Posted on 01/05/2007 4:29:39 PM PST by MHT
How Do Freepers Feel About A Troop Surge? Yes or No? If Yes, How Many?
From what I've heard today on radio soundbites many of them are certainly against a "surge". Whatever is needed to help Iraqi's step up to assume control of their nation.
In the context of the history of war, this has been the most successful opening round ever. It will be a long war since we are not battling the defined boundaries of a nation, but the undefined pathology of the mind.
Arafat is dead. Zarqawi is dead. Saddam is dead. Measured progress.
Trickle down annihilation works.
Yes - as many as it takes. Additionally, it would be helpful to take out the embedded jounalists. Turn the cameras back on when the job is done.
Here or there?
I assume you are referring to the new generals? because the old generals, are a big part of the problem we are facing in my opinion.
Maliki will protect Sadr, he can't give up Sadr. I think what we will see is, Maliki going to Sadr and telling him to cool it, because the US is going to go after the Sunnis. This surge is mostly going to be a takedown of the Sunnis.
And how many of those Dems who sold themselves as conservative. For instance, one Heath Schuler.
Got to remember that one!
Not enough facts available to me to form an educated opinion, either way.
That call must be made by and in,the military chain of command, including CINC.
War is not a spectator sport.....
if they were that independent and powerful, why support her for Speaker? Put up a Dem moderate for Speaker, elected with blue dog and republican votes.
Well, now, that is Maliki's plan. I don't know if that is Bush's plan.
good point.
"there" is what I was referring to.
How do you figure that?
That's what the People sent them there to do.
I am for whatever the on scene commanders want.
Beyond that, in a counterinsurgency more troops only usually provide more targets.
Freshmen have no power except their vote. Wait a couple of years for them to mature.
what can Bush do, iraq is its own democracy now, and Maliki the legitimate PM. How do we roll in there and take down Sadr, without the approval of their government?
this is why I have been posting that the #1 thing now standing in our way of using acute US military force in iraq - is this demoocracy we handed to them, before they were ready for it.
New SecDef should consider outsourcing to the Ethiopian military.
After all, they are in the general vicinity, and they just finished a successful campaign, and the US has allot of ships in the area.
The reason I think it is political suicide is that the people didn't send the Dems to Congress so the US can have a defeat in Iraq. The people sent the Dems to congress as a message to the Republicans to shape up. The people don't want to lose Iraq. If the Dems lose Iraq they will be voted out of office. The Dems know that. This war will still be going on in 2008, and if the Dems make Iraq into a terrorist stronghold lobbing attacks at the US, 2008 will be a Republican sweap. They know that, they aren't that dumb.
Better they let the President take the fall (if there is going to be one).
Yes, but under the following conditions:
1. The troops sent must be actual infantrymen (or is it infantrypersons nowadays?), and not more PR specialists, technicians and diplomats. That is, those trained in combat. All wars are ultimately infantry wars, fought by men trained to come eyeball-to-eyeball with the enemy and dfeat him, and somehow we've forgotten that.
2. That if said infantrymen were to magically materialize (they won't) and were to be used in "security operations" that they be allowed to finish those operations without politics creeping into the bargain (i.e. the seven or so assaults on Fallujah, which were halted to give the Irai gov't 'street cred' and instead turned Al'Sadr into a political force).
3. That the kid gloves come off. Anyone who shoots at US troops get to meet Allah personally. The Iraqi and US Governments cannot have it both ways: we're either fighting a war (call it what you will, insurgency, Civil War, sectarian violence, it's still war) or we're not. The Iraqi government cannot hide behind American troops taking the time to make little Saddams in better suits out of themselves, and the US government can no longer pretend that this is an Iraqi mission, since the Iraqis won't fight. If you wantthe Iraqis to "stand up" , then show them that our patience is at an end with snipers and IED's, and let US forces actually take offensive action when they are provoked, Iraqi gov't permission or no.
If none of those conditions are met, then let's flatten the joint, declare victory and go home. Screw the Iraqis, their double standards and duplicity.
Bush can do whatever he wants in Iraq. It is just a matter of how much flack he is willing to take.
There are no embedded journalists. That's a bit of an exaggeration, there are actually a few, but they are not from the MSM, they are most former servicemen, and their reports are largely ignored by Big Media.
The MSM are safely ensconced in the Green Zone and they get all their info from paid Iraqi stringers, most of whom are insurgents. These journalists haven't the foggiest notion of what is going on in Iraq. The only ones who are less well informed are all of those living inside the Beltway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.