Another trip to Arlington...

[kwillia]

Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs

I just hope like hell they will let them do their jobs. Stop with the politically correct BS. It's a war. Those against the fledgling Iraqi government are enemies of the state. Treat them all as such.

 

[Larry Gude]

Here it is;

If anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Pulling out and leaving Iraq in civil chaos isn't a better idea. Troop surge, cut 'em loose and let 'em do their jobs is a much better idea, but that means more of our military men and women will be killed and injured.

Wars are run by politicians - we knew that going in. They're not brilliant military tacticians, nor do they have the best interests of a few grunts at heart.

...protect Iraq's borders.

What is a 'troop surge' gonna do? Clear out and secure a given area for as long as the troops are there. What happens when they leave? Either the Iraqi forces will provide security or they won't. Unless, of course, we stay forever and do it and once again, is that in our national interest?

 

[mizteresa1965]

Well duh. I could have told you that. What do they think about what they are doing there?

Don't duh me. 2 of them were like "I'm defending my country, lets kill them all." All hooting and hollering and excited they were going..........till they actually saw the bloodshed. So don't duh me.

 

[ylexot]

Don't duh me. 2 of them were like "I'm defending my country, lets kill them all." All hooting and hollering and excited they were going..........till they actually saw the bloodshed. So don't duh me.

That's typical. It happens in every war/battle. It has nothing to do with the mission and whether or not it is worth the cost. :shrug:



That is the topic of this thread, isn't it?

 

[vraiblonde]

But, who is to say that after the "troop surge," it won't be enough so more troop surge? When is enough enough?

If it were me, I'd do an "all hands on deck" and pull troops out of less important duty stations and send them to Iraq. We still have troops in places like Germany and Japan that don't need to be there. We have troops in South America that could easily be deployed to Iraq.

Now, I'm not some brilliant military strategist, but I also don't have to play politics. I say bring in overwhelming force, secure the country and get it over with. Forget this "winning hearts and minds" bull#### - they'll thank us later.

 

[vraiblonde]

What is a 'troop surge' gonna do? Clear out and secure a given area for as long as the troops are there. What happens when they leave? Either the Iraqi forces will provide security or they won't.

With Iraqi forces on board, there's no reason why they can't do both - secure the borders and ferret out the insurgents already in country.

 

[PsyOps]

Objectively, you have to convince yourself that the 3,000 some odd dead, like Mike, and 25,000 or so wounded, like Randy, and the 100's of thousands of family members and friends, like Kim and the McMullens, impacted by these deaths and injuries are to be honored, the dead, and comforted, everybody else, by the idea that their sacrifice will keep terrorists off our streets and out of our planes thereby sparing so very many more fellow citizens a horrible fate.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that their sacrifice was the only and best option we had in order to deal with Usama and Saddam and global terror.

Then, objectively, you have to convince yourself that by accepting these losses and continuing a course of action that guarantees more makes you tough and resolved and wise.

Lastly, objectively, you have to convince yourself that whatever it is we may or may not achieve in Iraq by staying it is worth the life and/or limb of another soldier, the life and/or limb of your neighbors kid, your own son or daughter.

There is no snappy last sentence to summarize this post and drive home a point.

Then I suppose objectively you have to accept that by doing nothing led to the 911 attacks and by doing nothing would likely result in the same or even worse in our future.

So objectively what do you propose we do Larry?

 

[oldman]

...of the adminstrations view point; Anyone who thinks bad decisions are a problem, shut up and row.

Who said anything about anyones service? I'm glad we're going to finally expand the service. I'm glad and proud of Doug for serving.

Does that honestly require me to just say "Whatever you decide, Mr. President, it's good with me."

If I recall, troops serve the President. He serves me.

Such a conundrum we find ourselves in. We elected our officials because we felt they were the best for the job. The President and Congress vote to go to war to rid the world of a disease and the majority agreed - and then because of politics the majority sways (and you'll never make me believe politics isn't the cause). In 20/20 hindsight we may have done things differently but unfortunately only MysticalMom is able to see the future. You may disagree with the President in any form you opt, but as you say the troops do serve him and he was elected to serve us to the best of his ability. IMO, this is going to end like another VietNam because we gave up.

 

[Bustem' Down]

My best friend from back home just got back from 12 months in Iraq. It was good to see him back in one peice since he's Army EOD. He spent a lot of time getting rid of IED's.

 

[Larry Gude]

Psst...

With Iraqi forces on board, there's no reason why they can't do both - secure the borders and ferret out the insurgents already in country.

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.

 

[PsyOps]

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.

That's just plain

 

[vraiblonde]

...most of the insurgents are in the army and the police and the government.

What makes you think that?

 

[Larry Gude]

You're both kidding...

What makes you think that?

...right? How many links do I need to post that show Iraqi police units betrayed from within? How many stories would you like illustrating death squad links to military units? How many stories from US troops describing how they don't trust the Iraqi soldiers they work with?

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's see...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272786/site/newsweek/

 

[vraiblonde]

...right? How many links do I need to post that show Iraqi police units betrayed from within? How many stories would you like illustrating death squad links to military units? How many stories from US troops describing how they don't trust the Iraqi soldiers they work with?

Certainly there are a few infiltrators, but I don't think that's cause to say that *most* of the insurgents are in the Army, police or government.

 

[Larry Gude]

How about this one...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5229440

Insurgents posing as police destroyed the golden dome of one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines on

 

[Larry Gude]

Stop me...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.

Brutality and corruption are rampant in Iraq's police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers and participation in insurgent bombings, according to confidential Iraqi government documents detailing more than 400 police corruption investigations.

 

[vraiblonde]

Larry, we have criminals in *this* country who impersonate a cop to do something bad. Plus we have actual bad cops who commit crimes. How is what's happening in Iraq all that different?

 

[vraiblonde]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.

:snort:

Quoting Huffington...

 

[Larry Gude]

Here...

...try this;

Go to google, put in insurgents, Iraq, infiltration and enjoy you're afternoon of getting a clue.

For crying out loud. One of THE absolute fundamentals of insurgencies is infiltrating the legitimate authorities.