RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,156926,00.html

I personally believe that we should focus our troop deployment more towards the north where we now know Al-Qaeda militants are now operating. We can’t pull out now or else everything we bled for and every thing we fought for will all be in vane. And then it will turn into another Vietnam, we the people have power to decide if we want it to end up that way. Not the military, not the politicians, but we the people. So i ask you, what will it be?

i think we should increase nuke numbers there instead.

My concern about decreasing troop numbers over all is that it will lead to an increase in violence. If the insurgents feel that all they have to do is wait us out, then as troop numbers decline, we can expect them to come back, rested and refreshed, rearmed and ready to play.

I doubt they are really pulling troops out. They probably put short timers into the brigade that's leaving and transferred everyone in the original brigade to other units. Looks like numbers are decreasing but they're really not because other new troops will replace the short timers. It's a sleight of hand the military used in Vietnam.
Can't say that's what is happening for sure, but I would lean that way.

Best thing we could do is tell the public that we're increasing troops, that way it'll weed out all the liberals that try to join.

Also, that would peeve the Dems by giving token reductions that just appeases them while they are never "satisfied" because they just want 100% of the troops to go home this afternoon.

quote:

Also, that would peeve the Dems by giving token reductions that just appeases them while they are never "satisfied" because they just want 100% of the troops to go home this afternoon.

Now that's a sweeping generalisation that I'm going to challenge. Not all Democrats are lined up to cut and run as soon as the President leaves office. Some of them, like me, want to see us achieve our objectives. The trouble is that if you politicise any policy as this war
has been politicised, then you run the risk of real trouble. It's fine as long as it all goes well, but if it turns to rat droppings, then you find yourself, all by yourself, up to the ears in them. That's why the United States used to have a bi partisan foreign policy. And that is exactly why the UK does have one. There's no party division on Iraq and A-stan over here. It's just not an issue. Brit troops are there and will stay there until Parliament decides to bring them home or put them someplace else. That's the way it works here, and have to say, it makes for a much more peaceful life on the home front.

This is a silly game we are playing. If Bush had sent in the 300,000 requested by all the top brass in the first place, we might have had a chance to secure the country in '04, thus negating all of this Al Qaeda/Taliwacker influence.

This "post-surge" condition in Iraq is beginning to look like the U.S. ground forces are now trying to keep themselves "busy and necessary" in order to justify their continued presence. Things are getting too quiet there.

If the British experience in Basra is any indication of how Iraqis would react upon the departure of coalition forces, things would quiet down even more should U.S. forces just leave. There would be a clash among Iraqi sects in order to work out the "pecking order" among themselves, then stability would follow.

The British are leaving by the end of 2008. We could join them and declare victory, if we wanted.

I think the press should shut the heck up. Nothing like blabbing everything. Do you really think these people we are fighting are deaf and dumb? They pay attention to CNN and MSNBC as much as we do. Al Sadr is just waiting for troop numbers to fall, then it will be party time for him and his gang again. Iraqis could care less who dies for them, they will not fight unless they can be the ethnic cleansers. As for our troops.........take the fight to them and come home in one piece. Bless all of you.

quote:

The British are leaving by the end of 2008. We could join them and declare victory, if we wanted.

I think in the end Brina, that's what we might just have to do. We can have the Victory parades in London and Washington, then quietly get on with the occupation . . . Since, even if we do declare victory, we're still going to leave more than a token force there to maintain the peace and protect the oil fields and keep the Iranian hordes at bay.

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

Also, that would peeve the Dems by giving token reductions that just appeases them while they are never "satisfied" because they just want 100% of the troops to go home this afternoon.

Now that's a sweeping generalisation that I'm going to challenge. Not all Democrats are lined up to cut and run as soon as the President leaves office. Some of them, like me, want to see us achieve our objectives. The trouble is that if you politicise any policy as this war
has been politicised, then you run the risk of real trouble. It's fine as long as it all goes well, but if it turns to rat droppings, then you find yourself, all by yourself, up to the ears in them. That's why the United States used to have a bi partisan foreign policy. And that is exactly why the UK does have one. There's no party division on Iraq and A-stan over here. It's just not an issue. Brit troops are there and will stay there until Parliament decides to bring them home or put them someplace else. That's the way it works here, and have to say, it makes for a much more peaceful life on the home front.

EXCUSE ME? You are saying that the Brits haven't politicised the war. There was a vote for this war in both houses in the U.S; before it started and the ^&*( has not stopped since. Politicians no matter what country, politic, that's what they dooooo. Unfortunatley they will do it even when it helps kill our kids. Makes me sick.

