This Story is Archived
Bush plans to put more troops in Iraq »
Posted by: jeremytoday 1 year, 8 months agoPresident Bush, working to recraft his strategy in Iraq, said Tuesday that he plans to increase the size of the U.S. military so it can fight a long-term war against terrorism.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 170
-
TimALoftis
Dec. 19, 2006, 6:38 p.m.The Washington Post Story;
-
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:15 p.m.Halko, I can't believe you are pointing this out, but you are still partially wrong. You typically characterize vagrant positions as applying to all: Kerry wanted special forces better trained to win the hearts and minds and counter-insurgency ops. Dubya doesn't know what he wants other than to never have to admit he was wrong. Dubya thinks we need forces to fight the war on terror over the long term, but occupation of an Arab nation (Iran next?)should not be part of this anti-terror plan. Increasing the size of the military has been expressed by how many other Dems to validate the increase as a Dem overall positon?
-
-
truthaddict
Dec. 20, 2006, 6:51 p.m.Liberals are always right, when are you going to learn that?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative"
--John Stuart Mill
-
-
-
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:23 p.m.///Yes David, we are sure to prolong it by acerbating it though occupation, torture, incarceration without charges, condemnation from afar without diplomacy, etc.... Yes its an ideological war that Dubya has given much high ground away to the terrorists. Just imagine if Dubya would have left the sole mission to the military of getting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan instead of moving on to Iraq with limited assets and now threats of the same toward Iran. Our president through his continuous blunders/lies has made this a generational war!
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:33 p.m.The social sciences call resolution of ideological conflicts "attitude change". There is no such thing as an ideological war. There are wars fueled by conflicting ideologies. In terms of changing an opponents attitude, war may be an option and may be used beneficially but using it to change attitudes almost always fails. The greatest change in ideology occurs when one party has a direct interaction with the other party that creates cognitive dissonance with their prior beliefs and thus starts to shake up and change their rigid, negative attitude toward a prior enemy.
Now, war happens when you can't get the attitude change diplomatically and you have to annihilate the enemy completely; or, take something of theirs by force to force them back to negotiations. But while you are at war you usually strengthen the enemy's oppositional ideology. Thus, waring against an ideology is an oxymoron. You war against people until you can stop warring and have diplomacy.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:39 a.m.Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove ... they have all "lost it" - they are not playing with a full deck.
On the other hand, as I have posted on other threads (sorry to be repetitive, but) --
I have decided that Bush and the neo-cons that are pushing this war and that want to invade Iran all have NO conscience, no compassion, no morals. All they have is their greed and their lust for power. They are evil.
Bush recently said, in an interview with People magazine, "I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume."
I rest my case ...
-
-
DoTheRightThing
Dec. 21, 2006, 2:07 a.m.Even then you support people like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove ... regardless of political parties.
I say America's government days are now numbered just like USSR, If American public do not rise against these illegal acts against humanity where ever American terrorist regime(s) are purporting
-
-
Aidenag
Dec. 20, 2006, 6:55 a.m.With how low recruitment levels are in all branches of the armed service, i really dont see how this can be accomplished without a draft. Not like the hundreds of millions spent on those lame TV commercials does anything other than make us hit the mute button.
-
jordan11
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:03 p.m.I hear those there now will have their tours extended. This is wrong. Asking a few to do all the work and take all the risks, is wrong. But, it does keep that 30 some percent on bush's 'side', and that's what is important.
-
-
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:27 p.m.Wow, great, you actually credited a position to a specific person versus all Dems. And, his position is not so much for the draft but rather to see the burden of military service be spread throughout our society.
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:44 p.m.Since half the country voted for him...there should be plenty of Replublican hawks to rush down and sign up second week in January. If a draft is necessary it will be proof that the Republican, conservative hawks are not truly willing to put themselves on the line for this war to save Western Civilization from the Muslim heathens.
300,000,000 people in the US, roughly half adults, that's 150,000,000. Roughly half male (not to be sexist but traditional), that's 75,000,000; roughly half Republican...that about 37,000,000. Roughly half between ages 18 and 45...that's about 18,000,000 who I will expect to volunteer in a couple weeks.
