NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking.

*waits for those who are going to run away screaming to do so*

The Iraq war has been a debacle. It's pretty much a given that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our security. He really was only a threat to the Iraqis' security. Iraq clearly had nothing to do with the War on Terror and still doesn't.

But we're there now. The current plan sucks. The Iraqi governent sucks and life in Iraq more or less sucks. Pretty much the only consensus reached by the republicans getting slaughtered in this election is that things can't continue as they are.

So the $64,000 question is what's the new plan? I've been thinking along the same lines that John McCain has been that the problem was underdeployment of the troops. Not enough troops were present to secure Iraq when the Hussein regime fell, and the troops were never present in enough force to provide the secure atmosphere necessary to let an Iraqi government form without constant resentment and anger between sunnis, shiites and kurds. Will more troops help now? Can a massive increase in troop deployments in Iraq deal with the insurgency, calm regional violence and hel stabilize the Iaqi government?

More to the point, and the real point of this thread; Would you support a plan that sent MORE troops to Iraq if there was a good chance that plan would get ALL our troops home earlier and stabilize Iraq?

As for me, I would. But I'm also not convinced that more troops would help. I'm also not convinced that more troops are in Iraq's best interest. I'm reminded by the saying, "Freedom cannot be given. It must be taken". I think it's possible that all our troops are is an irritant preventing the healing of Iraq. If that's true, then more troops will never help Iraq rebuild.

Obviously, there will be strong opinion about this. But I'm not so much interested in your opinion on what we should do in Iraq, but if you would support more troops deployed in Iraq if there was reason to believe it would actually help. *nod*

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)

I've been thinking.

*waits for those who are going to run away screaming to do so*
I'd run, but I'm rigin with fear

The Iraq war has been a debacle. It's pretty much a given that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our security. He really was only a threat to the Iraqis' security. Iraq clearly had nothing to do with the War on Terror and still doesn't.

But we're there now. The current plan sucks. The Iraqi governent sucks and life in Iraq more or less sucks. Pretty much the only consensus reached by the republicans getting slaughtered in this election is that things can't continue as they are.

So the $64,000 question is what's the new plan? I've been thinking along the same lines that John McCain has been that the problem was underdeployment of the troops. Not enough troops were present to secure Iraq when the Hussein regime fell, and the troops were never present in enough force to provide the secure atmosphere necessary to let an Iraqi government form without constant resentment and anger between sunnis, shiites and kurds. Will more troops help now? Can a massive increase in troop deployments in Iraq deal with the insurgency, calm regional violence and hel stabilize the Iaqi government?

More to the point, and the real point of this thread; Would you support a plan that sent MORE troops to Iraq if there was a good chance that plan would get ALL our troops home earlier and stabilize Iraq?

As for me, I would. But I'm also not convinced that more troops would help. I'm also not convinced that more troops are in Iraq's best interest. I'm reminded by the saying, "Freedom cannot be given. It must be taken". I think it's possible that all our troops are is an irritant preventing the healing of Iraq. If that's true, then more troops will never help Iraq rebuild.

Obviously, there will be strong opinion about this. But I'm not so much interested in your opinion on what we should do in Iraq, but if you would support more troops deployed in Iraq if there was reason to believe it would actually help. *nod*
Actually deploying more troops makes sense. All the troops really need to do is stabalize Iraq, then they can leave. If there was more of them this could very well be easier.

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)

:fluffle:

The poll is up. :)

I've been thinking.
A dangerous pastime.

Obviously, there will be strong opinion about this. But I'm not so much interested in your opinion on what we should do in Iraq, but if you would support more troops deployed in Iraq if there was reason to believe it would actually help. *nod*
If it would help, yes. I, too, am not sure that it would (and I don't think it actually would unless we're talking numbers that puts boots on every corner in Iraq). The people there, I think, want freedom, but they also want the other groups dead first.

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)
Do I want to know... no, never mind. Whatever the answer is I am sure I actually DON'T want to know.

A dangerous pastime.

Indeed. :)

Do I want to know... no, never mind. Whatever the answer is I am sure I actually DON'T want to know.

You are wise beyond years. :)

Saddam was not a threat to Iraq's security.

Stabilising needed to happen in the weeks directly after victoly!

Penny wise pound foolish.

Anyways you don't have enough New Zealander's over there.

Anyways you don't have enough New Zealander's over there.

Solution: Airlift either the north or south island to the middle of Iraq.

Saddam was not a threat to Iraq's security.

Not Iraq's security, Iraqis' security. It's pretty hard to feel safe when secret police are smashing down your doors and dragging you away to a cell somewhere to be tortured and held indefinitely until eventually a kangaroo court pronounces you guilty on shabby proof and coerced confessions. ...

...I forget, am I talking about Iraq, or the U.S. ? :confused:

Not Iraq's security, Iraqis' security. It's pretty hard to feel safe when secret police are smashing down your doors and dragging you away to a cell somewhere to be tortured and held indefinitely until eventually a kangaroo court pronounces you guilty on shabby proof and coerced confessions. ...

...I forget, am I talking about Iraq, or the U.S. ? :confused:
I wont edit my error to hide my shame but i will laugh at your comparison of Iraq and America.

Ha!

Solution: Airlift either the north or south island to the middle of Iraq.
Better make it the Western Island.
Stupid Aussies

Better make it the Western Island.
Stupid Aussies

Isn't Australia much bigger than Iraq though.........actually that would work quite well.



A new weapon of mass destruction. Australia.

More to the point, and the real point of this thread; Would you support a plan that sent MORE troops to Iraq if there was a good chance that plan would get ALL our troops home earlier and stabilize Iraq?

Absolutely...although I'd like to know the Iraqi governments thoughts on such a plan before going through with it. If they don't think it will work, it's really not worth the effort, even if they supported the plan regardless.

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)

Isn't it a little early for that? :p

First: I don't think we should have had to go back to Iraq in the first place. We should have done the job right the first time. Second: The current war is about oil, not people, therfore we should conquer Iraq, not stabilize Iraq. If more troops won't help, then we do have the option of nuclear weapons. One dropped on Bagdad would cow the rest of the country.

First: I don't think we should have had to go back to Iraq in the first place.
Go back? You haven't left yet.
We should have done the job right the first time.
Yes. Yes indeed.
Second: The current war is about oil, not people, therfore we should conquer Iraq, not stabilize Iraq.
You should what now?
If more troops won't help, then we do have the option of nuclear weapons. One dropped on Bagdad would cow the rest of the country.

Are you really suggesting that America should nuke Baghdad in order to take over Iraq and secure it's oil?

One dropped on Bagdad would cow the rest of the country.

Or make the entire Arab world batshit insane...

Go back? You haven't left yet.

Yes. Yes indeed.

You should what now?


Are you really suggesting that America should nuke Baghdad in order to take over Iraq and secure it's oil?

We should not be there in the first place, but since we are there, and it is about the oil, then why shy away from the conclusion that we should conquer Iraq and take the oil? And why shy away from using nuclear weapons in a war. Nukes aren't some kind of demon, they are just very powerful explosives.

Or make the entire Arab world batshit insane...

And the US has quite a few nuclear weapons at its disposal.

We should not be there in the first place, but since we are there, and it is about the oil, then why shy away from the conclusion that we should conquer Iraq and take the oil? And why shy away from using nuclear weapons in a war. Nukes aren't some kind of demon, they are just very powerful explosives.
Because taking over a soverign nation for it's oil, and using the most powerful weapon available to do so would piss most of the world off. MAD would be a distinct possibility.



And the US has quite a few nuclear weapons at its disposal.

So do various other countries.


Oh, and isn't Baghdad on an enormous oilfield? Wouldn't want to risk nuking all the prescious oil now, would we?

Nuke the Middle East....

Uhuh...

Soooooo many problems with that, I'm not even sure where to begin...

not if you are ask for more troops from my nation

Because taking over a soverign nation for it's oil, and using the most powerful weapon available to do so would piss most of the world off. MAD would be a distinct possibility.

Most of the world is already pissed off at us


So do various other countries.