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

Also, that would peeve the Dems by giving token reductions that just appeases them while they are never "satisfied" because they just want 100% of the troops to go home this afternoon.

Now that's a sweeping generalization that I'm going to challenge. Not all Democrats are lined up to cut and run as soon as the President leaves office. Some of them, like me, want to see us achieve our objectives. The trouble is that if you politicize any policy as this war
has been politicized, then you run the risk of real trouble. It's fine as long as it all goes well, but if it turns to rat droppings, then you find yourself, all by yourself, up to the ears in them. That's why the United States used to have a bi partisan foreign policy. And that is exactly why the UK does have one. There's no party division on Iraq and A-stan over here. It's just not an issue. Brit troops are there and will stay there until Parliament decides to bring them home or put them someplace else. That's the way it works here, and have to say, it makes for a much more peaceful life on the home front.

Morning, TP ... I hope what passes for Thanksgiving your side of the pond served you well.

What surprises me is the utter lack of short-term memory, at least encompassing General Casey's testimony to Congress last year. We are drawing down troop numbers in country, but it has little to do with the "success" of the surge ... we are reducing numbers because we have to, since unless the good General was seriously mis-informed we would have to reduce them in any event.

I do see it as a good idea the Diyala is being re-enforced, since it is the province that best represents Iraq as a whole ... it is, in fact, referred to as "little Iraq" by locals, because to the mix of folks who live there, Sunni, Shia and Kurd. My sources in country tend to a Marine shade of green, and I would be grateful for information from anyone in a position to know how much ethnic cleansing has taken place there ... because it is a reduction of violence in areas that stay mixed that is the test of whether what we are attempting to do can truly succeed.

quote:

"Diyala is a very different province now then when we assumed control in November of last year," he said at a news conference, pointing to the rampant violence, lack of essential services and corruption issues that were dominant. "Today there is hope in Diyala."

It is comforting to know that security has improved, too ... since it is security that we are most plausibly responsible (but not entirely responsible) for there ... but I admit I am troubled by the lack of detail in the other two areas of concern. What have we been able to accomplish combating corruption and providing basic services there? A few numbers would be a great comfort.

Defeatism is a killer!

quote:

EXCUSE ME? You are saying that the Brits haven't politicised the war.

I meant that in the sense that it is not, nor has it ever been a "party" political issue. Yes something like 90 per cent of the British people reckon to be anti, but that hasn't effected how the Government operates. Iraq and A-stan are not "party" political issues here.

quote:

Contact Us | Military.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Service

Afternoon Paul. Thanksgiving went well--hope yours did too. It would be good to see a few numbers and quantify the situation. But my worry remains the same, that the insurgency is just biding its time waiting us out. Then once things slacken off, they can come back.

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

EXCUSE ME? You are saying that the Brits haven't politicised the war.

I meant that in the sense that it is not, nor has it ever been a "party" political issue. Yes something like 90 per cent of the British people reckon to be anti, but that hasn't effected how the Government operates. Iraq and A-stan are not "party" political issues here.

Maybe I'm just thick? War seems to never be "party political" until after the decision is made to enter in. My frustration is that the war like every issue of pressing importance becomes a football after it has been actioned. The sad fact is that in democratic societies we air all the divisions and appear to not stand together. Common sense; those we lock in mortal combat rally their troops with our division. Vietnam was the first such example. Not that politicians and their political parties didn't debate openly about previous wars. Previous wars did not have story at 11 or Live satellite feeds.Previous war politicians couldn't walk outside their offices and land a blow to the chops of an opponent and do it world wide in a matter of a couple of hours. How can we ever "win" again so long as this goes on? Sorry... Got two kids in this fight myself and I'm a greenhorn at politics or political debate. I know this thing could cost them and us everything and when I hear division daily... well it leaves me anxious to put it mildly. Twenty-on families from this rural farming region I live in have already lost children and I can't imagine how they feel right now.For some this entire event in history is nothing more than debate, for me it's everything. Ramble...Ramble.... therapy Ramble...

quote:

Originally posted by runa10:

quote:

Originally posted by TPCAT:

quote:

EXCUSE ME? You are saying that the Brits haven't politicised the war.

I meant that in the sense that it is not, nor has it ever been a "party" political issue. Yes something like 90 per cent of the British people reckon to be anti, but that hasn't effected how the Government operates. Iraq and A-stan are not "party" political issues here.

