One Last Big Push to Win in Iraq?

[joe1347]

Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

Simon Tisdall
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian


President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.


Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq.

Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties

Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html




An 'optimistic' friend's favorite quote was 'always imagine the worst thing possible and reality will end up being worse' as a rule of thumb when trying to predict what our former executives would do next. Looks like his words of wisdom also apply to the Bush Admin.

Is Bush serious about winning - whatever that is - or is this leaked last big push just a trojan horse with the explicit purpose of ensuring massive Democratic opposition? What I'm getting at - is this yet another political ploy that will be used to paint the Democrats as softies on fighting Terror that don't have the strength of character to see this thing through and ultimately WIN.

I would think that if Bush was really serious about winning in Iraq. Why not propose sending 200,000+ US Troops immediately? Bush could argue (and the American public may buy it) that he's not trying to finesse the amount of troops and risk failure - but instead is sending an overwhelming military force (for a short term) to insure victory.

[WildCat]

Why not propose sending 200,000+ US Troops immediately?
Because eventually the Iraqis themselves will have to do what is necessary to bring peace to ther country. The solution will likely be bloody and messy, and be against the many militias that run amok in the place now. No reason for the Iraqis to do the dirty work if we do it for them. And if we do it, the Iraqi gov't can blame the US for the collateral damage that will inevitably occurr, which will solve nothing and increase anti-US sentiment there.

We shouldn't send more troops because this is their battle to fight. The US should provide assistance when needed, but not be the main force.

And if the Iraqis don't have it in them to take on the militias, insurgents, and al Qaeda it is a lost cause.

[Crossbow]

An extra 20,000 troops will not bring peace to Iraq.

It would take more like an extra 500,000 to 1,000,000 to that job provided that these levels could be maintained for five to ten years while a few hundred billion dollars are being spent to rebuild the nation from bottom to top, along with a great deal of coordination and cooperation with the other nations next to Iraq.

However, an extra 20,000 troops will serve to show the Bush lackeys that he is really interested in sorting out Iraq, while sparing Bush himself of the chore of actually doing anything substantive to sort out Iraq.

[Darth Rotor]

An extra 20,000 troops will not bring peace to Iraq.

It would take more like an extra 500,000 to 1,000,000 to that job provided that these levels could be maintained for five to ten years while a few hundred billion dollars are being spent to rebuild the nation from bottom to top, along with a great deal of coordination and cooperation with the other nations next to Iraq.

However, an extra 20,000 troops will serve to show the Bush lackeys that he is really interested in sorting out Iraq, while sparing Bush himself of the chore of actually doing anything substantive to sort out Iraq.
General Abizaid was on the news yesterday evening, commenting that adding more troops to his force was not the answer, and that a reduction in force at the moment was not advisable. I am unclear how this story came about, as I don't think General Abizaid was dissembling.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the Guardian is full of beans on this detail.

DR

[Garrette]

An extra 20,000 troops will not bring peace to Iraq.

It would take more like an extra 500,000 to 1,000,000 to that job provided that these levels could be maintained for five to ten years while a few hundred billion dollars are being spent to rebuild the nation from bottom to top, along with a great deal of coordination and cooperation with the other nations next to Iraq.

However, an extra 20,000 troops will serve to show the Bush lackeys that he is really interested in sorting out Iraq, while sparing Bush himself of the chore of actually doing anything substantive to sort out Iraq.The sentiment is right, but I think you're scale is only correct near the lower end.

[Garrette]

General Abizaid was on the news yesterday evening, commenting that adding more troops to his force was not the answer, and that a reduction in force at the moment was not advisable. I am unclear how this story came about, as I don't think General Abizaid was dissembling. I'll have to look that up. I respect Abizaid but that comment confuses me.

[joe1347]

Because eventually the Iraqis themselves will have to do what is necessary to bring peace to ther country. The solution will likely be bloody and messy, and be against the many militias that run amok in the place now. No reason for the Iraqis to do the dirty work if we do it for them. And if we do it, the Iraqi gov't can blame the US for the collateral damage that will inevitably occurr, which will solve nothing and increase anti-US sentiment there.

We shouldn't send more troops because this is their battle to fight. The US should provide assistance when needed, but not be the main force.

And if the Iraqis don't have it in them to take on the militias, insurgents, and al Qaeda it is a lost cause.


So what is the right amount of troups that we need in Iraq - TO WIN - as Bush keeps repeating? If 400,000 is too many - is 180,000 the "perfect" amount to turn the tide (i.e., send over just 20,000 more) and WIN?

Or is General Odom (former head of NSA) right in saying that zero (0) troops is the best choice in terms or achieving the outcome most favorable to the US?

