Whatever The United States Armed Forces need to meet the objective, as decided by the men and women in the field.
Only if we do it like Patton would. Fight to win.
We need to let the troops who are there FIGHT THE WAR.
Get out of the way, Maliki. You know as well as anybody that your Iran-funded Mahdi Army buddies are the biggest problem in Iraq today. Let our troops go after them and stop obstructing the path to peace.
As many as it takes.
yes, but only if its coupled with a change in tactics and the rules of engagement.
increasing troop levels just to do the same exact things we do there now, is simply an increase in the number of targets for the insurgents.
While I only know what I read (which means I know nothing) it sounds more political than military necessity.
Maybe now that the "light footprint" guys are out of the way, we can get a good estimate from the military.
All that are needed without the PC hold they are under...
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.
We knew how to end WWII and we know how to begin to put an end to this Islamofacist BS but we just don't seem to have the guts to do it.
Only if we go Ethiopian an their a$$e$.
Since Mcnut is for it, I'm agin it. He knows the dems are agin it, and are probably going to raise mccain so why not encourage the republicans to make some more mistakes. The President has already said, and I agree, that the overall force size needs to increase if we are to be sucked into additional boots on the ground.
Frankly, I think we have been doing fine with the force size we have but guess who the pot stirrers are that want change (rhetorical question)? Well this change just won't cut it in their world, where cut has to be combined with run or fund before it will sell.
My vote will have to be "Undecided". On the other hand I think we needed more troops in the beginning for a real occupation till things settled.
If there's a "surge," then our guys need to kick ass so hard that the insurgents won't be able to just hang on until the surge recedes. Seems unlikely to me, not that I really know.
Who knows!...my son and hubby will be there regardless.
Why do you want to know what the Chairborne Rangers want? Ask the Generals what they need? Keep the civilians out.
Why do you want to know what the Chairborne Rangers want? Ask the Generals what they need? Keep the civilians out.
Anyone sitting back here in the land of the Big PX hasn't got a clue. I see the daily classified reports on activities in theater and I constantly discuss what's going on with those on the ground. But don't ask me what to do in the tactical fight. I'm not on the ground, and just don't have a feel for it.
I can assure that 99.9% of the morons living inside the beltway know even less than I do. They are totally clueless and only advocate what they think with strengthen their political position. They are only interested in themselves and their politcal futures. They could care less what happens to their country and its soldiers.
As for the strategic and operational objectives and way ahead, that's easy: Fight to Win, whatever it takes.
Two "surges" are needed. First, a greater number of boots in the combat forces (6 to 8 combat brigades for the active duty Army, and 3 to 4 combat brigades for the Marines). This is needed to ease the rotation schedule.
As for boosting the presence in Iraq (specifically Baghdad) say 20 to 30 thousand.