20,000 Additional Troops to Surge into Iraq

In a bit of unwelcome news, apparently the Bush camp has unveiled plans to surge 20,000 additional troops into Iraq beginning this month with roughly half of them being sent into Baghdad where the insurgency seems to be the worst.



As unpopular as this increase in troops is with the war weary civilian population it must be just as or even more unpopular with the troops themselves many of which who have just gotten back themselves. newly sworn in house speaker Nancy Pelosi has apparently shifted her stand on the troop level issue, demonstrating the ability to say one thing and do another. in may 2004 when asked point blank " would you send in more troops to stabilize the situation" Pelosi answered "yes" . and we thought things would be different with a change of guard.

Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com

Well, in all fairness Pelosi, while admittedly being a neurotic insult to plastic surgery, is just like anyone else and is allowed to have an opinion, and to change it. A troop surge was a good idea then. It isn't now.

Summary of speech: More troops, more spending, more pipe dreams and more empty slogans directed at the few remaining complacent morons to slop up like a Pavlovian mut.

With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

This adminstration seems to have learned little to nothing in regards to handling insurgencies, which leaves me to assume it's more likely they have devious motives contrary to US sovereignty.

An excellent book by one of my old professors, Donald Hamilton (Navy reserve officer, ex-CIA, and direct descendant of Alexander Hamilton): The Art of Insurgency: American Military Policy and the Failure of Strategy in Southeast Asia

Iraq may not be the only place were they are surging to:
US Ground Forces Reported Deployed in Somalia

There is no honor among thieves, seditionists and assassins, so don't expect any from them or their mindless cheerleading trolls.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

I'm all for it, but I worry about the effect on our forces. Our military is composed of perhaps the finest troops ever deployed, but they do have limits.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by the_sentinal
In a bit of unwelcome news, apparently the Bush camp has unveiled plans to surge 20,000 additional troops into Iraq beginning this month with roughly half of them being sent into Baghdad where the insurgency seems to be the worst.

That's a bit of an understatement. Between 70-80% of the violence occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Summary of speech: More troops, more spending, more pipe dreams and more empty slogans directed at the few remaining complacent morons to slop up like a Pavlovian mut.

The two major thrusts were:

a) Addition troops to secure districts after they have been stabilized. In the past, the troops would move on, and the insurgents would move back in.

b) No more restrictions on the troops. No more of the "Olly olly in free at the mosque".

You have any better ideas, other than to cut and run?

Well, after seeing that whole speech, and some of the resulting comments from the various newscasters, I still don't understand what, if any real differences in this strategy the American public is supposed to embrace. And what's more, it would seem kind of obvious that you can secure an area, but if you don't HOLD IT, that the "bad guys" are going to return.

So why should the American public support now what should have been the strategy all along? Are you telling me, Mr. Bush, that you just wasted 3,000 American lives with your ineffective strategy and now you want me to support putting 20,000 more lives into your meat grinder on the premise that, oh yeah, THIS one's gonna work? And how many more years are you going to need to figure out that success is impossible in Iraq as long as the American military is on middle eastern sand?

No, Mr. Bush. Not just no, but HELL no. Instead why don't you simply resign as President, take some of that good ole money you have and hire yourself a large mercenary crew and go test out your theories on your own money and your own blood. I sincerely wonder if after a few close RPG's you'll stay the course.

This crap about the Democrats witholding funding for those troop additions being seen as non-supportive and carrying over to the next election is just some fancy republican notion rooted in desperation. The American public spoke quite clearly in those last elections. It is time to get out of there, and let the Iraqi government rise to the occasion.

I'd feel a whole lot more secure if we'd just get the hell off middle eastern territory. If terrorists still pursue us after that, then by God let em have it. Because at that point we will have done what they asked: left the middle east. If Iran gets nukes, and foolishly tries to use one of them, level the place.

One other thing is that Bush mentioned that they are now going to actively "cut off Syrian and Iranian networks." Well, I thought they were already doing that? Tell me people, what in the heck has changed here in this new "way forward?"

Iraq has proven to be like quicksand for coalition troops.
Military sending additional troops to Iraq will do nothing but give the insurgents more targets. On the political front the Bush admin gains quite a lot the demands for a withdrawl from Iraq will be replaced by protests against the troop increase.

Mean while the Iraqi security forces will continue to be infiltrated by the insurgents and death squads leaving Iraq and the coalition back at square one.

Good Morning Vietnam!