How to cut and run
We could lead the Mideast to peace, but only if we stop refusing to do the right thing
By William E. Odom, Lt. Gen. WILLIAM E. ODOM (Ret.) is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University.
October 31, 2006


THE UNITED STATES upset the regional balance in the Middle East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops — within six months and with no preconditions — can break the paralysis that now enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-odom31oct31,0,6123563.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[Darth Rotor]

One Last Big Push to Win in Iraq?

That headline evoked the image of a lengthy and tortured labor, with one last, big, push being accompanied by a mighty sigh of relief.

So, what is that wriggling, bloody thing in the midwife's hands? Baby David, or Baby Damian? :eek:

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

How can you ever wonder about numbers of troops when no one will say what it means to "win" in Iraq?

I have the suspicion that if anyone were honest about it, they'd have to define an acceptable outcome as something like, "Having things 70% as stable as they were under Saddam Hussein."

[a_unique_person]

Push where? This is urban, guerilla warfare.

[Zep]

It's purely political to do with Bush and the neocon's image at home.

It would appear Bush's intention over the next two years is to leave such a huge mess in Iraq that whatever the Dems do if they win in 2008, they will look either wimps (by reducing troop numbers or pulling out of Iraq), or hypocrites (by maintaining them and continuing Bush's legacy). I.e. handing them a red-hot frypan - they can either drop it or fry themselves.

Although when I saw "Bush" here I suspect it isn't him personally, but his posse of neocons and other faceless barons (not the Illuminati, but possibly the shape-shifting lizards! ;))

[Darth Rotor]

Although when I saw "Bush" here I suspect it isn't him personally, but his posse of neocons and other faceless barons (not the Illuminati, but possibly the shape-shifting lizards! ;))
What, are the Illuminati on vacation? And what about Xenu, how does he figure into the play? And what about the flying couscous monster?

DR

[joe1347]

It's purely political to do with Bush and the neocon's image at home.

It would appear Bush's intention over the next two years is to leave such a huge mess in Iraq that whatever the Dems do if they win in 2008, they will look either wimps (by reducing troop numbers or pulling out of Iraq), or hypocrites (by maintaining them and continuing Bush's legacy). I.e. handing them a red-hot frypan - they can either drop it or fry themselves.

Although when I saw "Bush" here I suspect it isn't him personally, but his posse of neocons and other faceless barons (not the Illuminati, but possibly the shape-shifting lizards! ;))


It's starting to look more and more like a big setup on the part of the Bush Admin. Propose something (lots more troops and lots more money) that is pretty much guaranteed to be shot down by the Democrats early next year and when the former nation of Iraq spirals into it's final death throes. Bush can then blame the Democrats for the whole disaster because they (the Democrats) weren't 'man enough' to authorize the final big push that would have won the war.

[Renfield]

We aren't leaving Iraq. Democrats are critical of what the Republicans have done, but all they do is hedge and spew double talk when asked about withdrawing.

This thing is going to drag on and on. Not unless some third party dark horse with some money comes out of nowhere, like Perot.

[a_unique_person]

Last time I looked it was both sides hedging and spewing double talk.

[pipelineaudio]

silliness abounds

"push " to "win" what exactly?

war is won

done

Oh, the anarchy you mean? How does that 500,000 troop figure come into play? Its making up stuff and nothing else. It could take 1 billion troops to quiet down, or it could take ONE

Just one personable, charismatic guy that got all the sides talking and blah blah blah

You cant go making up troop numbers when there is no enemy troop force to fight.

Guerilla wars dont work that way

[chriswl]

I've never seen such unanimity on here. Of all the available options a "small increase" in US troop deployment in Iraq is the stupidest and most pointless. But I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, for political reasons.

[Gurdur]

We aren't leaving Iraq.
Oh yes, you are. Only question is when, not if.

[Gurdur]

....I have the suspicion that if anyone were honest about it, they'd have to define an acceptable outcome as something like, "Having things 70% as stable as they were under Saddam Hussein."
Sadly, very sadly, such an outcome would mean less loss of innocent civilian lives in Iraq.

That is the most crushing debacle of the entire Iraq2 war; that for just counting innocent civilian deaths, Saddam worked out better than the current mess.

In no way do I support Saddam, and I don't shed a single tear that he is gone; but the sad truth is, many more innocents would be alive today had Iraq2 not happened. In sheer terms of just civilian death numbers, Iraq2 is a total failure.

[davefoc]

It seems to me the key question is:
"Is the occupation of Iraq making Iraq better or more stable or less likely to devolve into chaos when the occupation is ended?"

I don't know the answer to the above question and I haven't listened to anybody that seemed to know enough about the situation to give a credible answer.

