While insisting he hasn’t decided on whether to increase troop levels in Iraq, President Bush sounds pretty clear about permanently increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.
“We need to reset our military,” Bush said today. It’s a change of course for the president, who opposed the same idea last summer. The announcement comes amid warnings from both Congress and the Pentagon that Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched U.S. forces to a breaking point — and concern that America’s most committed foes are keenly aware of the fact.
Bush, by the way, also altered his assessment of the war in Iraq, saying, “We’re not winning; we’re not losing.”
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
44 Comments
bush is really in a tailspin.
Too bad so many get to go along for the ride.
How about a smaller military and fewer wars? It costs less too. It’s a safe bet that whatever Bush wants we’re better off doing the opposite.
Got another epiphany for ya George, the violence you’re seeing now in Iraq is the result of going in with less than half the number of needed troops, given you should have been there in the first place!
It’s time for a time-out.
With what Bush started and can not seem to end, a larger military just might be needed. Troops are rotating back to the mid east w/o having their batteries re-charged.
Until we have a lesser demand for troops overseas, an enlarged military might be our only choice.
The time is long since past for deploying more troops in Iraq. The generals requested more troops years ago. (Retired general’s statements.)
Baghdad will not be stablized by adding more soldiers unless we plan an all out assault on the Shi’ite militias. If that happens, we may as well attack Iran directly, since Iran is supporting the Shia. A US – Iranian conflict would draw in the Saudi’s and others, resulting in a full-blown regional war.
In other words, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Hell of a job, Georgie!
Mission Accomplished!
1,300+ days ago.
Enlarging the force, at least temporarily, is the only way I can see to avoid the repetitive deployments, extension of tours, etc. now occurring while devoting more assets to Afghanistan, as well as providing some reserve if other “hot spots” ramp up. Not a good situation at all.
I wonder if the post New Year’s pronouncement will also include acceptance of the Iraqi government’s ‘offer’ to take control of security in Baghdad?
If the military were allowed to fight the damn war instead of having to be politically correct or go through sensitivity training, maybe we could win a war. As it is, it will never happen again, and the enemy will take full advantage of it.
Who are they fighting sarge? The military arrested and tortured an American citizen in Iraq after he was in touch with the FBI for reporting fraud in an attempt to save taxpayers money. Apparently you, and Bush, never paid attention when the subject of the Vietnam war came up.
Slighly off topic, but how long is the Marine tour in Iraq — is it the same length as the Army?
Tactically speaking, if we learned but one thing in Viet Nam, I had hoped it was that your cannot win a guerilla war utilizing comventional tactics. Sadly & obviously, we didn’t even learn that.
The violence in Iraq is not the result of too few troops. It is the result of invading a country that did not attack us or pose a threat, and a President who is incompetent to be Commander in Chief.
A little tough talk goes a long way to fool the rubes. If you voted for Bush go to Iraq and see first hand what you have done.
I have been against sending more troops, but I just heard an argument that makes sense. A lot of the problem we are facing now is that we go into an area, quell the militia, then leave. If we stayed longer and got some sort of civility (i.e. local government or peace keepers) to keep the militia in check, then maybe we could sweep the country, leaving the Iraqis in charge of Iraqis.
“We’re not winning; we’re not losing.”Is that kinda’ like “a little bit pregnant”?
____________________________________
Sol: The problem I see there is if we stay and stay and stay until we’re sure there will be civility, we’ll be there forever. If we stay only long enough to turn it over to the Iraqis when they say “We can handle it”, which they already have said, it’s a coin flip whether they can or even will try.I just feel we should hand it all to them and wish them good luck and bring our people home where they belong. If they succeed, more power to them and I applaud them. If not, hey, they failed … you can’t win them all. But no more of our people die for what appears to be a lost cause. Many of these people don’t even know what “democracy” is, other than we told them that it was “good” for them.
Iraq”hard place”:(
I hear you rm, but wouldn’t leaving Iraq to implode be the worst thing we could do?
If we started in the north, where the Kurds actually figured it out and just swept southward. I’m not talking about staying for like 6 months, just get the militias toned down and the security force in place. If we did that and things fell apart, we might have plausible deniability in that it was civil when you took it over.
Yeah, we screwed the pooch on this one, but I don’t think that has to mean that we don’t at least help clean up the mess.
Bigger military eh?
Ben Huie and I could join up, that would increase the ‘bigness’ by a quarter ton or so.
“…cannot win a guerilla war utilizing comventional tactics. Sadly & obviously, we didn’t even learn that.”
Keep in mind that the majority of those in the current administration and the current congress (republicans, especially) did not serve in Vietnam and have no first hand experience with either conventional or guerilla tactics.
In other words, what did we expect?
Yeah, really we’re saying the same thing. They say they’re ready. OK, let’s take them at their word. One sweep, from the north straight to the Saudi border at the south, and we’re out of there. Leave all non-essential equipment where it lays — they can have it (it would cost more to move it home than to replace it anyway) — if civil war breaks out 20 miles behind us the whole trip, we’re still moving south and across the border and coming home. Make that clear up front!In 8 -10 weeks, we are GONE! Adios! Sayanora! Auf Wiedersein!I’ll buy that in a heartbeat!
