Additional troops sent to Iraq

[JaJae]

It's official. In accordance to Bush's new war plan an additional 20,000 troops will be on call to go to Iraq by the end of the month.
Print Story: New wave of troops set for Iraq on Yahoo! News

What's amazing is that this story is getting just as much attention as one man's opposal to it... Senator Kennedy is taking to helm to fight this and is calling Iraq a quagmire. This "killer who inherited his position in the US government should be impeached." I have mixed feelings on sending more troops to Iraq.

Personally up to 20,000 doesn't seem like a strong enough force if we're going to increase troop counts. I kind of like the idea of one last volley in hopes of fixing the problems. At the same time part of me says Iraq needs to figure this out on its own and sending more troops could hinder their advancement if not done properly. I don't have enough faith in the Bush administration to do it properly.

I agree with Kennedy that it would be nice if Congress had a say in this. At the same time I think he's a tool and is going about it the wrong way. In essense I consider this entire thing to be a mess: Bush is a moron, Kennedy is an asshole, and the media is biased to all hell. Welcome to America.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's official. In accordance to Bush's new war plan an additional 20,000 troops will be on call to go to Iraq by the end of the month.
Print Story: New wave of troops set for Iraq on Yahoo! News

What's amazing is that this story is getting just as much attention as one man's opposal to it... Senator Kennedy is taking to helm to fight this and is calling Iraq a quagmire. This "killer who inherited his position in the US government should be impeached." I have mixed feelings on sending more troops to Iraq.

Personally up to 20,000 doesn't seem like a strong enough force if we're going to increase troop counts. I kind of like the idea of one last volley in hopes of fixing the problems. At the same time part of me says Iraq needs to figure this out on its own and sending more troops could hinder their advancement if not done properly. I don't have enough faith in the Bush administration to do it properly.

I agree with Kennedy that it would be nice if Congress had a say in this. At the same time I think he's a tool and is going about it the wrong way. In essense I consider this entire thing to be a mess: Bush is a moron, Kennedy is an asshole, and the media is biased to all hell. Welcome to America.

Good post...

I think its funny how MSNBC cuts off republicans and wont let them finish but Kennedy is allowed to blabber on about how long its been since he's had an orgasm.

[motivez]

No one who knows anything about Iraq thinks a troop surge is a good idea except for Bush and his hand picked 'yes men,' who were picked for their 'yes men' qualities.

Generals, troops on the ground, etc, etc, all say it's not going to change anything. We missed the boat on a troop increase. We had a shot at it before the war, to put in enough in there to keep Iraq secure during the transition, but Bush ignored people like Shinseki because he provided a picture of how Iraq was going to be that didn't look good for his "It'll cost less than 5 billion, we'll be out in a year, greeted as liberators, yadda yadda" fantasy.

Right here, right now, this issue is where Democrats need to assert their authority as the majority party in Congress. With the backing of people and the majority of the Generals, there's no downside to denying funds for more troops without something better than "They're going to secure Baghdad!"

Lets not forget that Bush's "New Way Forward" is simply a rehashing of a failed plan from late last year.

DefenseLINK News: Al Qaeda in Iraq Disrupted; Iraqi Operation in High Gear

Al Qaeda in Iraq Disrupted; Iraqi Operation in High Gear
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, June 15, 2006 – Al Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray and confusion following the death of its terrorist boss, and the Iraqi government is moving forward quickly to provide security for its capital city, coalition officials said today at a news conference.

Army Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell, a coalition spokesman, said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death June 7 helped set the conditions for a huge step forward in the security picture of Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced the beginning of Operation Together Forward yesterday. Iraqi forces are leading this operation and it is designed to cripple or shut down the terrorist network in and around Baghdad, officials said. Iraqi soldiers and police are operating traffic-control points, rolling roadblocks, cordon-and-knock missions, and many other tactics to find and capture or kill insurgents who target innocent Iraqis.

Coalition forces are participating in some operations, but are mostly acting as a quick-reaction force to be called on if needed.

