The White House reportedly is looking at a “surge” of 20,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell cast doubts on the strategy: “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
There aren’t enough troops to lock down Baghdad, Powell said, and the military already is overextended and “almost broken.”
He added: “There needs to be a clear mission that these additional troops are going to be performing.”
That’s the bottom line: Is a troop buildup, especially a short-term one, really going to make a difference in stabilizing Iraq? Or is this political window dressing whose main result will be more dead American soldiers?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
55 Comments
Gee, wasn’t Powell one of those touting the benefits of the invasion? Nice to see that he is belatedly seeing the light.
Hopefully this man’s opinion will be taken seriously by the few Americans left who still support Bush. I know many called for him to run for President.
It seems to me that a short term troop “spurt” to quell the serious Shia-Sunni violence in Bahdad will result in nothing tangible long term, without some political solution reached to end the reasons giving rise to the violence. After all, the ones participating therein live there; our troops don’t.
It is clear to me that resolution of the ‘civl war’ conditions in Baghdad is necessary to the long term security of the Iraqis; but will a short term ’spurt’ without more result in just a short term dimunition in the violence, to resume at the same (or higher) level once the additional troops are withdrawn?
The only way Bush’s short term spurt will accomplish anything is if it is used to effectuate the ethnic cleansing of the regions of Iraq. My oh my, hasn’t Bush really FUBARed it this time!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
“Broken” implies that it can be fixed. “All the King’s men and all the King’s horses couldn’t……”. Well, ya’ll know the rest.
We ALREADY did a “surge”, in June and August, called “Operation Forward Together” — it was a complete failure.
Another “surge” = keeps the troops already there longer, and speed up arrival of other troops.
Sargent laments the MSM’s failing to hold Bush to account:
“Okay, then: Right now Bush is reportedly leaning towards sending more troops to Iraq — a “surge,” as we keep hearing. But the military commanders — including the very same General Casey whose “recommendations will determine the number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq,” as Bush himself said — appear to be leaning against recommending that more troops be sent.
“I know this is an embarrassingly simple point, but still: Now that Bush appears to be favoring a solution at odds with that of the recommendations of his commanders, why doesn’t it matter that back when they were telling him what he wanted to hear, Bush said unequivocally again and again and again that the commanders would determine troop levels? Why have we agreed to forget this? Why isn’t it in every news story about this stuff? Or better, why isn’t it in virtually any stories about it?”
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/12/post_455.html#014843
The Iraqis asked for Baghdad back. Don’t know why they are asking instead of telling, but Bush, my God man this is your exit. TAKE IT !!!
If the Iraqis can settle and hold Baghdad, then they can police the country
My idea?
Pull back American troops to secure bases outside the cities, protect the borders and prevent terrorist groups from taking over the oil fields. Use American combat forces only for missions against al Qaeda.
If the Arab League wants to play policeman, let them have at it.
Support our troops! Get them out of harms way!
Ben,This Iraqi thing has been FUBAR since 1986. Granted, Bushllit FUBARed it even more, but it never was anything but FUBAR!
But, Jed, it was reasonably stable before cokehead got in.
The entire middle east is a real circus.Tribalism, jihad, fatwa, sunni vs shia,islamic laws, clown dictators threatening everbody, kings with most of the oil, SHEESH.Logic and reason mean nothing in that environment.Even when we understand what’s going on,IT MAKES NO SENSE!
Amen, TRACY
Maybe Ben, Powell is belatedly seeing the light after reading the ISG report.
Whatever his reason is for coming out of the closet and speaking out is not as important as what is coming out of his mouth.
I respected Powell until he gave his speach at the UN. Now some of the respect is coming back.
political mom,Liberal me would have voted for him for President. Even I can be wrong.
WOW, I just realized Mr. Powell is doing an impression of Jon Stewart doing a George Bush impression.Ol’ semi-Colon cracks me up!
“The people have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information.
“The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are today not far from a disaster.”
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), 1920.
Thanks M-Hawk
I heard that this surge of new troops are not going to be additional troops – they are to be the troops already there. These soldiers will have their tours extended -again. Some of these soldiers have already had multiple tours. Is this really what we want as a super power in the world?
But I noticed none of the Bush’s family is among those having their tours extended. On yeah, that’s right, none of the Bush clan is even IN the military.
This is fucking laughable. Sen Harry Reid is cool with sending 20,000 to 50,000 troops to 2 or 3 months. Let’s call it 35,000, just for talking purposes. Does he have a clue how long it takes to move 35,000 troops + materiel support and supplies? They can’t get them in there in 2 or 3 months — let alone in and out. Even if they didn’t do anything but turn around and come start back home the day they got there! ‘Oh, I’m just wild about Harry, and Harry’s wild….”!
rm – I think the idea is to rotate the ones in that are currently scheduled to go in but leave in those slated to leave. That said, I disagree with Reid. Unless Bush can show in concrete terms just what will be accomplished we should give him no more blank chacks.
