Not enough troops in Iraq

raytri · #1 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 04:32 PM

What a bunch of geniuses; I've been saying this since 2003.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...d/15157720.htm

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Bush administration's decision to move thousands of U.S. soldiers into Baghdad to quell sectarian warfare before it explodes into outright civil war underscores a problem that's hindered the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq from the beginning: There aren't enough troops to do the job.

Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately concede the point. They say they've been forced to shuffle U.S. units from one part of the country to another for at least two years because there haven't been enough soldiers and Marines to deal simultaneously with Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias; train Iraqi forces; and secure roads, power lines, border crossings and ammunition dumps.

Gee, no kidding. Couldn't have seen that one coming. A basic military maxim is that you don't want to take the same ground twice. Which is why stuff like this should have tipped off anybody paying attention:

Quote:

But when U.S. forces have cracked down in one place, Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists have popped up in another. Some towns have been pacified multiple times, only to return to chaos as soon as the Americans reduced troop numbers. In cities such as Baghdad, Kirkuk, Samarra and Ar-Ramadi, bloodshed ebbs and flows, but security is never a given.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Even if you support the reasons for invading Iraq, you ought to be furious about the incompetence of most of the execution. And we face a choice: either get serious about winning -- by sending in enough troops -- or get out. Half measures serve nobody.

barney-fife · #2 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 06:23 PM

Thank you, General.

JP5 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 06:33 PM

Well, gee Raytri. You should have stayed in the service. Maybe by now you'd be General and could have made that decision before the one in charge did.

Unfortunately I think it means we'll be seeing a lot more U.S. soldiers getting killed.

Gaar · #4 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 06:41 PM

What, they are increasing it by some 4,500 Troops?!?!?!

(*)(*)(*)(*), if we had only known that 4,500 Troops were going to make the difference, we could have made it 154,500 rather than 150,000...

The only question left is where was raytri when we were making the War Plan?!?!?!?

Or could it be the TYPE of Troops they are adding, and the way they have been TRAINED since we have learned the enemies tactics?

Nah, that can't be it, raytri says it is just the NUMBER!!!!

Regards,
Gaar

superbadbrutha · #5 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 08:00 PM

Instead of questioning Ratryi, how about questioning the idiots in charge. Why do you think Colin Powell got out of town? Why do you think Bush 41 didn't take Sadaam out of power because unlike his son he listened to his adviser that saw the chaos that would take place if you took Sadaam out of power. Now we have a Civil War taking place in Iraq and most people don't want to see it for what it is. Now JP5 you are concerned about more troops being killed, lol give me a break. This is what happens when you put people in charge that have no idea of what war is.

Peace.

Gaar · #6 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha";p=&quot

Instead of questioning Ratryi, how about questioning the idiots in charge. Why do you think Colin Powell got out of town? Why do you think Bush 41 didn't take Sadaam out of power because unlike his son he listened to his adviser that saw the chaos that would take place if you took Sadaam out of power. Now we have a Civil War taking place in Iraq and most people don't want to see it for what it is. Now JP5 you are concerned about more troops being killed, lol give me a break. This is what happens when you put people in charge that have no idea of what war is.

Because hindsight is 20/20 and the best laid War plans only survive first contact with the enemy.

(There's a couple more "cliches" for your cliche Thread).

So while it is easy to be critical of people decisions it is hardly something to be proud of.

To generalize that "more Troops" was the answer is as stupid as saying "more money" will definitely help. It depends on what the Troops are trained for and what their Mission is, just as it depends on how the money is spent as to whether each will "help", right?

Regards,
Gaar

superbadbrutha · #7 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaar";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha";p=&quot

Instead of questioning Ratryi, how about questioning the idiots in charge. Why do you think Colin Powell got out of town? Why do you think Bush 41 didn't take Sadaam out of power because unlike his son he listened to his adviser that saw the chaos that would take place if you took Sadaam out of power. Now we have a Civil War taking place in Iraq and most people don't want to see it for what it is. Now JP5 you are concerned about more troops being killed, lol give me a break. This is what happens when you put people in charge that have no idea of what war is.

Because hindsight is 20/20 and the best laid War plans only survive first contact with the enemy.

Actually it was before sight because many of Bush's advisors and generals told him they would need more troops and they didn't listen.

(There's a couple more "cliches" for your cliche Thread).

So while it is easy to be critical of people decisions it is hardly something to be proud of.

I didn't see where he said he was proud of it.

To generalize that "more Troops" was the answer is as stupid as saying "more money" will definitely help.

To discount that more troops wasn't the answer is just as stupid.

It depends on what the Troops are trained for and what their Mission is, just as it depends on how the money is spent as to whether each will "help", right?

The samething that the ones that are there were trained for and what know what their mission is, uh well maybe they don't know what their mission is that could be part of the problem.

Regards,
Gaar

Peace.

raytri · #8 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Well, gee Raytri. You should have stayed in the service. Maybe by now you'd be General and could have made that decision before the one in charge did.

This isn't about the generals; it's about Bush and Rumsfeld, primarily. They're the ones who thought we'd be welcomed with open arms and that the occupation and reconstruction would pay for itself.

