Thoughts on the 20,000+ troops?
01-10-2007, 11:26 PM
#3
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Look at it this way... seeing how Bush publicly admitted failure essentially, this may very well be a last ditch effort to make things right. Soldiers aren't the reason for sectarian violence in Iraq. Democrats know their calls for withdrawal actually mean defeat, it's just that they just don't want to admit it. Give him his extra troops under this new strategy to make things right. You never know...
The part I'm curious about is how we'll measure improvement to the current situation and if Dems will acknowledge subtle improvements in Iraq (should they exist). My guess is that Dems will further demand full withdrawal even if this plan slowly reverses or prevents the worsening of the situation in Iraq.
The part I'm curious about is how we'll measure improvement to the current situation and if Dems will acknowledge subtle improvements in Iraq (should they exist). My guess is that Dems will further demand full withdrawal even if this plan slowly reverses or prevents the worsening of the situation in Iraq.
01-12-2007, 01:40 AM
#11
Originally Posted by gpatmac
Gates is apparently going to ask for 92k more troops.
01-12-2007, 06:45 AM
#13
VIP Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Personally I think that the US has a place over there. The military needs to get back to the idea that was set in place during the early nineties. The reduction of the US forces, post cold war, was intended to relieve the troops of occupation duty. It was intended to be a quick acting overwhelming strike force that could be anywhere anytime. It appeared at the beginning of the Iraq campaign this was exactly what was going to happen. I think the first uprising in Falluja was where things went wrong. There should have been an instant reaction to that it never happened. Even now I believe we should pull troops back get them the hell out of the triangle and provide support. "There's a problem over here..." Well rally two strike fighters and eliminate the problem. Keeping the boys there to occupy sucks, they are sitting ducks.
01-12-2007, 09:11 AM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
What do I think?
Too little.
Too late.
Too little.
Too late.
And like I said before, even if there is a noticeable improvement (fat chance) the Dems still won't stand for it.
01-24-2007, 05:17 PM
#15
I am in the US Army as some of you may know. I have served faithfully for the past 10 years. Currently I am on my second combat deployment to Iraq in less than 3 years. Do I like the idea of more troops? I would say this is a yes and no answer. Yes, because this allows us to maintain positive control of an area already deemed to be cleared and this will also put a stronger presence on the streets. I would say no because the chances of my unit extending and additional 3-6 months is a strong possibly and second it just increases the chances of me having to come out here a 3rd time.
