home

Bush Contemplates Up to 40,000 More Troops In Iraq

From the Sunday Times Online (UK): President Bush is considering a "double down" strategy in Iraq.

Having ruled out a “graceful exit”, Bush is tempted by the one option that presents the slightest chance of success: a sustained surge of up to 40,000 US forces into Baghdad and the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province.

He believes a sharp boost in troop numbers could salvage his reputation as a resolute war leader while presenting a satisfying break with the “cut and walk” proposal to reduce combat troops by early 2008 that came from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, his father’s secretary of state. This independent report is already gathering dust.

What a travesty. Our sinking leader cares more about salvaging his legacy than the lives of American troops.

< Rudy Giuliani Makes a "Rookie Mistake" | Bill Clinton: A Help or a Hindrance to Hillary? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Impeach for Insanity (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by vwbug on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    George has another thing in common with the first King george of this country, insanity.  They can impeach him for being crazy.  He obviously lives in a make believe world that he refuses to come out of.

    Bush... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    is insane.

    Or...He needs the troops for the next war (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bx58 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:41:19 AM EST
    Does anyobody doubt that we're not itchin for a fight with Iran?

    It's so transparent, from our deadly silence during the Israeli destruction of Lebanon's infra-structure to the wholesale demonization of our "next enemy" in the media.

    As for the "current rules of engagement" I would guess Jarober wants the US to just bulldoze houses on top of people and shoot rockets into any home we think houses "terrorists?

    It's worked for the Israelis. Right.

    There is not too much risk of attacking... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    ...yet another country because we now have a tissue-thin paper tiger army.

    The military has neither the personnel, the equipment, the ability to train new recruits, the ability to recruit new recruits, and military officers are ditching the military in record numbers.

    You can bet that hugh numbers of personnel will leave the active services and the reserves in DROVES as soon as they possibly can and it will take a generation or more to restore respectability to American armed forces.

    America, the greatest threat to world peace, even more so than radical Islamic terrorists.

    bush is already going to be known as the first American president to lose two wars simultaneously; adding the loss of yet another war on top of Afghanistan and Iraq would not be good for his legacy - unless he WANTS a legacy declaring him to be America's first Insane president.

    Nice job, mr. boosh.

    Parent

    Facts please (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    Retainment is fine...

    Retainment

    America, the greatest threat to world peace, even more so than radical Islamic terrorists

    If you believe that then how can you be argued with?

    Really?

    Parent

    "double down" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 07:59:17 AM EST
    He believes a sharp boost in troop numbers could salvage his reputation as a resolute war leader while presenting a satisfying break with the "cut and walk" proposal to reduce combat troops by early 2008 that came from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group

    IOW, covering his ass is more important to him than the reality that his gambling addict fantasies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. utterly destabilized the ME and probably started a world war.

    A huge PR problem. But that's all it is to him.

    Lives mean nothing to him.

    Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.

    Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East"

    The Map of the "New Middle East"

    The New Totalitarianism. Rule Through Barbaric Annihilation

    Nice job indeed

    re: (Bush's) gambling addict fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by john horse on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    Bush is like the gambler on a losing streak who keeps on doubling up on his bets in the belief that his luck is bound to turn around.  However, war should not be like a game of chance and the chips he is using to bet are the lives of American soldiers.

    Parent
    The Ungraceful Exit (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by john horse on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    Having ruled out a "graceful exit" Bush has opted for an ungraceful humiliating exit that will result in many more unnecessary casualties, weaken our military, and further damage our country's reputation.  

    According to Fareed Zakaria more troops may have made a difference at the beginning of the war but at this stage it is as Bush's daddy used to say "too little too late."  The reason that bringing in more troops is not going to work is that the problem is primarily a political problem instead of a military one.  These troops will be caught in the middle of a civil war.  One day they will be fighting the Shiites under Moqtada al-Sadr and the next day they will be fighting the Sunni insurgents.  More US troops is counterproductive as it keeps the various factions from having to work together to seek a political solution.  It also runs counter to what some of our military leaders believe.  (per Think Progess) CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain's calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said `no.'"

