What A Surge Really Means

Discussion in 'Military' started by jillian, Jan 7, 2007.

  1. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    IAVA Blog
    January 5, 2007
    Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
    Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

    Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

    By MICHAEL DUFFY

    Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
    For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

    *More*

    http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree that if they are going to add troops to gain control it needs to be 30k or more. As for the generals on the ground, I think that is why the changes are being made.
     
  3. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Throwing more soldiers into Iraq, without including a change in strategy, will accomplish nothing but have more people killed (on each side). It is like merely tossing more lettuce into a salad. It results in merely more roughage.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    That's a fanstasy, Kathianne. The generals begged for troops at the beginning. Now they seem to say, with exceptions of course, that it's pointless. Read the whole article.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I will keep reading, though I nearly stopped at this. Even the democrats knew that those suggestions were foolish:


     
  6. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    It doesn't seem we're reading the same thing.
     
  7. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Why are you assuming that there will no change in strategy ?
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Time magazine article? I used your link?
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    It was time magazine by way of Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans (optruth), but it seems you're missing what the article is saying because your response doesn't seem to be in line with what you quoted. Might be I'm missing something... just saying.

    Anyway, off and running for a bit. Happy Sunday.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Okay. I don’t know of any change in strategy. Perhaps there will be a secret change in strategy. If we are going to toss more soldiers into Iraq, I simply hope that there will be a change in strategy. I doubt that there will be a change in strategy but I might be mistaken. :eusa_shhh:
     

Share This Page