So much for cooperation: Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers

Today it's smelling a lot like like rotten Cambodian kimchi. 21,500 units (10,000 troops with 11,500 rear support staff) is like spitting gas on a forest fire, and more likely to push Iraq into absolute chaos. Ho Chi Minh was heard laughing hysterically, as Bush indicated evoking an open confrontation with a Syria and Iran on the road to WW3.



UK's actions indicate they are fed up with Bush and want out of Saigon:
British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran WaPost
3,000 British Troops to Pull Out of Iraq by May Telegraph
Blair: Saddam execution was 'completely wrong' Jerusalem Post

Well that's the spew for today where killing innocent people IS the problem, not the solution....



[edit on 11-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

AMEN TrueAmerican AMEN!!!

We have had troop levels as high as 160,000 before (current levels hover around 120,000) so 20,000 won't even raise levels to its high. Even then 160,000 didn't do anything except bleed and die.

The problem is rooted in the decisions made even prior to the invasion, such as using a small force, disbanding the Iraqi army, sidelining the Baathists and using American contractors instead of Iraqi's to "rebuild" Iraq... every single one of those decisions shuffled the population we were trying to win over in the first place off to the sideline. Add to that high handedness and just plain old incompetance.

Another thing 1 Billion for economic development? Wasn't the billions lost for Iraqi rebuilding economic development? It should have been but instead it became a giveaway to every crook from Halliburton to Uncle Duke that could but a ticket to Baghdad.

The simple truth is that we made this mess thanks to arrogance and hubris, but unfortuantely it has become beyond our power to fix it. We should have taken a long hard look at what happened the Balkans in the 90's before removing a heavy hand. Saddam may have been a bastard, but he kept the place together; and the place may very well have exploded once he was gone, but it wouldn't have been because of us. We are in a far worse place in Iraq after 4 years than we ever were in Vietnam after a decade.

We have lost all chance for a good outcome there, if we ever had one in the first place.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by grover]

Something I found regarding peace in the middle east and Bush.

Peace in the Middle East was an impossibility in light of US President George Bush's announcement to send more troops to Iraq, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara said on Thursday, according to a report on Israel Radio.

"There is no reason to expect that the peace process will be restarted without the clear commitment of the Americans," al-Shara said.

Jerusalem post

Rather than spend the billions paying the new troops, why won't Bush and party send better equipment, including IED protected vehicles and body armor troops wont have to pay for with their own money?

As others have said already, why haven't we been using this new strategy from the beginning? Moving forward, the one thing I heard in the speech that I feel will make a difference is that now our troops will have the green light to go into those bad neighborhoods. Places like Sadr City which is where most of the sectarian violence has been occurring. This is currently death squad territory, and you know what will happen when we go in there. When the safe havens are taken away, the insurgents will be backed into a corner. Expect to see more casualties than what we are seeing now. This could be where the real war starts and it will get worse before it gets better.

I personally don’t think it is worth it, but I will say Good Luck to our Troops and stay safe.

We could also just take all the money we are going to spend on troops, and supplies, and give it to the Iraqi government so they can build a government infrastructure that is effective. I'd rather my tax dollars go directly to another government than contribute to the death of any of my friends stationed over there.

I have so much to say about this, but honestly, I don't have the motivation to type it all out. Why should I? Anyone who's ever read my thoughts on this war knows how I feel and what I think and besides, most of it has been said. I know that's a cop out, but oh, well...

Props to all of you that have taken the time and energy to put some thought into this and type out your opinions.

Suffice it to say that this 'new strategy' is MOTS (More of the same). There's nothing new here. Just sending more of our valuable troops to their deaths. And as has been said, everyone knows you can't clear out the 'insurgents' and then abandon the place and expect it to stay 'clean'. If you don't know that, you're an idiot.

And I agree with someone in another thread who mentioned that there's something behind this troop 'surge' that we are unaware of... and it most likely has to do with US presence in the other countries in the region. More war, more loss of life, more of the same...

I can't believe people are supporting this. :shk: We have 130,000 troops there now. If you want to make a difference, send in another 130,000. But 20,000 is like a bandaid on a torn jugular. Useless and a waste of life.

If Maliki were going to participate 100%, why hasn't he up to this point? Why change now? What is really going to be different? Nothing.

I do find it interesting that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is coming into the forefront in the news recently. Eleven thousand people have been dismissed under this policy and that's about half of what W is sending to Iraq... This could get real interesting... (I'm half joking, but only half.) Now that we need more troops, we're revisiting letting the gays fight... Now that we need them, we'll consider letting them die for their country.

