Why More Troops in Iraq? - My Theory

[Dirty Hippie]

I have not heard any media outlet question why Bush simultaneously declared more troops would be sent to Iraq and that he would be consulting with others to craft a new strategy for Iraq. On the surface this is contradictory.

I think the escalation of troops has more to do with Iran than Iraq. I believe he intends to bomb Iran (or use Israel as a proxy) and needs additional troops in Iraq to fight Iranian forces.

Bush is basically done with Iraq and is preparing to move on to Iran. Remember Afghanistan?

Smart DUers, please comment.

[babylonsister]

1. My theory: dimson can't bear to admit he's made a horrendous

mistake, whatever the cost is in lives.

[NYCGirl]

2. I don't agree. There will not be a ground war in Iran — unless we pull every

troop out of Iraq, there's not enough troops.

[Dirty Hippie]

4. I don't think a ground war is planned

I think additional troops are a contingency.

[leesa]

6. You think Iran is just going to politely let us bomb them and do nothing?

If we bomb Iran, there WILL be a ground war...even if they have to come find us in Iraq. Iran has a military. It's not like the places we usually like to abuse...you know, the ones without militaries or weapons.

[NYCGirl]

9. That's why there won't be a ground war — and many are already in Iraq.

We won't be doing any bombing soon.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I'm with you. Troops are fungible and can be reassigned at the

drop of a hat. Add the extra troops to two sitting U.S. navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and all you need is a lit fuse.

[Wild Bill PlainTalk]

7. troops in iran

Recently retired from DOD-Weapons Station. We do not have the wherewithall to mount any type of ground invasion. Air Force/Navy bombings yes...our arms, ammunition, explosives and "boots on the ground" just aren't there.God help us if we open this Pandora's box!

[no_hypocrisy]

8. Number One: Welcome to DU Wild Bill.

Number Two: It doesn't have to make sense. Hitler invaded Russia and had a two front war against the advice of his military experts.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi Wild Bill PlainTalk!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[madokie]

5. You left me out with the smart part but I think you are so right

Iraq is the staging ground now whether we want to admit it or not. the little man has only begun to overrun

[theHandpuppet]

10. Iran is most definitely NOT Iraq

Unless the American people are willing to accept casualties in the tens of thousands this just ain't gonna happen.

[Neshanic]

11. Sometimes we forget how stupid they really are. Maybe...

he is just going to muscle this thing through. Maybe they agreed at the swine central gathering to ice Sadam, and then lets just send in more guys and then wing it.

Maybe thats why Pace looked like he lost his dog, Condi looked like a robot, and Cheney, normally just generally creepy, looked to the ground, and scared insects.

They can cover their tracks, but as far as doing what they want, it seems they just wing it.

[Hamlette]

12. I like this explanation better:

which is basically: staying the course is not selling with americans any more, bringing troops home is an admission of defeat with Bush is incapable of so surge is the only option.

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/escalating_silence/

the fixed point of the president's thinking is an unwillingness to admit that the venture has failed. For a long time the best way to do that was to simply deny that there was a problem. Political strategy for the midterms, however, dictated that the president had to acknowledge the public's concerns about the war and concede that things weren't going well. At that point, simply staying the course doesn't work anymore. But de-escalating would be an admission of failure, so the only option is to choose escalation. Thus, the idea of an escalation starts getting pushed and we start reading things int he paper like "Top military officials have said that they are open to sending more U.S. troops to Iraq if there is a specific strategic mission for them." Consider the process here. It's not that the president has some policy initiative in mind whose operational requirements dictate a surge in force levels. Rather, locked in the prison of his own denial he came to the conclusion that he should back an escalation, prompting the current search for a mission.

and Josh's comment on yglesias' thoughts:

That doesn't mean that in theory there couldn't be a good argument for escalation, only that whatever it is, it has nothing to do with why the president is in favor of escalation. Because if it did he would have called for it at some point over the last three years. And he didn't. All that's changed is that option two of three -- stasis -- was removed from the list of options. End of story. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011725.php

[GreenTea]

14. You forgetting about the huge profits being made by keeping the wars going...

incredible profits still to be made...it's about oil and oil is money along with billions of our tax dollars begging to be stolen by Bushco and the corporations...expanding the wars will add even more money and buy them more time as an excuse to prolong the wars for profit....They aren't leaving...far too much money being made and Iran will assure them of even longer wars for profit.

[applegrove]

15. You hope that if they redeploy after Iraq..that the USA goes to Afghanistan

and cleans up that place. Cause they have left it to fester.