Bush Starts "Second Surge" to Double Number of Troops in Iraq

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Both American parties are only held accountable to international corporations and conglomerates. It's a sad state of affairs and it's almost pointless who you vote for.

These people's children have died for nothing. It's not pleasant to say, but that doesn't make it any less true. I would never, never give up my life for this ridiculous war, and for those who support it, if your life is too valuable to be shot down in some bumfuck village in Iraq, then so is the life of every soldier out there. Forget about joining - if you support this war, ask yourself if you are willing to die, today, for this cause? Yeah, I thought so.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Washington Post

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007; B01

I was just going to post this. I posted his son's photo earlier in this thread. I know the father through my work. He is a conservative Republican military man who has been outspoken against this war since it began.

16prof.1901.jpg
 
Last edited:
What struck me about Bacevich's article is that here is a man who is actually THINKING about what's going on Iraq.

That's so rare in our culture of snappy comebacks, straw man arguments, knee-jerk politics.

Sometimes, I really fear for the future of our country that men like Bacevich (and thinking folks on the left and right found here in FYM) seem to be so rare.
 
joyfulgirl said:


I was just going to post this. I posted his son's photo earlier in this thread. I know the father through my work. He is a conservative Republican military man who has been outspoken against this war since it began.

16prof.1901.jpg

I've been reading about him since it's a local story. What a handsome guy, yet another tragic loss :( His father is a credit to him and vice versa.
 
Here are some more troops who want to stay in Iraq forever:

Spc. David Williams, 22, of Boston, Mass., had two note cards in his pocket Wednesday afternoon as he waited for Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Williams serves in the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., the first of the five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq, and he was chosen to join the Independent from Connecticut for lunch at a U.S. field base in Baghdad.

The night before, 30 other soldiers crowded around him with questions for the senator.

He wrote them all down. At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:

"When are we going to get out of here?"

The rest is here.
 
I guess it all comes down to this

But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.

"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked.


What a place to be in, literally and figuratively speaking.
 
See I thought that getting rid of Saddam thus removing the need for troops in Saudi Arabia and eventually getting them out of the region was the long term goal (as in by 2008)
THE US Defence Secretary suggested for the first time yesterday that American forces could be in Iraq for at least another half century, under an arrangement similar to the effectively permanent US troop deployment in South Korea.

In comments that will dismay war opponents at home and alarm Muslim allies in the Middle East, Robert Gates said that "some force of Americans" will be in Iraq for a "protracted period of time" and pointed to South Korea as the model.

US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, in the heavily armed demilitarised zone that separates the country from North Korea.

US generals are in charge of the combined US-South Korean forces.

Mr Gates, speaking to reporters in Hawaii during a visit to US Pacific Command, said that current war plans still called for an assessment of the US "surge" strategy in September, but he said he was looking beyond that to the type of military presence the US would have in Iraq over the long term.

He contrasted the situation in South Korea to Vietnam, where, he said, "we just left, lock, stock and barrel", a reference to the US withdrawal after the fall of Saigon in1975.

"What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans - with mutually agreed missions - is present for a protracted period of time," he said.

"The idea is more a model of a mutually agreed arrangement whereby we have a long and enduring presence but under the consent of both parties and under certain conditions.

"The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another."

All eyes in Washington are on the progress report to Congress in September by General David Petraeus, the US ground commander, with moderate Republicans saying that anything less than significant optimism will end their support for President George W. Bush.

Yesterday, General Raymond Odierno, the No.2 commander in Iraq, told reporters in Washington via video link from Baghdad that he might not be able to make a full assessment by September of whether the build-up was succeeding in stabilising Iraq.

General Odierno admitted that in an effort to quell violence, the US military was seeking talks with Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr - believed to be behind the kidnapping of five Britons this week.

A Sadr aide confirmed US officials had approached the anti-American cleric's supporters, but said Sadr would never begin a dialogue with "occupation forces".

"He has a grass-roots movement that he's always going to have; we have to recognise that," General Odierno said in an interview this week.

"We're trying to talk to him. We want to talk to him."

In the video conference from Baghdad yesterday, General Odierno said the US was reaching out to Sunni Muslims as well as Shia armed factions such as Sadr's Mahdi Army.
 