-
jordan11
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:11 p.m.don't think Bush has swung so far left that he feels a draft will be necessary.>>>>
bush will never swing 'left.' That would be the right thing to do, and we all know, CONS never do the right thing. Best to ask a few to do all the sacrificing. Best for the morons who cheer him on, anyway.
-
-
vor
Dec. 20, 2006, 8:30 a.m."I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks."
Stop it George, just tell them you have to wait for Dick to make up his mind. The neo-cons have easily re-assumed control. The elections are now but an afterthought. PNAC is revived. No matter the massive failure it has been. The permanent bases wont go to waste now.
Whatever happened to the will of the people? I suppose it is assumed that most of us want an all out war throughout the Middle East, and through Southern and Southeast Asia. Yet there will never be a clear victory and there is no clear foe. The only stated objective is to wipeout Islamo-fascism, which doesn't exist as any clearly defined structure. Very Orwellian.
-
doppich
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:10 p.m.I think Bush is waiting for God to insert the answer into his gut. God's been a little slow in getting back to George, which is why George has extended His deadline until after the new year.
-
-
saneman
Dec. 20, 2006, 8:34 a.m.Someone has to protect the 100,000 contractors in Iraq. In addition, Halliburton was given a 5 year contract in Iraq. It hasn't been 5 years yet as they continue to rip off the U.S. taxpayers, and of course, finally, it's all about the oil isn't it. So, please don't be surprised by any of these actions. It's called money and more money.
-
walden3
Dec. 20, 2006, 8:54 a.m.what a mess.
on the one hand there may be a need for more troops to stabilize iraq, but on the other hand we would not be there in the first place if not for the blatant lies of bush and his cronies.
and like always happens to G.W. he needs other people to dig him out of the problems that he's created. this time it's america's armed services.
-
jordan11
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:07 p.m.on the one hand there may be a need for more troops to stabilize iraq, but on the other hand we would not be there in the first place if not for the blatant lies of bush and his cronies.>>>>>
It does seem obvious we haven't had the manpower OR the intelligence capabilities in Iraq to get a grip on this mess. God, my heart goes out to those who have been there for all this time without enough help. Bush really is a despicable man. A despicable little man.
-
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:04 a.m.The top generals are correct.
1. The primary problem is not a military problem. Throwing more soldiers at the problem cannot solve it. The tool is not appropriate for the problem.
2. Not even 50,000 more troops would be enough. For example, The Brooking's Institute says there are 15,000 US soldiers in Baghdad, 15,000 Iraqi soldiers in Bagdad and 40,000 police. Except they say the police are the cover for and are the death squads so they are a hinderance to peace. That means the 30,000 soldiers are already outnumbered by 40,000 police. Securing an urban area takes a ratio of 5:1. To defend Baghdad just from the police would require 200,000 soldiers.
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:41 a.m.I agree, but understand, the Muslim world doesn't see what they are doing at "terrorism". Their Prophet was a bandit in Western thinking. He raided trade caravans and such... He used religion to replace tribalism and to create what we would consider a "cult" in the beginning. The Muslim military mind sees what they are doing as legitimate tactic...almost all warfare in the East has been "terroristic". Napoleonic warfare is relatively unique to the West. This is not entirely so but if you compare tactics of the Khans, Mongols, and other Eastern warlords to Napoleonic warfare there will never be peace in the region until nationalism supercedes tribalism. Tribal warfare and blood feuds are terroristic and spurious. The middle east is in the same place as the Celts when the Romans defeated them...we just aren't fighting like the Romans. When we do, we win.
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:27 p.m.In a way Bush made a mistake declaring this a war. Calling it a war legitimized the "terrorists" as heros and military combatants. If he had left them criminals and called on all the world's moral principles even those in the East would see the terrorists as criminals. Bush made them freedom fighters by declaring it a "war". Give an anti-social thug off the streets who would otherwise be in prison a uniform and he becomes a national hero. Bad psychological mistake to call it a War against Terrorism. They needed to stay psychopathic criminals.
-
-
Jayce
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:46 p.m.I miss Saddam, I miss reading my newspaper and not seeing an article about war in either Afganistan or Iraq on evry single page. Just F off with the warmongering.
