Troop-surge proposal fodder for ’08 presidential hopefuls

Oh, but not the tough-talking CHICKENHAWK Rush Limbaugh: he is all in favor of it. He said as much in the first hour of his program today.

Regards, hope all is well down in El Dorado,
BiR

 

Is it just me, or are some of the people who complained we didn't have enough troops in the first place now complaining that we are thinking about sending more?

I can't think of specific names, but just recalling general news stories it seems that way ...

 

It's not you.

There is a lot of confusion and indecision over what would be best, politically, globally, regionally and nationally (not necessarily the same thing short term).

 

It's a little more than slightly ironic that some of the same people who have been screaming for more troops for years are now against it.

 

The Heartland wanted the Powell doctrine a while back......

NEW YORK Among the many newspaper columnists questioning President Bush's plan to send 20,000 or more fresh troops to Iraq are quite a few conservatives breaking with the White House on this.

Oliver North, for example, attacked the idea in his syndicated column on Friday and today, in the Washington Post, George Will comments that the "surge" idea is basically too little and too late, and will only lead to a "protracted" U.S. struggle. The column is titled, "Surge, or Power Failure?"

Meanwhile, David Brooks at The New York Times comments, "Unfortunately, if the goal is to create a stable, unified Iraq, the surge is a good policy three years too late." It's chance for success is almost nil.

Will identifies a "better policy" as Richard Nixon's decision to announce a phased pullout from Vietnam: "The announced policy of withdrawals gave the U.S. some leverage to force the government in Saigon — not a paragon, but better than the government in Baghdad today — to recognize that the clock was running on its acceptance of responsibility for Vietnam's security," Will writes.

He closes with the following.
*

Based on experience in the Balkans, an assumption among experts is that to maintain order in a context of sectarian strife requires one competent soldier or police officer for every 50 people. For the Baghdad metropolitan area (population: 6.5 million), that means 130,000 security personnel. There are 120,000 now, but 66,000 of them are Iraqi police, many — perhaps most — of whom are worse than incompetent.

Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem. Therefore even a substantial surge of, say, 30,000 U.S. forces would leave Baghdad that many short, and could be a recipe for protracting failure.

Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with proponents of a "surge" because he believes what he told The New York Times: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."

Baghdad today is what Wayne White — for 26 years with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, now with the Middle East Institute — calls "a Shiite-Sunni Stalingrad." Imagine a third nation's army operating between — and against — both the German and Russian forces in Stalingrad. That might be akin to the mission of troops sent in any surge.



My comment: we debated a year or more ago about how the bush culture was losing the heartland in his war of choice and what they wanted now! was either to do it right or get out...bush procrastinated and he may do the criminal act of passing on his mess to the next President which would be cowardly in my humble opinion...the heartland I believe wanted the Powell doctrine a while back...but I agree with the above hard line conservatives in the above o.p. "it is too little too late" and bush
is responsible...but it is in his past and is no surprise ..opinions calling him the worst President ever are starting to stick along with words like "dysfunctional" and "sociopath" all legitimate for debate with his past as a frat brat and bully.

 

Gordon Smith (Oregon)

Senator from Oregon there are 12 Republican senators in opposition to the fake "surge" which everyone knows is an escalation of the bush's war.

 

Some military experts favor a surge, some don't. It might work and it might not. If it brings about stabilization in Baghdad then it will have been the right decision, and everyone but the diehard Bush-haters (ahem) will applaud it.

And btw, we already get your contempt for President Bush. It's not necessary to always type out his name in lower case just to emphasize it.

 

Sending more US troops is just sending more cannon fodder for these cowardly people who bite heads off of living frogs and eat hearts out of living bunnies. They will never have a united democratic country because they are too ignorant and disgusting to see beyond their particular religious sect or neighborhood. There are no Patrick Henry's there - I've said that since nearly the beginning. The decent people (who might want to live in peace) have already fled the country or moved to the Kurdish area.

 

Actually, he has criticized the plan for being too little. He advocates for more like 100,000 troops, to get her done once and for all. I'm not saying he's right, or wrong, just clarifying a little.

 

On the day I referenced, the tough-talking CHICKENHAWK was all in favor of sending the troops that were allegedly going to be proposed, and thought that more should be going as well. Of course, at the time, the tough-talking CHICKENHAWK wasn't discussing the issue at length, he was simply responding to the charges that the POTUS would be deploying more soldiers. He has since elaborated on his views.

Looks like you have been listening to El Rushbo too. Most people don't publicly admit to listening.....

Regards to you, Bro. Curtis - I am not going to the Smokies after all, so it's back to Jamestown and Virginia Beach for rides on my roadie.

Hope all is well, and do some skiing for me,
BiR

 

You have a fixation on Rush Limbaugh and seem to believe everyone else is as consumed by him as you are.

Here's a clue. They're not.:tonofbricks:

 

Speaking of tough-talking chickenhawks who change their minds, I quote Dem. Senator Joe Biden last month - “I totally oppose this surging of additional American troops into Baghdad,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both inside and outside the administration.”

So what was Sen Biden saying in June 2005? I quote - "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

 

What was John Kerry saying about troop strength in 2005?

"Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's "Today" show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there."

link

 

Too little, too late. I hope it works, but in reality, I believe any window of opportunity to make things work out in Iraq has been long lost. They will have their civil war whether we are there or not and I hope our troops are not caught in the crossfire much longer. One cannot win a so-called war if the rules of engagement have the troops trying to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, just like in Viet Nam - it's politics, not fighting to win.

Can you imagine trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Germans in WW2 while fighting them?

 

You may be right in saying it's too little. But consider that the enemy in Iraq will very seldom fight coalition troops in a standup fight anymore, because they know that they'll be killed. They are reduced to using roadside bombs, sniping, and killing defensless civilians. Many more Iraqi army and police units are fighting effectively now. I have read that the murder rate in Iraq is roughly the same as in California, and lower than New Orleans. Politicians and military analysts have been calling all along for troop increases, and there's no reason why it couldn't be just as effective now as it would have been 2-3 years ago.

No I can't. But then the Germans had sense enough to know when they were beat

 

There are some huge differences between Germany in WWII and Iraq now. Germany didn't have this underground insurgency going on. I think the majority of Iraq wants peace. They don't want to live in fear.

The Iraqis need to step up and do their job. But we need to do everything in our power to help them. The future of the middle east is at stake.

Now we have congressmen talking about not supporting our troops because they don't like this surge. How shameful that our men and women will not be supported.

 

The major difference now is the character of the insurgency. A lot of the killing is now focused on Sunni or Shia factions rather than the government or American troops.

 

Another difference was that we were intentionally killing German civilians by the tens of thousands.

 

Posted in wrong thread.