Author Topic: CNN: Bush Is ‘Very Seriously’ Considering Sending More Troops To Iraq (Read 8381 times)

AlliedPowers · « **on:** December 12, 2006, 10:46:43 PM »

CNN’s John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is planning a “substantial policy shift” on Iraq and is “very seriously considering…agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing U.S. troop levels in the short-term.”

King said the White House has postponed the announcement of the policy shift to January because Bush “has asked for more advice about” how he could send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and administration officials “need more time to put all that on the table.”

King said the White House sees a political benefit to delaying the announcement. “If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let the American people forget about that a little bit” and “buy some time for critics” to attack the ISG.

bmacsys · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:28:15 AM »

What the hell is 20,000 more troops going to do? We probably need 300,000 troops minimum.

muscleforlife · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:42:42 AM »

The Generals are asking for more equipment for the Iraqi military.
It all shouldn't fall to the US military to contiue to keep "peace". The whole point was to get the country up and on it's feet.
The outgoing General Chiarelli says that getting the infrastructure..jobs, school, electricity, etc will go along with helping cut down on some of the insurgent violence.
Makes sense.

By the way, where would these additional troops come from?
Sandra

Dos Equis · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2006, 09:54:31 AM »

Quote from: muscleforlife on December 13, 2006, 08:42:42 AM

By the way, where would these additional troops come from?
Sandra

Good question. We are really thin.

Straw Man · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2006, 02:10:43 PM »

Frankly, I think we have no choice but to send more troops. I don't think it will help much but that is what they will try next.

The time to have sent more troops would have been in the beginning. We didn't do it right from planning to execution and now it's our problem to fix. Leaving now would make matters much worse.

Let's face it - the Sunni's and Shia have been fighting for 1300 years.

We (our current administration) totally ignored this reality.

Besides, the Bush Crime Family is beholden to their Saudi overlords: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html

bmacsys · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2006, 02:39:10 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 13, 2006, 01:41:33 PM

so they can stand on the corner and get feasted on by carbombers and snipers?

Nearly all the generals agree more forces are NOT the answer, with time or withdrawl being the most common options.

Bush is just pissed that the insurgents are not blowing up the US built oil pipeline that no one in the media talks about. He wants more men to guard it. And the insurgents are very well aware that the reason we're there is their oil. And if they punch holes in the pipeline, their oil doesn't get on haliburton ships and go elsewhere.

I bet he will send more troops, and I bet they'll be guarding the oil pipeline. BTW - when we invaded iraq, and looters ransacked the place, we let the ministries of education, interior, govt, and all others be looted while we stationed all our forces at the Ministry of Oil.

Wonder why?

When you have an occupation force you need the presence of a lot of soldiers. Things would be a LOT different if we had enough boots on the ground. To successfully occupy a country the size of Iraq you would need about four to five hundred thousand soldiers. There wouldn't be all this chaos if there were enough forces in Iraq.

Straw Man · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2006, 02:53:07 PM »

how are you defining "terror infrastructure"?

Straw Man · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2006, 03:02:06 PM »

are they separate from the Sunni/Shia, part of them or both

Straw Man · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2006, 03:26:46 PM »

yeah, from what I've seen the American trained Iraqi forces are quite willing to turn around and attack our forces when given the opportunity. I also think the Bath party still has quite a bit of influence

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2006, 05:12:56 PM »

im not sure if we need MORE men, they just need to be given the go-ahead to do what they need to do without worrying about political-correctness or other shit like that that doenst work in a war situation.

pumpster · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2006, 06:23:11 PM »

This thread's misleading: there are many options on the table, more troops being one of them.

rockyfortune · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2006, 06:36:12 PM »

240..don't know if you seen this but you'll enjoy this one..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm

headhuntersix · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:28:53 PM »

240..ur giving them way to much credit. they don't fight us in heads up fighting. They stopped that crap after Falujah. Road side bombs and suicide attacks,while very affective, are easy to carry out. Especially in th confusion of Iraq. The only time they go head to head is with Iraqi army or Police.The Taliban have more balls. We watched these guys turn and run time and again when we rolled through during the war.

OzmO · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:31:32 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on December 13, 2006, 08:28:53 PM

240..ur giving them way to much credit. they don't fight us in heads up fighting. They stopped that crap after Falujah. Road side bombs and suicide attacks,while very affective, are easy to carry out. Especially in th confusion of Iraq. The only time they go head to head is with Iraqi army or Police.The Taliban have more balls. We watched these guys turn and run time and again when we rolled through during the war.

Classic insurgent warfare... similar to nam

headhuntersix · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2006, 08:41:45 PM »

Yeah but.. The VC would fight us straight up..especially when they had NVA regulars working with them. We beat the VC by 1968ish. There is no regular army coming to help the insurgents. I understand how affective they have been but I won't give these bastards any credit. I think i could take any ten guys on this board and with enough stuff we could do the same thing.