    So Bush continues his march of folly in Iraq despite the availability of more rational alternatives.  By refusing to face reality he is setting us up for an even bigger fall.  When that day of reckoning comes instead of coming to the realization that they and they alone are responsible for this fiasco that has cost 3,000 American lives and 22,000 wounded, Bush and his supporters will do the one thing that they are good at, blaming someone else.  I can see it coming.  When all else fails blame the Left.  

    Democratic Party enables militarism (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Andreas on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:57:58 AM EST
    One of the main hurdles the military has faced to increasing the size of the occupation forces is that the military is already severely strained. A planned increase in the military's overall permanent troop strength, a move that has been long advocated by the Democratic Party leadership, would be intended to address this problem.

    The Democratic Party, having won control of Congress primarily due to public opposition to the war, has already ruled out any cut off of funding for military operations in Iraq, and has also rejected any talk of impeachment. The spinelessness of the official opposition in Washington has once again handed over political initiative to the most right-wing militarist factions of the American ruling elite.

    Bush administration preparing to boost US troop strength in Iraq
    By Joe Kay, 15 December 2006

    Ain't it a-m-a-a-a-a-a-z-z-i-i-n-g... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    ...how democrats have failed before even assuming power?

    But thanks for replaying one of the oldies but goodies from the Republican Talking Points Songbook.

    Parent

    Er, the polls (none / 0) (#3)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:53:58 PM EST
    seem to say that some percentage north of 60% of the American population wants fewer troops there, not more.

    Is this a case where he actually believes the BS he and his minions spread around about "not governing by polls?"

    I don't know how much the Dems can do about this, but they sure as hell ought be yelling loudly.

    Or... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    Or perhaps, the president thinks winning the war is the right thing to do, and has decided to actually try that.  If so, I hope the current (absurd) rules of engagement are changed.  Just because he's not following the left's preferred "give up now, and be stunned by how much worse it gets later" strategery doesn't mean that he's "only after his legacy.  It means that he disagrees with you.

    Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:25:24 AM EST
    you're close, jarober (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    Or are you just spinning it?
    perhaps, the president thinks winning the war is the right thing to do
    Sure, jarober. See here.

    Parent
    Winning (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:42:27 PM EST
    Jarober brings up a good point.  If the president ingnroes the media and goes ahead and puts more troops in he should do the troops the favor of untying their hands.

    For every Abu Grahib there are probably 100's of examples of US Soldiers doing too little to protect themselves and operating under restrictive rules of war.

    IMHO the anti war crowd wants it both ways.  They want to support the troops until the fighting starts.  I think if they are there, which they are then we should let them do their job and stop holding them to such high standars so they have no hope to succeed.  

    Great article about if we send more troops how we should do it.   I agree with the anti war crowd in some way in that we can't just send more troops in hopes that numbers alone help.  If we send them they need to go there for a reason...

    Ralph Peters

    Parent

    Here's the plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    Supposedly this is what we will here.

    Talk amoungst yourselves.

    plan

    Parent

    link (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    Vietnam Redux (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    I'm flabbergasted that they left out some of the the most important ingredients in "pacification": napalm, Agent Orange and B-52 carpet bombing. The last is an especially nice touch if done over the twelve days of Christmas.

    Parent
    Talk amongst yourselves my ass. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:36:42 PM EST
    If you actually think this is a plan, and since you brought it up, then defend it.

    From your link:

    Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president's reaction, according to a senior adviser, was "very positive."

    Of course bushs' reaction was "very positive". What else could it be? The guy cannot admit mistakes.

    At least overtly, he can't. But he just admitted, with his "very positive" reaction, that he invaded Iraq without a friggin' plan. With only a PR briefing full of slogans. With nothing. De Nada. Not even a clear goal.

    With. Nothing. The only plan he has, ever had, or ever will have, is to cover his own worthless ass.

    What's the latest body count, Slado? Iraqi? And American? How many? Dead? Maimed? Burned? Disfigured? Destroyed. Disappeared? For nothing.

    Go look it up. Christ.

    Parent

    I concluded this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:57:30 AM EST
    weeks ago. There is no other option for their kind. The ISG report is kept in the presidential bathroom in case he runs out.

    And that makes me sooooo happy. (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    The ISG was a group of old politicians/judges who think we are still fighting the cold war.

    I hope this is their last hurrah.

