Troop levels could decrease OR increase?

(snip)

"But, in a tacit acknowledgment that the U.S. military presence is still crucial to staving off insurgents, Pace said: "The enemy has a vote in this, and if they were to cause some kind of problems that required more troops, then we would do exactly what we've done in the past, which is give the commanders on the ground what they need. And in that case, you could see troop level go up a little bit to handle that problem.""

(snip)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500502_pf.html

Here me out. I know it is not a popular stance but I think that we need to put as many troops in theater as we did during the first gulf war, 800,000.

I DO NOT want to be in Iraq, I also think that there is NO good reason to be there, but face it we are, so WE MUST get the job done and done right. We need to make sure that the Iraqis can not fart without the US knowing it.

Set aside the “Why are we there” for now. We are and we HAVE to win, or we WILL be unsafe for a lot longer.

Here is a fact that many that has not served may not know, very few nations in this world want to go to war with the United States because they know we can kick their ass. Mr Bush's war in Iraq is making us look like “paper tigers”.

So as much as I hate the damn war, we have to win it, and that can only be done with more troops.

After we win, and bring our boys home we will impeach the bastard that sent them there on a lie, we will try Halliburton for War Profiteering and we will exile them from the United States, maybe there buddies Saudi Arabia will take them.

the world would act. Imagine dumping US debt and sanctions.

We sent 1, and that was 1 to many for most of the world, and I agree!

If they were going to do it, they would have.

TRUST ME, the EU and the the rest of the world would love to see Iraq settle down, because they are also going to feel the failed Iraq policy of Mr. Bush.

It would be very hard to sanction the US, that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most nations NEED us to buy shit.

But to another degree, they can defund US actions by making it economically unfeasable. China, not the EU, holds the debt. Japan would have to decide if they will continue to fund it.

You have to explain why you more troops would cause this.

All of the EU WANTS peace in Iraq, because in the real world, Iraq is down the street from them, you can drive from Paris to Bagdad. India and China want peace so that we can send more money to them...

You have to explain why you think an attempt to win the war in Iraq would somehow make the EU mad?

Now going to war with Iran, that is another thing, and I think you would be right.

We aren't fighting any organized army of Iraq. Massive troop build ups would make countries around the world convene in meetings to solve the growing hegemony of the US by force. Meetings and new alliances are already occuring. US currency is already increasingly becoming a fiat currency which threatens its status as the world's reserve currency. At home, all domestic programs will be further slashed and the currency further inflated.

But with more troops we could protect people, start building crap and give these people something to do. Iraq has a HUGE unemployment rate. MOST of the people we are fighting are from IRAQ. If we could secure the nation, we could get the economy rolling and then these people would have jobs. You have heard the phrase "An Idle mind is the devil’s playground", well that is true.

We place the troops in there. We restore most of the order. We fund rebuilding projects, hire the locals not Halliburton. Once these men can feed their families they will not want to die anymore, and they will NOT want the other fighters in there messing up a good thing. The Muslim culture places a lot of pressure on a man to provide for their families, and when they can not the shame internally is unbearable.

As the economy grows, we move troops out.

The enemy in Iraq is not insurgence, it is lack of employment and security. They had BOTH of those under Saddam.

the US would have to introduce a draft - you don't have the numbers, the troops are stretched to breaking point as it is - stop loss (AKA Perpetual Military Slavery) can only do so much.

Iraqis would be seriously PO'd by even more foreign troops on their soil. At present the occupation forces couldn't operate in country without active support of the population, if the 'coalition' forces lose the tolerance of the Iraqi populace it will be impossible to continue in country.

It is far too late to talk about solving the situation to suit the USA, going outside the UN really screwed the pooch. The election put an Islamic government in charge, yet another miscalculation from Bushco, so admit you're in a hole and stop digging. The west might not like it but we will be dealing with a legitimate, islamic government.

It's time for diplomacy not escalation. After the Iranian revolution in '79 (another time the west shot itself in the foot) the rest of the world had to accept the fact and opened diplomatic links with the Khomeni regime. The Iran-Iraq war didn't solve anything, only making it more difficult to treat with the country we had tried to bring down by financing Iraq's war effort.

But then maybe Americans would wake from their slumber and hold this administration accountable for the messes we are in in the first place.