A_Wanderer said:
See I thought that getting rid of Saddam thus removing the need for troops in Saudi Arabia and eventually getting them out of the region was the long term goal (as in by 2008)


Resolution 1441 justifies all of this. mistakes have been made, but things are going in the right direction. the only way that a bad thing will ever happen again is if we pull out in less than 60 years.
 
That may well be the case but the spectre of a nuclear Iran is worrying and the developments on the ground have changed (it isn't 2004, but then again it isn't 2005 or 2006 anymore - being able to consolidate the gains in the Sunni regions would be a good thing but given the political timetable it's impossible; especially since the Dems have basically declared that the change in strategy under Petreus is a failure regardless of the results.
 
A_Wanderer said:
especially since the Dems have basically declared that the change in strategy under Petreus is a failure regardless of the results.

Yes, because based on the results so far it's certainly been a stunning success. :up: Troops want to get the hell out of there, May was the 3rd deadliest month since the beginning of the war and Bush thinks it'll get worse as the summer goes on. Stunning success!
 
i am proud that American troops will continue to guard Saudi oil for the next 60 years.

don't we all see the gigantic hole in the increasingly desperate justifications being put forward? if it is all about the oil, and protecting the oil from Saddam, why do we now need American troops to guard it from a world without Saddam?
 
^ All of which does nothing to reduce the risk of terrorism. It doesn't stop the cash flow, it doesn't open other avenues of protest against these governments, it doesn't create economic opportunities; it's as if they spent three years with a pro-democracy cause and are now shifting to a hard nosed realist one achieving the ends of neither.
 
A_Wanderer said:
the Dems have basically declared that the change in strategy under Petreus is a failure regardless of the results.

Well Petraeus has decided that his strategy will be successful in September regardless:

Officials told ABC's Martha Raddatz that the senior commanders in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus -- want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.

What a fucking sham.
 
A_Wanderer said:
especially since the Dems have basically declared that the change in strategy under Petreus is a failure regardless of the results.

Weren't most Dems declaring this strategy a failure, while at the very same time confirming the architect Petreus a few months ago?

Please, you had a legitimate argument questioning the surge, why vote for a plan you have no confidence in?
 
I get the Kucinich argument "Get the fuck out of Dodge!" , fair enough.

What is baffling is this stance that was so steadfastly against the surge and now would conveniently like to wait it out.

In other words, these people are political whores.
Democrats aren't the good guys, never were.

The good guys are anyone willing to stand up and do what's right with absoloutely no adherance to any idealogy or concern for re-elections.

Few and far fucking between.

I understand that it's a simplification to pit good vs bad, basically if you 'believe' in any sense in the partisan two party charade, I personally think you've been duped beyond common sense.
 
[q]Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal

By DAVID S. CLOUD and DAMIEN CAVE
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops. The last remaining American units in the troop increase are just now arriving.

Violence has diminished in many areas, but it is especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad, several senior officers said. Over all, improvements have not yet been as widespread or lasting across Baghdad, they acknowledged.

The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

“Until you have the ability to have a presence on the street by people who are seen as honest and who are not letting things come back in,” said General Brooks, referring to the Iraqi police units, “you can’t shift into another area and expect that place to stay the way it was.”

When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.

“We were way too optimistic,” said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan.

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the senior American ground commander in Iraq, said in a brief interview that he never believed that a midsummer timetable for establishing security in Baghdad was realistic. “This was always going to be conditions-driven,” he said, noting that he always had expected it would take until fall to establish security across much of the city.

But in order to meet that timetable, he added, the Iraqi Security Forces would have to make strides in coming months at maintaining security. “Ultimately the I.S.F., and specifically the police, are the key to holding an area,” he said. “We have to within the next four months move them more toward holding the areas we have cleared.”

The last of the five combat brigades ordered to Iraq as reinforcements as part of the security plan will increase the number of American troops in the city to around 30,000, up from 21,000 before the operation, an American officer said.