Coalition officials are pleased with the speed Maliki is demonstrating in his effort against terrorists. "The people of Baghdad are sick of the terrorist strikes in the neighborhoods and streets," said a Multinational Force Iraq official. "The Iraqis are getting results."

Since Zarqawi's death June 7, there have been 452 Iraqi and coalition operations, Caldwell said. The vast majority of the operations, though, were Iraqi-only (143) or coalition-Iraqi combined operations (255). The operations netted 759 anti-Iraqi forces and killed 104 terrorists. The patrols also uncovered 28 arms caches.

An official with Multinational Division Baghdad said it amazes him that officials are still finding so many weapons caches more than three years after the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein. "Of course, the entire country was one large arms cache," he said. "And we're not finding new weapons. But there is enough of the old to keep everyone busy."

Zarqawi's death allows Operation Together Forward to be even more effective than planned. The operation's intent is to disrupt terrorists in Baghdad, Caldwell said.

"Removing the personal threat of Zarqawi disrupted the Al Qaeda network," he said. "This forced the terrorists to reshuffle their leadership, dislodging them from their quarters leading in to the capital. These factors alone have set the conditions for Iraqi security forces to establish the foundation for unity, security and prosperity for the people of Iraq."

However, months later, we saw the plan was a failure and failed to quell violence or slow attacks.

U.S. Military Says Violence In Baghdad 'Disheartening'

U.S. Military Says Violence In Baghdad 'Disheartening'
By LARRY KAPLOW
Cox News Service
Friday, October 20, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The U.S. military offered an unusually grim assessment Thursday of the battle for control of Baghdad, saying that mounting bloodshed was "disheartening" after months of American losses and the slaughter of Iraqi civilians in sectarian violence.

U.S. officials have called the effort to curb insurgents and end sectarian killings in the capital vital to the fate of Iraq.

As a result, U.S. commanders are again revising a battle plan to win control over Baghdad, after a four-month-offensive has failed to quell the attacks on Iraqis and U.S. troops, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV told a news conference in Baghdad.

"The violence is indeed disheartening," Caldwell said. "We are looking closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best refocus our efforts."

Thursday was another bloody day in Iraq. The Associated Press reported that at least 66 people were killed and 175 were wounded. Six car bombings in the city of Mosul killed at least 12 Iraqis.

The military announced that three U.S. troops died, bringing the death toll in October to 74. If the rate of killings continues, October would be the deadliest month for Americans in Iraq in more than two years. In all, 2,772 American soldiers have died and 21,077 have been wounded since U.S.-led forces invaded in March 2003.

The mounting violence comes as opinion polls in the United States show eroding support for the war just weeks before midterm elections. Some Republican congressional candidates facing tough challenges from Democrats have voiced increasing concerns about the war.

Caldwell's candor came as President Bush awaits recommendations from a bipartisan panel on the best way forward in Iraq.

Some analysts suspect Bush might see suggestions from the panel — headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former House International Relations Committee Chairman Lee Hamilton — as a source of political cover for an abrupt change of course.

But the White House sought to dispel any impression that Bush is wavering in his determination to win in Iraq.

"We're not looking for an exit strategy," Vice President Dick Cheney said in an interview with Time magazine. The remarks were posted on Time's Web site Thursday. "We're looking for victory."

Cheney said there would be no departure from the administration's insistence that U.S. force levels be dictated by the security situation in Iraq, not the ticking clock of political expediency.

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Tony Snow tried to clarify Caldwell's remarks.

"What he said is that the levels of violence had not been lowered in a way that met our expectations, and so what we're doing is we're adjusting to bring them down," Snow told reporters. "In a time of war you constantly reassess what you're doing, and you constantly do what you can and use your ingenuity and your flexibility to be more effective in your aims."

About 15,400 U.S. troops along with thousands of Iraqi security forces are engaged in "Operation Together Forward," which started in June with the aim of stopping the worst wave of violence in Baghdad since the American-led invasion in 2003.

Caldwell said that attacks have increased 22 percent since last month's start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Previous summaries released by the military showed that attacks in August and early September were already 26 percent higher than levels in the spring.

