Iraq - Send more troops
It appears that Bush and his followers are pushing for more troops in Iraq. I think it is time to support the idea. My reasons below.
Please read the arguments before flying off the handle.
If we assume that the "new" Bush plan will be to send about 40,000 more troops into Iraq we can expect the program to fail. This number of additional troops won't change the dynamics on the ground significantly.
Once Bush has used up his latest (and last) option it will be that much easier for other ideas to be heard and acted on. If people continue to oppose a further ramp up Bush supporters will later be able to say: "If it weren't for those liberal surrender monkeys we would have succeeded. It's all their fault."
So let's give them what they want as soon as possible. The faster we get this over with the better. After the plan fails we can get on to viable alternatives.
Sometimes it is just necessary to let things get worse before they can get better. The quicker we do this the quicker we can move forward.
The Dems should say: "You're the decider, here is your chance. We support you. Now make it work."
- rdf's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
makes sense
let's do it. I finally agree with you.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This is the kind of political calculus...
...that leaves me cold. You may be right, but stop and consider the lives of those 150,000 troops that you are advocating sending to, or keeping in, the blender for political expediency.
Can you live with that?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
But
Suppose the options are 160,000 for six months (which then proves to be a failed effort) followed by a collapse of any remaining support for Bush's policies. Then a withdrawal over the next six months.
Or, 140,000 for the next two years.
Some people complain that I'm advocating "sending more troops to their death", but this implies that the lives of those already there are worth less than those that are not being sent. The test should be what minimizes the total danger the quickest.
--- Policies not Politics
I can see the calculus...
...but man what a gamble to take!
Put it this way- it may be that simply opposing the war ends up leading to a longer stay for the troops as opposed to some politically smarter move. But what if it doesn't? The person who says "bring them home now" can have a clean conscience that they have clearly called for an end to the matter and the safe return of our troops (to say nothing of ending our involvement in an Iraqi civil war). But if you go your route and after this "last chance" is another last chance (and aren't we technically on our fifth or sixth "last chance" now?) then you will have been complicit in having furthered the war and you;ll have their blood on you.
At least that's how I see it. Maybe it's selfish because I'm more focused on being able to say "i did the right thing" than "I got the right result."
I don't know. I hope you don't take this as a personal attack. These are the hard questions, the old ones, and I hope your answers work out for you, even if they aren't the ones I think I could pick.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The Decider
"These are the hard questions, the old ones, and I hope your answers work out for you, even if they aren't the ones I think I could pick."
I can't help thinking of GW sitting alone in the Oval Office on this one. Talk about a lot of weight on his shoulders! Up until now he probably felt he could get by just on the advice of his "experts". Now, his "experts" have given him every option under the sun to consider, and left it entirely in his hands.
The funny thing is, I never got the chill down my spine like I am now when thinking of our military options. I used to think that even if Bush were an idiot, at least he has smart people working for him. Now, at this late stage, all these smart people have hit a dead end, and there is only one man on the face of the Earth who decides what will happen next. Scary.
I just hope Bush really turns out to be the genius the Republicans swore he was. Because if he really is the feckless moron that us liberals have come to view him as, if he really is just an overgrown frat-boy who didn't know the difference between Shias and Sunnis until 2003, we're all screwed. The wrong decision, by this one man, could lead alternatively to peace or world war (and the likely end of our economy). So I really, really hope we were all wrong, the Enders were all right, and behind this shell of a man lays the stern sould of a global-politics master.
You're kidding, right?
"the stern soul of a global-politics master"?
Yeah, and I'm the next Donald Trump. With better hair.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I'm sure the "better hair" part is true.
How could it NOT be?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Sign up then
If you are going to risk those 20-40,000 for something you know will fail, then you'd better be prepared to be the first to go.
Sorry, no.
I refuse to support sending more of my fellow citizens into a senseless situation for the sake of political expediency.
At some point, we have to put moral principles ahead of pragmatic politics. And I think the point where we sending more people off to die for no rational reason is a damn good place to draw the line.
Not only that, hasn't Bush always claimed that he "listens to the generals" on troop levels in Iraq?
Well, the generals think more troops is a bad idea.
So much for "listening to the generals," eh?
And how about Rummy blaming the generals and the State Department on the way out the door? See? Rummy says it's the generals' call:
Rumsfeld: Troop levels were Franks' call
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
but don't you think that
the whole idea of Iraqi army is bogus and there is no point in doing anything to train them? So why don't you bash those generals?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Everyone is looking for a cover to get out.
But at least I give the generals credit for not wanting to send more of their people into a senseless situation just so Bush gets some political cover.
The military experts know we'd need 500,000 troops or more to get a handle on Iraq. Sending another 20-40,000 is a joke.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
This was the title of my recent post on DKos on this subject:
Let's all pretend there's an Iraqi army. So we can bring our troops home.
I'm all for playing the generals' game, particularly if forced to choose between the political loincloth of "more troops" or "train the Iraqis."