In addition, around 30,000 Iraqi Army and national police forces and another 21,000 policemen have been deployed in Baghdad. Many of the Iraqi units have turned up at less than full strength and other units have been redeployed from the capital, General Brooks said, leaving fewer than expected.[/q]
 
Diemen said:
You're not giving the plan a chance to succeed. :tsk:



you're right.

we can't possibly make a remotely accurate assessment of The Surge -- kinda sexy sounding, no? -- until 2027.
 
I'm referring to the footage Powell showed the UN. I'm not sure if the stuff can even be found on the internet, and I dont want to look for it. Unlike surely every single person here, I proudly listen to Rush Limbaugh and trust what he says, and he has reported such footage existing.

It hasnt happened since 9/11. Our troops being over there puts pressure on the enemy. I heard someone say that because we are over there Al-Qaeda is constantly moving around and on the defense, making it hard for them to plot attacks. Does nobody else see that leaving Iraq would create a space that will absolutely be filled by Iran or Al-Qaeda? Pulling out certainly would not decrease the chance of us being hit again. Al-Qaeda will know that have chosen to lose and that we are weak.

Unless you think for yourself and draw your own conclusions, your complete lack of curiosity makes you the same drone as the neo-hippy liberal anti-Bush college hordes you say you detest. Even your political heroes can be wrong every once in a while.
 
mobvok said:




Unless you think for yourself and draw your own conclusions, your complete lack of curiosity makes you the same drone as the neo-hippy liberal anti-Bush college hordes you say you detest. Even your political heroes can be wrong every once in a while.

I do think for myself. It sounds like you're saying that I can't listen to talk radio without being a pawn who doesnt think for myself. If that is true, then are you not allowed to watch the news or read the paper or listen to radio without being a drone? I'm pretty sure Rush knows more about what is going on than I, and I was simply relaying what I heard.

And yes, my political "heroes" as you call them can be and are wrong sometimes. Take President Bush- I havent agreed with some of the things he has done as of late.
 
2861U2 said:


I do think for myself. It sounds like you're saying that I can't listen to talk radio without being a pawn who doesnt think for myself.

That's not what anyone is saying. It's just you have a hard time backing yourself up with any real evidence, articles, logic, etc. You've been asked several times by several posters to back yourself up and you've ignored them all. All we've got was, "Rush told me so". That really doesn't fly in the real world, if Rush told you, then find out where Rush got his sources from that would be a good start.

I noticed you are fairly young and in college, I have no clue what your major is, but if you ever take any kind of English class where you have to do persuasive writing, any kind of debate class, science class you'll learn the importance of being able to back up your statement. Good luck!
 
I do think for myself. It sounds like you're saying that I can't listen to talk radio without being a pawn who doesnt think for myself. If that is true, then are you not allowed to watch the news or read the paper or listen to radio without being a drone? I'm pretty sure Rush knows more about what is going on than I, and I was simply relaying what I heard.

Of course you can listen to talk radio, but there's a key difference between Rush and your average Iraq correspondent- Rush has an explicit stated interest in getting Republicans elected to Congress. In other words, he has an interest in relaying stories that would help support Republicans, even if they're sketchy or just rumors. Taking anything said by partisan sources at face value means you won't be told facts that disagree.

But what's worse with citing Rush is that you can't point to a transcript where others can read what Rush said and the sources he used, instead, you want us to take (your interpretation of) Rush's word on faith. If I said "I read in the Washington Post that Bush will be indicted for lying!", would you blindly accept that? I doubt you would- you'd want to know more. Maybe the reports are from a Congressman, or maybe they're from a far-left operative trying to undermine the Bush Administration. One is obviously more reliable then the other.

In short, until you seriously back up your claims, no one will believe you.....BonoVox said this a lot more concisely then I did. :wave:
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/14/snow-bush-war/

Snow: President Bush Is ‘On The Frontlines’ Of The Iraq War ‘Every Day’

In today’s White House press briefing, reporter Helen Thomas asked Tony Snow if there are “any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war.” Stunningly, Snow claimed that President Bush is actually on the “frontlines” of the war in Iraq:

Q: Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?

SNOW: Yeah, the President. The President is in the war every day.

Q: Come on, that isn’t my question –

SNOW: Well, no, if you ask any president who is a commander in chief –

Q: On the frontlines, wherever…

SNOW: The President.
 
Back
Top Bottom