More troops = more dead Americans.
Like Nancy said, Harry – just say no!
No checks at all, Ben.
WSC, rm – AGREED!
What Ben said at 5:15 PM.
This is the dumbest thing Reid has said up to this point. 70% of Americans want out of Iraq. Why does he feel the need to be so reticent? I don’t get it.
As for the ’surge,’ please. It’s like Juan Cole said: this isn’t a 40,000-troop problem: it’s a 500,00-troop problem. Total nonsense.
And this idea of taking out Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army? George and his hand-picked generals need to lay off the meth. They’re looking more than a bit addled these days.
This is the dumbest thing Reid has said up to this point. 70% of Americans want out of Iraq. Why does he feel the need to be so reticent? I don’t get it.
As for the ’surge,’ please. It’s like Juan Cole said: this isn’t a 40,000-troop problem: it’s a 500,00-troop problem. Total nonsense.
And this idea of taking out Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army? George and his hand-picked generals need to lay off the meth. They’re looking more than a bit addled these days.
Aaugh! The dreaded double-post!
CF – do you get those doubles after having to do a hf64hw?
Colin Powell is feeling left out of the game plan, as he did when he was Sec. of State.
He can’t make people jump and say “how high” like he used to do in the military. He’s exhibiting ‘power’ withdrawal depression.
Well noname, I guess I grew up in a world of honorable people who were not cowards. I guess you are just an asshole who hides behind other people. And you are a coward to boot!
By the way, if we are killing them by the thousands then they are all gone. According to Rumsfield there weren’t that many of the “dead-enders in their last throes”
What’s wrong with using your own name? Are you afraid to stand for what you believe? I’m sick of Bush’s lies and it’s time to let these people sink or swim. I want my sons to come home or at least fight for an honorable cause. You cannot stop people who are determined to kill each other. We have been trying to do that all over the world and it never works.
Brenda, you are correct. Please read BOTH of my posts on open thread.
I used to be a staunch Bush defender. But after the Iraqis requested Baghdad back and Bush instead decided to send more troops… A choice I have not seen recommended by ANYONE, I have to break ranks with his decisions.
I fought in the first gulf war. Under Bush Sr. I believed in our cause then and believed in the cause until this. Bush wants to send more of my brethren into harm’s way. This is when I draw the line. If the Iraqis are giving Bush the exit he has for too many years needed, and he ignores it, then there is something WRONG !!!
Bendda, I think what we see with no-name potty-mouth above is a little nothing loser who is so filled with self-loathing that he must strike out at any real people of conviction. I look at Sol, Hank Price, you and many others – on both sides – as people of conviction. Then there are the puny rock-dwellers like him.
One thing that can happen with real identities is that we can find common ground. We actually did at least a little of that over on “open”. Also, we can meet face-to-face at a meet-up. Unfortunately, little bits of pond scum like no-name don’t have the courage to be real.
I’m pretty bummed that I can’t participate in ‘the Great Gathering.’. It would be awesome to put a face to the screen names on this blog. I have a mental image of a few folks here. It would be interesting to see how accurate they are :-)
If anyone is thinking anything will change while Dubya is running the show, don’t bother.
Here’s the latest.
WASHINGTON – Attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians jumped sharply in recent months to the highest level since Iraq regained its sovereignty in June 2004, the Pentagon told Congress on Monday in the latest indication of that country’s spiraling violence.
ADVERTISEMENTIn a report issued the same day Robert Gates took over as defense secretary, the Pentagon said that from mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks increased 22 percent from the previous three months. The worst violence was in Baghdad and in the western province of Anbar, long the focus of activity by Sunni insurgents.
At a ceremonial swearing-in attended by President Bush, Gates warned that failure in Iraq would be a “calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.” He said he intended to go to Iraq soon to get the “unvarnished” advice of U.S. commanders on how to stabilize the country.
A bar chart in the Pentagon’s report to Congress gave no exact numbers but indicated the weekly average had approached 1,000 in the latest period, compared to about 800 per week from the May-to-August period. Statistics provided separately by the Pentagon said weekly attacks had averaged 959 in the latest period.
The report also said the Iraqi government’s failure to end sectarian violence has eroded ordinary Iraqis’ confidence in their future. That conclusion reflects some of the Bush administration’s doubt about the ability of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make the hard decisions U.S. officials insist are needed to quell the violence.
“The failure of the government to implement concrete actions in these areas has contributed to a situation in which, as of October 2006, there were more Iraqis who expressed a lack of confidence in their government’s ability to improve the situation than there were in July 2006,” it said, calling for urgent action in Baghdad.