I hate things right now.

I guess I had a little more motivation than I thought! But I didn't even touch on most of what I think.

You have voted TrueAmerican for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

I asked my ex marine husband what will happen if the congress will not approve the budget to support more troops . . .

Will bush use his power to send the 20 thousand troops without asking congress for approval anyway?

He could . . . if he utilizes the Marines only but . . . my husband believes that Mr. Bush do not have 20 thousand Marines available right now to put together that many.

If he tries is going to cause terrible consequences to that branch of the arm forces.

The issue will be . . . will bush get away with sending more troops?

Thanks BH and Grover. You are making some real good points. And that issue about the gays is spot on BH. Very good insight, and not seen that mentioned before, at least not in this immediate context.

They just said on the news that two forts from CA will be affected. I'm curious as to why those two facilities?

What gets me here with this new troop increase is that Bush just continues, right in our faces, to do the opposite of what the American people want. It's almost as if there was no elections. He's acting like he's got several million demonstrators outside the white house screaming for more troops. What in the HELL is he thinking? Is it going to take impeachment or assassination before this guy finally realizes that he doesn't have the majority of the public behind him?

The moment he failed to make a compelling case why we should have been there in the first place, support started falling, and has been falling ever since. Folks, we have an American President who does NOT represent the will of the majority of people, and who is willing to continue his wanton destruction and wasting of lives despite that fact. There is very good reason here to compare this with Vietnam, and I hope to God the Dems find a way to withhold funding- not just for these additions, but for the rest of his failed effort there as well. It's time to come home.

The truth is Congress could do a lot to prevent these troops from going. They could refuse to fund it -- but they won't because of their chicken # nature. It wouldn't be politically prudent for them to be seen as 'not supporting the troops' and George knows that. He's counting on that. If Congress would stand up and exercise their power, they could do quite a bit to change things around. They are 2 parts of this government but they haven't the huevos to do the right thing because they might be seen as unsupportive.

I'd be proud to be seen as unsupportive of the insanity that is currently taking place.

And for those of you who support this action, I hope you're going down to sign up today at your local recruiting office. Your country needs you. Whether you've already served or never served, if you support sending more troops to their bloody, senseless deaths, put your money where your mouth is and give a soldier a break.

If you've "done your time", then do it again. This isn't a punishment for crime. You don't back down because you already did your job. How dare you support sending more troops and then back out, claiming you already served. :shk:

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

What gets me here with this new troop increase is that Bush just continues, right in our faces, to do the opposite of what the American people want. It's almost as if there was no elections.

I am surprised that you that knows what is going on in our political system and that knows what is the main course with Iraq, may be asking that question.

Bush has accomplished so far what he was set to do.

People seems no to understand that the goal of Iraq has almost, almost met.

All is needed is a littler signed piece of paper and Bush will claim victory no for the american people but for the powers that help him get into the presidential seat and has keep him in there for two consecutives elections.

I am so tired of what is going on under our own noses and still many Americans are oblivious of the purpose of Bush digging for support in Iraq.

We will find out very soon what kind of people we got in congress right now, what kind of people we elected to take over and to listen to the American peoples voices.

But so far I am afraid, like you have said before and many others we have stop to have a meaning to the powers that govern our nation and our lives including our soldiers.

My husband should have gotten by now his official certificate of retirement but new rules now has extended his unofficial time frame to be call back in case our nation needs him back.

No even him knew that until he started to ask questions as why he have not gotten his retirement certificate.

A lot of things are happening and we are no aware of how far our political leaders are willing to take the people of this nation in the pursue of goals of private agendas.



[edit on 11-1-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Regenmacher
We must expect more Iraqi and American casualties

I am going to bring something that Donwhite another member of this board said to me and reminded me off.

We should understand that we have a man in the white house that his record of executions as governor was very impresive, that alone should tell how much he cares about other people's lives.

That should have been a warning about the mental state of the man that later was to become president.

He has not problem sleeping at night with so many death in his hands.

We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Bush needs a scape goat in his pursue of the war on terror and his crusade, that is the personal agenda of his, moving resources around using carriers beside troops required more money that may no be included in the budget for the war so far this year.

Compromising the redeployment of carries will ensure that it will be support from congres.

He may be following his father step on forcing congress to open the purse as not to get the scorn of the American public for not supporting the already forces in the area, it cost a lot of money to redeploy carries and ships around the world.