Put Up or Shut Up

[Joanne98]

http://www.dailykos.com/
Put Up or Shut Up
by Hunter
Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 12:11:25 PM PDT


Ah, OK. I'm getting the hang of how this Being a Foreign Policy Expert thing works. Let me give it a try, I bet I could top Bill Kristol with one hand tied behind my moderately comfortable office chair...

We all know that the consequences of losing the Iraq War would be catastrophic. We know that because we are currently losing the Iraq War, and the consequences are currently catastrophic. Well, at least for the Iraqis. And probably for the region. And given how many new terrorists we've now likely created (watching your children or siblings or parents be torn limb from limb by shrapnel has a way of radicalizing a person), for us.

And we also know that the surge is not working. It may be having more impact than doing absolutely nothing, yes, but it is not providing the necessary precursor of nationwide stability needed for a democratic Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is, in fact, in shambles: QED. The proof is in the hummus.

It's vital that we win this fight, and to do that, we need manpower. So I'm calling for the President of the United States to increase the occupation by 500,000 more American troops.


30,000 won't do it. 250,000 has only a slim chance of doing it. But 500,000 is a number that should provide an overwhelming presence in the country and security in every city -- a precursor to actual stability. Presumably, anyway: if it turns out that not even 500,000 troops could provide the necessary security, it would certainly make our current efforts of a mere 30,000 troops look like nothing more than a cynical ploy, a mere delaying tactic by a president otherwise entirely out of ideas. And we all know that isn't the case.

Now, people who do not want America to win in Iraq will no doubt point out that America does not technically have a half million more troops to insert into Iraq. To people who are not patriots, this would present a problem, but anyone who truly understands both foreign policy and the importance of winning the Iraq War knows that mere physical impossibility is no reason for not loudly and pompously demanding something be done. But very well: let us bow to the troop-haters, those people that are so anti-military that they dismiss outright the abilities of our fine soldiers to be stationed in multiple places at the same time. The only seeming alternative is to institute a broad and far-reaching draft.

It is the only way. If we are serious about winning the Iraq War, then I am calling on George Bush to increase troop levels by 500,000 Americans.

If Bush does not heed my very serious and American call, it can only be because he does not really want us to win. He must secretly be wanting America, in fact, to be defeated by the Islamoterrofascists. If Bush does not heed my call, it is because he does not understand that we are living in a post-9/11 world. It is because he does not think the Iraqi people are capable of governing themselves. It is because he has not learned the lesson of the Vietnam war, which was that the only way to lose a war is to leave. It is because he doesn't understand that there are terrorists there that need killing before they follow us home. It is most of all because he does not support our troops, and is not willing to give them what they need to do their jobs.


No, If Bush does not heed my very serious call to treat the Iraq War as serious, and finally allocate a half million more troops so we can definitively win this thing and establish an Iraqi democracy, it is because he is not serious about winning the war, not serious about supporting our troops, not serious about wanting stability in Iraq, not serious about the fight against terrorism and, most fundamentally, a coward.

Bill Kristol, I'm calling you out: I'm calling for more troops than you are, so I love America more. Max Boot, get on it: I'm willing to have a draft in order to win The Defining Struggle of Our Times. Are you up to it, or have you been blowing smoke out your cowardly ass this whole time? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? You're the most patriotic Americans you know, or so I've heard, but I've just run laps around you. I don't just support the troops, I support a half a million more of them, because I'm just that much more of a patriot. No, if we really support the troops, we're gonna have to supportively kill off a lot more of them in order to win the Defining Struggle of Our Times -- but we'll win it.

Also, please find the weapons of mass destruction. With an additional 500,000 troops, it should be a piece of cake.

There, that ought to do it. Check it out, I'm a foreign policy expert. Now give me a f-ckin' Pulitzer, or you all hate America
http://www.dailykos.com/

[Deja Q]

1. A vet told me 600,000 would be a more viable estimate.

[Joanne98]

2. He's probably right. I don't think Bush wants to win the war....

the war profits are coming from "services" this time. Not like to ole days of the Cold War where the profits came from "bending metal".. Haliburton and Blackwater ONLY GET PAID if there's troops on the ground. If we win the war it's over. No need for any more "services".

Calling their bluff is a good idea.

[reprobate]

3. Oh, But this is a war that will keep on giving.

The success has come from putting so much equipment in places that insurgents are sure to damage or destroy it that the defense industries will have work for years to come. And we'll pay taxes to replace that war damaged equipment for years to come.

See, that's how to hold a successful war!

And you may have noticed that the place they picked, Iraq, is probably the very worst place to send that equipment. It guarantees that just starting an engine is the beginning of it's destruction.

And they call Bush stupid?