|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Than why would they send more soldiers?
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?
Now people are saying "too many soldiers".
Give it a try...see if there is improvement. If the objetives aren't being met in a set amount of time, pull 'em back.
Agreed, but there needs to be some amount of security and stability in Baghdad proper( the seat of government) for the political process to work, if its going to work at all. Why nobody figured this out 2-3 years ago I have no clue. <h3>Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington.</h3>
Agreed. Perhaps what Maliki is doing is using US Forces to 'allow' shiite attacks on sunnis. It's bullshit and it should stop. NATO is helping train Iraqi forces as well. I agree there needs to be more of a sense of urgency from the Iraqi goverment. Give it a little longer...let this last go-round play out.
|
Is there nothing that can be posted....no fact(ssssssssssssssssssss), no dose of reality that can make you stop? When you post that crap, four years and NO WMD, NO CREDIBLE THREAT FROM SADDAM's IRAQ later.......it makes you look like you have an IQ even lower than....mine.....
Quote:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...981/22481d.htm
Remarks on Presenting the Medal of Honor to Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez
February 24, 1981
Men and women of the Armed Forces, ladies and gentlemen:
..... <b>They came home without a victory not because they'd been defeated, but because they'd been denied permission to win.</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
Fallows@Large | by James Fallows
Where Congress Can Draw the Line
No war with Iran
Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” <h3>And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change....</h3>
|
.<b>....and what do you read that provides any basis for your statement that
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Than why would they send more soldiers?</b>
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?.......
.....Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington......
|
Gen. Abizaid only anticipated needing "more troops" in regard to the June, 2004 transfer of "sovereignty" to the new Iraqi provisional government. At no other time, did US commanders "in the field" request more troops, and I included the ISG Commission finding, as to why that was.....commanders thought that whatever benefit a troop increase would gain in security, would be temporary and reversed when the extra troops left....and it is clear that a greater level could not be maintained.....troops and equipment were stretched past reasonable, responsible limits, to the point where they compromised "readiness" of US forces around the world, and training back in the US....
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/...x?SpeechID=524
Prepared Statement for the Senate Armed Services Committee: Helping Win the War on Terror
By Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Washington, D.C., , Tuesday, September 09, 2003
....To fight the kind of war we face, we need maximum flexibility to benefit from the effect of foreign military forces who share our goals. We can’t do it alone. Nowhere is this more clear than in Iraq.
General Abizaid and his commanders have said repeatedly that not only don’t they need more troops, they don’t want more American troops. They do want more international troops to share the burden of providing stability forces and to reduce the political liability of a US-only occupation. But most of all, what they want are more Iraqi troops because it is their country that we have liberated and it is they who need to take over the main security tasks.
In July, the commander of the 1st Marine Division, Maj. General Jim Mattis told me how he’d sent some of his 15,000 troops home already because he had enough of them to do the job, and he didn’t want what he called the "reverberations of a heavy foot print" that a large army requires—the fuel, the food, the equipment, and all the materials a sizable force in place requires. He said that if you want more people on your side, don’t bring in more Americans.
As General Abizaid mentioned in his briefings here last week, what we really need are more Iraqis fighting with us. We’ve begun recruiting and training Iraqis for an Iraqi civilian defense force to take over tasks such as guarding fixed sites and power lines.
It is the same with former New York City police chief Bernard Kerik, who just completed four months helping Iraqis rebuild their police force. He favors empowering Iraqis over sending in more American troops. He said: If you triple the number of coalition forces, you’ll probably triple the attacks on the troops. The future is not in the military but in getting control back in the hands of the Iraqi people.".....
|
Quote:
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/20/Wo..._troops_.shtml
Abizaid: More troops may be required
By wire services
Published May 20, 2004
WASHINGTON - The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Wednesday he might need more than the 135,000 troops in Iraq once political control is handed back to the Iraqis on June 30 because the insurgency is likely to grow more violent then.....
|
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef3643.html
Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld August 04, 2005
Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
..... QUESTION: On Monday's Hardball Chris Matthews said that there are two stories when he interviews troops in the field -- one for the camera and the other that questions your strategy. What is your comment on the need for more troops in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: The question of the number of troops in Iraq has been one that has been up for public discussion from the very outset. The President and I and the senior military leadership in the Pentagon spent weeks and weeks and weeks with General Tom Franks and his team going over the number of troops that he believed would be appropriate. It turned out that we supported his decision. In retrospect, I think it was the right decision.
The debate continues, and people now say should there be more or should there be fewer troops in Iraq? And it's a fair question. It's not an easy, simply subject. There's no book you go to that says for this situation that's the right way to do it. You have to worry your way through it all and take the advice, ultimately, of the people whose judgment you respect.
The number of troops in Iraq at the present time are 138,000 plus. They're down from a high, I believe, of 170,000. They are the number that the senior military leadership, General George Casey and General J. R. Vines and General John Abizaid have recommended be there......
|
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=997
Iraqi Troops More Effective Every Day, General Says
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2006
..... “I come to the conclusion that Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country, that the government has pledged their sacred honor and their future to making this work,” Army Gen. John Abizaid said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Their lives are on the line.”