-
super-sunshine
Dec. 21, 2006, 1:10 p.m.Jayce,
I understand..... Just think... if they were to put Saddam back in charge of Iraq, he would have it under control in less then a week. But Haliburton would lose money.... But Bush would not looking any more foolish then he already does. Warmongering should be banned. We can only hope that the ones that gained the most from starting this bloodshed will get theirs in a very similar manner as they shelled it out.
-
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:36 a.m.If we break our logistics train and our financial back we give it back by default. We've been through this before as the insurgent. It's how we broke the USSR's back in Afghanistan. We know this scenario from the perspective of the enemy very well...we crafted the original strategy for bringing us down.
I'm waiting to hear a general officer speak the truth about what will be necessary to fix this. There will be no half measures that can work. We're talking 500,000 soldiers and sweeping the entire country killing all resistance while we get some competent contractors to rebuild the infrastructure, or,we're talking withdrawing and resorting to covert ops against whomever takes over until we can regroup and try it again.
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:37 p.m.You won't hear an active duty general officer - Dubya has made his decision and the soldiers will tow the line or resign!
-
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:09 a.m.3. Also, the Republicn Guard that melted ino the cities was 100,000 soldiers. The Special Republican Guard was 26,000 soldiers. In 2002 and 2003 it was confirmed that they were training and leading insurgency operations. Controlling the Special Republican Guard that is 26,000 strong in an urban area would take at least 75,000 soldiers and ideally 250,000 soldiers to take them out.
4. Al Sader is estimated to have a militia of combat hardened, highly motivated soldiers of 60,000. They have been securing the people and providing protection and social services. They have the support of their citizenry. Taking them out in urban combat would take 300,000 soldiers.
We have allowed the enemy to consolidate their key terrain, to rehearse avenues of approach and egress, to stockpile and hide weapons, to secure the will and support of locals...
The most basic formulas predict we need nearly 500,000 soldiers to reclaim Iraq. Adding 50,000 will only increase the enemy kill ratio.
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
getreal1
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:18 a.m.It time is to pull the rug out from under the Bush administration. They have harmed enough. We cannot give them what they want for a military. They have heaped so many hardships on the American people that they suffer from ill health before the age of eighteen. My gosh, a body needs to have an address before he can be drafted.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:16 a.m.Bush may not have made it official yet, but it is obvious to anyone used to watching this guy at work that he had his mind made up before he even started this charade of "listening". The consultation phase he's now in has only two purposes.
1 - Provide GWB political cover. "I listen to the most important people, the Generals on the ground in Iraq."
2 - Provide time to issue the deployment, tour-extension, stop-loss and logistics orders needed.
If it were not so, how did GW know just what military experts to cherry pick from. In his listening charade, he invited those who would tell him what he had already decided he wanted to hear.
Yes, this is speculation on my part. And it could turn out otherwise if the Pentagon bucks up stiffly enough. But my sense is that We the People need to start hauling this administration in before they do the USA irreparable harm.
-
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:18 a.m.There is no such thing as a War Against Terrorism. This is marketing nonsense. War is killing...you can't kill terrorism. You can kill Nazis, you can kill NVA, you can kill members of Al Queda. You can wage physical war against human beings not ideals or concepts. How does a soldier kill 'terrorism'...stab dictionaries with a bayonet? No, there is no such thing as a war on terrorism. There is getting people clean water, electricity and food. There is killing someone attacking you, there is targeting and killing a circumscribed group of people like Jews, or Christians or people who play golf, or wear Santa Claus suits or people who read books, people who make bombs in garages, etc. But there is no such thing as a war on terrorism. The thinking on this matter is insane...nearly szhizophrenic. A soldier needs a clear objective...hunt and kill 80 percent of the estimated 5,000 bomb makers in Iraq; or, hunt and kill these 52 leaders of Saddam's regime, etc.
-
HomeGManComment has been removed: User banned.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:28 a.m.Excellent point, BravoSierra. We really should view with suspicion any war that needs the word "on" in the middle of it. Just look at the littany of failed wars "on..."
The War on Poverty declared in 1964. Poverty is winning.
The War on Drugs in 1971. Anybody think we've won that yet?
If you want to turn the clock way back, look at Rome's effort starting in 250 AD to declare War on Christianity. Which do you see more of today. Roman Legionaries patrolling the streets of the known world, or Christian church goers?
