Poll: Go Big, Go Long or Go Home

[13Gigatons]

I laugh at the idea that 20,000 troops are being considered for Go Big, this is a joke.

For christ sakes send 200,000+ more troops and maybe you stand a chance. I figured the number to be 600,000 to 800,000 to get the job done.


Maybe this means that Iraq was doomed from the start because we lacked the troops to get the job done.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
I laugh at the idea that 20,000 troops are being considered for Go Big, this is a joke.

For christ sakes send 200,000+ more troops and maybe you stand a chance. I figured the number to be 600,000 to 800,000 to get the job done.


Maybe this means that Iraq was doomed from the start because we lacked the troops to get the job done.

The choice should be, go bloody, or go home.

Unless we?re willing to do what is necessary, then perhaps we?ve no reason being there and should go home. Now there?s always the possibility that our current course of action might eventually lead to something, but other terrorist influences in that region may very well dissolve the usefulness of it, and the cost of playing police with our soldier?s lives is much higher than if we utterly brutalized any and all resistance.

My distress is in us using the middle ground, and it won?t matter how large our military force is if they?re not given the correct orders.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
I laugh at the idea that 20,000 troops are being considered for Go Big, this is a joke.

For christ sakes send 200,000+ more troops and maybe you stand a chance. I figured the number to be 600,000 to 800,000 to get the job done.


Maybe this means that Iraq was doomed from the start because we lacked the troops to get the job done.

If we were to use, say, 500,000 troops at once in Iraq, where would they come from? We're at least 100,000 shy of normal active duty due to the injured from the Iraq/Afghanistan theaters as well as the drop in recruitment over the last few years. Add in those who've been stopped-loss a time or two or gone thru 3-4 tours of duty and we're pretty spent.

The Rumsfeld Doctrine is another failure and the Pentagon is already working up drafts to heal those wounds.

 

[13Gigatons]

The point of the Poll is to guess at what President Bush will do not what you want to see happen in Iraq.

The problem with the military is that we don't have a big enough army. In the 90's we had 2.2 million and now it's down to 1.4 million and the Army only has 500,000 troops. I can only imagine that we would have to outsource the demand for more troops to guns for hire.


My guess is that he will stay the course or Go Long.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
I laugh at the idea that 20,000 troops are being considered for Go Big, this is a joke.

For christ sakes send 200,000+ more troops and maybe you stand a chance. I figured the number to be 600,000 to 800,000 to get the job done.


Maybe this means that Iraq was doomed from the start because we lacked the troops to get the job done.

The choice should be, go bloody, or go home.

Unless we?re willing to do what is necessary, then perhaps we?ve no reason being there and should go home. Now there?s always the possibility that our current course of action might eventually lead to something, but other terrorist influences in that region may very well dissolve the usefulness of it, and the cost of playing police with our soldier?s lives is much higher than if we utterly brutalized any and all resistance.

My distress is in us using the middle ground, and it won?t matter how large our military force is if they?re not given the correct orders.

The choice should be, go bloody, or go home
I disagree with this. The Germans "went bloody" to an insane degree in WW2 and not only did it not quell partisans from operating everywhere, it actually provoked increases in partisan activity. So even lining up hundreds or thousands and shooting them as reprisals, etc would not work.

 

[Strk]

I wonder how many troops we could have increased the military by if you stopped outsourcing so many jobs to private companies?

 

[glugglug]

Bush will Go Home. The troops, however, he will make Go Long. And maybe Go Big as well. The job will never be done, best to cut our losses now.

 

[rudder]

You have three distinctive groups in Iraq who were seperated before Iraq was created. The only thing that kept them under control was the dictatorship of saddam.

The only way out of this now is to increase troops and clamp down on the country extremely hard or seperate the three regions. Had there been enough troops in the beginning as the join chiefs wanted and rumsfield denied, maybe the borders could have been secured and all the excess munitions laying around the country could have been controlled as well.

Rumsfield screwed the pooch, Bush listened and stuck by him.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bush will probably ask to deploy another 50,000 into Iraq . . then ask the Army to attack Iran . . while trying to get
the Military to sent some 80,000 back into Vietnam to finish the job, since he was so impressed by how warm and friendly
all the Communists were to him while he was in Hanoi . . Hell why not launch a strike on North Korea while we're on a roll . .
and then there's France, and Berkeley, California too . . and don't forget about about Poland.

He's the 'decider'