Troop Surge

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 11, 2007, 7:35 pm

What's your opinion on the latest declaration by Bush that 20,000+ troops are about to be sent into Baghdad to seize control so that the Iraqi government has a chance of controlling anything other than the green zone?

I don't think my opinions need rehashed for I told you so's sake, but does anyone actually think this will work? And if you do, why?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 11, 2007, 7:50 pm

First response!

Send in the Irish!

Longshanks: Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. Their dead cost nothing.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 11, 2007, 7:52 pm

Plenty of Irish already there at the moment. Northern Irish anyway.

But seriously....how is this going to fix anything? I dunno man, it's looking like a lost cause no matter what right now.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 11, 2007, 8:30 pm

I can only see it as a method to try to shock the "insurgents" into submission, and I don't see it working in the short-run (which is what a surge should be). In the long run, I can see it keeping a larger area "secure" without leaving holes for the "enemy" to fill in as troops move on. It's almost like we want to just fill the city with US Troops so there is not room for anyone else.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 11, 2007, 8:50 pm

20,000 extra troops....would that not mean American troops are still massively outnumbered compared to the ridiculous amount of militia's operating in and around Baghdad?

(and as such - pretty incapable of doing very much)

It seems like a half measure (quarter or 1/5 measure in reality and that's being generous)

I'm watching a show called Dispatches here at the moment, and it's got a reporter interviewing US soldiers in (I think) the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan, it may be some other mountain range...I'm not a geography major, the point is the American soldiers are outnumbered about 50 to 1 in the specific valley they are "defending". The thing is, they aren't defending the valley, they are just defending themselves when they go into the valley.

It's pretty insane how fucked this whole situation is at this point, really... all these wars seem to be being done in such a half assed manner it hurts troops and civilians more than it helps anyone.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 11, 2007, 9:03 pm

If you want to read a really good book that shows just how good and at the same time how fucked up our military is at the highest levels of the people on the ground and the people back at for MacDill, I highly recommend 'Not A Good Day to Die' by Sean Naylor. It is all about operation Anaconda.

On the subject at hand... I'm not sure what 20k troops will do other than fill in some holes. I don't personally have a lot of hope that this ship can get righted mostly because I don't have any reliable information indicating that the people of Iraq are able to affect change, or that they even know what they want. I think it's a copout for our administration to say the Iraqis need to do their part and then throw up their hands. Obviously for things to turn around and be successful the Iraqis need to get involved in affecting change, but I've seen nothing to indicate they are capable of or willing to work with the US in a meaningful way. Sadly it seems like Iraq was better off with a dictator that ruled with an iron fist, but really it's only sad for me sitting here in the US with an altogether different value system than someone who was born and raised in Iraq.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 11, 2007, 9:46 pm

I just don't see how trying the same thing with more men can be successful. The problem is by and large not one that can be solved with force.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 11, 2007, 11:40 pm

Reality is, the surge isn't really a surge at all, we have had more troops there at times.

Now on to humor

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 11, 2007, 11:42 pm

but isn't this supposed to be a surge in Baghdad only?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 11, 2007, 11:44 pm

Trek · Post by **Trek** » January 11, 2007, 11:52 pm

Only thing they could possibly hope for is to secure Baghdad in hope that this would 'rally' Iraqi's into believing they can secure and run their country on their own.....

They might hit a snag if they cant recruit an extra 20k peeps for each city tho

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 12, 2007, 12:27 am

What is the incentive for the average Iraqi to fight for stability? So the American oilcos have an easier time stealing their only source of economic wealth? They have a better chance at controlling their own fate now if they can get the US to leave, which will be in less than a year.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 12, 2007, 12:43 am

It's a prelude to withdrawal. The pattern makes sense: An escalation and a show of force before you leave to say that you might be going, but you COULD stay dammit, you have the firepower.

I feel like Bush was hoping to drag Iraq off til '08, so someone else could deal with it and apologists could blame things on the new administration. Things fell apart a little too fast for him.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 12, 2007, 12:54 am

The government they set up is the most ludicrous puppet regime I've ever seen. The CIA set up more believable fronts in South America with nothing but the money they got trading weapons for cocaine. We paid $100 billion real cash money, and this is what we get? FFS, gas isn't even cheaper.

