Military to back big Iraq buildup (did we have an election in NOV??)

[rodeodance]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003474825_iraq13.html?syndication=rss

By Julian E. Barnes

Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - Page updated at 12:50 AM

Military to back big Iraq buildup

WASHINGTON — As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in U.S. troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to President Bush at the Pentagon today.

Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort might be the only way to get the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.

The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted publicly by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. But the Pentagon proposals add several additional features, including the confrontation with al-Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.

[Nickster]

1. WTF??? These idiots are acting like Sadr is just sitting around with his uniformed troops

along a battle front just waiting for an offensive! Do these guys fucking get it yet? They are fighting an insurgency!! How the heck are they going to push Sadr? Are they just going to bulldoze Shi'a cities that have Sadr posters on public display? Please someone explain this to me.

[asjr]

9. Prelude to World War 111?

[ixion]

2. "the Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government."

there's a great example of bad reporting.

It is simply not that simple as removing Sadr. Remove one cleric and another will take his place. Reducing it to: 'this one guy is in the way' is juvenile, at best.

[Kagemusha]

11. Yeah well no one's telling Bush that, are they?

I don't see anyone admitting that Sadr's heading a movement that isn't actually named for HIM, but rather, for his father and uncle. I see them saying that Sadr himself is the problem and once he's out of the picture, the problem ends.

[Nickster]

13. Remember how all it was going to take was getting rid of Saddam, Zarqawi, etc etc.

Every damn time, they say it's just one more guy we need to get rid of, then another, then another....

[maxrandb]

20. If there is anything that we all can agree on

it is that this Pretzledent and this mis-administration is only capable of understanding things on a "juvenile" level. Our foreign policy is being run by a spolied fucking brat, who was raised by a spolied fucking brat, and has raised spolied fucking brat children.

I submit the following as example:

"Dead or Alive"
"Mission Accomplished"
"Cut and Run"
"Turning a Corner"
"Some say......."
"a few bad apples"
"Bring it on"
"Freedoms on the March"
"Let freedom reign"
"You're either with us, or 'agin us"
"Stay the Course"
"It's hard work"
"a few dead-enders"
"Last Throes"

It's like a fucking Cupie Doll is running our country. Pull a fucking string and over 100 different simpllistic platitudes spew out of it's pie hole.

[screenplaya]

3. They are playing Texas Hold-em with the troops?

Whats with this double-down crap? This is all on Gates' head. The President sorely needs therapy.

[rodeodance]

4. He does not care for us. We know that. His 'legacy' is his goal.

It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country.

James Dobbins, a former U.S. diplomat and adviser to the Iraq Study Group, said many Iraqis think U.S. forces put them in danger, rather than improve security. "The American troop presence is wildly unpopular in Iraq," Dobbins said. "Any effort to double our bet will lead to ever more catastrophic results."

Only 12 percent of Americans would support a troop increase, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Such a proposal, military officials and experts caution, would be a gamble.

"I think it is worth trying," said a Defense Department official, using the gamblers' term for doubling a bet. "But you can't have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down."

[gratuitous]

5. Doubling down or chasing bets?

That phrase struck me, too. Regardless, this isn't some night at the casino, this is a goddam war! People are dying, you administration idiots! What you're doing isn't working; it isn't going to work even if you do it more, harder, or faster.

[Jacobin]

6. chasing bets is a good description

and buying time to let another administration pull out the troops, so the loss can be blamed on others.

[lovuian]

7. More troops mean More Deaths

when we know the people want out

Our Country is under a dictatorship

and a unfavorable dictator at that

[rodeodance]

8. Saudis may back Iraq Sunnis if U.S. exits (and another card on the table)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_warning

Saudis may back Iraq Sunnis if U.S. exits

26 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Saudi Arabia has warned Washington it might provide financial aid to Iraqi Sunnis in any fighting against Shiites if the U.S. pulls its troops out of
Iraq, The New York Times reported Wednesday.


Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni country, has promised U.S. officials that it would not intervene to assist Iraq's Sunni insurgency, according to the report, which cited anonymous American and Arab diplomatic sources.

But that promise might not hold if U.S. troops leave Iraq, the newspaper said. The Bush administration has repeatedly said there are no plans for the immediate pullout of U.S. troops.

The Times reported that Saudi King Abdullah sent the warning to Vice President
Dick Cheney two weeks ago during the vice president's visit to Riyadh. The message also emphasized the kingdom's displeasure with proposed talks between the U.S. government and
Iran

[Larkspur]

10. Sadr is one militia group, but what about the others

especially the biggest one backed and trained by Iran? Can't remember the name of that group, but they are larger than Sadr's brigade.

[Kagemusha]

12. SCIRI. And the currently discussed plan is to... ally with them.

Get with them, the Kurds, the least bad of the Sunnis, gang up on Sadr, exorcise him like a cancer.

[Dhalgren]

14. So we can't beat the Sunni freedom fighters, so let's try beating

the Shiite freedom fighters. Has anyone in the Penta-gone considered that by attacking the Medhi Army we might cause a coalition between the two groups of freedom fighters? We are currently fighting about 20% of the Iraqi population, if we attack the Shiites we will be in conflict with 80%, because the Sunni won't stop just because we attack Sadr. They will simply re-intensify their guerrilla war. This is beyond madness, this is calculated, willful murder for profit. The Democrats HAVE to cut off the Mad Dictator's funding, it is the only "card" the People hold.

(And just as an aside: What the hell does "a long-term increase in the size of the military" mean? These blood-thirsty assholes are out of their fucking minds!)

