6 Months to Shite or get off the pot!

[StephenB]

I think this is a very reasonable proposal from senate republicans with regards to Iraq. We already know those extra troops are going, and this makes it clear that results are expected. We've already seen some increased activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

What do you think?

[Jacko]

I like the Warner-Collins proposal better.....Warner says, troop buildup is necessarily a step by step process as you deploy and equip the forces....deploy in 1 of the 12 geographic areas of Bagdad first with essentially 1/12 of the total troop buildup requested....see if it works the way the President says it should and Maliki says it will......if so, then deploy to geographic area number 2...see if it works etc. If it does not work, stop the deployment.
Warner is a war veteran, former Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee I believe and Former Secretary of the Navy...he is a credible Republican.

[roni]

I ain't a-paying much attention to it
Cause the wailing of families, wives
kids, parents, sisters and brothers
American, other coalition, Iraqi....
Their cries are too much to bear.

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I like the Warner-Collins proposal better.....Warner says, troop buildup is necessarily a step by step process as you deploy and equip the forces....deploy in 1 of the 12 geographic areas of Bagdad first with essentially 1/12 of the total troop buildup requested....see if it works the way the President says it should and Maliki says it will......if so, then deploy to geographic area number 2...see if it works etc. If it does not work, stop the deployment.

I disagree. We went in there undermanned from the get go. I think it's time for all or nothing, but we should have done that from the start.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by StephenB

I disagree. We went in there undermanned from the get go. I think it's time for all or nothing, but we should have done that from the start.

24,000 or so troops is "all or nothing"?? Too late for that tactic my friend....the political, tactical and strategic will, both in the U.S. and Iraq, is far past that point....at the beginning?...... Probably better to have gone in with a LOT more troops...now? Its just too late my friend....there is now a raging civil war in progress.

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by Jacko

24,000 or so troops is "all or nothing"?? Too late for that tactic my friend....the political, tactical and strategic will, both in the U.S. and Iraq, is far past that point....at the beginning?...... Probably better to have gone in with a LOT more troops...now? Its just too late my friend....there is now a raging civil war in progress.

24k is enough along with the unannounced but real "gloves off" policy that we will see in the next 6 months. The "will" will be tested on all sides.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by StephenB

24k is enough along with the unannounced but real "gloves off" policy that we will see in the next 6 months. The "will" will be tested on all sides.

I am sure we shall see....I hope, if it is allowed to proceed, that it is more successful than the last nearly 4 years.

The troops have the skill and the attitude to fight wars with the best in the world...the political leaders and the political managers of the war lack the expertise to determine where, when, how and how many to send to effectively wage the war, and to subsequently rebuild the occupied country.

Trying to wage war in Bagdad in the middle of a sectarian civil war is asking too much IMO, especially with a leader in Iraq, Maliki, who is distrusted by both sides of our political aisle based upon his history of actions...and inactions....but if the President decides to pursue this despite all, and the Congress does not stop it, I hope for the very best outcome.

[PlayadelSoul]

Its not the number of troops, it is the type of troop. 24,000 combat (not support) troops are being sent. A vast majority of the troops in Iraq now are there to provide support to the minority that actually go into combat. So, 24,000 is not as small a number as it sounds. Add this to the fact that a lot of the political rules of engagment are being removed, and you will see a difference. In fact, you already are, as Iraqi troops move to more to the forefront. Monday's victory for the Iraqis left over 250 dead insurgents.

You may not have heard this on the news, as it was good news.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Its not the number of troops, it is the type of troop. 24,000 combat (not support) troops are being sent. A vast majority of the troops in Iraq now are there to provide support to the minority that actually go into combat. So, 24,000 is not as small a number as it sounds. Add this to the fact that a lot of the political rules of engagment are being removed, and you will see a difference. In fact, you already are, as Iraqi troops move to more to the forefront. Monday's victory for the Iraqis left over 250 dead insurgents.

You may not have heard this on the news, as it was good news.

I heard plenty...you just gotta listen.....It is surprising that such a large force of insurgents existed, right in the middle of the Iraqi forces.....this does not bode well for the future IMO.

[Mr Cancun]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Its not the number of troops, it is the type of troop. 24,000 combat (not support) troops are being sent. A vast majority of the troops in Iraq now are there to provide support to the minority that actually go into combat. So, 24,000 is not as small a number as it sounds. Add this to the fact that a lot of the political rules of engagment are being removed, and you will see a difference. In fact, you already are, as Iraqi troops move to more to the forefront. Monday's victory for the Iraqis left over 250 dead insurgents.

You may not have heard this on the news, as it was good news.

I think it is fantastic news.