NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16857704/

Thus, the “surge.” Step One: increase U.S. troop levels and ally American units on the ground with the best Iraqi units we can find.

Step Two: enter a limited number of carefully selected areas.

Step Three: clear and hold these areas.

And faster than you can say “Step Four,” withdraw American troops and declare the Iraqis ready to defend themselves.

To be sure, quite a few Americans will remain, but they will mostly be in an advisory capacity. And Gen. Petraeus will employ time-proven counter-insurgency techniques that may result in permanent success in those few areas in which they will be employed.

The surge has been debated to death but one more thread couldn't hurt.

This guy seems to think that this is just a preparation for reducing the U.S. presence to advisors and embeds. Agree? Disagree? Good idea?

"Advisory Capacity"? Where have I heard that before? I just don't know...

"Advisory Capacity"? Where have I heard that before? I just don't know...

And if we hadn't abandoned them in every other way it may have worked. Once we discontinued our support from the air they were doomed.

Surge = Withdrawal?

I usually surge before I withdrawal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16857704/



The surge has been debated to death but one more thread couldn't hurt.

This guy seems to think that this is just a preparation for reducing the U.S. presence to advisors and embeds. Agree? Disagree? Good idea?

I would be extremely surprised if there hasn't been extensive pressure from the Congressional and Party leadership on Bush to declare victory and get the troops home before November 2008. They're all looking at the same polls and they all have to see that if Iraq is still an issue in 2008, the Democratic party's control of the Congress will solidify and the takeover will likely be completed into the executive branch as well. Iraq is political death right now--it's already pretty much cost McCain his chance at the presidency. His poll numbers are falling rapidly ever since Bush took him up on his surge policy.

In short, it's the kind of swerve that the Republican party leadership is hoping for. Whether Bush actually does it is another story altogether. My gut tells me he doesn't care what happens to the party--he won't leave because to him, leaving is losing, and he can't be a loser like his daddy. It's sad that we're reduced to this for leadership, but there it is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16857704/



The surge has been debated to death but one more thread couldn't hurt.

This guy seems to think that this is just a preparation for reducing the U.S. presence to advisors and embeds. Agree? Disagree? Good idea?

peace with honor!

Entirely possible.

peace with honor!

Hopefully we can keep the lower number of troops in iraq for a longer amount of time. And not make the same mistake of taking away air support from the iraqis. We're gonna need to be there in that capacity for many more years if not decades.

I would be extremely surprised if there hasn't been extensive pressure from the Congressional and Party leadership on Bush to declare victory and get the troops home before November 2008. They're all looking at the same polls and they all have to see that if Iraq is still an issue in 2008, the Democratic party's control of the Congress will solidify and the takeover will likely be completed into the executive branch as well. Iraq is political death right now--it's already pretty much cost McCain his chance at the presidency. His poll numbers are falling rapidly ever since Bush took him up on his surge policy.

In short, it's the kind of swerve that the Republican party leadership is hoping for. Whether Bush actually does it is another story altogether. My gut tells me he doesn't care what happens to the party--he won't leave because to him, leaving is losing, and he can't be a loser like his daddy. It's sad that we're reduced to this for leadership, but there it is.

Meanwhile the Dems have positioned themselves beautifully, all calling for a withdrawl by 2008. So if the repubs do withdrawl, dems will call out "it's because WE put pressure on the administration to do it, WE got us out of Iraq".

And if we don't have a withdrawl by then....well, that will speak largely for itself.

Hopefully we can keep the lower number of troops in iraq for a longer amount of time. And not make the same mistake of taking away air support from the iraqis. We're gonna need to be there in that capacity for many more years if not decades.

Yeah, because nothing says "I love democracy" more than airstrikes in the neighborhoods of your political enemies.

Meanwhile the Dems have positioned themselves beautifully, all calling for a withdrawl by 2008. So if the repubs do withdrawl, dems will call out "it's because WE put pressure on the administration to do it, WE got us out of Iraq".

And if we don't have a withdrawl by then....well, that will speak largely for itself.I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating--the winner of the Presidency in 2008 will be the major party candidate who is the most convincing voice to say "we'll start pulling troops out on Inauguration day if Im elected."

Yeah, because nothing says "I love democracy" more than airstrikes in the neighborhoods of your political enemies.

Well that and all western military doctrine is completely centered around airpower. You encircle your enemy, you bomb them. You get ambushed, you take cover and you call in air support. You chase them down to a building, you bomb the building. It's very effective but when you lose the airpower you start to have to face the reality of up close warfare.

I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating--the winner of the Presidency in 2008 will be the major party candidate who is the most convincing voice to say "we'll start pulling troops out on Inauguration day if Im elected."

which is why McCain will never see the republican nomination., and why someone far removed from the decision to go into the war in the first place, who can say with a straight face "I do not suppor the war" and doesn't have a voting record to have shoved down his throat when he tries, will.

Which means Guilliani.

If you are referring to a surge in blood pressure, then that is indeed consistent with the symptoms of heroin withdrawal.

If you are referring to a surge in blood pressure, then that is indeed consistent with the symptoms of heroin withdrawal.

Finally someone understands what i'm talking about. All these other people are talking about some iraq. Wherever the hell that is.

Entirely possible.

It could work, with some changes that put pressure on the Iraqi government to start making major strides toward independence from American aid.

Finally someone understands what i'm talking about. All these other people are talking about some iraq. Wherever the hell that is.

Somewhere near Brazil, I think. Anyway, who cares, give me some more smack, will you?

which is why McCain will never see the republican nomination., and why someone far removed from the decision to go into the war in the first place, who can say with a straight face "I do not suppor the war" and doesn't have a voting record to have shoved down his throat when he tries, will.

Which means Guilliani.

Giuliani's got other, more massive problems with the base than the war, and what support for the war is left is in the Republican base. McCain's problems in the nomination are the same as Giuliani's--the christians don't like them, and they've got too much stroke. The war kills McCain in the general, not in the primary.

As a Democrat, the guy who scares me is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. He's Bill Clinton's doppelganger in conservative form. He's a former evangelical preacher who knows how to tone it down, he's folksy and a little populist, he plays the bipartisan game well (since a lot of Arkansas politicians are Blue Dog Democrats), and he's clean on the war since he was a Governor and not a Senator. If he can raise some money, watch out for him.