    Parent

    The ISG report ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    The ISG report is kept in the presidential bathroom in case he runs out.  
    of the constutution.


    Parent
    jarober (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 10:26:41 AM EST
    if bush really thought (there's scant evidence he does.) winning the war was the "right thing to do", he would have taken the professional's advice to begin with: overwhelming force. we would have gone in with 500,000 troops, cleared the country out from one end to the other, sealed the borders, and immediately crushed anyone getting in our way.

    of course, that would have required an actual declaration of war, by congress. probably a draft as well. with that, there would have been a whole lot more scrutiny of the "evidence" presented by bush, for invading in the first place.

    that didn't happen. i wonder why that might be?

    Touche, Sailor (none / 0) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    I'm told we need more troops to train the Iraqis.

    But he never mentions the FACT that a... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    ...recent international poll found that 37% thought America is the greatest threat to world peace, while only 18 or 19% think that radical islamic terrorists rate that title.

    It's even (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    Majorities See World More Fearful of U.S. Military Force,
    Making Governments More Likely to Pursue WMD
    Asked whether countries around the world have grown more afraid in recent years that the United States might use force against them, a majority of respondents (63%) say yes.
    ...
    Sixty-one percent favor the alternative view that trying to destroy terrorists may not work because "if we are too heavy-handed, it just breeds more hostility and more terrorists. It is necessary to address the sources of the hostility in the larger societies that the terrorists come from." But Republicans disagree with the majority on this issue: 55 percent favor the position that destroying terrorists is the only way to deal with them while 41 percent feel that such a policy may breed more terrorists. Most Democrats (76%) endorse the second view.

    Seven in ten (71%) respondents agree with the argument that combating terrorism, though important, is not the only threat the United States faces and should not "overwhelm all other priorities." Less than a third (27%) support the alternative position that the "threat of terrorism is the most important issue of our time, and we should be willing to do whatever it takes to fight it.



    Parent
    Most impressive, Young Jedi... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    ...now the student has become the master!

    I don't know how I missed that poll. Maybe I was just so shell-shocked at our abysmal standing from the other poll that I thought it just couldn't get any worse.

    I stand corrected, but with a single tear rolling down my cheek.

    Parent

    I had remembered reading (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    something about 37% too, and when you posted that I thought I'd take a look...

    Parent
    I'm thinking (none / 0) (#24)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    that since Bush nominated and hired Robert Gates, perhaps he's signaling that increased troup levels is not the best option. Gates was a part of the Iraqi study group that recommended fewer troups in Iraq. Of course, it might have just been a tactic to regain some support after the dems got a slight majority of the legislature.

    But what bothers me about the situation is that nobody seems to really know what to do about Iraq and nobody seems to be taking immediate action. Gates hinted in his speech today that he plans to go to Iraq and talk to the folks on the ground over there about what needs to be done. From there he will formulate a plan. It's good to know that he's not scared of going over there and he's not scared to listen to the people who know the situation best - from firsthand daily experience. Let's hope he can make the right decision quickly, whatever that may be, and convince everyone that it will work so that it can be put into action.

    more troops (none / 0) (#25)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    If it were all Bush's fault and it is such a good idea to not increase troops then why did Harry Reid say that he could support it?

    Withdrawl (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 04:43:06 PM EST

    Yesterday, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he could support a brief increase in troop levels but only as part of a plan for phased withdrawal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a member of the Armed Services Committee, have said they do not favor troop increases.

    Also


    Rep. Ike Skelton (R-MO), the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has released a statement expressing his serious concern over proposals to increase the U.S. presence in Iraq by up to 50,000 troops.

    think progress

    Parent

    Think Progress... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    ...had a typo posted there for awhile that has been corrected. Ike Skelton is the Democratic rep from Missouri.

    Parent
    Thanks Edger (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 05:41:59 PM EST
    For setting that straight. Next time I will check before including a unfamiliar name in a comment.

    Parent
    Saudi's (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    Here is the hat tip the Saudi's have been waiting for:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.

    CNN

    al-Sadr has been consistently against the American occupation. He never cared about America one way or the other until we invaded his country.

    The big irony/tragedy here is that he is the most likely one to bring peace to Iraq. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

    Bush Contemplates Up to 40,000 More Troops In Iraq | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment