Iran

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that?

What, you think applying more force isn't going to make this better or something?

[yesman065]

Everyone in the Mideast is counting on the soft Americans to fold up their tents and leave. Only problem is they are facing a President who will not fold - period. Just when it seems that everyone is saying quit - he steps it up. Then the insurgent violence goes up a notch too. All these Mid East wacko leaders suddenly start making statements to the world and on and on. . .
Hmm. Just an observation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Thats bull, if he wanted to "step it up" he would have sent more than 20,000 troops. We are going from 130,000 troops to 150,000, not much of a difference. If he sent 100,000 I wouldn't be happy but I would at least see his point, but I don't get 20,000.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Thats bull, if he wanted to "step it up" he would have sent more than 20,000 troops. We are going from 130,000 troops to 150,000, not much of a difference. If he sent 100,000 I wouldn't be happy but I would at least see his point, but I don't get 20,000.

Well 20,000 is like a 15 % or so increase - not a negligible increase.
Other Possibilities:
1) certain number needed for a specific task ie: securing Baghdad
2) didn't think he could get anymore
3) doesn't have anymore to spare
4)???

[piercehawkeye45]

1) certain number needed for a specific task ie: securing Baghdad

And let the rest of the country rot. I keep my stance.

2) didn't think he could get anymore

You know that isn't true. He could have gotten a lot more if he wanted.

3) doesn't have anymore to spare

Same as before. The troops go in shifts, he has a lot more troops to spare.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Had a look at Iraqi Kurdistan lately, PH? Yeah, sure, big rot there. The place has been a success story since the Northern No-Fly Zone.

[piercehawkeye45]

Baghdad isn't the only problem, it would be ignorant to think so.

Besides, why would we just put the minimum amount of troops to secure a city? If we overloaded the city with troops, the transition would be a lot easier. There is no good excuse to only send 20,000 troops. Go all out or go home.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I think they fear us plenty. Why else would they be saying all they do to appease us. If at some point they didn't, they certainly do now. They need us to remain employed, to have the power we entrust them with.

Are you talking about 500 or so elected people that are so entrenched in the political scum, you'd play hell trying to dispose of them? Or by government do you mean the millions that occupy those desks, or benchs, or trucks, or tanks, and you can't do a damn thing about?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Are you talking about 500 or so elected people that are so entrenched in the political scum, you'd play hell trying to dispose of them? Or by government do you mean the millions that occupy those desks, or benchs, or trucks, or tanks, and you can't do a damn thing about?

I was referring to the elected officials

[glatt]

Since we're talking about Iraq in a thread about Iran, I thought I'd throw in this recent encouraging news about Afghanistan. Apparently Bush is beginning to realize that if you look like you are losing a war in a country, you better fix it before it's too late. He's focusing new attention on Afghanistan, which hasn't been doing very well lately.

I though I'd post it because it's rare for Bush do do something that makes sense.

From the Washington Post.

Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery
Extra $7 Billion Would Go to Security, Roads

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 25, 2007; A01

After the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration is preparing a series of new military, economic and political initiatives aimed partly at preempting an expected offensive this spring by Taliban insurgents, according to senior U.S. officials.

Even as it trumpeted a change of course in Iraq this month, the White House has completed a review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It will ask Congress for $7 billion to $8 billion in new funds for security, reconstruction and other projects in Afghanistan as part of the upcoming budget package, officials said.

That would represent a sizable increase in the U.S. commitment to the strife-torn country; since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban, the United States has provided a little more than $14 billion in assistance for Afghanistan, the State Department says...

...

[Torrere]

Wow! That's pretty cool.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I hope it's not too late. The poppy crop has been harvested and sold, the Taliban(and their ilk) have collected their money and are arming to the teeth.
Do you think they will be dissuaded by new infrastructure? That's the first thing they'll blow up.

Funds for security? What's the plan, bribe the Taliban? Money doesn't make the place more secure, soldiers do. Whether it be military or Blackwater, there has to be boots on the ground to provide security and I haven't heard of the UN peacekeepers being reinforced.

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies. That would have prevented the Taliban from extorting the profits from the poppy crop to buy arms.

If you want to know the truth about Afghanistan, read a short article called The Perfect Evil by Michael Yon.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I know, I know, 3 parts, grumble, grumble......trust me, it's not long.

Here's another piece on Afghanistan, There be Dragons.

And the Canadians, Hiatus Corpus.

Or this pdf War: Canadian Style from the Toronto Star.

And The Long Road Ahead.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies.

No, we should be doing what many radio talking heads have been discussing lately: look deep inside the heart of this great nation and ask "What would Ronald Reagan have done in this situation?"

He would have had the answer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ronnie Rayguns would have nuked them, I suspect.

How about doing business in a Virgin Market.

Dasht-E-Margo....Desert of Death.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

No, we should be doing what many radio talking heads have been discussing lately: look deep inside the heart of this great nation and ask "What would Ronald Reagan have done in this situation?"

He would have had the answer.

did you forget to take your meds?!