Most of whom are our allies, or have too few to be a threat to us.

Oh, and isn't Baghdad on an enormous oilfield? Wouldn't want to risk nuking all the prescious oil now, would we?

Why not? Will radioactive gasoline be any worse for the environment than the regular stuff?

Now we have gotten to the real point of my posts: We are sending our troops to Iraq, and some are dying, for no other real purpose than to secure its oil. Oh, the goverment might say it has some higher purpose, but it all boils down to keeping our oil based economy going. Why send in more troops just so people can afford to keep their SUVs fueled? Nukes would be more efficient, and just as wrong.


Edit: Just to clarify things: I do not support nuking anyone. I am playing the devils advocate here and pointing out a worst case scenario. I hope no one with any real power in the government has thought of this, although I am sure they have.

Most of the world is already pissed off at us
Lol, true.



Most of whom are our allies, or have too few to be a threat to us.
Them being you allies might change if they figure that their natural resources might be next on the shopping list.


Why not? Will radioactive gasoline be any worse for the environment than the regular stuff?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of oil burns=>nukes produce a considerable amount of energy=>nuke might ignite the enormous oil field, wasting considerbale amounts of oil.

Now we have gotten to the real point of my posts: We are sending our troops to Iraq, and some are dying, for no other real purpose than to secure its oil. Oh, the goverment might say it has some higher purpose, but it all boils down to keeping our oil based economy going. Why send in more troops just so people can afford to keep their SUVs fueled? Nukes would be more efficient, and just as wrong.
Edit: Just to clarify things: I do not support nuking anyone. I am playing the devils advocate here and pointing out a worst case scenario. I hope no one with any real power in the government has thought of this, although I am sure they have.

Oooh, very well done. I feel a bit like a pawn now, but nice one none the less.

Lol, true.




Them being you allies might change if they figure that their natural resources might be next on the shopping list.



Actually I was thinking more along the lines of oil burns=>nukes produce a considerable amount of energy=>nuke might ignite the enormous oil field, wasting considerbale amounts of oil.



Oooh, very well done. I feel a bit like a pawn now, but nice one none the less.


Well heres to hoping anyone with any real influnce thinks more like you were than I was. I have a natural tendency and talent for thinking about the worst case scenarios and taking ideas as far as they will go. Add this to the fact that I am a cynical bastard and sometimes the results aren't that pretty. Thank you for debating the counterpoint.

Oh and I hadn't thought about the nukes igniting the oilfields. My bad.

Well heres to hoping anyone with any real influnce thinks more like you were than I was. I have a natural tendency and talent for thinking about the worst case scenarios and taking ideas as far as they will go. Add this to the fact that I am a cynical bastard and sometimes the results aren't that pretty. Thank you for debating the counterpoint.

Oh and I hadn't thought about the nukes igniting the oilfields. My bad.

Here's hoping indeed.

I had this amusing picture in my head of a relativley small mushroom could being followed by an enormous fireball. The the magic see everything sattelite zooms out and you can see the huge fireball just blew a medium country sized hole out of Iraq.

Harlesburg is ranked 2nd in the region and 1,466th in the world for Highest Police Ratios.:cool:

Obviously, there will be strong opinion about this. But I'm not so much interested in your opinion on what we should do in Iraq, but if you would support more troops deployed in Iraq if there was reason to believe it would actually help. *nod*

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)

Yes, but show me the reason. I truly think more force is what's needed to rout out the large pockets of lawlessness that we find. Get rid of the religious militias and the Iraqis might have some success in determining their own fate.

I personally feel we have outstayed our welcome by the Iraqi people, so my vote would go to a phased withdrawl. I'm unsure whether inserting more troops would help as it would give a signal to the other arab countries of increasing control and influence by western countries, which may well be disliked. Perhaps a UN peacekeeping force would be more welcomed, but would the insurgants see it as any different to the current force, even though the UN (rightly, imo) opposed the invasion.

