How Do Freepers Feel About a Troop Surge? Yes or No? If Yes, How Many?

Free Republic ^ | january 5, 2007 | self

[MHT]

How Do Freepers Feel About A Troop Surge? Yes or No? If Yes, How Many?

[ODC-GIRL]

Surge if they are truly needed, but let's pack up the velvet gloves and start kicking some serious butt. Oh, yes, and stop second-guessing our soldiers and prosecuting them for prosecuting the war.

Maybe increase the use of air power!!!! Sorry, I'm biased.

Finally, kick out the media, every last lying sack of....

[bnelson44]

The troops sent must be actual infantrymen (or is it infantrypersons nowadays?

Women are not combat forces in the US Army. Now they are in all kinds of other support roles, and can be seen on patrol as interpretors, inspectors, etc., but they don't hold a combat MOS.

[oceanview]

the Dems (and the media) will just blame the loss on Bush.

ask Americans who lost the Vietnam war. most would answer - "Nixon did".

[fishergirl]

"And yes, the Rule of Engagement need to be written by Infantry types, not by JAG lawyers and Chaplains." Geez, you are so right!! I agree with you on the Mookie thing, too.

[VOA]

Only if we go Ethiopian an their a$$e$.

I'll second that.

[Wombat101]

My bad, then, since some women do have combat MOS in the Navy (in which I served).

[dforest]

Depends on the mission of those troops and what the objective really is. It hasn't been stated yet. Did I see another aircraft carrier on its way to the Persian Gulf?

[Gritty]

Do I support a surge of troops?

It depends...

How many of them are lawyers?

[bnelson44]

The congress let Nixon pull out of Vietnam. Well they forced him, but he let himself be forced.

Bush is not showing any sign of letting himself be forced. Congress will have to force the issue which will tell the whole world who is making the decision. IMHO, they won't. Not only will it be an unprecedented attack on the office of CIC, but it opens them up to blaim.

[Jar Jar Binks]

More troops only if they are going to be allowed to kill people and break things.

[NinoFan]

I support a troop surge. I'm not sure on the exact number needed to do the job.

I understand the doubts that some, like Krauthammer, have concerning the reliability of the Iraqi government, but I don't see how those concerns justify pulling out and letting them have a "civil war".

[Cobra64]

Ditto that.

[OldFriend]

I'm not a general and I don't play one on Free Republic!

[mosquewatch.com]

Peace in Muslim lands is a myth, a fallacy, and a pipe dream.

[wildcatf4f3]

i say we surge ordnance on target

[RFEngineer]

"Whatever The United States Armed Forces need to meet the objective, as decided by the men and women in the field."


Key words: "meet the objective"

I say no surge.

There is no clear miltary objective. Absent that, neither the United States Armed Forces, nor the men and women in the field can possibly properly answer the question one way or the other.

Absent a clear military objective it becomes a question of politics and money. Again the Armed Forces is ill equipped to make such a decision on the basis of those factors.

[siznartuf]

"If the politicians will allow the military to do their jobs ... kill people and break things ... I am all for putting as many in there as it will take to do the job."

GOOD POINTS!

Also:

'If the politicians will allow the military'(THAT ARE ALREADY IN IRAQ)'to do their jobs' ... 'kill people and break things', (MAYBE WE WOULDN'T NEED MORE TROOPS).

The problem is the troops are shackled with political correctness -- and I don't see this policy changing anytime soon. Hence they will solve the self created "problem" by sending more and more troops.

I'm sure the Generals are giving good advice(and they know far better than I); but whether the administration is listening is another question.

[Rummyfan]

I give the President, the Secretary of Defense and everyone in the military from four-stars to E-1s, free hand to do whaetevr is necessary.

[norton]

"Trickle down annihilation works."

Agreed, this program is going better than we are told - but so was Vietnam and as far as I'm concerned, this election was Tet '68.

Same requirements today as then: drop the artificial barriers and fight to win.

The other side of the equation is that the US won't support a surge and won't sustain forces on the ground over the next 24 months. Dems will run their entire 2008 campaign on what "Bush did wrong after 'our troops' won the ground war" and "Bring our kids home".

Only a Hail Mary is going to do anything but stave off another self inflicted defeat.

I'd suggest telling Maliki that his buddy and his buddies' militia are dead men walking, turning the borders into a free fire zone, taking out neighborhoods when deemed appropriate, pushing the Iraqi army out front, and doing it with what is on the ground today.

Change the rules, 'the home front' won't accept any increases - only redeployment. (And whatever Murtha might think, Okinawa is no longer available).

[ishabibble]

Fight to Win is what I support, and I am not a trained military officer, but I've got more sense than the conniving Pelosi (NOT a graduate of West Point) whose first order of business is to cut of the money for the troops and supplies.

I can think of one group that has a Fight to Win attitude that would defeat Mookie and his Mahdi army. American prison inmates. Let them out en masse, ship them to Iraq, let them kill those soulless b@stards, and whoever makes it out alive maybe, maybe can get parole. No rules of engagement, no JAG lawyers, no Geneva Convention. Just a level playing field. The Ethiopeans aren't winning because they are nice fellows who only want peace. Just an idea.
Now that the American voters have made the Mother of All Mistakes, it surely is time for new ideas. My last idea was to nuke them, Saudi FIRST, and let Allah sort them out, but Nooooooooooooo...