Tangurena · Post by **Tangurena** » January 12, 2007, 1:25 am

500k would be a surge. 100k would be a surge. 50k is sort of maybe a surge. 20k is a wave. If you look at the numbers that the barking heads were talking about in December, the numbers were 50k. Since there aren't 50k troops to deploy without removing them from Afghanistan, I claim this "surge" business to be a partisan political ploy. If congress doesn't approve it, then the democrats can be blamed for "losing the war." If the numbers get approved and deployed, and still do nothing, then the administration can turn around and say to the Iraqi puppets "we gave you everything you asked for and you still lost it."

It is all about trying to escape the blame for losing the wargasm in Iraq. Look, over there, we're shooting Somalians!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 12, 2007, 1:28 am

Tangurena wrote:500k would be a surge. 100k would be a surge. 50k is sort of maybe a surge. 20k is a wave. If you look at the numbers that the barking heads were talking about in December, the numbers were 50k. Since there aren't 50k troops to deploy without removing them from Afghanistan, I claim this "surge" business to be a partisan political ploy.

The US could move the over 90,000 troops they currently have in Germany and Japan. I'm pretty sure those 2 countries are pretty locked down, post-WW2.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 12, 2007, 1:39 am

Clearly, the reason peace was not achieved was that you just didn't invade them hard enough the first time.

I guess when all Bush has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » January 12, 2007, 4:15 am

I'd call this whole mess a joke if the consequences weren't so unfunny. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can actually be surprised by the president's decision, though. Lucky for the innumerable civilian contractors making a buck off of this fiasco, Bush's plan apparently won't stop with merely expanding the size of the military commitment. From his speech:

We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance.

And...

We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 12, 2007, 4:26 am

The U.S. will pull out of Iraq and go back to a Black Ops strategy. We kick ass at initial steam rollings, air strikes, and covert operations (not counting the Jimmy Carter era Iran Hostage rescue attempt). If I was "the enemy", Id rather have the U.S. as they are now than have to deal with them with the situation flipped and the U.S. able to pick off targets they want without being sitting ducks themselves.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 12, 2007, 5:39 am

Winnow wrote:The U.S. will pull out of Iraq and go back to a Black Ops strategy. We kick ass at initial steam rollings, air strikes, and covert operations (not counting the Jimmy Carter era Iran Hostage rescue attempt). If I was "the enemy", Id rather have the U.S. as they are now than have to deal with them with the situation flipped and the U.S. able to pick off targets they want without being sitting ducks themselves.

* wonder how long it takes before Winnow get visited by the nice men from homeland after that comment*

noel · Post by **noel** » January 12, 2007, 11:15 am

That's a well documented fuckup, but it wasn't really Carter's fault. Bottom line was Delta was trying to learn what to do from the British SAS and they still had a lot of kinks to work out. They really weren't ready, and their generals told the administration they were.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 12, 2007, 11:16 am

Xatrei wrote:And...
We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

Hmm, maybe he wants to ship all of the Democrats overseas?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 12, 2007, 11:32 am

I'm thinking he wants to draft the Peace Corps...

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 12, 2007, 11:39 am

Arborealus wrote:I'm thinking he wants to draft the Peace Corps...

those damn hippies!

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 12, 2007, 12:03 pm

Thanks Noel for the response about the Hostage stuff... people act like that was Carters fault for some reason...

Anyhoo, one of the guys I was watching on MSNBC pointed out some easy math that most of us don't think about but makes sense considering part of my job put together the staffing costs on new deals...

20K troops, all of whom have to sleep, eat, get sick, perform "other duties" etc... his suggestion was to devide by 4 to get the number of people on the ground at any one time... it might be a tad more than that but I'm sure it's close... 5000 troops. Considering there are like 45K Police in NY on any given night, dosen't seem like this is going to make a difference.

I felt the Democratic response was 100% on target that night and that once again, Bush has proven that he is incompetent and/or has a God Complex... personally I think it's both.

Marb

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » January 13, 2007, 5:08 pm

Is the whole Iraq = Vietnam thing still out of line? If not then the surge would be completely useless. If we pulled out now however, the third largest oil deposit would be at risk. And that my friends does not help the American people or our beloved president.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » January 15, 2007, 4:58 pm

Face facts. We are not going anywhere until those gigantic military bases on the oil fields that Cheney's oil buddies have been making are finnished and permanently manned by a permanent merc army. This whole thing has been exposed for what it is, at its base level; an oil grab. We are too fucking deep in the shit to back out now and let China or Russia take over those reserves, so Bush is just stalling for time.