A plan that involved more troops from the start would have worked. Indeed, if we had planned for an occupation and a withdrawal, we wouldn't be there this long or have had the losses we did. But at this point, adding more troops won't help. Pulling troops out right now won't be any better. A phased withdrawal is the only workable solution.

The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops. There is no way that that would work.

However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process. Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.

what mission?

what mission?

Securing the oil.

The US-led coalition should pull out and let UN soldiers take their place. If the US and their allies continue their presence in Iraq, this will only stir more trouble, because they are almost universally seen as "enemy" occupation forces by the Iraqi. Also they have gained a reputation for brutality and ruthlessness - be such accusations false or true, they are seen as "baddies" from a lot of people there. I'm not sure that US and coalition support is very good for the Iraqi democratic government: it makes them look like a bunch of Quislings.
The better idea would be that the UN soldiers should kick in, possibily from Arab or islamic countries (like Morocco, Indonesia, Pakistan, just to name some islamic countries that have good relationship with the US, too), so these soldiers wouldn't be seen as "invading" as the US-led coalition.

About nukes:


Most of whom are our allies, or have too few to be a threat to us.


1.Russia.

2.You don't have to own a lot of nukes to be a threat to the US. Take China. In a nuclear war they're going to be blasted (after blasting Japan and Taiwan, and maybe even placing some nuke over the US). But they might just choose to close their markets to US corporations. No more cheap computer parts, for one. And they could still sell them to EU and Russia.
I don't think that the US economy would gain anything in such a scenario - this makes VERY unlikely any US action that could stir more international anger at the US.
Economy rules politics. Politics rules armies. Hence economy rules armies.

The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops. There is no way that that would work.

However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process. Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.

These raids of which you speak; would they be raids on all groups who support or instigate insurgent or sectarian violence? Would Shias be raided too?

Do you think this would work in conjuction with a UN peacekeeping/nation building force like the Afghanistan mission? Or do you think these added troops would be received the same way that additional US troops would be received?

I also have questions of a more cynical nature as to whether or not the patrols protecting the oil infrastructure would also be reduced, but that is another debate.

I'm very much in favor of the McGovern/Polk plan (October Harper's). It would get our troops out of there in six months and save us untold billions of dollars. It would also place responsibility for managing their own affairs squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqis, where it belongs.

Pulling out is not an option. Iraq would fragment and the entire region would destabilize. The only way to "win" at this point is to pour in hundreds of thousands more troops. A half million or more would have a fair chance of salvaging the situation, but it's no sure bet. Iraq now is screwed up in a way that may take decades and tens of thousands of American lives to fix.

The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops. There is no way that that would work.

However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process. Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.

You're making sense! I just won't have it! :mad:

These raids of which you speak; would they be raids on all groups who support or instigate insurgent or sectarian violence? Would Shias be raided too?
They would be raids against any criminal element that we had intel on. It would be essential to show no bias towards either group for the strategy to work.
Do you think this would work in conjuction with a UN peacekeeping/nation building force like the Afghanistan mission? Or do you think these added troops would be received the same way that additional US troops would be received?
I really don't think that the added toops would be necessary buy it would be nice to have nato forces replace some U.S. forces.
I also have questions of a more cynical nature as to whether or not the patrols protecting the oil infrastructure would also be reduced, but that is another debate.
You'd have to ask bush that.;)

No. Increasing troop strenght will only increase combat on an overburdend over stressed military. About 30% of American Soldiers are being force to go on their 3rd tour now. A tour that will most likley be 18 months instead of 12. We can't continue to fight like this, our military isn't designed for this. And its been so fucked up changing it right now won't work. We don't have the man power, or the resources to launch that kind of a campaing. The war is over. We lost. Get over it. You cannot turn around a quagmire. History has proven this time and again. The Crusades, The American War of Idependance, Napoleon's Spainish Ulcer, World War one, The Yougoslavian Guerrila war against the Nazis, The eastern front in ww2, The American Escapade in Vietnam, The Soviet incursion into Afgahnistan, and now, America in Iraq.

