Strange since the democrats have been pouning the table for years that we needed more troops, not that Bush proposes more troops the democrats think it's a terrible idea. Good plan.
People who deliberately act dumb should be regarded as such. What would Iraq be if we had double the amount of troops in 2003? In 2004? The last chance we had was at the end of the battle of Falluja, in Dec 2004. If we had twice as many troops, we might had a chance to actually pacify Iraq after the brutal battle to put down the rebellion in Falluja. Instead, we were simply moving troops from one place to another, while the insurgents just moved the opposite way. 21000 more troops today is too little, too late. We needed at least 150k more troops at least two years ago.
Posted on Sat, Feb. 03, 2007 Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause By Tom Lasseter McClatchy Newspapers BAGHDAD, Iraq - Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the rooftops for snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base. "To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated." While senior military officials and the Bush administration say the president's decision to send more American troops to pacify Baghdad will succeed, many of the soldiers who're already there say it's a lost cause. "What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight." "Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back." Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided. Lt. Hardy and his men of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colo., patrol an area southeast of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. A map in Hardy's company headquarters charts at least 50 roadside bombs since late October, and the lieutenant recently watched in horror as the blast from one killed his Humvee's driver and wounded two other soldiers in a spray of blood and shrapnel. Soldiers such as Hardy must contend not only with an escalating civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims, but also with insurgents on both sides who target U.S. forces. "We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle." Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare. "They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla. Bush's initiative calls for American soldiers in Baghdad to take positions in outposts throughout the capital, paired up with Iraqi police and soldiers. Few of the U.S. soldiers interviewed, however, said they think Iraqi forces can operate effectively without American help. Their officers were more optimistic. If there's enough progress during the next four to six months, "we can look at doing provincial Iraqi control, and we can move U.S. forces to the edge of the city," said Lt. Col. Dean Dunham, the deputy commander of the 2nd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which oversees most of east Baghdad. Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops. "I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave." If the Iraqi army can control the violence, his thinking goes, economic and political progress will follow in the safest areas, accompanied by infrastructure improvement, then spread outward. In counterinsurgency circles, that notion is commonly called the "inkblot" approach. It's been relatively successful in some isolated parts of Iraq, such as Tal Afar on the Syrian border, but in most areas it's failed to halt the bloodshed for any length of time. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16616389.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I already gave you a list of politicians. Now we look at the American population. Americans are actually smarter than all of us realized. Too bad Bush didn't follow their advice. This was a poll in Feb. 2003, before the war started: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data021103.htm 18. Suppose the United States goes to war with Iraq. After the war ends, do you think the United States should or should not work to rebuild and stabilize Iraq? Should Should not No opin. 2/9/03 65 32 3 19. (IF SHOULD, Q18) What if that means the United States would need to keep 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for several years and would spend 15 billion dollars a year rebuilding Iraq. In that case would you favor or oppose the U.S. rebuilding Iraq? Q18/19 NET Favor Oppose No opinion 2/9/03 37 56 7 If you add those against nation building, 32%, and those for nation building but not if more than 15 billion a year, 56% of 65%, that comes to about 68% of total. This is amazingly close to the percentage today against the Iraq war. So the American people knew all along what they wanted. Too bad Bush never listened to them, or his own campaign promise not to do nation building.
You gave me one politician who got it partially right. In the poll you linked, by that left wing rag, the Washington Post, I fail to see the question, "Should the US invade, will the insurgents sponsored by Iran and Syria disrupt the democracy of Iraq?"
I'll take one politician who got it partly right any day over the neoklowns who got it all wrong, are still getting it wrong, will continue to get it wrong... Nearly 4 years after the start of the war, and the Iraq people can't defend themselves...
That's like looking at a chart bottom and declaring, "I'm all in right here." Of course, that's the very thing you seem to be good at. Try predicting the future some time.
Typical max401 reply, I predict you continue to post such nonsense, again, and again, and again, ad infinitum... I predict the future every time I place a trade...everyone does. You can ask around to see if that is working or not...
You'll just get stomped (again) as you shift into the patented "Z10 Circular Argument Trick Attempt." Later, I have a big prediction that's about to kick off.