Someone explain to me how this 'troop surge' is supposed to work.

[Martin]

I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

 

[IronWing]

There you go again, looking at history and facts and stuff. Come on, get behind the surge*.



How come everytime the Whitehouse comes out with a new buzzword the media happyheads immediately glom onto it? Regime change, WMD, Wer on Terr, Decider, and now surge.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

Well, their mission is to delay the decision until GW is out of office. You see, then the next government will have to take the fall for the failure while the GW administration were "doing anything possible".

No one believes that 20k troops will make a difference, NO ONE, some will defend it because they would defend anything but no one truly believes it will make a difference.

There is one solution to win the war and no one would want that much blood on their hands, it is the same way SH ensured peace, it will never happen.

 

[tomywishbone]

"Well, their mission is to delay the decision until GW is out of office. You see, then the next government will have to take the fall for the failure while the GW administration were "doing anything possible".


Exactly right. Madness.

 

[kage69]

In order to honor the troops that have already been wounded or killed, we have to send more over to be killed or wounded.



It's so simple!

 

[Tom]

I hadn't really expected the feelings I had for MacNamara/Johnson/Nixon/Kissinger to come back in my lifetime, but as I watched Secretary State Rice before Congress today I felt such a feeling of disgust..

this is so pointless.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: kage69
In order to honor the troops that have already been wounded or killed, we have to send more over to be killed or wounded.



It's so simple!

Try to imagine how much pain this war for nothing has caused, it's unimaginable.

Some will say that saying that will diminish what the troops have achived, i will say that what i have said is because of the incompetent leadership, the soldiers themselves are worthy of respect, the leaders are worthy of nothing but disgust. None of them have ever had to be in harms way yet they have no problem sending men in harms way.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Martin
Someone explain to me how this 'troop surge' is supposed to work.

The difficult we do right away. The impossible takes a little longer. Got a few centuries? :roll:

 

[sandorski]

Stephan Colbert has the answer: A troop surge of 300 million!

 

[Termagant]

Amidst all the sound and fury of the troops going to Iraq, Bush will move carrier groups and aircraft into position to bomb Iran. A trifecta of Middle East wars would be the ultimate legacy for the War President Decider who Gets Things Done while Staying the Course in the Long War on Terror. Only Bush has the balls, foresight, and determination to take Islam on by the horns like a Texas bull, and He is convinced that future generations will thank him.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Termagant
Amidst all the sound and fury of the troops going to Iraq, Bush will move carrier groups and aircraft into position to bomb Iran. A trifecta of Middle East wars would be the ultimate legacy for the War President Decider who Gets Things Done while Staying the Course in the Long War on Terror. Only Bush has the balls, foresight, and determination to take Islam on by the horns like a Texas bull, and He is convinced that future generations will thank him.

Yeehawww!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stephan Colbert has the answer: A troop surge of 300 million!

Maybe we could outsource the military to India to gain this number and save some money as well, same level of fighting for half the price!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: sandorski
Stephan Colbert has the answer: A troop surge of 300 million!

Maybe we could outsource the military to India to gain this number and save some money as well, same level of fighting for half the price!

hehe, probably less than half price though.

 

[Slackware]

Yeah, not to ruin the humor but this is war.

Would YOU go?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Slackware
Yeah, not to ruin the humor but this is war.

With over 3,000 dead American troops, eleven more, today.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Slackware
Yeah, not to ruin the humor but this is war.

Would YOU go?

Of course not, I have much better things to do. But if its bodies you need - Bush still has a 30% approval rating, and about a quarter of Americans are really really solid republicans - thats quite a few million potential soldiers there.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Slackware
Yeah, not to ruin the humor but this is war.

With over 3,000 dead American troops, eleven more, today.

I wish i could say that their sacrifice will not be forgotten but for most it is already.

Some of us will never forget the sacrifice.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

There are way more Iraqi soldiers in uniform and properly trained now than a year ago.

 

[Lemon law]

In 3.8 years of this Iraq war---this is the first time the decider has even acknowledged the need to alter strategy---but in so doing is completely ignoring the Baker Hamilton report
that stresses the solution in Iraq is to be found in the political arena and not through military might. And worse yet, GWB did not consult with congress before deciding.

But as I have posted in other threads, GWB will almost certainly get this chance to surge after congress makes him grovel a bit. Its also not rocket science to predict that by mid summer, all will know that the surge has failed---because its far to little far to late. By then the democratic investigations will have further weakened GWB as unpleasant little truths start emerging and the rats start deserting a sinking ship.

So I have to figure that this surge will be GWB's last hurrah------and me thinks Cheney and the neocons have already read those same tea leaves---and come to the same conclusion.
So to salvage their dreams---they must invade Iran to really get the USA into the shotgun wedding of their vision.---do any think they will surrender to the reality of their failure?

 

[2Xtreme21]

I think ntdz should go on a tour of duty. :thumbsup:

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

There are way more Iraqi soldiers in uniform and properly trained now than a year ago.

After the last round of dismissials there are less than you think, less than one thenth of the US troop count.

The real enlistment for secutityforces has been kinda dione already bot not really started, and since there are those enlisting that require interventions the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[kage69]

Try to imagine how much pain this war for nothing has caused, it's unimaginable.

Why do you want me to try if it's unimaginable? While I get what you're saying, I disagree on the war being for nothing. Nothing honorable or moral would be more correct, as were the reasons and actions that got us into it.

Some will say that saying that will diminish what the troops have achived, i will say that what i have said is because of the incompetent leadership, the soldiers themselves are worthy of respect, the leaders are worthy of nothing but disgust.

And those "some" would be the people who care more for their own ideals than the lives of their countrymen. I agree 100% on the incompetent leadership angle, with the one caveat that in addition to disgust they're worthy of a whole lot of prosecution. The entire Cheney Junta should be thrown in a hole, or better yet, forced to pitch in and help personally with the clusterfvck they created.

None of them have ever had to be in harms way yet they have no problem sending men in harms way.

Chickenhawks of the highest order, I agree. And they have the nuts to talk down to respected vets like Murtha and Cleland, and a collection of decorated generals about how a war should be run. It's fooking disgusting.
And the salt in the wound is that it's not just men. It's boys, girls, sisters, and mothers that are catching hell for these deceitful bastards. :brokenheart:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I think ntdz should go on a tour of duty. :thumbsup:

His ankle bracelet sets off an alarm if he strays outside the :Qhouse.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But as I have posted in other threads, GWB will almost certainly get this chance to surge after congress makes him grovel a bit. Its also not rocket science to predict that by mid summer, all will know that the surge has failed---because its far to little far to late. By then the democratic investigations will have further weakened GWB as unpleasant little truths start emerging and the rats start deserting a sinking ship.

So I have to figure that this surge will be GWB's last hurrah------and me thinks Cheney and the neocons have already read those same tea leaves---and come to the same conclusion.
So to salvage their dreams---they must invade Iran to really get the USA into the shotgun wedding of their vision.---do any think they will surrender to the reality of their failure?

That does sound like the most likely path for the foreseeable future. Call me an optimist, but I don't think Cheney and Bush are blind enough, nor the republican base stupid enough to start anything with Iran. Reality eventually catches up with people...

 

[bamacre]

In defense of our officials (and that's not something I normally do ), has anyone considered for a second that they cannot just come out publically with the details of this new plan without the enemy finding out and evolving to its details? I hate to say it, but I think we just need to wait and see how things pan out before we complain.