[HuffleClaw]

15. BAWHAHAHAHAAHAH

wow, what complete fucking lunacy.


'an increase in industrial aid' = a PISSPOT of money to hallicheney and big oil.

a buildup of us troops? for WHAT???!!! one possibility is another fallujah-type rape/slaughter of some iraqi city which will be called a 'victory'

'a major combat offensive against muqtada al-sadr' hmmmmmm. they set him up as a future boogeyman a couple years ago and at the time i KNEW they left him alive for this very reason, to blame BUSHco. failures upon when the time was right.

as for 'strong support in the pentagon' ???? bullshit there's 'strong support', there IS BUSH speaking from on high TELLING them what to 'think', call it the rumsfeld legacy.



this is wrong in too many ways to describe. i'm sickened.

[underpants]

18. Come on baby you know I love you just one more hit I swear!!!

Crackheads running this country

[Bigmack]

16. The only good thing...

.. about this is that the military and Dumbya are doing it ALL their way. They are totally committed to pushing this war to the bitter end.

When it turns into an even greater clusterfuck than it is, the blame is totally theirs. They'll try to wiggle out of it and blame the hippies or the press, but it's all theirs, and everybody knows it.

One small problem however... our troops and the poor Iraqis keep getting killed at an ever-increasing pace, and the ME is growing more unstable every day.

We peacefreaks get to be right... but the innocent die and the ME blows up.

Cold fucking comfort!

[denverbill]

17. Hey, it worked it Vietnam. What was our high there? 500,000?

And Vietnam is now our good buddy.

Maybe 30 years from now we'll be signing free trade agreements with Iraq!

[Tansy_Gold]

19. "Why we lost in Vietnam."

Overheard yesterday --- and the day before that --- and the day before that ----

"We shoulda nuked them bastids."

Just think: a major (but ultimately futile) build-up in Iraq will give monkeyboy the chance to pull the machoest stunt of 'em all. Just like his new BFF Harry S., booooshie can drop the Big One on Baghdad and then no one can ever call him chicken or coward or wuss again. . . . . .



Tansy Gold

[VegasWolf]

21. Typical military thinking, a gun solves all problems, all one needs is the "right" gun! nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. This is moronic.

We can't even maintain effective control over Basra or Baghdad with how many thousands of troops in the country? Utter, pointless waste of lives.

[Ms. Clio]

23. That was precisely the phrase Fareed Zakaria used on The Daily Show last night

I didn't understand what he meant.

[Critters2]

24. Congress needs to cut funding.

A Dem Congress could put an end to this. Just stop letting 'em have their billions. More troops take more money. Time to turn off the tap.

[daleo]

25. Bush, doubling down

"Hit me."

[Imagevision]

26. Bush is incapable to stop making stupid mistakes -- he got us into this mess, he remains clueless

in determining how the heck to get us out. Don't forget, there was NO exit strategy simply because Cheney & Rumsfeld had no designs to leave. (enter build 14 US. bases)

[laststeamtrain]

27. Pentagon's plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq (LA TIMES)

Pentagon's plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq
Boosting presence and aid, and an anti-Sadr offensive, carry risks but offer the best path to victory, military officials say.
By Julian E. Barnes
Times Staff Writer

December 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory.

The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military.

Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country. Only 12% of Americans support a troop increase, whereas 52% prefer a fixed timetable for withdrawal, a Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll has found.

"I think it is worth trying," a defense official said. "But you can't have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down" — the gambling term for upping a bet.

<more>

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-military13dec13,0,6117142,print.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

[shain from kane]

28. Double down. Snake eyes. You have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them.

[mike_c]

29. this is a recipe for further disaster....

A direct offensive against al-Sadr is likely to bring the Shi'a into open warfare with the U.S. occupation, supported to some degree by Iran and Syria. It will undoubtedly escalate the conflict. It is liable to end with Iraq in even worse shape than it is now, and with the Sunni insurgency waiting to pick over the rubble. At the very least it will undermine al-Maliki even further-- his government will be allied with the forces warring with a portion of his Shi'ite electorate.

Bush and his neocon cronies have painted themselves-- and the rest of us-- into a very bad corner, from which there is no easy or good way out. We are f*cked, no matter what we do now. So is Iraq.

Over and above the question of how badly we and the Iraqis are going to take it up the ass because of Bush's incompetence hangs the question of what Americans and their leadership are going to do about it. There is no good solution for the situation in Iraq anymore-- all possible outcomes are bleak, and will further damage American prestige, such as it is. However, the situation will only get worse if Bush is allowed to remain in office. We can see that in operation now-- when faced with a choice, he and his generals will inevitably choose a direction leading further into disaster. He must be impeached, and he must be tried and punished for his crimes. That is the ONLY way to reclaim even a small measure of our national pride. We must stop the madman and punish him for his crimes.

[shain from kane]

31. Doesn't his militia have 60,000 members? And who else will be waiting on the sidelines?

Do they realize how many casualties and deaths that we would incur, fighting a 60,000 man army, regardless of their level of weaponry? Those people aren't just going to stand up and allow us to have target practice.

[qwlauren35]

30. Isn't this...

What Kucinich is trying to lobby against?

[Barrett808]

32. Congress will just have to starve the beast...

...to use a neo-con phrase.

[Australians]

34. More troops

George W Bush repeatedly denied needing more troops. So who is responsible?

[bemildred]

33. Ah, negotiations about who will be left holding the bag have begun. nt