Bushes new Iraq plan

[akarunway 1]

Guess nothing will change til he's gonehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[DaVinci 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2530976#2530976

Some leaders don't think we should change.

[Gawain 0]

If that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops, sealing the borders and not giving the insurgency or other parties any room to breathe?

I don't know why people think it would've been (or would be in the future) different under another President. Senator Kerry was not running on a platform of withdrawing troops and he has not definitively done so since the 2004 election either.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

Don't need to change when you got it correct.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

What do you want done differently?

-

[akarunway 1]

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

I with you both on that. Get the damn thing won and lets get out.

-

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

I with you both on that. Get the damn thing won and lets get out.

-

Define "win" (in a strategic sense, I **assume** that you don't want to go the "glass parking lot" route to victory).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

I with you both on that. Get the damn thing won and lets get out.

-

Define "win" (in a strategic sense, I **assume** that you don't want to go the "glass parking lot" route to victory).

Since you like to dig up what people have said so much, do a search. I've defined it many times.

-

[billvon 3,120]

>f that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations
>with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops . .

I don't think that by increasing the number of troops by 30% you could 'saturate' anything. If you pulled everyone back to Baghdad, perhaps you could saturate that city. But a country the size (and population) of Texas? You'd need more than a few hundred thousand troops to saturate Texas.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

If they had let the troops go in full bore, I think there would be a lot less problems now.

With that said, it would never happen - the news and Congress can make too much political hay over any/every thing that "goes wrong".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you want done differently?

-

I'll go along w/ Gwain on that one. Fuckin all or nothing. Shit or get off the pot so to speak

If they had let the troops go in full bore, I think there would be a lot less problems now.

With that said, it would never happen - the news and Congress can make too much political hay over any/every thing that "goes wrong".

I guess we need to go this route then?>Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds
"That’s the only way we’re going to end this war."

Nov 15, 2006

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.

"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.

"We need to shift our direction."

"We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that's also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn't only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.

"It's time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don't do that -- we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society."

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Charlie Rangel said that a while back...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>f that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations
>with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops . .

I don't think that by increasing the number of troops by 30% you could 'saturate' anything. If you pulled everyone back to Baghdad, perhaps you could saturate that city. But a country the size (and population) of Texas? You'd need more than a few hundred thousand troops to saturate Texas.

In Iraq, it isn't that difficult, seal the borders and saturate the cities is all that is needed. Iraq is large, but "small". It exists in its cities, per se.

The term saturation doesn't necessarily mean a "cop" on every block. Besides, the US isn't the only country with troops in there. The trouble isn't nationwide, it's in three provinces. Boosting levels to 200,000 will add the edge.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops, sealing the borders and not giving the insurgency or other parties any room to breathe?

I don't know why people think it would've been (or would be in the future) different under another President. Senator Kerry was not running on a platform of withdrawing troops and he has not definitively done so since the 2004 election either.

I agree, it sounds like a half arsed measure to me.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

If that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops, sealing the borders and not giving the insurgency or other parties any room to breathe?

I don't know why people think it would've been (or would be in the future) different under another President. Senator Kerry was not running on a platform of withdrawing troops and he has not definitively done so since the 2004 election either.

I agree, it sounds like a half arsed measure to me.

I don't know about half-assed, but I don't see one extra division doing the job. Maybe the article is on point, but off the mark in terms of some of the details of the story. The American public probably wouldn't be too raved about the idea, but in the end I think they'd support it if there was a real change of doctrine. The trouble is, we've handed sovereignty over to Iraq. The time for this would have been over a year ago.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Again I agree, the timing is behind the curve. What I ment by half arsed is that I agree a divison isn't enough to really suppress the enemy. What it will do is put more targets for the enemy on the ground and I fear increase casulties without denying the enemy the ability to operate.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Again I agree, the timing is behind the curve. What I ment by half arsed is that I agree a divison isn't enough to really suppress the enemy. What it will do is put more targets for the enemy on the ground and I fear increase casulties without denying the enemy the ability to operate.

I'm not a strategist, but it may also depend on how they plan to use those extra troops. If it were me, I'd start them in Baghdad, have them take down Al Sadr, then push west towards Syria. It may create a "steamroller" per se in terms of rolling through Fallujah, then Ramadi, all the way to Syria. That's the hot pocket. If they can seal that corridor, the deed is done.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[freethefly 6]

Quote

If they had let the troops go in full bore, I think there would be a lot less problems now.

If Bush and Thugs had paid attention to the 1999 Iraq war scenario "Desert Crossing" http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm the US would not be bogged down in a quagmire with no way out. Clinton did his homework and realized that an invasion into Iraq was a no-win situation. Bush, on the otherhand, did no such planning and blindly sent men and women into a meat grinder and effectively signed the death certificates and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi men, women and children. The US should be ashamed to have such an idiot in the whitehouse. Once again this idiot is turning to his father to bail his stupid ass out of the fire like so many times in the past, only this time this moron has killed an untold number of people. I personally hope that the German prosecutors who are trying to bring Bush to trial for crimes against humanity succeed and that Bush and Thugs get what is due to them.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Skyrad 0]

But what do you really think?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 3,120]

>It may create a "steamroller" per se in terms of rolling
>through Fallujah, then Ramadi, all the way to Syria.

Every time we've tried that before, though, we've gotten burned. We will recognize that a nearby city has control, say goodbye to the newly-minted police and military forces there, and leave. Then in a few months we'll be back to try to stop the massive wave of violence that began after we left.

The "steamroller" thing might work to stop the violence, but as we've discovered it doesn't stay stopped after we leave - even if we leave Iraqi police and military in charge. (Heck, in some cases the police and military have _become_ the death squads.)

[Zenister 0]

Quote

If that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops, sealing the borders and not giving the insurgency or other parties any room to breathe?

agree here. however your numbers are FAR to low...

400,000 to 500,000 is/would be required.

but a fundamental part of the problem is the Military is NOT a 'Police Force' (with all the public/cultural relations, investigation and determinations of Actual Insurgent (criminal acts regardless of nationality) vs sympathizers and those who simply want what they view as an Occupation Force out of their country) and that is exactly the mission they are required to perform 90% of the time in Iraq, with the other 10% being the combat missions they are actually trained to perform.

We (as a nation) lose a lot of credibility every time an 11b(or other 'grunt' who's training is COMBAT, not Cultural Relations) does something completely stupid that a trained Police Officer (Military or otherwise) would know isnt proper or acceptable behavior. Rumor travels faster than light, particularly in less advanced societies where it is the primary means of information dissemination.

WE make a life long enemy when we kick in a door, arrest every adult male member who has YET to do anything wrong... as soon as they are released, where do you think they go?? it certainly isnt to thank the Military Force that just invaded their HOME for no cause they know of... Every such Mistake is more costly long term than allowing an actual Insurgent to escape....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

If that truly is the plan, then why not saturate the theater of operations with an additional 40,000-50,000 troops, sealing the borders and not giving the insurgency or other parties any room to breathe?

agree here. however your numbers are FAR to low...

400,000 to 500,000 is/would be required.

but a fundamental part of the problem is the Military is NOT a 'Police Force' (with all the public/cultural relations, investigation and determinations of Actual Insurgent (criminal acts regardless of nationality) vs sympathizers and those who simply want what they view as an Occupation Force out of their country) and that is exactly the mission they are required to perform 90% of the time in Iraq, with the other 10% being the combat missions they are actually trained to perform.

We (as a nation) lose a lot of credibility every time an 11b(or other 'grunt' who's training is COMBAT, not Cultural Relations) does something completely stupid that a trained Police Officer (Military or otherwise) would know isnt proper or acceptable behavior. Rumor travels faster than light, particularly in less advanced societies where it is the primary means of information dissemination.

WE make a life long enemy when we kick in a door, arrest every adult male member who has YET to do anything wrong... as soon as they are released, where do you think they go?? it certainly isnt to thank the Military Force that just invaded their HOME for no cause they know of... Every such Mistake is more costly long term than allowing an actual Insurgent to escape....

Well, you nailed it there. In addition, by declaring "war" on terror, we raised the status of terrorists from criminal to warrior. Only an idiot would do that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Guess nothing will change til he's gonehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html

Clear evidence that Iraq's so-called "government" is just a US puppet.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012001446.html



By Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 21, 2007; Page A01

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a surprise for President Bush when they sat down with their aides in the Four Seasons Hotel in Amman, Jordan. Firing up a PowerPoint presentation, Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.

The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.