More troops=more U.S. deaths.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
yes, I remember that
but what if those generals are serious? You are absolutely convinced they are pretending?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm convinced that they want to get out.
Because the war has harmed the military readiness of our forces and placed them in an untenable position.
As I point out in the post at DKos, the military's own experts suggest that force of 500,000 would be needed to get a handle on Iraq. Our generals know damn well that is never going to happen. Why do you think Pace was suggesting just a couple of weeks ago that the Marines needed to get out of al Anbar all together? That's the province that is taking, by far, the highest number of marine casualties.
Twenty to 40,000 more isn't squat and even Peter Pace knows this.
I don't know if they are pretending about training Iraqis, but the military's own trainers are saying it's a 10-12 year project.
That's what the military is saying. Not me.
I think the generals prefer training Iraqis to sending a few thousand more troops into a no-win situation when either a HUGE influx of troops is actually required (and they know THAT will never happen), or the generals, too, can peddle the "training the Iraqis" story and get their troops and equipment out of the no-win situation.
What would YOU be advocating if you were a general?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
if everything is as you say
then I'd probably advocate the same thing as the generals. It is depressing either way.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Look at this new report from Reuters:
One of the reasons why the "training Iraqis" tale doesn't work in reality is that evidence clearly indicates -- over and over -- that Iraqi military and police units have been acting as militias loyal to sectarian groups, not to a central government.
The Iraqi government is non-functioning. That is what undercuts the building of a true, national security force more than any other factor.
Hell, the Iraqi army still can't (or won't) deliver the troops U.S. commanders have asked to be deployed to Baghdad. And this has dragged on since August.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
No!
The only difference it will make is that more US soldiers will die.
The solution is political.
It is the economy, stupid.
not clear
Even if we assume that the extra troops won't "stabilize" the situation, it is not clear that the number of casualties will increase. Perhaps different people will be injured, but we have no way of knowing whether there will be an increase.
The question I asked is a political one, not a moral one. "Should the Dems/liberals/opponents 'support' an increase in forces as a way to bring the issue to a head quicker?"
Having given Bush one last time and having him fail then gives them the extra authority to change direction later. My position is unnecessary if there is a viable plan to start reducing the forces immediately, but this doesn't seem to be on the table.
Opposition without the ability to influence events will just leave the opponents open to criticism later that they didn't give the plan a chance. Taking a principled position which won't affect policy may be self satisfying, but isn't it a type of abdication of responsibility?
Now if people (other than Cindy Sheehan) were chaining themselves to the gates of military bases, or engaging in other forms of civil disobedience than we could say that the opposition was doing what they could. So far we have not seen this level of activity (unlike Vietnam).
--- Policies not Politics
Keeping the executive from screwing up
Is part of their job. The Democrats won at least in part because the Republicans in congress did nothing on Iraq except let the president do what he wanted. Their permission to screw things up didn't somehow gain them extra authority, it got them kicked to the curb (and rightfully so).
The administration has gotten their way on EVERYTHING involving spending and deployment on Iraq and they have shown themselves incompetent at every stage. Give Bush 6 more months of troop surge that do no good and in 6 months, you'll see accusations that 'we can't pull out now! We just need 40,000 more trools (that don't exist) and everything will turn up roses!'
They need to stop treating Iraq like it exists in a political vaccum; simultaneously funding a large troop increase in Afghanistan as they move out of Iraq.
The ugly political reality
I just have a hard time swallowing the fact that we have to support putting in more troops (which will inevitably lead to more US wounded and casualities) to in the end achieve the same result. We will have to redeploy the troops out of Iraq.
If Bush insists on putting in more troops for one last ditch effort to get things right, then the dems should take some sort of a stand, on change of military leadership, or something, so that the execution of the strategy is different. What we are doing now is not working. Set it up so that the public realizes this is Bush's failure, and his alone.
So politically speaking, I just have a hard time gagging this one down. The ONLY reason is so that the dems can say, well we gave it one last shot, our best effort and it didn't work. But then how long will "they" keep saying give it 4-6 more months.
My opinion. We have already lost the war. It's too late. Now they are trying to figure out a way to pretend like we won. The only winning solution is a regional solution involving all of the neighbors and hoping that all out civil war doesn't break out in the Middle East. Really that should be the larger goal, avoiding a regional war. And that is the goal of the ISG, imho.
We should get out, saying that we respect their land and their holy places and don't want to see them blown up anymore. But that means the US has to give up on its goals. Why not let the Iraqi's take over the US embassy for the time being. And let the Sunni's feel like they have some power.
All the brightest minds are banging their heads together and no one has come up with the magic forumula to "win". Why, cause we have already lost.
We sacrifice more troops for that.
And on the US front, I frankly hate the politics of the dems having to say, yeah sure let's rack up some more dead people for political gain. Blechh! I am afraid that is what is going to happen though.
It is the economy, stupid.