More troops NOT needed in Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

From Reuters

'"I have my doubts... whether increasing the number of soldiers currently there, regardless of who they are provided by, would mean a definite improvement in security," Schroeder told the German parliament in a debate on the 2004 draft budget.


"I believe that those, also in the United States, who say what we really need is the training of Iraqi police and the training of Iraqi military are right," he said. '


So Rumsfeld was right, according to Gerhard Schroeder. Very interesting.

[Q Classic]

and Shinseki, veteran of peacekeeping operations, is wrong.

or that's what we're supposed to think.

[Sprayber]

I guess that's whey we were told to expect an 18 month depolyment towards the beginning of next year. That would be on top of the 7 month deployment we are about to finish in the next few weeks.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I guess that's whey we were told to expect an 18 month depolyment towards the beginning of next year. That would be on top of the 7 month deployment we are about to finish in the next few weeks.

Actually thats caused by the fact that we dont have enough troops in the amy to maintain the CURRENT force level in Iraq, not necessarily to increase the force levels.

[Bereta_Eder]

actually thats typical diplomacy.
shreder takes something ramsfield and agrees with it thus denying washingtons requests by washngtons request

namely: US wants coutnries sending their troops, germany sais: we agree with you that whats important is to train the iraquis

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and Shinseki, veteran of peacekeeping operations, is wrong.

or that's what we're supposed to think.

Shinseki was a smart guy. But the guys on the ground - Abuzaid and Sanchez (our diversity is our strength ) dont seem to think they need MORE troops now. They were apparently very insistent on UN support to help MAINTAIN troop levels.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by paiktis22
actually thats typical diplomacy.
shreder takes something ramsfield and agrees with it thus denying washingtons requests by washngtons request

namely: US wants coutnries sending their troops, germany sais: we agree with you that whats important is to train the iraquis

Yep.

[SlowwHand]

Actually what this says is that Germany is run by jackasses who still want to cover their tracks.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Actually thats caused by the fact that we dont have enough troops in the amy to maintain the CURRENT force level in Iraq, not necessarily to increase the force levels.

Rumsfeild has been saying one thing very publically and commanders have been saying the opposite within the ranks for a while now. I guess in the end though, the top dog will get what he wants.

[MikeH]

"Cover their tracks"?

What do you mean? They don't want to clean up your mess that they opposed in the first place. Why would they?

[Bereta_Eder]

To Cuba!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22
actually thats typical diplomacy.
shreder takes something ramsfield and agrees with it thus denying washingtons requests by washngtons request

namely: US wants coutnries sending their troops, germany sais: we agree with you that whats important is to train the iraquis

well yeah, i agree, but he can hardly then go and say the US is making a mess of it, the UN was bombed cause the US didnt send enough troops or anything like that.

Besides, training Iraqis is something we VERY much do need. If germany will help with that it will be much appreciated. German troops are also expanding their role in Afghanistan - they may not have many available anyway. We need essentially 15,000 troops in January, and another 10000 to 20000 by spring. Turkey alone is talking about 10,000 troops, and India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan can make up the rest. By spring the political situation should be more advanced, and the possibilty of Russian, Arab and even French troops becomes real.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Rumsfeild has been saying one thing very publically and commanders have been saying the opposite within the ranks for a while now. I guess in the end though, the top dog will get what he wants.

IIUC the senior commanders have been saying Rumsfield is wrong to not go to the UN and ensure we have troops to maintain the rotation - not saying a higher number would improve security.

[Bereta_Eder]

he can say US messed the place up and is responsible for everything
just us/uk went in.

[MikeH]

The UN was deliberately left with very low security. They wanted to be seen as open and friendly. I don't know how anyone could say that was the US's fault but if they did they'd be a jackass.

Agree about training.