US troops in Iraq hit record number (161,000 troops)

[sabra]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-10-27T183303Z_01_SCH766732_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-TROOPS.xml

US troops in Iraq hit record number


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has increased its forces in Iraq to the highest total of the war at 161,000 troops, and the Pentagon said on Thursday it expected a similar number in place for the December elections.

The U.S. military increased its force in Iraq in advance of the October 15 referendum in which Iraqis approved a new constitution. The current total is about 23,000 higher than the usual level of 138,000, which includes 17 brigades.

Iraqi voters go to the polls again on December 15 to select a new government.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told reporters that the U.S. force would begin to decline "pretty dramatically" in the immediate future.

[endarkenment]

1. This is freaking huge news.

:wtf:

We are moving in exactly the wrong direction. Nominated. Kicked.

[rocktivity]

2. Bush is STILL about 100K soldiers short

But of course, the guy who told Bush that it would take at least 250,000 troops to liberate Iraq properly lost his job.

:headbang:
rocknation

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

15. Unfortunately sir, you are correct.

He's at least 100k troops short of what it would take to control the situation.

To be certain of maintaining order, I'd want Vietnam levels of troops, close to half a million. This would take a draft and the repukes aren't going there.

Unfortunately, the relatively low level of our troops there make it more dangerous for them, because we can't secure any large areas where they can be safe.

It is such a grand cluster-bleep, but this isn't news. IIRC, a former head of the War College called it something like the worst strategic blunder in US history.

The uniform guys knew going in what it was going to be like. So did General Powell's Colon and he still lied to the UN for bushco.

God help our men and women in harms way and God help this country.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. How many Iraqis will have to be killed before they are free? nt.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

22. Unfortunately, all our choices suck at this point

To simply cut and run leaves Iraq in civil war and much worse off than they were before we got there.

To stay in with the troop levels we have now is to continue a holding action against the insurgents and continue taking casualties and unfortunately killing civilians.

If we ramp up the troop level, we can control large parts of Iraq and possibly lower our casualty rate, but the guerrilla war will continue, just like Vietnam. So will the civilian casualties.

Personally, I'd like to see W on his knees begging the UN Security Council to come in with a multinational force large enough to replace our troops and draw our forces down that way.

Unfortunately, W pissed off all the allies we have with large enough armies to do that, except for the Brits, who are also looking for a way out.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

34. Give France, Russia and Germany their contracts back and I am

sure they will see things differently... also, take Bremer's 100 "rules" and put them where the sun don't shine.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

35. Two very good points

But I'd still like to see Bush on his knees begging the UN for help.

[Marie26]

19. Actually, he was fired.

Gen. Shesinski told a Senate committee back in 2003 that it would probably take a force of 200,000+ troops to occupy Iraq. This infuriated Rumsfeld, who was busy selling the war as a cakewalk. Gen. Shesinski wasn't repeating the White House party line, so Rumsfeld fired him. When Thomas White, the Secertary of the Army, publically agreed w/Shesinski, Rumsfeld fired him too. And now they shake their heads and say "no one could have predicted" how hard it would be to occupy Iraq. LOTS of miltary experts predicted it, Bush & co. just silenced those that disagreed with their military fantasy. Kind of like what they did to Joe Wilson. This administration WANTS yes-men, only yes-men, and that's what makes them so dangerous. They're completely unable to handle reality. :mad:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

[GliderGuider]

3. In the immortal words of Phil Ochs

"You're fighting to keep Vietnam free, for good old Diem-ocracy..."

Whoops, wrong war. I got all confused there for a second...

[saigon68]

14. Safe to kill a few islamicists by US thug troops

Do they think this photo will GO AWAY ??????



ANYMORE THAN THIS ONE DID??????????????????????

[VegasWolf]

4. Now we should start getting death and disfigurement in large numbers.

:sarcasm:

[UpInArms]

5. and they just revived the "enemy kill" news reports!

Gosh, I was almost starting to forget the 60s - but then, I heard that if you could remember them, you weren't really there.

[Hardrada]

32. Fuck, man, I remember about half of them.

Whoooooooooooeeeeeeeeeee!

[underpants]

6. Okay in 6 months they annouce the 20K are coming home then 10K

this gets them back to 130K and they go around campaigning about bringing 30K home.

[jayfish]

11. Who Said We Don't Have Transparent Government? -NT-

Jay

[harlinchi]

7. What happened to their schedule of deployments?

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told reporters that the U.S. force would begin to decline "pretty dramatically" in the immediate future.


They'll begin to decline pretty dramatically? I guess so! Where will the troops come from who will maintain this level of deployment?

[hadrons]

9. decline = increase in BushWorld

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

12. Sibyllinic phrasing

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told reporters that the U.S. force would begin to decline "pretty dramatically" in the immediate future.

Does that mean their number will decrease when Iran strikes back at the Iraq based forces?

[Inland]

17. Well, is it "the future" yet?

No, it isn't. Come back tomorrow.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. 3,000 should be easy to reach with these increased numbers

[daleo]

10. Hello mudder, Hello Fodder.

More pawns for the Bush death machine.

[Tom Joad]

13. Deeper we go. Settle for nothing less than all troops out now! nt

[Toucano]

16. Mission Accomplished! n/t

[Marie26]

18. As Iraqi soldiers stand down, we will stand up. n/t

[DemoTex]

21. Tell me again why this does not resemble Viet Nam. Eh?

Then: A clusterfuck.
Now: A clusterfuck.

[Earth_First]

23. Whatever happened to the "sizable troop with drawl in 2006"

sure, they'll remove troops after increasing the overall number, thus creating the image of troop reduction, when in all actuality creating a net gain.

fithy!

[BrotherBuzz]

24. Hell, troops are fungible....

You can have them here, or you can have them there. Rumsfeld told me, and I was just a dumb draftee that added "no value, no advantage, really", to the United States armed services, so I believe him.

:sarcasm:

[hang a left]

25. Syria. eom

[rodeodance]

26. US forces in Iraq reach 161,000, highest level of the war

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051027/pl_afp/usiraqforces_051027203310;_ylt=Ajz6na2mCti0cY2l.LORZLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
US forces in Iraq reach 161,000, highest level of the war

Thu Oct 27, 4:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US forces in
Iraq have swelled to 161,000, their highest level since the US invasion in March 2003, a
Pentagon spokesman said.

The increase was due to overlapping troop rotations, said Lawrence DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman.

The previous high in US force levels was reached in January, when the number of US troops in the country rose to 159,000 during national elections......

[Skink]

27. Only 240,000 short..

Not enough guard I guess.

[Mass]

28. Well, that certainly explains a lot:

1 American soldier for 100 Iraqis. You can understand why they feel a little bit invaded.

[cliss]

29. Why so many?

It seems that the troop levels have been steadily increasing, not decreasing. I think there is going to be some kind of vote for a parliament or something, but that doesn't happen until December.

So our troops are going to be at this level until then? What a failure.

Also, don't forget this does not include our mercenaries from our beloved CACI, Titan, Blackwater and others. I believe that number is around 30,000 mercs. That's a lot of people. ....as our treasury gets sucked dry.

[Dancing_Dave]

30. The more who are there, the more who will die.

This is a lot like troop buildups in Vietnam.

[enigma000]

31. We kept complaining they didn't send enough troops

Guess our bluff was called. I expect this level to continue until after the December elections. Between then and now there will be a great deal of fighting.

Shortly afterwords, troops will be withdrawn - maybe to half current levels by the mid-term elections.

[Hardrada]

33. No sir!! I never did.

I never wanted a single one there to begin with.