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:58 a.m.As you say war is destruction, including the enemy's infrastructure of war. But war has a specific means and a specific end in mind. Blowing up a bridge may or may not be war. occupying land may or may not be war. putting people in prison may or may not be war.
Take your ideas and make them concrete military actions and you might have legitimate missions. But that's not what's happening. We spew out the rhetoric of saying we are at war but we don't act like we are at war.
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:18 p.m.DavidHalko, I contend most "hawks" in the US don't have the will to fight. They talk the rhetoric of war but they don't prosecute a war to its bloody, awful, obscene end. They feel strong and safe to say we are at war but they don't really wage war. Half-step Republicans and conservatives have the will to send some lower class American to fight a war while they drive SUVs and the President's daughters shop for desiger clothes in Argentina. But most don't have the will to fight themselves. You listed goals that can be accomplished diplomatically, through police actions or warfare but they themselves don't define war as existing. Freezing bank accounts is economics. Arresting clerics is police work. Fire bombing Dresden to the ground is war. Grinding people in tank treads is war. The things you list are objectives related to war but they do not define being at war. We have soldiers fighting for their lives but our people for the most part are not at war.
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:50 p.m.BravoSierra----"There is no such thing as a War Against Terrorism".
Agreed. But George seems to continue to think that if he claims Iraq to be the arena where America will make its stand against terrorism, then the terrorists will show up to fight. So we continue to lose the lives of young Americans who cannot accurately identify the "enemy" because George cannot and will not admit to having made a colossal blunder. Is it pride or stupidity that causes W to keep his blinders on?
-
-
-
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:54 p.m.k21bl----"Greed, Greed, Greed, Money, Money, Money!"
Agreed,Agreed, Agreed! Money, Money, Money, and Oil, Oil, Oil!
-
-
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:45 p.m.Cheney's daughter disappeared for a month around the last Republican National Convention (so the announcer said during the telecast). Does this mean she is expendable to the GOP?
-
mcgrievysr
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:57 p.m.MarsDlugosz---Any GOP got any sons or daughters they don't need anymore?
Not for the war effort! Too many poor souls who were hoping for the GI Bill are still available. When we have to send sons and daughters of our fearless leaders, the war on terror will have been declared "over".
-
-
BravoSierra
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:31 a.m.General Pace is being "politically correct" in telling the President "we're not winning, we're not losing". He must know that logistically and financially we cannot sustain this level of effort...that means we are losing. We can win every fire fight...but when all the gear is broken and we can't afford to replace it...we lose. War is waged on the back of a logistics train. At the outset of WWII all the best mathematicians were called together to lay out the campaign in the Pacific...based upon logistics. We must do something dramatic to win or withdraw and resort to our own covert/insurgency operations. Adding 15,000 to 50,000 more soldiers just increases the rate at which we burn up resources without changing the situation on the ground. So, what's the plan, the real plan, one that can work?
-
Leroy
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:32 a.m.This personal vendetta aganist Saddam has gone on long enough. They both loose.
-
B737Tech
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:35 a.m.Here comes the draft that he said that he would NOT do! No other way to get enough people.
-
donald51
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:52 p.m.higher than the $80,000 reinlistment bonuses already in effect, and more soldiers being reclassifeid Infantry, out of a safer MOS that their recruiter promised. Soldiers forced to retire? - probably not, as enlistments have been extended just to keep soldiers in Iraq.
There is probably a side ploy of the GOP to keep the minimum wage where it has been the last 10 years, so more low wage earners join the military to escape Dubya's increasing poverty.
-
-
rushran
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:45 a.m.Diplomocy works like in the cold war did we beat russia by beating them in a combat war. Noone wins in a combat war!!!!!!!!!!
-
Sieben
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:03 a.m.This is our fault for allowing this mad man to continue over the objecttions of the "PEOPLE" , "HIS OWN GENERALS" and Members of his own Political Party. We sensored Clinton for lying( NO One Died),but we allow are troops to die in a country that DONT want us there, This is MADNESS and we are to blame in allowing this to continue
-
summer6975
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:04 a.m.great... something else for us reserveists to look forward too. im never going to get to use that school money that i signed up for.
The first 75 comments are shown. Show all 170 comments »