The sounds of car bombings, roadside bombs and mortar rounds resound in the city throughout the day. Bodies believed to be the victims of roving death squads are picked up by the dozens daily and show the burn marks, drill holes and gunshots to the head reminiscent of torture. Much of the violence is tit-for-tat killing of non-combatants by Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

A confluence of factors have combined to increase the bloodshed, including efforts by insurgents to influence midterm U.S. congressional elections three weeks away, analysts said.

Also, the Ramadan holiday, which ends this weekend, is a time of increased Muslim focus on religious duty, which, for many insurgents, includes anti-American jihad.

Against that background, Caldwell's remarks are a window into the frustrations brewing within the U.S. military, said Thomas Donnelly, a defense policy expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"I don't know but that the general didn't kind of slip and express the frustration and disappointment that all soldiers are certainly feeling over there," said Donnelly. "I wouldn't overstate it, but that emotion is one that certainly the soldiers who go out an put themselves in harm's way feel."

The U.S. plan for quelling the bloodshed was already overhauled once in August amid increasing chaos on the streets. The military has used house-to-house searches to sweep anti-government insurgents and sectarian militias out of pockets of the city.

But the clearing operations have not included much of Baghdad, including areas of insurgent operations, such as the slum of Sadr City. Meanwhile, Caldwell said even the areas covered in the sweeps are now seeing an increase in attacks again.

"We find the insurgent elements, the extremists, are in fact punching back hard," he said. "They're trying to get back into those areas. We're constantly going back in and doing clearing operations again."

Caldwell said that as U.S. and Iraqi forces have tried to stop the sectarian killing in some areas, it has spread to others.

"Therefore any adjustments that may need to be made are in fact ongoing in discussions and deliberations, and we'll make the adjustments accordingly here," he said.

Security forces in the Shiite-dominated government have been linked to some of the killings by Shiite death squads.

Caldwell confirmed Thursday that a leading activist for radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who formed the Mahdi Army that is tied to some of the death squad activity, was arrested by U.S. troops Tuesday but released the following day at the request of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Caldwell said the suspected militant, Mazin al-Sa'edi, signed a pledge not to commit violence. The case shows the ties between al-Maliki and al-Sadr, who gave him key support for his bid for the premiership. U.S. officials say that al-Maliki is working to pacify al-Sadr's militias through political talks but Sunnis accuse his forces of rampages in Sunni neighborhoods.

There's really no reason to think that an additional 20,000 troops (of which, I believe the military is said they have about 9,000 actual troops to give to the 'surge') is going to change anything.

It's simply not enough. All it's going to do is put more strain on an already strained military, and increase the number of Americans live this senseless, mismanaged clusterfuck of a war has taken.

Bush's poll numbers are in the 20's, although depending on how the question is asked, only about 18% support a troop increase. It's time for the Democrats to spend the political capital they earned in this election. They actually DO have a mandate on this issue.

[Kytro]

The question is can Bush get the additional funding needed to do this?

[Diamond Cross]

Personally, I hope he doesn't. I would be all for it if he wasn't doing it in a half-assed manned, but sending jsut tweny thousand troops will not stabilie the region. We need far more to do that, at least double what we ahve if not more. We need to send those insurgents a serious message thatwe're not going to fart around any more and make a full effort to take them out.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The question is can Bush get the additional funding needed to do this?

Yes

[motivez]

I really hope Congress doesn't defund the effort. As much as I'm against this plan, it's not for Congress to plan which battles take place and which don't.

I think there's probably some Constitutional issues here with Congress attempting to essentially usurp the Commander in Chief's authority to run the war effort through use of the purse.

While I know they have the power of the purse, can they really selectively decide which parts of the effort to fund and which not to?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I really hope Congress doesn't defund the effort. As much as I'm against this plan, it's not for Congress to plan which battles take place and which don't.

I think there's probably some Constitutional issues here with Congress attempting to essentially usurp the Commander in Chief's authority to run the war effort through use of the purse.

While I know they have the power of the purse, can they really selectively decide which parts of the effort to fund and which not to?

I think that is a check/balance is it not?

