Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gritty
"When they are done splattering al-Sadr and his filthy crew all over the dirt roads, they can head for the Iranian border, where they can proceed to mop up any Iranian units the Air Force and Navy have left standing."

You're dreaming. 20,000 more troops aren't enough to make a significant difference; we need at least 100,000 more to pacify Iraq, win this thing quickly and then invade Iran. But here I go dreaming too; Bush will put another 200 American troops in the brig for 'war crimes' before he lifts his pc, assinine 'rules of engagement' and lets the dogs of war loose on the enemy. This whole 'surge in troop strength' thing is pure political grandstanding, nothing but a showcase that won't change a thing.

36 posted on 01/09/2007 2:00:11 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: TheCrusader; areafiftyone

Op-ed from McCain (in today's NYPost, from the Washington Post) tells why we need more than 20,000. Commanders in Iraq told him they would need five brigades in Baghdad and one or two in Anbar province. A brigade being 3,500 to 5,000, that would mean a minimum of 21,000 to 35,000. "The Right Way to Surge" is the title in the NYPost but it doesn't seem to be on their website.


48 posted on 01/09/2007 4:32:30 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson