Does sending more troops to Iraq sound like a reasonable plan to get our troops out of Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17436582.htm

Dem. leader backs temporary rise in troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troops in Iraq being weighed by President George W. Bush if it is part of a broader withdrawal plan.

Bush has been talking to experts about a new Iraq strategy and a short-term increase in U.S. troops to help make Baghdad more secure is one idea that has been presented to him.

"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it," said Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month from Bush's Republicans. He spoke on ABC's "This Week" program.

But fellow Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, when told of Reid's comments, disagreed.

"I respect Harry Reid on it, but that's not where I am," he said. "The generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support," Kennedy told "Fox News Sunday."

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. No

This plan will only result in more death.

[uppityperson]

2. No. More is not less

If more are sent, what is to say they will come home any faster than if more are brought home now. War is not peace.

[delphinium]

3. I'm not quite sure

where Reid's going with that. I'm still scratching my head.

[krispos42]

6. He's probably thinking of an orderly withdrawal

In order for use to completely leave without problems and losses, Iraq must be fairly stable. If the country is seething in hot civil war, we will be withdrawing under fire. Bad for the Army, bad for the Marines, and bad for the Air Force transports trying to get them out. We will also be forced to destroy uncountable billions of dollars of hardware that we are forced to leave behind.

See Operation Dynamo, the hasty British retreat from mainland Europe in 1940 as Hitler's armies tried to encircle and capture the French and British troops.

[Vincardog]

7. Reid is saying "A surge as long as we are out by next 2008 like the ISG says.

[americanstranger]

17. Trying to wrangle a commitment from the White House.

A little horse-trading, if you will.

Not that I expect it to work. But it lets Reid seem open to the idea while knowing full well that Bush will never commit to it.

Pretty smart of Reid, if you ask me. He'll be able to use it to show that Bush is entirely unserious about bringing any of our troops home.

- as

[krispos42]

4. Under competent leadership, yes, it would

However, this is administration that is in a very thick-walled idealogical bubble.

It is full of people in leadership and planning positions who have better political connections than experience.

It is full of people approved for being idealogically sound, rather than effective.

It is full of people for when idealology conflicts with reality, reality always loses, and it's always the fault of the opposition.

And this administration has yet to prove the ability to accomoplish any helpful task.

It is my strong opinion that, even if the American people rallied behind the war, taxes were raised and Liberty bonds issued, hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men and women joined the Army, and factories retooled for war mobilization, we would only accomplish our loosely-defined 'victory' in Iraq by sheer weight of numbers and dead bodies.

There would be no finesse, no outmanuvering opponents, no strategy to defeat the insurgency by multiple methods both direct and indirect, military and political. Strategic locations would be fought over again and again and again. It would simply be bludgeoning the opposition with a mallet until it finally gave. And such events would only occur after massive and sustained losses on both sides, if at all.

Under anybody else, with the stakes as high as they are, I would say "Yes, let's do it."

Of course, under anybody else, we would either not be there at all, or have done the operation successfully by now.

But the best thing we can do now is pull back and start rebuilding the military. By the time the Iraqis finish fighing their civil war and the balance of power in the region has stabilized, we will have a fresh, refitted, rebuilt, and re-equipped Army and Marine Corps again, and a new administration to use them to contain the new situation in the region.

[pretzel4gore]

5. clue us in, the 14 permanent bases....

all this jabber, yet a 800 pound rat dances wildly in the room! poor harry is bouncing off the walls, with fur flying, but, hey, that's just how bushworld unravels! move along, nada to see here! folks! oh, btw, a short term increase in troops level yada yada yada fine idear yada...

[Junkdrawer]

8. You see, we have to give Bush everything he wants or else...

the eventual bloodbath will be all our fault. **


** Latest DLC talking point.

[NV1962]

9. In and by itself: NO.

But unfortunately, nobody can afford to write off Iraq, either.

So it'll be a nasty next two years to go still.

[blues90]

10. Not to me it does'nt

The problem I have as a civilian is I have no clear picture of what the situation in and around Iraq looks like , who really does .