Iraqi forces now number more than 300,000, and while they still have some bad days and challenges to overcome, they are steadily improving, Abizaid said. He also noted that numerous Iraqi officials have visited Washington, D.C., lately and have all expressed confidence and commitment in the fight against terrorism.
Critics who say the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq are of the mindset that U.S. troops should be doing all the work, Abizaid said. Leaders on the ground believe, however, that Iraqi troops must continually take more responsibility for their own country, and that the ultimate solution will not be solely military, he said.
“It's not a matter of the application of military forces only,” he said. “You've got to have governance moving forward. You have to take down the militias. You have to apply military forces when you need to. Over time, you need to apply more and more Iraqi military and governance power to the equation. We can do that.” .....
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss
General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region
By THOM SHANKER
Published: December 20, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there......
|
Quote:
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodu...06-11-04a.html
Response to Army Times Editorial
Nov. 5, 2006 – UPDATED
On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times released an editorial titled, "Time for Rumsfeld to go." It is important to first note that the "military papers" that have run this editorial are not owned, managed, or controlled by the U.S. military. They are privately held newspapers forming part of the Arlington, Va.-based Gannett publishing chain.
The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.
<b>HERE ARE THE FACTS:
.....Troop Levels</b>
CLAIM: “Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.”
FACTS: Commanders in the field have repeatedly been assured by the President and the Secretary of Defense that they will be given whatever resources they need to complete the mission in Iraq.
On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said: “There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.”
* On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained: “[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don’t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we’re at the point in the mission where it’s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we’re maintaining the right balance.”
* On Oct. 11, 2006, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded: “I don’t – right now, my answer is no. … [I]f I think I need more, I’ll ask for more and bring more in.”.....
|
Quote:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
The Iraq
Study Group
Report
Page 10
A. Assessment of the Current
Situation in Iraq
1. Security
Attacks against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. October
2006 was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005, with 102 Americans killed.
Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006. Daily
attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double the level in January.
Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi
civilians are killed every month.
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...EN-US-Iraq.php
The Associated Press
Published: February 5, 2007
....With little sign of an end to the carnage, many Iraqis have begun complaining that the security drive has been too slow in starting, allowing extremists free rein to launch spectacular attacks that have killed nearly 1,000 in the past week.
Monday's death toll supported their frustration. At least 74 people were killed or found dead across the country — all but seven of them in Baghdad.
With so much at stake, U.S. commanders have moved methodically to plan the operation and assemble the force, eager to avoid the mistakes that accompanied two failed crackdowns last year.
The U.S. military officials said Monday they consider the operation to have been under way ever since Bush signed the order last month to start moving troops to Iraq. U.S. officers offered assurances that once the operation gets rolling, Iraqis will begin to see a difference.
|
Sources of Violence
Violence is increasing in scope, complexity, and lethality. There are multiple sources of
violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite
militias and death squads, and organized criminality. Sectarian violence—particularly in and
around Baghdad—has become the principal challenge to stability.
Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The insurgency
comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and
common criminals. It has significant support within the Sunni Arab community. The
insurgency has no single leadership but is a network of networks. It benefits from participants’
detailed knowledge of Iraq’s infrastructure, and arms and financing are supplied primarily from
within Iraq. The insurgents have different goals, although nearly all oppose the presence of U.S.
forces in Iraq. Most wish to restore Sunni Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local
power and control.....
Page 12
.....Approximately 141,000 U.S. military personnel are serving in Iraq, together with
approximately 16,500 military personnel from twenty-seven coalition partners, the largest
contingent being 7,200 from the United Kingdom. The U.S. Army has principal responsibility
for Baghdad and the north. The U.S. Marine Corps takes the lead in Anbar province. The
United Kingdom has responsibility in the southeast, chiefly in Basra.
Along with this military presence, the United States is building its largest embassy in
Baghdad. The current U.S. embassy in Baghdad totals about 1,000 U.S. government
employees. There are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country.
Currently, the U.S. military rarely engages in large-scale combat operations. Instead,
counterinsurgency efforts focus on a strategy of “clear, hold, and build”—“clearing” areas of -
insurgents and death squads, “holding” those areas with Iraqi security forces, and “building”
areas with quick-impact reconstruction projects.
Nearly every U.S. Army and Marine combat unit, and several National Guard and Reserve
units, have been to Iraq at least once. Many are on their second or even third rotations; rotations
are typically one year for Army units, seven months for Marine units. Regular rotations, in and
out of Iraq or within the country, complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get to know the
local scene, earn the trust of the population, and build a sense of cooperation.
Many military units are under significant strain. Because the harsh conditions in Iraq are
wearing out equipment more quickly than anticipated, many units do not have fully functional
equipment for training when they redeploy to the United States. An extraordinary amount of
sacrifice has been asked of our men and women in uniform, and of their families. The American
military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises
around the world.....
Page 30
3. More Troops for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that
adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However,
past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not
make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a
substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also
necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or
respond to crises around the world.
|
|