Thread: If Ya'll Have me Back.

Originally Posted by BBC

US President George Bush is to send thousands more troops to Iraq to help secure Baghdad's streets as part of a new strategy to tackle the conflict.

Mr Bush said 80% of violence in Iraq happened within a 30-mile (48km) radius of the city and that the extra troops would help to secure the capital. He said the situation in Iraq was unacceptable, and that responsibility for mistakes rested with him. The troop announcement brought immediate criticism from Democrats.


Mr Bush warned that his country's commitment to Iraq was "not open-ended", and that he expected the government in Baghdad to fulfil its own promises. The key measures announced by Mr Bush include:

• Raising troop numbers by more than 20,000
• Improving Iraqi security forces' capacity to protect the civilian population
• Setting political benchmarks for the Iraqi government
• Funding a $1bn (£517m) aid and reconstruction programme to economically develop Iraq
• Taking a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, whom Mr Bush accuses of destabilising its neighbour

The Democrats have promised a non-binding vote in both houses of Congress on the strategy. The US currently has 132,000 troops stationed in Iraq.

Full Article

Personally, I don't see how sending 20,000 more American troops is going to help, if I was a terrorist I'd just see this as 20,000 more prize targets. Commiting money to help rebuild Iraq's economy is a step forward, but increasing American troop numbers, instead of gradually transferring more responsibility over to the Iraqi's, and taking a harder line on Iran and Syria will only serve to make America more unpopular, and the problem worse than it already is. One step forward, two steps back.

Only way I can see it would help, is if ALL 20,000 were used to train Iraq military and police...so they can provide their own security sooner, thus letting our troops come home earlier. I think our troops have done a great job at what they were asked to do, but it's time to bring them back to their families. No military (US or otherwise) can stop Iraqis from killing each other because they are a differnt sect of the SAME religion.

Raising troop numbers by more than 20,000

The internal security of Iraq is paramount to the success of any initiative. If this means that more troops are needed then so be it. I don't hold with the idea that this is just additional targets for the insurgency as it is also guns pointing back at the insurgents and it may be that effect which Mr. Bush is hoping for. Perhaps it is necessary to increase numbers in the short term to illicit a faster withdrawal in the long term. With more dedicated combat troops the army specialists employed in training Iraqi security forces can concentrate on doing what they are supposed to be doing and not have to worry so much about coming under fire. This move will of course prove unpopular politically and also with, one would imagine, the American public who still 'support the troops' but must be dog tired of this conflict.

Improving Iraqi security forces' capacity to protect the civilian population

Needed. A stable Iraq relies upon having the internal means to protect the civilian population from attack. Maybe we should ask saddam how he managed it. Oh wait, he's dead. Can't. I'm not completely at ease with the religious-political situation in Iraq, but I know that the Sunnis and the Shi-ites do not see eye to eye. When they talk of protecting the civilian population they are talking about protecting Sunni civvies from Shi-ite militia and Shi-ite civvies from Sunni militia. That sounds to me like they are attempting to prevent a civil war. Does anyone have the ability or know how to prevent a civil war? Both the US and the UK have had civil wars and they ended when one side beat the other. Perhaps Iraq's destiny is civil war and perhaps it is only war that will bring peace. By training Iraqi security forces are we training brother to kill brother?

Funding a $1bn (£517m) aid and reconstruction programme to economically develop Iraq

Would this be to rebuild the infrastructure damaged or destroyed by sanctions and war? We have a duty to pay for the damage we have visited upon Iraq.

all I can see coming out of this is more amarican deaths

It would be better if America would stop acting all tough and use Iran's and Syria's help. But as I heard on CNN earlier Bush denied their help.

Originally Posted by Erik

It would be better if America would stop acting all tough and use Iran's and Syria's help. But as I heard on CNN earlier Bush denied their help.

Iran and Syria HAVE been helping...sending insurgents to bomb innocent people. Who needs that kind of help? Financially proping up anyone wanting to destablize the region? That's a big help too:nope:

You know, what would probably stop the fighting in Iraq?
America out of Iraq. So did the people of Iraq say.

As I said in an earlier post...I want us out too! That won't stop the fighting...they're killing each other now because they're different sects of the same religion. The US ( nor any military) can stop that. ONLY the Iraqis can decide when they want to stop slaughtering each other...it won't stop when we are gone.:nope:

The biggest problem is that in this democracy, the majority will most likely rule.

And the majority is Shite. Sitting next door to another Shite nation named Iran. Something tells me that they'll be teaming up at some point to yell at the US.

We may have well taken away the one man that was keeping the Shites from getting a massive amount of power in the region and may well have just compounded our problem.


I'm not for war, but I think, if we have the proper generals who have the freedom to conduct a war without having a 30 point rule of engagement checklist, we could very well get the nation mostly controlled... dammit, we need another Patton or MacArthur. They wouldn't take this shit.

I was reading in the Times today that certain 'supporters' of Bush are doubting he has the courage of his convictions. Word is that 22,000 more troops is not enough and that Bush is erring on the side of caution when decisiveness is required. The debacle that is Iraq can still be rescued and Bush can still come out of this with a legacy to be prud of rather than being consigned to the scrap-heap of history as the (Quote) "Worst President Ever".

It seems like there are three possible scenarios/options:

1. The US could pull out of Iraq now which would destabilise the region and deal a major blow to American security as every angry arab with a gun would be taking pot shots at anything non-arab. It would increase the power of Iran and Syria (specifically Iran) and prevent ANYONE from interfering with Iranian Unranium (say that fast!) enrichment programs. It would also deal a severe blow to the idea of an invincible America. To pull out would be to admit defeat and that would make Iraq a little like Vietnam. I can imagine watching the final Black Hawk lift off from the Baghdad Embassy roof just like Saigon all those years ago.
2. The US can throw extra troops into the mix in a half-hearted attempt to save some face in what is becoming an increasingly difficult situation. Those extra troops are not enough to make much of an impact and we have the same result as option one but with more loss of life and a bigger 'defeat' of the US.
3. Commit in force and in numbers to smash the prospect of civil war and the ability of militia on either side of the sectarian divide to wage war against their fellows. Launch a fresh C.I. campaign targetted against the militiamen and against al Qaeda (who are vying for control of Anbar Province). Take the fight to the enemy and stop hiding in fortified bases. I'm advocating fighting fire with fire.

At the moment it looks like Bush has opted for option two to avoid option one because he lacks the political support to take option three.

It is shameful that we're going to let Iraq fuck itself like this.