Jeff Miller · « **Reply #15 on:** December 13, 2006, 10:51:54 PM »

The Iraqi people, as a whole, respect getting their ass kicked. That's why dictatorships have worked so well in the past. That's why they LOVED us after the invasion, after we destroyed their military forces and proved what we could do.

AlliedPowers · « **Reply #16 on:** December 13, 2006, 10:57:56 PM »

so they're sadists, eh?

bmacsys · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2006, 05:48:37 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 13, 2006, 02:40:37 PM

we can't just pull 360,000 new troops out of our back pocket. Or fund it.

And the terror infrastructure is very strong there. It would likely be the same suicide bomber ramming his pickup into 50 US troops instead of 5.

There are 135,000 troops in Iraq. Even that number is misleading. Most of them are clerks, mechanics, cooks, drivers, medics etc.. The minority are infantry soldiers. Several generals involved have publicly stated we would need at least 400,000 soldiers to do the job right. If we had that many soldiers the insurgency wouldn't be capable of doing the damage they are doing now.

rockyfortune · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2006, 08:54:22 AM »

Quote from: bmacsys on December 14, 2006, 05:48:37 AM

There are 135,000 troops in Iraq. Even that number is misleading. Most of them are clerks, mechanics, cooks, drivers, medics etc.. The minority are infantry soldiers. Several generals involved have publicly stated we would need at least 400,000 soldiers to do the job right. If we had that many soldiers the insurgency wouldn't be capable of doing the damage they are doing now.

Eric Shinseki suggested at the very least 250k troops would be needed and most likely that number would have had to be increased..they laughed at him and rumsfeld sacked him..anthony zinni said they had plans for 500k men in iraq which had been planned out for ten years before the war was even started...rumsfeld, bush and co. threw those plans out the window from day one..want a reason why this asshole f--ked up this war..take a look at those two instances...shit, even Bush #41 said that invading Iraq after the Gulf War was a no win situation..and his jackass defense secretary at the time (guess who folks) agreed with him...they blew it bigtime..and now you can chalk the iraq war up as an unmitigated disaster.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2006, 09:25:47 AM »

Quote from: dvalletti on December 14, 2006, 08:54:22 AM

Eric Shinseki suggested at the very least 250k troops would be needed and most likely that number would have had to be increased..they laughed at him and rumsfeld sacked him..anthony zinni said they had plans for 500k men in iraq which had been planned out for ten years before the war was even started...rumsfeld, bush and co. threw those plans out the window from day one..want a reason why this asshole f--ked up this war..take a look at those two instances...shit, even Bush #41 said that invading Iraq after the Gulf War was a no win situation..and his jackass defense secretary at the time (guess who folks) agreed with him...they blew it bigtime..and now you can chalk the iraq war up as an unmitigated disaster.

Yeah. What they did to General Shinseki was not cool.

rockyfortune · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2006, 09:32:52 AM »

Quote from: bmacsys on December 14, 2006, 05:48:37 AM

There are 135,000 troops in Iraq. Even that number is misleading. Most of them are clerks, mechanics, cooks, drivers, medics etc.. The minority are infantry soldiers. Several generals involved have publicly stated we would need at least 400,000 soldiers to do the job right. If we had that many soldiers the insurgency wouldn't be capable of doing the damage they are doing now.

sorry dude..but that statement is illogical...i agree with you when you say more troops are needed but to say that the majority of the men over there are support personnel is completely inaccurate.

bmacsys · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:57:59 PM »

Quote from: dvalletti on December 14, 2006, 09:32:52 AM

sorry dude..but that statement is illogical...i agree with you when you say more troops are needed but to say that the majority of the men over there are support personnel is completely inaccurate.

Do you have any idea how many soldiers are needed for every frontline soldier who sees combat?

OzmO · « **Reply #22 on:** December 14, 2006, 01:59:10 PM »

Quote from: bmacsys on December 14, 2006, 01:57:59 PM

Do you have any idea how many soldiers are needed for every frontline soldier who sees combat?

Isn't soemthing like 9? I don't remember.

bmacsys · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2006, 02:00:18 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 14, 2006, 01:59:10 PM

Isn't soemthing like 9? I don't remember.

Its called "tooth and tail". And the American military has always been very heavy "tail". Especially now that war is so complex and high tech.

bmacsys · « **Reply #24 on:** December 14, 2006, 02:29:14 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 14, 2006, 02:24:15 PM

it's unrealistic - no way we ever get that many more to enlist.

and at least initially, there would be way more deaths. One suicide bomber will always kill the biggest group of US soldiers he can find. I thought it was agreed by maybe 90% of the neocons that more time, not men, was the answer.

I agree with you that its unrealistic. To me George H. Bush looks better every day with his reasoning for not marching into Bagdad in 1991.