So without knowing this I can't say how putting more troops in will help or hurt and as far as pulling the troops out I have no idea what sort of area they are in or how large an area or how spread out they are .

From what little footage they do show contains only footage of car bomb attacks and older footage with no date of the troops in various situations with some troops walking around firing shots at who know what . It looks like the same footage run over time and time again .

I can see they don;t want the public to have any idea about the actual conditions in Iraq , that I do know .

I fear no matter how they do this many more troops and Iraqis will die in the months to come , there seems to be no good way to do this at all .

[Marr]

11. If Reid actually believes a troop increase would only be used for 2-3 months

then he's too stupid to hold elected office.

[uppityperson]

12. this is my question also. How can it be limited to 2-3 months?

Once they get there, they will stay. How can Reid/etc actually limit it to 2-3 months?

[Junkdrawer]

13. Well, maybe he can get a lot of us to believe it...

I don't believe it, but then I think the ISG plan is a Trojan Horse, so what do I know?

[NV1962]

14. If you actually read his statement, you wouldn't even suggest that.

He's very intelligent, by getting the focus of the discussion on the color of the car to be bought: the crux here is that the few months are bait - it commits the inept administration to put up and pull out.

Absent any near-future prospect whatsoever of a serious correction, as illustrated by the WH's stonewalling any serious suggestion to engage Iran as a partner, Reid is dealing with the pathetic deck of cards on the table.

And so far, he's doing that very well.

[malaise]

15. No n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Well, there's the fact that Bush isn't going to use it to get the troops out

And anybody with a brain knows it.

[Disturbed]

19. The US Fascist Regime is clever, not wise.

They put the Dems in Congress in a box all the time. They know that the Dems cannot cut the the funds so they escalate. Victory is the only option. Anything less will be cast as appeasment to the Terrorists.

[liberal hypnotist]

18. Follow the money!

It is my opinion that troop build-up is for the express purpose of getting congress to authorize more money. War is motivated by greed, nothing more. Each trip to Baghdad by this administration is about moving cash back and forth. Organized crime is small time in comparison to a war-time president. Money!

[WalcottNorfolk]

20. Up is down; Good is bad; Peace is War

We are through the looking glass.

Bush is never going to withdraw the troops. You first have to drag him out of the White House before you can get the soldiers out of Iraq.

[screembloodymurder]

21. Bush like a rock, only dumber.

Can we send his staff.

[porphyrian]

22. Isn't that how we got out of 'Nam? - n/t

[Karenina]

23. Hmmm... I seem to remember helicopters

but maybe that was just a dream... :freak:

[Buck Rabbit]

24. Yes, but not in the way Bush intends.

Having two people trying to fill an empty swimming pool by spitting in it is twice as effective as having one person do it. Will it get the job done, of course not.

Bush is the CIC, he, not congress controls troop deployment, like it or not. There are 3 choices in Iraq regarding troop levels. Same, more or lower. Since many conservatives are saying more troops would win this war, letting Bush inadvertently prove them wrong allows us to say, "see there is only one solution to this and that is to withdraw.

Politically and practically, Bush playing out this option, works in favor of accelerating the eventual withdraw. It's failure to accomplish anything of substance and the cost of the attempt will work to make Bush a real pariah to the Repubs and it will be them quietly pushing for resignation or impeachment for political cover.

Remember that it takes the Republican support to force Bush out, the Democrats have no ability to do that on their own because of the 2/3 provision in the constitution.


edited for correctly spelling the wrong word.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. About as reasonable as cutting off a finger to get rid of a hangnail.

But, infinitely more disgusting to see politicians like Reid playing politics with people's lives.

[spanone]

26. Stephanopolous asked Reid 'how will you know it's temporary'...Reid didn't answer.

The democrats have the ISG as their weapon RIGHT NOW. Once the troops go in the ISG is totally dead. Bush* will drag this fucking war out till he's long gone from office. The democrats need to draw a line in the sand.