you give me credit for.

1. who gives a shit...we're chatting on an internet message board... redeployment means getting them out from in the midst of a civil war where they are targets and irritants and little else.
2. then we are in agreement on that point.
3. and I never chipped paint or swabbed decks, but that has never stopped you from using those tasks to denigrate my profession. either shut the fuck up or get a thicker skin...but either way, quit yer bitchin' If you don't can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.... what goes around comes around.... you get the picture.
4. see # 3 above.
5. that may be...but I am pretty fucking confident that you know LESS than you give yourself credit for, and, in the areas of middle eastern culture and all things military, you know a hell of a lot less than I do- even though you give ME credit for NO knowledge in those areas in which I spent a good portion of my professional life. Hell....I give you credit for knowing more about one hour photo developing than I EVER will even care to know.

 

[maineman]

was that really necessary to rate someone by their home of choice or need...talk about obnoxious...you take the cake...commander!

you get borne ten yards from the goal line and think you are a football star?Don't stick your nose into something about which you know next to nothing.

Dixie and I go way back...and we have a rather acrimonious history... I would recommend that, unless you wish for you and me to develop such a history , you just keep your fucking nose out of this...mmmmmk?

great.

 

[Cypress]

1. Prissy claimed it was strategic redeployment to the Syrian and Iranian border, but you say to move them out of the country, to Kuwait, Jordan, and SA. Murtha suggested Okinawa. Seems you have a conflict.

2. I have no problem, when we start drawing down, to redeploy to a nearby location, in case all hell breaks lose.

3. I haven't developed film since 1996

4. I don't live in a trailer park, and they are not allowed in my county.

5. I know vastly more than you give me credit for.

What a dumbass. Do you think strategic redeployment has to mean the exact same thing, for every single person?

The point is to remove our troops from the urban areas, and from the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war. And put them into force protection mode. They don't need to be fighting a civil war. It would be up to military experts to conclude if that meant stationing them in iraqi kurdistan, on the syrian border, in Qatar, in Kuwait, or some combination thereof.

MM, Gaffer and I agree on this principle.

 

[Damocles]

How long have I been saying now that we should deploy more troops there dedicated to training the Iraqi troops and as each new group comes online an equal number of US troops leaves? It's been quite some time now.

Let them leave and go to Kuwait, SA, etc. Back to Turkey for gawd's sake! Keep them nearby...

It's probably been about a year that I have proposed this very plan... *sigh*.

Also the President needs to work with France, throw some in their direction to train, they already said they would do it! Crap...

 

[maineman]

damo.... up; until the election thumping, Bush was loathe to consider anything other than 'stay the course'. I think training outside of Iraq makes tons of sense.

 

[Damocles]

damo.... up; until the election thumping, Bush was loathe to consider anything other than 'stay the course'. I think training outside of Iraq makes tons of sense.

Exactly, and it takes advantage of our natural allies. I've been very frustrated. I was against going in because it was undeclared, then the way it was handled has made it even more frustrating for me. If you are going to do it, do it smartly and use every available asset, including help from people who offer, even if you don't "like" them at the moment.

I've also always been an advocate of the Powell Doctrine, and I think it is insane that we instead use a policy of minimum...

I've never been a ME expert, Slavic nations were my thing. But even I can see beforehand how mistakes were being made.

 

[maineman]

it has been painful to watch....

and the way that idiots like Dixie and SR continue even to this day to glorify this terrible president and his terrible foreign policy and his even more inept execution OF that policy is shameful.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you think strategic redeployment has to mean the exact same thing, for every single person?

It needs to mean the same thing to the entire military, otherwise, it's a quite useless strategy. I'm no 'military expert' but I am smart enough to understand, there is a huge difference between redeploying to the borders to stop the infiltration, and redeploying to another country!

You said: 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 That's called strategic redeployment. What many progressives have argued for.

I've not heard any "progressive" argue for any kind of redeployment except getting completely the hell out of Iraq. To just sit here and lie about it, as if you pinheads have long suggested this 'strategic redeployment', is ridiculous. You've argued for no such thing, all I've heard is, "Bring the troops home NOW!"

 

[Cypress]

I've not heard any "progressive" argue for any kind of redeployment except getting completely the hell out of Iraq.



FEINGOLD CONTINUES PUSH FOR A TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT

Feingold Introduces Measure Requiring Vast Majority of U.S. Troops to Redeploy from Iraq by Mid-2007

November 14, 2006

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The legislation, which builds on an amendment Feingold authored earlier this year, would allow for a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

“Redeploying our troops will pressure the Iraqi government to get its political house in order while allowing us to re-focus on global terrorist organizations and trouble spots that threaten our national security,” Feingold said. “It simply doesn't make sense to continue devoting so much of our resources to one country while ignoring the growing threats we face around the world.”

In August 2005, Feingold became the first U.S. Senator to propose a target date for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. Earlier this year, Feingold cosponsored an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have required the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007. In September, Feingold also introduced a resolution addressing the need to strengthen our efforts in Afghanistan so as to prevent that country from again becoming a key staging ground for terrorists.

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


I don't know if deploying US troops on the syrian border is neccessary. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, our own military says only 2-3% of the insurgents are foreign fighters. I'm open-minded to experts to hash that out.