Type it up RM, I’ll get Bush to sign it ;-)
Definition of “We’re not winning; we’re not losing.”= stuck in a quagmire.
Once we captured the major cities, we’ve been fighting to hold them. One day they’re “ours,” the next day they’re “theirs.” Too few troops sent in the beginning is obviously the cause of this. Not recognizing the problems we’d cause when we went in concerning the different sects and that (at least) Saddam kept them contained (although with brutal force, at times).
In the 3 years since we “took over,” we continue to take one step forward and then another back. It’s true that we aren’t winning and aren’t losing…except thousands of lives. This is not the fault of the troops, nor the majority of the generals. It’s the fault of our president, his administration, and our congress for allowing this continue on its failed course.
Dubya was right when he told Bob Woodward that none of this (as history) would matter because we’d all be dead by then. Frankly, he’s dead now. Brain dead.
RD: That somebody up there could READ, perhaps?
Maybe Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Borst, etc etc etc should put out a call for volunteers. I’m sure their super-patriot listeners will sign right up!
Yeah, cynic, they’ll try to (at 3:00 a.m., Sunday), and then tell everyone that for some reason, the recruiters were not in, so they weren’t able to.
“Ben Huie and I could join up, that would increase the ‘bigness’ by a quarter ton or so.”
Good one, JM, but ya might want to stay quiet on that – Bush might hear you….
He is “looking” for answers, after all.
After a lot of reading the various “experts” I really think that there is no answer that comes without a HUGE cost. Staying only will delay the inevitable, at the cost of American lives. Partitioning the country will just piss off the Sunni mjority in the Arab world. Pulling out abruptly (no jokes here) will just turn Iraq into a free-for-all, with the Shi’ites taking intitial control and the Sunni’s, supported by Saudi Arabi taking the fight to them. Training the Iraqi forces just seems to equate to training the insurgencies. Taking sides in the civil war to gain peace will just anger one side or the other.
Catch 22 comes to mind…..
What scares me the most is that we have given the world the pattern to follow to defeat us. We’ve shown just how easily we can be defeated in a non-conventional war.
We have Fort Ord in California to teach our boys how to fight in the deserts. We now need to build them a city so that they can learn better tactics to fight an urban guerrilla war.
Sol, you are spot on with that; it appears to me that urban guerilla combat will likely become more “normal” than, if you will, traditional battlefield conflicts in the future.
It’ll probably start with the tanks, MLRS and artillery, but why WOULDN’T the ‘enemy’ just fold itself into the civilian population? They get to sleep warm, eat real food, and snipe and ied us till the cows come home.
What if the enemy IS the civilian population? Seems a lot of these militias are the ones we are training.
In a bush economy, all they will need to do is offer a higher financial incentive to join.
As my grandfather used to say – too little, too late. Someone needs to put a fork in Bush and say he’s done. Obviously, no one in the Bush Administration has a clue as to how to operate a war. Why are we depending on this man to do anything? It’s time someone takes Junior to the woodshed.
We have gang members in many major cities in the US that could fight the Iraqi insurgents on their own turf. Why not just round them up and ship them over?
I bet these gang members would know to root the insurgents out of their rat holes too.
One former ambassador’s take on the “surge” and a bigger Army and Marine Corps, offered without endorsement but for the reading of all interested:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06354/747356-374.stm
rebel – they would not ‘root out’ the insurgents; they would join them.
Throw in a bag of drugs and they will all kill each other to get to it.
rebel – grant them the drug concession in Baghdad, else they won’t go…
Hey, that will work. I say let’s make a plan that will work and get our soldiers out of harm’s way. Two problems solved for us – get rid of gangs and get our soldiers home to do the important work.
Our army has been taking in those who were once considered “undesirables.” It might help in the respects rebel put forth, but long term, it’s risky.
RD, to be totally cold hearted; although rebel and I have been having a bit of a jocular “conversation”, if something like this would go down, not expecting to need to deal with them in the future in U.S., thus the suggestion of granting the drug concession.
Hey, look at the bright side — if it didn’t work out and the gang members got killed, who’d care?
We consistently hear Bush say “we must stay until we win the war”. There is comfort in that if you like the idea of spending the next 1000 years in Iraq. How can you teach Democracy to a culture that has been oppressed for years and never taught the ideals of democracy?
VT & rm,
Risky business, that.
Bubba Jeb told a mexican news paper ” I have NO Future”, when asked about political aspirations. He sure got that right!
We can’t win because we don’t want to die and the folks over think it is an honor. We want to hand on to our skin and they don’t. We just need to get the hell out!
When you are drawing from a Sectarian society , there is no way to build a non-sectarian military/police force. All you will end up with is a larger, better trained and equipted force capable of more efficient forms of violence!
There is no military solution to a political/religious problem. By putting in more of our forces, you run the risk of aligning both sects to fight us, then total chaos.
The Iraqis have to settle their differences themselves, it is not our responsibility, nor is possible. IMHO