Is it possible that the occupation is doing nothing but holding off the time when Iraq will devolve into a chaotic disaster for its citizens when the occupation ends? Maybe.

Is it possible that the occupation is actually making the situation worse? The occupiers serve as a galvanizing element for the insurgents and the occupiers keep the Iraqi government from making the necessary concessions to the insurgents? Maybe.

Is the occupation actually accomplishing something by keeping Iraq from Chaos while the government gradually takes control of the country? Maybe. But I am increasingly skeptical of this notion. Are there examples in history of civil wars that have been prevented by a military occupation? Would the US civil war have been prevented if a powerful foreign power had intervened ? Maybe, but the civil war might have been replaced by a violent reaction to the foreign occupier that would have evolved into a civil war anyway when the foreign occupier left.

With no great knowledge other than a complete lack of faith in the competence and integrity of the Bush administration to do anything positive in Iraq my opinion is that the US and the UK should do this.

1. Immediately announce that the US has no long term plans to maintain a military presence in Iraq. It is time to end this neocon fantasy. The failure to make it clear that the occupation is not designed to be indefinite has put the US in the position of looking like we are being kicked out whenever we leave.

2. Within 3 months stop all Iraqi patrols of populated areas. The Iraqis need to be responsible for their own internal security. After the first three months the allies would still be there to provide border guard duty and security for large capital assets like government buildings, oil fields, etc.

3. Within 6 months end all significant occupation military activity except perhaps for the protection of the Iraqi government. Not for their own protection because if they can't protect themselves at this point they probably deserve to be overthrown but rather for the protection of the allied troops so that a withdrawal from Iraq can be carried out before the country slips into complete chaos.

Throughout this time the allies should be encouraging the Iraqis to come to some sort of resolution of their internal problems on their own. The allies should be out of the business of imposing solutions on the situation, it hasn't worked up to now and I don't see any reason that it will work in the future.

[joe1347]

It's starting to look more and more like a big setup on the part of the Bush Admin. Propose something (lots more troops and lots more money) that is pretty much guaranteed to be shot down by the Democrats early next year and when the former nation of Iraq spirals into it's final death throes. Bush can then blame the Democrats for the whole disaster because they (the Democrats) weren't 'man enough' to authorize the final big push that would have won the war.



If this is true – what is the appropriate strategy for the Democrats to counter Bush’s bold ploy to blame losing Iraq on the Democrats by not authorizing more troops and more funding?

How about this. The Democrats should (after some debate) authorize everything Bush wants and a little bit more! But, with a few minor conditions involving some self-sacrifice. Being a war (Iraq Fiasco) supporter should no longer just require buying a $1.99 yellow magnetic sticker for your car and a 50 cent flag pin for your lapel. Instead – since we’re told how how important the war is for our future safety and prosperity (and Freedom) – war supporters must now be willing to make a few ‘minor’ sacrifices for the final big push. Here’s a short list to start the discussion:

1. The war can no longer be funded with Deficit spending and since the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility first and foremost. They (the Republicans) will certainly be in favor of funding the war with a Tax increase on those that can most afford it. Say the top 5% earners. I don’t know the numbers – but the marginal rate for the top 5% should be increased immediately to generate about $150 Billion of Additional Revenue (annually) required for the big push to WIN.

2. Since $150 Billion likely won’t be enough for next years winning ‘big push’ strategy. A reasonable tithe on every (Democrat and Republican) elected and nominated official that supported the Iraq war. Say a 75% tithe on all income as well as surrendering 75% of all savings – including stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. That should be a fair sacrifice to provide the necessary gear for our brave troops. John Kerry and Dick Cheney should be able to kick in a nice chuck of cash that will save lots of American lives in the big push – not to mention the Bush family wealth.

3. In additional to the necessary financial support – ALL family members – aged 17 to 45 – of all elected and nominated officials that supported the war must be required to immediately serve a mandatory two year combat tour in Iraq since the US Military is having a tough time coming up with the necessary troops. Of course, all exemptions for women and gays from serving in combat will be lifted. No exemptions will be granted under any circumstances.

4. An equivalent to WWI and WWII bond tours will be launched with prominent War support celebrities (Rush, O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, etc.) headlining the tour. Of course, to show their support and good faith, these headliners will be expected to donate 75% of their entire wealth to support ‘the cause’.

Now if any Republicans reject the plan and say that the Democrats don’t want to win. They (the Republicans) need to be reminded that the Democrats know how to win the BIG Wars (WWI and WWII) and the Republican track record on winning the big wars is paved with failure (Korea and Vietnam). So the Republicans should leave running the war (and winning) to those with the better resume – the Democrats.