You will counter that the generals are free to ask for more troops if they think they need them; to which I invite you to read the last few paragraphs of the link I provided.

And I wasn't alone. There were plenty of knowledgeable observers during the run-up to the war that predicted a successful occupation would require several hundred thousand troops. They were ignored and ridiculed. The ones within the administration or active military found their careers in jeopardy.

This isn't hindsight, guys. All hindsight is doing is proving that everybody but Bush/Rumsfeld were right all along.

Gaar wrote:

Quote:

To generalize that "more Troops" was the answer is as stupid as saying "more money" will definitely help. It depends on what the Troops are trained for and what their Mission is, just as it depends on how the money is spent as to whether each will "help", right?

While it's true that the type of troops matter (we're not going to pacify Iraq with the accountants from the Finance Corps), that's a given, not a legitimate argument. The number of boots on the ground is the most accurate predictor of success in an occupation.

Which you might have noticed if you saw what soldiers are doing in Iraq: basically, every sort of soldier is being converted to infantry and sent out on patrol. I've seen artillery units conducting foot patrols, and a year or so ago there was some dark humor on military sites when a Public Affairs officer was killed while on patrol.
So maybe we *could* pacify Iraq with the help of the Finance Corps, if we gave them rifles and some refresher training in patrolling. Because in occupation duty, the idea is to blanket the country with troops and snuff out resistance before it gets started. That doesn't take highly trained combat troops; it just takes a *lot* of troops.

That's what we did in Germany after World War II. It's what we did in Japan. It's what we did in Kosovo. It's what we've done in every successful occupation we've conducted this century.

So when Bush/Rumsfeld decided they could do Iraq on the cheap, they weren't just ignoring their critics; they were ignoring the history that criticism was based on.

JP5 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbadbrutha";p=&quot

Instead of questioning Ratryi, how about questioning the idiots in charge. Why do you think Colin Powell got out of town? Why do you think Bush 41 didn't take Sadaam out of power because unlike his son he listened to his adviser that saw the chaos that would take place if you took Sadaam out of power. Now we have a Civil War taking place in Iraq and most people don't want to see it for what it is. Now JP5 you are concerned about more troops being killed, lol give me a break. This is what happens when you put people in charge that have no idea of what war is.

Peace.

Well, (*)(*)(*)(*)!! I sure wish all you super-smart people with all your military knowledge and expertise would run for office. ALL our problems would be solved.

JP5 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Well, gee Raytri. You should have stayed in the service. Maybe by now you'd be General and could have made that decision before the one in charge did.

This isn't about the generals; it's about Bush and Rumsfeld, primarily. They're the ones who thought we'd be welcomed with open arms and that the occupation and reconstruction would pay for itself.

You will counter that the generals are free to ask for more troops if they think they need them; to which I invite you to read the last few paragraphs of the link I provided.

And I wasn't alone. There were plenty of knowledgeable observers during the run-up to the war that predicted a successful occupation would require several hundred thousand troops. They were ignored and ridiculed. The ones within the administration or active military found their careers in jeopardy.

This isn't hindsight, guys. All hindsight is doing is proving that everybody but Bush/Rumsfeld were right all along.

Gaar wrote:

Quote:

To generalize that "more Troops" was the answer is as stupid as saying "more money" will definitely help. It depends on what the Troops are trained for and what their Mission is, just as it depends on how the money is spent as to whether each will "help", right?

While it's true that the type of troops matter (we're not going to pacify Iraq with the accountants from the Finance Corps), that's a given, not a legitimate argument. The number of boots on the ground is the most accurate predictor of success in an occupation.

Which you might have noticed if you saw what soldiers are doing in Iraq: basically, every sort of soldier is being converted to infantry and sent out on patrol. I've seen artillery units conducting foot patrols, and a year or so ago there was some dark humor on military sites when a Public Affairs officer was killed while on patrol.
So maybe we *could* pacify Iraq with the help of the Finance Corps, if we gave them rifles and some refresher training in patrolling. Because in occupation duty, the idea is to blanket the country with troops and snuff out resistance before it gets started. That doesn't take highly trained combat troops; it just takes a *lot* of troops.

That's what we did in Germany after World War II. It's what we did in Japan. It's what we did in Kosovo. It's what we've done in every successful occupation we've conducted this century.

What troops did we put inside Kosovo? The UN came in as a peacekeeping force AFTER our air war. And some would argue they haven't done all that good of a job either. What happened there was that the ethnic cleansing was just reversed. All the Serbs that were there before living in harmony, were forced to leave. The few that have remained fear for their lives each and every day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

So when Bush/Rumsfeld decided they could do Iraq on the cheap, they weren't just ignoring their critics; they were ignoring the history that criticism was based on.

"On the cheap????" I'm pretty sure I've heard you condemn the fact we've lost over 2500 soldiers so far. More troops would have resulted in more U.S. soldier deaths. And I'm also pretty sure I've heard you condemn the monetary costs. So, don't know how you can now claim it was done "on the cheap."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode