Generals Back Troop "Surge" in Iraq

[Gravitymaster 0]

Generals in Iraq back troop 'surge'
Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to report to Bush today on what to do in Iraq.
LOS ANGELES TIMES


Saturday, December 23, 2006

WASHINGTON — Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of American troops into Iraq, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday.

The approval of a troop increase plan by the top Iraq commanders, including Gen. George Casey, who had resisted adding more troops in Iraq, comes shortly before Bush unveils a new course in Iraq. Bush still must address concerns among some Pentagon officials and overcome opposition in Congress, where many Democrats favor a blue-ribbon commission's recommendation for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops.

But the recommendation by the commanders in Iraq is significant because Bush has placed prime importance on their advice. The U.S. command in Iraq decided to recommend a troop increase several days ago, before meetings in Baghdad this week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the defense official said.

At the end of his three-day fact-finding trip to Iraq, Gates said Friday that U.S. and Iraqi officials are in broad strategic agreement about how to proceed, and he emphasized that success "will only be achieved with a joint effort, with the Iraqis taking the lead."

Gates was scheduled to brief Bush at Camp David this morning, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

________________________________________________________________________________-

I've got to admit, I was resistant to the idea of getting rid of Rumsfeld. But I now concede it was necessary. Rumsfeld wouldn't have listened to the Generals the way Gates has. This troop surge would never have been able to occur with Rumsfeld running the show. I have always criticized Bush and Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops in to get the job done. Hopefully Gates will do what needs to be done.

I was wrong and the lefties were right.

-

[b1jercat 0]

I was wrong the lefties were right.


Thank you, I just suffered a major heart attack.
In my wildest dreams I would have thought you were never wrong.

blues

jerry

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I was wrong the lefties were right.


Thank you, I just suffered a major heart attack.
In my wildest dreams I would have thought you were never wrong.

blues

jerry

Don't drop your guard, it's a trap.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I was wrong the lefties were right.


Thank you, I just suffered a major heart attack.
In my wildest dreams I would have thought you were never wrong.

blues

jerry

Don't drop your guard, it's a trap.

[billvon 3,116]

Previous quote from Casey:

". . . in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk when there are Iraqi forces who are capable of standing up and doing."

But hey. New boss, new orders.

What worries me about the 'surge' is what we expect out of it. I think the reason it's being called a surge is that "a permanent increase in troops in Iraq" would result in an impeachment, or at least in a complete loss of support for the war in Iraq. I can see three possible outcomes/rationales:

1. Violence decreases a bit. "Well, the addition of troops worked. We can't 'enable the terrorists' by withdrawing troops right when we've got them on the run, unless you support the terrorists, that is. That's what they're waiting for!"

2. Nothing changes. "If we withdraw troops NOW, the violence will start increasing again! You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?"

3. The violence gets worse. "Reducing troops NOW would be a disaster! Things are getting worse!"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Previous quote from Casey:

". . . in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk when there are Iraqi forces who are capable of standing up and doing."

But hey. New boss, new orders.

What worries me about the 'surge' is what we expect out of it. I think the reason it's being called a surge is that "a permanent increase in troops in Iraq" would result in an impeachment, or at least in a complete loss of support for the war in Iraq. I can see three possible outcomes/rationales:

1. Violence decreases a bit. "Well, the addition of troops worked. We can't 'enable the terrorists' by withdrawing troops right when we've got them on the run, unless you support the terrorists, that is. That's what they're waiting for!"

2. Nothing changes. "If we withdraw troops NOW, the violence will start increasing again! You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?"

3. The violence gets worse. "Reducing troops NOW would be a disaster! Things are getting worse!"

But..but.. didn't you criticize Bush for Not listening to his Generals before going to war in Iraq?

Weren't you one of those calling for Bush to get rid of Rumsfeld?

So he gets rid of Rumsfeld and listens to his Generals and his new Sec. of Defense, who by the way was approved overwhelmingly by Congress, bi-partisanship and all that, and you still aren't happy?

I'd think you would be giving him high praise. He's given you exactly what you wished for.

-

[Amazon 7]

Quote

He's given you exactly what you wished for.

Too bad he did not listen to that 3 years ago

Three thousand of our young people who believed him and lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of wasted lives of those "other" people who just happened to be in the way.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

He's given you exactly what you wished for.

Too bad he did not listen to that 3 years ago

Three thousand of our young people who believed him and lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of wasted lives of those "other" people who just happened to be in the way.

Better late than never. Can we assume you will be supporting Bush, Gates and U.S. Generals in their quest to restore order to Iraq by increasing the number of troops there? You were one of those people calling for Rumsfeld to be fired and criticizing Bush for not listening to his Generals weren't you?

I'm wondering when Americans and the rest of the world are going to wake up and realize the fight is actually with Iran. The road to world peace leads through Tehran. The sooner we admit what needs to be done, the better.

-

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Better late than never.

I'm not sure that applies here anymore. At some point, late is too late. I fear we've reached that point, and now we're just throwing good American and Brit blood after bad.

The opportunity to do it right is long since lost. Time to declare victory and bring our kids back home BEFORE ONE SINGLE MORE OF THEM DIES. I'm not willing to sacrifice one more Allied life in Iraq for what, sadly, has become a lost cause. Not one more.

[billvon 3,116]

>So he gets rid of Rumsfeld and listens to his Generals and his new Sec.
>of Defense, who by the way was approved overwhelmingly by Congress,
>bi-partisanship and all that, and you still aren't happy?

?? Those were good moves on his part. So was commissioning the ISG, and admitting that we are not winning this war. Bad moves would include ignoring most of the ISG's recommendations; the two central ones call for a political offensive to change the political environment in Iraq and changing the role of US troops from security to advisor roles (and a drawdown in their number by 2008.)

>I'd think you would be giving him high praise. He's given you exactly what you wished for.

My strongest wish is to end the war that has been killing thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If he can do that, I'll be the first to congratulate him. So far he seems to be heading in the wrong direction. (Although he has taken some encouraging steps.)