No. Increasing troop strenght will only increase combat on an overburdend over stressed military. About 30% of American Soldiers are being force to go on their 3rd tour now. A tour that will most likley be 18 months instead of 12. We can't continue to fight like this, our military isn't designed for this. And its been so fucked up changing it right now won't work. We don't have the man power, or the resources to launch that kind of a campaing. The war is over. We lost. Get over it. You cannot turn around a quagmire. History has proven this time and again. The Crusades, The American War of Idependance, Napoleon's Spainish Ulcer, World War one, The Yougoslavian Guerrila war against the Nazis, The eastern front in ww2, The American Escapade in Vietnam, The Soviet incursion into Afgahnistan, and now, America in Iraq.

People just say that we lost because a) they have never been there and b) because they can't think of a way to win. Just b/c YOU can't think of a way doesn't mean that there isn't a way.

Win what though?

Win what though?

New kitchen appliances. :)

Win what though?

1) An end to sectarian violence
2) An end to the insurgency
3) Commitment to an attempt at democracy

I think we should have deployed atleast 300,000 troops which would most likely have helped with the insurgency and better securing Iran and Syria's borders. I feel that most of these insurgents are coming in from Iran and Syria.

I would have had special forces by the numbers go in and track and destroy the leaders of the insurgency's and Saddam himself.

Anyways, to fix this Iraq mess, Yes I would definately deploy more troops to the region to quickly secure, stabalize, and to train Iraqi police and Army and then pull out. All this could be done within 6 months.

Then, after we pull out of Iraq. We can deal better with N. Korea and Iran. :sniper: :mp5:

1) An end to sectarian violence
2) An end to the insurgency
3) Commitment to an attempt at democracy

The sectarian violence and the insurgency will probably die down once our troops are gone. I doubt they'll either go away entirely, especially the sectarian strife. Committment to an attempt at democracy the Iraqis already have, but our presence makes it hard to realize because of the first two items on the list.

We should devote some of the money we'd be spending to maintain our troops in Iraq for the next two years or so to help them pay for an international peacekeeping force from Muslim nations and to rebuild the shattered infrastructure. We're spending $246,000,000 each day there ($10,000,000 an hour), we can surely devote some of that money to efforts that don't involve our troops getting shot up. Anyway, the McGovern/Polk plan lays this out in detail.

How could you expect sectarian violence to die down in a region where sectarian violence has ruled politics for nearly a century? The American occupation caused many problems and produced much violence, but the sectarian violence precedes us and will probably follow us as well.

The sectarian violence and the insurgency will probably die down once our troops are gone.
Not unless we follow the plan that i laid out. The shiias and sunnis are going to see us just leaving and they are going to realise that they need to win the war right now before the other side does. Everything would escalate very quickly b/c neither side would have an alternative. Committment to an attempt at democracy the Iraqis already have, but our presence makes it hard to realize because of the first two items on the list.
Not really. I know many iraqis who think that thier future would be much more secure if they took up arms and just tried to crush the other religious group. And if we continue w/ the same strategy they may be right.
We should devote some of the money we'd be spending to maintain our troops in Iraq for the next two years or so to help them pay for an international peacekeeping force from Muslim nations and to rebuild the shattered infrastructure. We're spending $246,000,000 each day there ($10,000,000 an hour), we can surely devote some of that money to efforts that don't involve our troops getting shot up. Anyway, the McGovern/Polk plan lays this out in detail.

I've heard some of the McGovern/Polk plan and it is fundamentally flawed. It calls for a force of 15,000 arab troops to replace american forces. How could that possibly work? First of all, any troops that we get will be far less professional and would largely fall into the corruption that is rampant in iraq. Secondly, 15,000 is not nearly enough troops and it will be very difficult to find more than that from willing nations.

People just say that we lost because a) they have never been there and b) because they can't think of a way to win. Just b/c YOU can't think of a way doesn't mean that there isn't a way.

Just tellin you, all of human history is agaisnt you.
The only time a guerrilla force was succsesfully defeated was when concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa in the Second Boar War. Since guerrillas thrive off the people, the British put them all in to camps (that is when the concentration camp was invented btw, by the brits, not the germans) Almost the whole nation. Well it worked, however, what you have you really won after that? nothing really, and I'd like to see anyone try and put the Iraqi population into any sort of camp.

