Could a Troop Surge Work or Not?

[08pooled]

A I recall the job of the surge was to quiet things down to let a governemnt come together in Iraq........................Quiet things down, yes. And we succeded in that goal. But there's no way Iraq would setup a stabalized democracy in such a short time period. At least we've given them a fighting chance to do that, though, thanks to the surge.

I'm still waiting for that to happen . Maybe it will when hell freezes over or after one side wins in the civil war .

No matter who is elected in '08 we will leave , the peopel want out and the army can't hold up . Then the Republicans and right wing radio guys can lie saying we won but the liberals caused us to run ....................

Coming up next ..........................Iran !!!

Well, that depends on who gets into office.

[Lena]

I think there idea of democracy is what group runs the show .................they've had plenty of elections but always get back to shotinga nd bombing each other . And the elected governemt doesn't control the capitol let alone a single stae /province ...................

[08pooled]

I think there idea of democracy is what group runs the show .................they've had plenty of elections but always get back to shotinga nd bombing each other . And the elected governemt doesn't control the capitol let alone a single stae /province ...................

That's true. And we are trying to stop that. But we don't have forever-I'll admit that. I just think its to early to be throwing the white flag.

[Lena]

It's not a white flag but coming to our senses .................

We don't have enough soldiers to stop them fighting each other and from experience I know you can't save anyone from themself so figure it has to be even more so for a whole country ..........

So best to smell the coffee and leave and deal with whatever happens later .....................

It's messy and dangerous but better then a failed war thats only getting Americans killed for nothing

[08pooled]

Like I said Lena, we should give it a few more years. If no progress is made in a couple of years, then yeah, we should pullout. But I think this surge could be the start of things getting better. I don't think that thats unrealistic thinking. Also, what about oil? Do we withdraw and let Iran and the terrorists get all that oil?

[Lena]

We don't have the time to do that since the army is hurting and theres no popular support among the people ........

The oil ? Whoever is in charge wil have to sell it or starve so thats no problem

Can't see the Iraqis turning there country over to Iran , they'd want to run there own show .

[08pooled]

We don't have the time to do that since the army is hurting and theres no popular support among the people ........

The oil ? Whoever is in charge wil have to sell it or starve so thats no problem But what if Iran gets ahold of it? I don't think they would be so quick to sell it. Not Ahmedenijad. We might have to go in there and take it from them-and I know leftists like you don't want to do that. Better fighting in iraq then Iran..

Can't see the Iraqis turning there country over to Iran , they'd want to run there own show. It wouldn't matter. Iran would take it from them. Iran has balls-something we don't have.

[Gung-ho!]

I think there idea of democracy is what group runs the show .................they've had plenty of elections but always get back to shotinga nd bombing each other . And the elected governemt doesn't control the capitol let alone a single stae /province ...................

And whose fault is that? Iraquis are now faring worse than ever they did under Saddam Hussein. Basic utility supplies, local services and infrastructure are all in worse condition than they were before the invasion and the quality of life of the average Iraqui is now worse than it was under Saddam. In compensation, they have been given the freedom to take up arms and kill one another. It's a freedom they never enjoyed under their former dictator.

We know who is to blame and this episode will go into the history books as a cynical, corrupt and inept act by a cynical, corrupt and inept president. Never trust a zealot.

It's been a monumental F***-up from start to finish and you can't blame the Brits for wanting out. They had the respect of the local populace in the immediate aftermath of the war, respect that dates back to when Iraq (Mesopotamia) came under British mandate (granted by the League of Nations), after WW1. The British took the region from the Ottoman Turks and the reason was the same then as it is now - oil. At least they needed it to fight the war in Europe, not to fuel SUVs.

[Guest]

I think there idea of democracy is what group runs the show .................they've had plenty of elections but always get back to shotinga nd bombing each other . And the elected governemt doesn't control the capitol let alone a single stae /province ...................

And whose fault is that? Iraquis are now faring worse than ever they did under Saddam Hussein. Basic utility supplies, local services and infrastructure are all in worse condition than they were before the invasion and the quality of life of the average Iraqui is now worse than it was under Saddam. In compensation, they have been given the freedom to take up arms and kill one another. It's a freedom they never enjoyed under their former dictator.