Issued just hours after Gates took the oath of office to replace Donald H. Rumseld, and amid an effort by the Bush administration to find a new war strategy, the report made no mention of a timetable for ending U.S. military involvement.
It said that as security conditions permit and the Iraqi army and police become more capable, U.S. forces will move out of the cities, reduce the number of bases from which they operate and conduct fewer visible patrols.
Overall, the 49-page report, the latest in a series of quarterly updates, is titled “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.” It used somewhat less stark language to describe the security and political problems in Iraq than the previous version sent to Congress on Sept. 1.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq
If Ben Huie shows up, then you will see me. I’m just an uglier, larger version of Ben Huie. ;)
JM – that will definitely make you very big and ugly!
;^)
Sol: I’m with you. If the Iraqis want it back, give it to them. If Saddam wants it back give it to him. Give it to anybody who’ll take it.
Iraq is like the poodle chasing the Volkswagen … what the fuck is he going to do with it when he catches it? We found out, the hard way.
Ben: Fuck that idiot!
I’m going to bed. Good night.
g’night to you to. 4 candles tonight?
g’nite brother. dream of a free conflict ( and abortion free) world !!!
It’s a bit funny, but “Ben Huie is a Loser” showed up about the same time a KSGolfnut appeared.
Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
No WS, I think that is below golfer.
The key word is “Brilliant!”
The troll isn’t. Because there is a poster who also uses that word in the same context. I just don’t remember who it is. Anybody remember?
I’ve never trolled anyone. But, believe what you wish.
golfer, you will note that I said I didn’t think it was you. We argue but I think you are above that ort of thing.
Correct me if I am wrong, which I am sure that some of you folks will not hesitate to bless me with your wisdom. Haven’t the people in the middle east been killing each other since recorded time? Different religions, politics, even different names for the countries that they all live in but always the same results. War!! So I have just one question to ask. What the hell is it that we think we are going to accomplish over there? Bring our troops home and let the folks over there take care of their own troubles. And please none fothat crap about letting the terorists have a free hand. Hell, we don’t even know who “they” are. And our borders are about as secure as Swiss cheese.
So once again we see that the only “strategy” that the left has is to cut and run.
Any suggestion other than troop withdrawls is immediately attacked.
The whole “stay the course” mantra was just that… nothing but a good talking point.
Lets look at the reality of the situation here.
There is not going to be any significant troop reduction for a while regardless of all the crying and whining from the left.
So, now you oppose a limited troop increase to help?
What sense does that make?
Bottom line is the nut will go with his gut, along has he still has Laura and Barney on his side! Maybe even if they too turn on him.
The entire middle east is a real circus.Tribalism, jihad, fatwa, sunni vs shia,islamic laws, clown dictators threatening everbody, kings with most of the oil, SHEESH.Logic and reason mean nothing in that environment.Even when we understand what’s going on,IT MAKES NO SENSE!
BTW, IF we really wanted to kill terrorists then why did we sit on our hands while 10,000 Sadr followers danced in the street, burning american flags and chanting death to America.When I saw this scene on TV, I couldn’t f**cking believe it!Where were all the hawks?
10,000 F’ing terrorists ALL in the same place at the same time!!!!!!!!Can’t we just do a couple of cluster bombs and be done with the ‘Mahdi army’?
Nathan,
I’m curious to know what you would do about the Iraq situation, although I’m not sure you can answer from the heart, considering where and who you are. But, if you can, give it a shot. Who knows? You might change my mind, although I seriously doubt it. Worth a try?
I really wish there was a way to help the Iraqis and a way to help them help themselves. More die everyday. I will be the first to admit however that I don’t want to lose my sons when there is no way to do that. I understood the 1st Iraqi war and I understood Afganistan but this is no longer a war but an occupation. I have a son in Iraq and one in Kuwait. My son in Iraq volunteered to go there even though his unit was not going. It is sad to see how disillusioned he is now and sometimes he tells me about his close calls. He has had several. My son in Kuwait is a little less jaded because he has been working with civilians and projects to dig wells, build schools, ect. as a chaplin’s assistant. My husband was in Bosnia with the NATO forces and it was the same there. He had several instances where he was involved in the exumation of mass graves of Muslims killed by the Christians. People have been killing each other over there in God’s name forever. I hope God is pissed off!
Ms. Shull,If you want to truly want help the Iraqis help themeselves, then write to your president and congressional rep., and tell them to get USA out of Iraq!
The current problem is a political issue not a military one. There’s not much your kid or the rest of the 150,000 troops can do to help the Iraqis. On the contrary. The American occupation is making it worse. The American side of the fight is over. Lets bring them home.