Isn't Australia much bigger than Iraq though.........actually that would work quite well.



A new weapon of mass destruction. Australia.

Hahaha. I'd go for that.
"G'day mate. Welcome to the eastern seaboard of Australia."

Just tellin you, all of human history is agaisnt you.
The only time a guerrilla force was succsesfully defeated was when concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa in the Second Boar War. Since guerrillas thrive off the people, the British put them all in to camps (that is when the concentration camp was invented btw, by the brits, not the germans) Almost the whole nation. Well it worked, however, what you have you really won after that? nothing really, and I'd like to see anyone try and put the Iraqi population into any sort of camp.

Actually, one example of a successful anti-geurilla campaign was against the IRA. Besides, just b/c there aren't many precedents doesn't mean that it is impossible. Afterall, the exact conditions have never occurred during any other occasion in time.

Better make it the Western Island.
Stupid Aussies

Ah, but then you still have the original problem of not enough Kiwis in Iraq.

We (Australians) may have many faults, but being a Kiwi is not one of them.

Ah, but then you still have the original problem of not enough Kiwis in Iraq.

We (Australians) may have many faults, but being a Kiwi is not one of them.
Of course it isn't because being a Kiwi would be a strength.
Even if we are flightless...

I've been thinking.

*waits for those who are going to run away screaming to do so*

The Iraq war has been a debacle. It's pretty much a given that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our security. He really was only a threat to the Iraqis' security. Iraq clearly had nothing to do with the War on Terror and still doesn't.

But we're there now. The current plan sucks. The Iraqi governent sucks and life in Iraq more or less sucks. Pretty much the only consensus reached by the republicans getting slaughtered in this election is that things can't continue as they are.

So the $64,000 question is what's the new plan? I've been thinking along the same lines that John McCain has been that the problem was underdeployment of the troops. Not enough troops were present to secure Iraq when the Hussein regime fell, and the troops were never present in enough force to provide the secure atmosphere necessary to let an Iraqi government form without constant resentment and anger between sunnis, shiites and kurds. Will more troops help now? Can a massive increase in troop deployments in Iraq deal with the insurgency, calm regional violence and hel stabilize the Iaqi government?

More to the point, and the real point of this thread; Would you support a plan that sent MORE troops to Iraq if there was a good chance that plan would get ALL our troops home earlier and stabilize Iraq?

As for me, I would. But I'm also not convinced that more troops would help. I'm also not convinced that more troops are in Iraq's best interest. I'm reminded by the saying, "Freedom cannot be given. It must be taken". I think it's possible that all our troops are is an irritant preventing the healing of Iraq. If that's true, then more troops will never help Iraq rebuild.

Obviously, there will be strong opinion about this. But I'm not so much interested in your opinion on what we should do in Iraq, but if you would support more troops deployed in Iraq if there was reason to believe it would actually help. *nod*

Oh, and I have a hostess cupcake in my pants. :)

This is my first reaction to/set of thoughts on your idea, without reading the many responses.

1) I agree that freedom cannot be given. However, circumstances can be engineered in which those wishiung to be free can grab their freedom and run with it.

2) Providing a stable environment in Iraq is the only way for a foreign power to achieve 1.

3) According to the data presented in several papers by Rand analyst James T. Quinlivan, we should have had a force ratio of at least 20 per thousand population in Iraq from the start in ordfer to provide a stable environment.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1995/quinliv.htm
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html

That would mean at least 575,000 from day one. We haven't ever had sufficient forces in country.

4) Due to several factors, we simply were unable and remain unable to deploy sufficient troops to Iraq to provide said stable environment.

5) The current state of affairs in Iraq has advanced well beyond the point of any of Quinlivan's examples. Given that and that we have spent most of our "goodwill capital", the force ratio deployed would most likely need to be even greater.

6) If we could somehow overcome the Bush I/Clinton years of negelct (peace dividend my ass!!!!), the congressional caps, spending limits, and the time constraints of training up the needed personnel, I'd consider it.