Could a Troop Surge Work or Not?

[Guest]

who's got the killer hashish?

[Lena]

I think if you do some hash you will believe the surge is actually working

[azraelle]

a troop surge of maybe 500,000 men from every army on the planet, maybe...
But the US of A doesn't have enough able-bodied males to accomplish it, much less those willing to "serve".

[Nefarious]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/world/middleeast/29cnd-iraq.html?hp

'The deaths brought to 99 the number of American troops to die in Iraq this month, according to The Associated Press. The toll for the past three months — 329 — made it the deadliest quarter for American troops in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, the A.P. reported.'


I predicted an upswing in the death of American soldiers as a result of the new surge strategy - I wish I had been wrong. How many more American soldiers will die because of the willful course Bush intends to continue?

Is it America's role to continue to let their young men be maimed and killed in a country where both factions do not want them there? It makes me question if Bush's goal is really to win (surely he can't believe this is possible) or is his goal simply to hold until certain 'deals' are finalised? In other words - are these soldiers dying for the greater good that he extols to the people, or are they dying to buy time for him and his cronies to make more money? If the latter, then he - and relevant cohorts - needs to be impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity.

[Guest]

milktoast

[Lena]

Don't suspect you've ever been a soldier or in a war ................

iraq is lost , time to get out and let them have the war they want .

[Nefarious]

milktoast

Nahhhhh - fruitloop actually.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/world/middleeast/29cnd-iraq.html?hp

'The deaths brought to 99 the number of American troops to die in Iraq this month, according to The Associated Press. The toll for the past three months — 329 — made it the deadliest quarter for American troops in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, the A.P. reported.'

I predicted an upswing in the death of American soldiers as a result of the new surge strategy - I wish I had been wrong. How many more American soldiers will die because of the willful course Bush intends to continue?

Is it America's role to continue to let their young men be maimed and killed in a country where both factions do not want them there? It makes me question if Bush's goal is really to win (surely he can't believe this is possible) or is his goal simply to hold until certain 'deals' are finalised? In other words - are these soldiers dying for the greater good that he extols to the people, or are they dying to buy time for him and his cronies to make more money? If the latter, then he - and relevant cohorts - needs to be impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity.

are you even american? if you're not, then don't be talking about who needs to be impeached.

[Lena]

bush & chaney should be impeached and I am a AMERICAN!

[Noliving]

I predicted an upswing in the death of American soldiers as a result of the new surge strategy - I wish I had been wrong. How many more American soldiers will die because of the willful course Bush intends to continue?

This is one of those times of No S*** sherlock! Everyone predicted that with the surge there would be increased casualties, even the president predicated the same thing, more troops means more contact with the enemy. No offense but don't act like you are one of the few people that predictated this would happend. Everyone knew it was going to happen.

Is it America's role to continue to let their young men be maimed and killed in a country where both factions do not want them there? It makes me question if Bush's goal is really to win (surely he can't believe this is possible) or is his goal simply to hold until certain 'deals' are finalised? In other words - are these soldiers dying for the greater good that he extols to the people, or are they dying to buy time for him and his cronies to make more money? If the latter, then he - and relevant cohorts - needs to be impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity.

If you wish to know than it would be best to read this anti-war journalist _ magazine/blog.

This is probably my favorite article by this guy!

http://www.michaelyon-_.com/wp/of-words.htm

What do you consider was the turning point in the aftermath of the iraq war that said we are defeated in iraq?

[Noliving]

Don't suspect you've ever been a soldier or in a war ................

iraq is lost , time to get out and let them have the war they want .

Like you have been a soldier or been in the middle of the war. Claiming that you talk to soldiers as proof that you are right and they are wrong is not good enough. What would you say to those people that claim they are talking to soldiers that say that the war isn't lost.

[Nefarious]

I predicted an upswing in the death of American soldiers as a result of the new surge strategy - I wish I had been wrong. How many more American soldiers will die because of the willful course Bush intends to continue?

This is one of those times of No S*** sherlock! Everyone predicted that with the surge there would be increased casualties, even the president predicated the same thing, more troops means more contact with the enemy. No offense but don't act like you are one of the few people that predictated this would happend. Everyone knew it was going to happen.

Ok - not sh*t sherlock - with an increase in soldiers there is more cannon fodder so an increase in deaths - however my predictions or 'concerns' were primarily around the mechanisms associated with the surge goals - ergo:

(from the first post in this topic) The other thing is that up until recently the majority of the focus has been on curbing the insurgency of sunnis that were loyal to Saddam's regime. However, Shiite 'retribution' squads have been 'ethnic cleansing' in Bagdhad and basically they are out of control - there can't be peace with that sort of behaviour going on. However, the tricky thing is that Shiite are the majority in Iraq and many of the Government are Shiite. If the US troops were to work with the Iraq military, who probably has a lot of Shiite loyalists in it, to take out the Shiite death squads under Sadr and the likes, then do they run the risk of being viewed with growing animosity by both the Sunni and Shiite to such an extent that Sunni and Shiite unite under the national identity as Iraqi's to turn against American troops?

Now Shiites and Sunnis becoming focused on a national identity instead of sectarian identity would be good for the future stability of Iraq and would make it more likely they would be intolerant of any actions to increase sectarian violence from neighbouring countries in the middle east, but that would come at the cost of the American troops being the 'other' that they combine against, which could mean a spike in the number of US military deaths as both Sunni and Shiite turn against the Americans.

In addition to that I believe I also predicted American deaths might rise if they are pepper-potted amongst Iraqi troops (the embedded approach) because there had already been instances of Iraqi troops and Police tipping off insurgents but that this would be even worse if they were hitting out against the Shiite Militias (Mahdi Army) as the majority of forces were likely to be Shiite.

Now the question is - even given more troops in the area - what role does the accuracy of hits against American troops have on the recently high death toll? AND, what are the factors that are making those hits more accurate and HOW are they tied to surge related tactics that have served to increasingly turn Shiites against the occupation as well? On the surface, a rise in deaths can be dismissed as a 'not S*** sherlock' comment, but what is most pertinent is the mechanisms, emanating from policy, that is contributing to that. Did Bush ever say that he expected a rise in American causalities because his policies would increasingly alienate both Iraqi sects and because of a policy of embedding Americans within Iraqi forces who were increasingly likely - by virtue of increased alienation - to turncoat on them? Did he spell it out like that? And if he had, would you have suggested to him that perhaps the policies needed some rethinking?

As to the link you provided and the question you asked, that deserves some weighted consideration - I will take some time to work through this and get back to you - although I will say that I find it hard to reconcile the relevance of talk of about 'winning or losing' - that talk seems to be about control and dominance and how well does that gel with a country whose initial invasion was for the purpose of removing a dictator? They won over Saddam - he was hung to death at a time of political relevance to the US - a lamb to the slaughter. What has come after is just - well - how can you talk about winning or losing?

[twerp]

the vast majority of american soldiers in iraq are not defeatist.......anti-war liberals have successfully orchestrated a strategy to erode popular support for our troops while they are in harm's way and cripple the war effort....hell, the democrats are even threatening to de-fund the troops in the middle of a war....without doubt, the erosion of popular support at home eventually demoralizes the troops in combat and makes defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy....the same mentality and tactics caused america to lose in vietnam....even the viet cong leaders admitted that the war was lost in america, not in vietnam.....these vocal american defeatists are no different than traitors.....

[Lena]

Can't agree.....................

The war was a bad idea, thought up by the vainglorious little boy whose president and some jonathan pollard traitors at the Defense department who were thinking of protecting israel not America..........................

The wars lost since .......................they can't crush the mostly sunni and al-qaeda rebellion ...........................also since they can't get the iraqis to come up with a government ( the national government doesn't control a single province , and not even the capitol Baghdad ) and there like a dog heat about having a civil war

It's obvious you have never spoken to anyone whose been there, being a bartender in army town I have a long list going from colonels to e3's . Fromwhat I hear hardly anyone understands why were there and only care about there unit & making it home !

viet nam ? They say what you say on right wing talk radio all the time and if there'sone thing I do know about politics is that they lie on right wing talk radio .........................I'm no gullable fool who is going to fall for that mumbo jumbo

[Lena]

Don't suspect you've ever been a soldier or in a war ................

iraq is lost , time to get out and let them have the war they want .

Like you have been a soldier or been in the middle of the war. Claiming that you talk to soldiers as proof that you are right and they are wrong is not good enough. What would you say to those people that claim they are talking to soldiers that say that the war isn't lost.

No never have been a soldier , a army brat yes in a house run like the army but no soldier.Thank heavens .

The war is lost and has been lost since the day "ops" as the guys call it were finished against Saddam Hussein .See it on the news and hear it at the bar about every nite from soldiers and contractors who've been there .Thats a pretty good combination for getting info , better then about any one else I have seen post here.


The news is bad but thats reality , have to stick with whats real and NOT what we want to think...................even if we pretend we are militairy experts and listen to some other non-vet talking tough .


The wars lost , don't pick up any enthusiasm for staying except from the commanders there whose careers are riding on 'winning'whatever that is and wonder if they even have a idea what winning is ...................

The real fight is in Afganistan , also hope little georgey , chany ,and the israel lobby don't get us into another disaster in Iran