| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Why would more troops succeed?
How long did the sectarian violence go on in Ireland?
It's not like the Bush admin weren't warned about helping unleash a sectarian mess after they rolled in.
They're just sending more guys to go and lose the IED lottery while they babysit a civil war they helped create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gamecock
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I just think it more even and scholarly and fair minded to see that it isn't a case of just "them" in the 14th century, "us" in the here and now. |
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
No. It's crap. Bush is saying exactly what all the planners of the Vietnam war used to say... "As soon as young South Vietnamese soldiers stand up, we can stand down." The vietnamization of the war. Etc.
Insurgents are putting up a stand up fight a block away from the green zone. After years and years of this, shouldn't at least one freakin' city be secure? |
yes. I just finished Barbara Tuchman's book March to Folly. One section is devoted to Vietnam. While I was reading it, there were so many instances where I thought, "My god, that sounds like Bush and Iraq!"
Sure, vietnam and Iraq are very different but we have followed a similar path for both of them. |
Another similarity is that Bush is from Texas and LBJ was from Texas and they harshly tried to silence the opposition i.e. showed serious intolerance and a kind of political bullying, if you ask me.
However, there are some crucial differences between Iraq and Vietnam.
The majority of Iraqis do oppose the U.S., but they also oppose the insurgents among the Sunni Arabs. The North is secure and so is most of the South. The problem is mostly in the centre of the country. They will probably employ a strategy that didn't work so well in Vietnam where
they will be gated areas seal off certain areas from insurgents and secure certain neighbhorhoods and go from there. If executed properly, that may have some success.
I opposed the sending of the troops in the first place. However, I support
having extra troops for six to eight months. It is harder for the military to focus on training the Iraqi army when it is stretched so thin. I know McCain opposes this, but he voted for the war. The bed was made, it is time to lie in it and dealing with the consequences rather than running away from responsibilities. However, there needs to be a clear strategy on a military level or I oppose this. Otherwise, you could have a situation with nervous, worn out GIs taking their anger on civilians. The way Bush is doing this, I do oppose. But I am not saying that sending troops cannot help. It may help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
Why would more troops succeed?
How long did the sectarian violence go on in Ireland?
It's not like the Bush admin weren't warned about helping unleash a sectarian mess after they rolled in.
They're just sending more guys to go and lose the IED lottery while they babysit a civil war they helped create. |
More troops would succeed if it would mean freeing some troops to help train more Iraqi troops, securing certain neighborhoods, but there are so many risks because we're dealing with urban warfare. The Bush administration did not prepare for a sectarian war. That is obvious. Why wouldn't more troops succeed? That question can also be asked. If the U.S. simply withdraws while the insurgents have too much power and the Iraqi government becomes more sectarian, the U.S. will look like a cowardly lion, and there would be a risk for a Balkanization of conflict because Turkey and Iran could get involved. There is a lot at stake here.
Bush started a war that was over his head and it is a danger as he said to all of us i.e. the potentional fall out. He got that right but not the start of the war.
They are about to send Kurds into battle in Baghdad. I think a force composed of Shiites and Kurds and some Sunni Arabs would be better
Otherwise, this will like an imperial divide and conquer thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
Why would more troops succeed?
How long did the sectarian violence go on in Ireland?
It's not like the Bush admin weren't warned about helping unleash a sectarian mess after they rolled in.
They're just sending more guys to go and lose the IED lottery while they babysit a civil war they helped create. |
More troops would succeed if it would mean freeing some troops to help train more Iraqi troops, securing certain neighborhoods, but there are so many risks because we're dealing with urban warfare. The Bush administration did not prepare for a sectarian war. That is obvious. Why wouldn't more troops succeed? That question can also be asked. If the U.S. simply withdraws while the insurgents have too much power and the Iraqi government becomes more sectarian, the U.S. will look like a cowardly lion, and there would be a risk for a Balkanization of conflict because Turkey and Iran could get involved. There is a lot at stake here.
Bush started a war that was over his head and it is a danger as he said to all of us i.e. the potentional fall out. He got that right but not the start of the war.
They are about to send Kurds into battle in Baghdad. I think a force composed of Shiites and Kurds and some Sunni Arabs would be better
Otherwise, this will like an imperial divide and conquer thing. |
More troops might make a difference if the succession of unqualified platitude-spewing idiots appointed by Bush to "oversee Iraq" would ever get their butts off the deck chairs and out of the Green Zone and actually listen to what the guys on the ground are telling them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Courageous
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Location: Bundang and loving it
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Step 1: Send 21,500 more troops.
Step 2: .....
Step 3: Victory!
Now, if he can describe just what on earth step 2 would be, and it isn't absolutely fracking retarded, I could get on board. But, as with the entire execution of the war, there has never been a step 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My own suspicions are gradually being made clearer and clearer. Still speculation on my part and maybe I am giving the admin. more credit than deserved (based on experience ) BUT I speculate that;
1) given that the wish is to WIN the war militarily (this being the only way these "thugs" seem to view confrontation.)
2) given that the "surge" is only a bump because Americans would not swallow a very large "tidal surge"
that the admin has in mind, a confrontation of dramatic effect using these troops, ill experienced in combat for the most part. This combat will result in many American casualties ( by militias) and provide the needed rationale, the needed dramatic effect, to once again dupe the American citizenry into higher troops levels, full scale occupation etc....etc.....
This administration has again and again went to this well and drawn up this water, using tragedy to beget emotional retaliation and destruction......
Only my speculation but this is how I see it playing out and I DO think the admin. and Bush in particular, have this in the play book.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| My own suspicions are gradually being made clearer and clearer. |
No, they aren't. They're still as vague and unreadable as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