We know who is to blame and this episode will go into the history books as a cynical, corrupt and inept act by a cynical, corrupt and inept president. Never trust a zealot.

It's been a monumental F***-up from start to finish and you can't blame the Brits for wanting out. They had the respect of the local populace in the immediate aftermath of the war, respect that dates back to when Iraq (Mesopotamia) came under British mandate (granted by the League of Nations), after WW1. The British took the region from the Ottoman Turks and the reason was the same then as it is now - oil. At least they needed it to fight the war in Europe, not to fuel SUVs.

May I send you my faeces for your analysis?

[Lena]

We don't have the time to do that since the army is hurting and theres no popular support among the people ........

The oil ? Whoever is in charge wil have to sell it or starve so thats no problem But what if Iran gets ahold of it? I don't think they would be so quick to sell it. Not Ahmedenijad. We might have to go in there and take it from them-and I know leftists like you don't want to do that. Better fighting in iraq then Iran..

Can't see the Iraqis turning there country over to Iran , they'd want to run there own show. It wouldn't matter. Iran would take it from them. Iran has balls-something we don't have.

You going to go fight too ?

[Guest]

Hey, Gung-ho! are you really General Sanchez? This is from BBC News website:

Last Updated: Saturday, 13 October 2007, 03:33 GMT 04:33 UK

US general damns Iraq 'nightmare'

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez said the US currently was only delaying defeat
A former US military chief in Iraq has condemned the current strategy in the conflict, which he warned was "a nightmare with no end in sight".
Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".

He said they would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.

The best the US could manage under the current approach in Iraq was to "stave off defeat", Gen Sanchez warned.

"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said, addressing journalists at Arlington, near Washington.

'Desperate'

A catalogue of political misjudgements had paved the way for the insurgency after the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to Gen Sanchez.

He blamed the US disbanding of the Iraqi military as well as the failure to set up swiftly civilian government and cement ties with tribal leaders.


Gen Sanchez commanded coalition forces in Iraq for a year

The White House this year injected an extra 30,000 US troops into Iraq in the hope of stemming sectarian violence and sowing some political stability.

But Gen Sanchez branded this so-called "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of shortcomings.

"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned.

The White House responded by pointing to the report by current commander Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who said the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements.

White House spokesman Trey Bohn said: "We appreciate his (Gen Sanchez's) service to the country... As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq."

Gen Sanchez was commander of coalition forces in Iraq for a year from mid-2003.

He retired last year in the aftermath of the scandal over detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.

[Nefarious]

lol - you bet me to it guest!

[08pooled]

We don't have the time to do that since the army is hurting and theres no popular support among the people ........

The oil ? Whoever is in charge wil have to sell it or starve so thats no problem But what if Iran gets ahold of it? I don't think they would be so quick to sell it. Not Ahmedenijad. We might have to go in there and take it from them-and I know leftists like you don't want to do that. Better fighting in iraq then Iran..

Can't see the Iraqis turning there country over to Iran , they'd want to run there own show. It wouldn't matter. Iran would take it from them. Iran has balls-something we don't have.

You going to go fight too ?

As in sign up for the army?

No. Unless I'm drafted. In which case I'll gladly go.

[Guest]

Gen. Sanchez is not in position to evaluate the surge. His command ended in 2004. Sanchez has no personal knowledge of developments on the ground in Iraq over the last two years. He certainly does not know more than current commander Gen David Petraeus, who has said "the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements."

[Nefarious]

Gen. Sanchez is not in position to evaluate the surge. His command ended in 2004. Sanchez has no personal knowledge of developments on the ground in Iraq over the last two years. He certainly does not know more than current commander Gen David Petraeus, who has said "the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements."

And a big factor here too - is that Sanchez is no longer obligated to sing the party line because he is no longer employed by US Govt., quite unlike Petraeus. I wonder what, if anything, Petraeus will have to say once he is in Sanchez's position? Which it is probably kind of likely that Petraeus will find himself out of a job when it is convenient to have a fall guy.