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?
..really don't need more troops. What we need is a backbone in Washington.
We need to roust them and kill them, it's really that simple...release the dogs of war!!
Doogle
Considering that I almost always find your posts to be correct ... I am honored.
P.S. Incidentally, many of those female "specialists without a combat MOS" are serving in Iraq, and are, for all intents and purposes, IN COMBAT. There is no differentation between the front line/rear area in this war, and female truck drivers and interpreters are just as liable to being blown up by IED's in supposedly secure areas, as front-line male troops are to being ventilated by a sniper hiding in a mosque.
Now, those women may not be administratively combat qualified, but they are there, and quite frankly, they are simply because there aren't enough men to drive the trucks, type the memos and hump the ammo.
This is way above my MOS.
Mine also,,,though we were all 11 bang bang when it came down to it,,,take em' out and come home...
No "intents or purpose" about it. They are present in combat. My son's combat patrol took female soldiers with them all the time. You see, males can't frisk females in Iraq or interrogate them. Since the biggest threat in Iraq is the IED and sniper attack, they are at risk as much as my son was.
A troop "surge" simply means that many troops presently in Iraq will have to stay longer than expected, and that many others, some with two tours already under their belts, will have to go there yet again. Either enlist or draft fresh troops, as many as are needed, or get the he!! outta that rat hole and let the Iraqis defend their own islamicized form of "democracy". I was shocked to learn just how small our military had become under Clinton, and Bush hasn't done anything to change that. If we can't send in another 100,000 troops to do the job right, why hang around doing it wrong and making our troops targets?
Well, I suppose the original question first... "NO" is my answer to troop 'surge'. As ashamed as I am to admit it... being a staunch Republican and OBTW a 22 year vet with 15 months in B'dad - the answer, IMHO, is pretty close to what the dims are suggesting... we do not need combatants in theater - and the General's on the ground agree. Notwithstanding the fact that we are "overdrawn" and I absolutely agree with a larger force: We need to 1) help the legitimate Iraqi Government be able to defend the nation and their constitution through training assistance and financial aid 2)repair / establish their infrastructure (did you know that only the cities had electricity before the war - throughout the desert, every several kilometers are small villages straight from the Old Testament) 3)sign a treaty (trade and defense) and 4) establish a permanent presence (like we did in Europe - post WWII, it did seem to help win the Cold War).
I am a HUGE advocate of a CONUS based force - that is to say, all our troops are in the US and not "stationed" forward, permanently. So, we set up Brigade Combat Team as a presence (long term) and rotate it about every 8 months. While they are there - they not only deter aggression from outside - they train diligently in desert warfare (after all where do we expect the next conflict?).
Now, having said all that: if I were king for a day - what I would do is: surge to the point that all of our forces - every branch- is committed. Make a right hook through Iran, as GB and AU make a left hook through Syria... we meet in Turkey and have a beer (or two). After the fact we divide the spoils between us, the UK, the Aussies and Israel. We set up permanent facilities in the region with twice as many tanks, fighter aircraft and a couple low yield tactical nukes (for good measure) as any potential adversary. That would solve SO many problems on SO many levels... but, what do I know - I'm just a knuckle draggin' warrior after all....
I have about 30 minutes to defend myself before I must go to bed... please commence firing now.
Adding more troops without a change in the rules of engagement and tactics only means more dead troops and very limited gains, if any. I'd be more for a strategy surge rather than a troop surge. I am against it.
Yes, enough to win, so whatever the military needs it gets.
Open the Strategic Oil Reserve
Bankrupt Russia and the Middle East
Nuke Iran and Korea
Boycott China
Send Europe the bill.
If it has a real purpose and an achievable goal, I'm all for it. Let's win this thing. And I'm not in favor of a total withdrawal from Iraq any time in the foreseeable future.
Secondarily... are you still over there or have you come back?? I've lost track lately. :-)
A troop surge is useless without a change in strategy. Victory can only be achieved by the violent use of overwhelming force killing the enemy and destroying his weapons.
If US soldiers are to be deployed in armed conflict to destroy and liquidate Sadr and his muslim morons, fine. If not, save the precious blood of our boys and admit that these are people who still live in the 12th century, will never be civilized, and should be exterminated because of their desire to erase Israel from the face of the earth and kill all "infidels"!
The AMA is supporting a transition from the use of white rats to lawyers for medical research. This decision is taken to resolve three problems.
1. There is a shortage of white rats.
2. The lab assistants refuse to perform some experiments on white rats, because the rats are so darn cute.
3. There are some things a white rat just won't do.
The real problem with Iraq, Iran, et al. is that the rest of the world, and especially our enemies, clearly sees that our leadership is divided, and more interested in fighting each other for domestic political power and advantage than in confronting the enemy. They know that, for whatever reasons you prefer to name, we simply aren't committed as a nation to the fight, while they themselves are fully committed to our destruction, whatever the cost. Military might without a national consensus and the will to use it will fail against a committed enemy willing to pay any price to win. That is the scenario that is playing out.
For example, a unanimous or near-unanimous joint-resolution of Congress stating clearly to the rest of the world that, regardless of our domestic political differences, we are united and committed to the support of our troops and to VICTORY, whatever it costs and however long it takes, would do more than any conceivable "troop surge" or changing of generals or any particular tactical adjustments. A formal declaration of war would be even better. The problem is much less tactical than it is strategic and perceptual.
If our current leaders, of both parties, had the integrity, honor and yes, common sense to make such a statement and to re-affirm to the world our former tradition that in times of war "politics stops at the waters' edge", that would accomplish more than any of the disingenuous political shell games we're about to see.
Sadly, neither the American people nor our current leadership class is up to the task which the times demand.
I think we have accomplished all that we can unless we want to stay for 5-8 more years. We got rid of Saddam, installed an elected government and provided training and security for over two years.
It's up to the Iraqis to get their act together now. Clearly the Congress isn't going to back a long-term stay.
Our military did their job and did it well. Time to come home and prepare for Iran.
I'm a sp4 ret.- I no longer make decisions about troop strength.
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.