Maybe I'm just thick? War seems to never be "party political" until after the decision is made to enter in. My frustration is that the war like every issue of pressing importance becomes a football after it has been actioned. The sad fact is that in democratic societies we air all the divisions and appear to not stand together. Common sense; those we lock in mortal combat rally their troops with our division. Vietnam was the first such example. Not that politicians and their political parties didn't debate openly about previous wars. Previous wars did not have story at 11 or Live satellite feeds.Previous war politicians couldn't walk outside their offices and land a blow to the chops of an opponent and do it world wide in a matter of a couple of hours. How can we ever "win" again so long as this goes on? Sorry... Got two kids in this fight myself and I'm a greenhorn at politics or political debate. I know this thing could cost them and us everything and when I hear division daily... well it leaves me anxious to put it mildly. Twenty-on families from this rural farming region I live in have already lost children and I can't imagine how they feel right now.For some this entire event in history is nothing more than debate, for me it's everything. Ramble...Ramble.... therapy Ramble...

What hogwash ... we have had considerable division in wars going back to the Revolution, where Torys made up a significant portion of our population. The War of 1812 was regionally referred to as "Mr. Madison's war", Thoreau was a conscientious objector for the Mexican War, which an obscure Illinois politician named Lincoln also opposed, and the Spanish-American War nearly fractured the Republican party over the issue of imperialism.

If we are not united, it is not an argument to form in lock-step whenever the executive chooses to engage in warfare, whether you think it is a good idea or not ... it is an argument for the executive not to engage in it at all until a good enough case can be made that warfare is unavoidable so that a considerable majority is willing to back the process to a foreseeable end state. It is the failure to do so, based on the sunny assumption that it wouldn't last long enough to matter, that aggravates me most about our present administration, and I have plenty of company.

I have friends and family over in Iraq and scheduled to go to Iraq in early 2008. You are completely wrong the military rotates complete units in and out of combat, then rebuilds the unit with incoming new people to relace the short timers not remaining in the military. Then the military retrains the unit to work together as a team (remaining old timers and new personnel). I have also seen articles written critizing the military that these policy's are why there are not more anti-Iraq personnel in the military due to the oldtimers influencing the new comers. When the real reason I have heard from those that have been there, or are still there, is that Iraq is NOT like you hear in the media.

Also I have not seen anyone respond to the negitive comment about the Iraq government "has make few, if any, strides toward political reconciliation". They seem to forget that it took 10 years (1776 to 1786) to come to a completion of our constitution for the states to ratify. Political especially democratic process takes time, I am glad our founding fathers did't give up and rejoin England after 5 years. England, by the way, didn't give up trying to get us back until after the war of 1812.

quote:

Originally posted by OneThreeMarine:
I doubt they are really pulling troops out. They probably put short timers into the brigade that's leaving and transferred everyone in the original brigade to other units. Looks like numbers are decreasing but they're really not because other new troops will replace the short timers. It's a sleight of hand the military used in Vietnam.
Can't say that's what is happening for sure, but I would lean that way.

quote:

Also I have not seen anyone respond to the negitive comment about the Iraq government "has make few, if any, strides toward political reconciliation". They seem to forget that it took 10 years (1776 to 1786) to come to a completion of our constitution for the states to ratify. Political especially democratic process takes time, I am glad our founding fathers did't give up and rejoin England after 5 years. England, by the way, didn't give up trying to get us back until after the war of 1812.

Different time and different situation. A foreign army did not come here to force democracy on us when we didn't ask for it. There is no comparison since we were fighting a foreign army to stop their domination. Unless you think that's what we're doing in Iraq.

Didn't we "force" democracy on:
North America?
Hawaii?
Honduras?
El Salvador?
Grenada?
Panama?
Austria-Hungary?
Japan?
Italy?
Germany? (twice)?

**During Desert Storm, the very first woman that we saw got punched in the side of her head (knocking her to the ground) by her husband because she looked up at us as we drove by in the 5-ton. Think of this as more of a human rights liberation instead of a "forced democracy" coup. At least, that was my experience.

btw...was attached to 1/3 in Okinawa. You guys rock.

quote:

Originally posted by OneThreeMarine:

quote:

Also I have not seen anyone respond to the negitive comment about the Iraq government "has make few, if any, strides toward political reconciliation". They seem to forget that it took 10 years (1776 to 1786) to come to a completion of our constitution for the states to ratify. Political especially democratic process takes time, I am glad our founding fathers did't give up and rejoin England after 5 years. England, by the way, didn't give up trying to get us back until after the war of 1812.

Different time and different situation. A foreign army did not come here to force democracy on us when we didn't ask for it. There is no comparison since we were fighting a foreign army to stop their domination. Unless you think that's what we're doing in Iraq.