You get the government you deserve… and as much as I hate to say it, this is the government we asked for. The freepers would not be so freepy when they got that letter in the mail. And yes, our side would get the letters too, but war calls for sacrifice. (I also think most of us are smart and can get out of a draft)

So far this has been a war without much sacrifice.

Sun-tzu said: 'To win a hundred battles takes skill but the pinnacle of skill is to win one battle without fighting.' Conflicts can be resolved without recourse to force but it takes ability and commitment, qualities that seem conspicuous by their absence in the present administration.

Dubya and Jeb have jokingly referred to GI's as 'fodder-units' yet proclaim their commitment to the troops. I wouldn't want the present government in charge if the present conflict widened. I get the feelng that any sacrifice would be from the wrong quarters. I wouldn't want a freeper drafted and sent to Iraq, even they deserve a competent Commander-in-Chief.

I have always advocated the draft. This is what they voted for, perpetual war, bumper sticker politics. As soon as one of their sons get the letter I am sure they will start to see this war in a different light. It is time to pay the piper as they say...

I know this is not the “liberal” stance, and I am okay with that, but the fact is those on the right have done NOTHING for the troops, so now it is time for them to serve in the war they voted for. Will it suck, yes, will the war in Iraq be over soon, Oh yes, will the Republicans never see the light of day again, that to will happen.

We are there, we have to do win…

I remain unconvinced that blanketing the ground with troops will make it easier to withdraw. In the end there would be a lot of young men and women sent into a hostile enviroment, unfamiliar with the culture and unable to speak the language. If they are composed of 'shake and bake' draftees they would not have the needed skills or experience to handle the situation. Militarliy they might aquit themselves adequately but it sounds like fighting fire with gasoline.

There is also the question of troop complement make-up. From the first there weren't enough MP and security units committed. These are troop types that should be made up from 'lifers' given the high level of technical skills and competence needed for the specialist role they have. Existing MP units have been rotated to death since 2003. The Abu-Ghraib scandal was facilitated by the use of non-specialist troops in a specialist slot.

Draftees should have civilian occupations that are needed in Iraq and can't be found in the local population. Teenagers who haven't got rich parents aren't automatically the best people for the job.

This is one thing I never get a clear indication of when people take this stance.

Specifically and practically, what does it mean to 'win' in Iraq? What will that look like? Aside from increasing troop numbers, what specifically do we need to do different to 'win'?

Thanks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5689108&mesg_id=5689307

When they do not want to fight us, because they are to busy building a new Iraq...

I do not claim to know all the answers. I know that the way we are going it NOT going to win. I know that the Gen have called for more troops, and I know that most Iraq men sit on thier asses all day...

Right now, we are not winning. If we pull out right now it would be a disaster.

I will say again, WE SHOULD NOT EVEN BE THERE! but we are....

Yes, we have essentially destroyed the place and are responsible for making sure it gets put back together. But WE are the ones who broke it, and AFAIC, WE have NO right to determine how it gets fixed. We should provide ONLY the resources to do it (e.g. lots of money $$$$) but that is all.

The longer we are there, running rebuilding projects, the more motivated the insurgents will be at blowing up the buildings, the soldiers, and any Iraqis who cooperate with us.

Iraq has an educated, skilled populace, and to act like we have any understanding of what they need and want their country to look like is condescending at best. They have the engineers, the scientists, the laborers to do it. We need to get the fuck out, give them every penny we would otherwise be spending on keeping soldiers there, and plead with the UN and other countries to monitor the situation.

I said very clearly, "We fund rebuilding projects, hire the locals not Halliburton"

I know the Iraq can rebuild itself. They built it.

Or troops should be there to provide real security.

and I still think that 'we' shouldn't be hiring anyone, just providing the money.

And we can't provide real security, that's the whole point. As I said previously, our troops are the very reason there is no security. As long as our military is involved, the insurgency will have a reason to blow things and people up.

Agree to disagree, I suppose :shrug:

I said WE hire them, If we are providing the cash, then WE ARE doing the hiring, that is a fact.

We can provide security, maybe not the freedom they want right now, but we can provide the stability need to build roads and schools and so on...

All the evidence I have seen is that US troop presence leads to insurgent attacks. Iraq did not have suicide bombers before we came, and there is nothing indicating that such attacks will stop until we leave.

Also, demonstrate how we, as a nation, can pay for keeping so many troops over there AND rebuilding their nation.

It's more then semantics.

but are failing in some ways to produce a stable oil colony.

and north, south, east and west of there