Seems like if GW Bush or any other president decided to invade Germany and the UK under the guise of national security that they could just say great try it and run out of gas/bombs/money

[motivez]

Well, I dunno. I just have an issue with Congress trying to micromanage each individual battle that takes place through the use of funding.

It's complicated though, because I disagree with the plan and think Bush does need checks and balances, especially with only 12% wanting to send more troops, but it worries me what precedent this sets for any future conflict we might be involved in.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, I dunno. I just have an issue with Congress trying to micromanage each individual battle that takes place through the use of funding.

It's complicated though, because I disagree with the plan and think Bush does need checks and balances, especially with only 12% wanting to send more troops, but it worries me what precedent this sets for any future conflict we might be involved in.

Yes thats a good point and if they sign off on the bill authorizing the president to do something then they probably couldn't and definately shouldn't micromanage.

[Thorgrim]

The issue both of you aren't noticing is that with no WMDs, no Saddam, no Al-Qaeda link to any unified structure (meaning they are going to be there forever in small numbers at the least) and a full hearted (although almost criminally planned) reconstruction...the job the 2002 congress set out is done, it many ways it can be viewed as expired

Since there is no longer any clear mandate, let alone one to police a civil war in Iraq, he needs Congressional "micromanagement" until he gets support for new legislation

[Pro Street]

the whole issue of war is a fucking mess.

It used to be that the president was limited to 60 days without declaring war.

So to get around them, they started to become operations or some other semantic verb.

Now there's no congressional oversight over war... no declaration needed.

So I support Kennedy's bill, and It's been put in place before because of the same reason.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

the whole issue of war is a fucking mess.

It used to be that the president was limited to 60 days without declaring war.

So to get around them, they started to become operations or some other semantic verb.

Now there's no congressional oversight over war... no declaration needed.

So I support Kennedy's bill, and It's been put in place before because of the same reason.

I can't believe you support the exact opposite of McCain, I thought you worshipped the guy?

He'd fucking hate you if he saw you posting this

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yes thats a good point and if they sign off on the bill authorizing the president to do something then they probably couldn't and definately shouldn't micromanage.

But the bill never expires. Every President from now until the sun dies out could effectivly have these powers. There is no predefined goals. This is the only way he can be checked other than censure/impeachment.

[thatguyoverthere]

Excellent thread. Great first post. It will be very interesting to watch Bush tomorrow night and hear the analysis here and in the media.

I hate war, really and truly. I think it's immoral and obscene. Organized mass killing. I think war makes rich people richer and poor people dead. This seemingly neverending lust for war is a curse upon mankind, all the while the worlds major religions pay lip service to concepts like "peace" and "love." Bah.

That said, while I hope the USA only gets into a war as the very last resort, I certainly do hope that when we go have to go to war, we win. I'd very much like us to win this war and make Iraq into a stable, US friendly country, and a flourishing democracy in the Middle East. I'm so pissed at Bush for getting us into a war and then being unable to win the peace. Now we're stuck in another overseas adventure with no end in sight.

I'd be very curious to see how many of the people who support sending more troops honestly think that only 20,000 will do the job. So far, I've not seen anyone take that position, except for Bush and his pals.

I do agree a bit with Motivez, that the control of the actual warfare shouldn't be with Congress, but I think that's why a President needs to consult with them and get their solid support before the war. Bush did that, but now opinion has turned against the war. Congress nees to be there and have influence to reflect the will of the people if the people demand that their will be done (for better or for worse.)

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Since there is no longer any clear mandate, let alone one to police a civil war in Iraq, he needs Congressional "micromanagement" until he gets support for new legislation

Agreed. Someone needs to start applying the brakes since our engineer is unwilling to.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I can't believe you support the exact opposite of McCain, I thought you worshipped the guy?

He'd fucking hate you if he saw you posting this

I just haven't updated my av recently.

his stance on this and other issues have caused me to lose support

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by motivez

While I know they have the power of the purse, can they really selectively decide which parts of the effort to fund and which not to?

They can only decide based on why the funding was requested. Congress has an obligation to ensure the public money is spent well.

[Pro Street]

Public Opposes Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin