Tweet
Who says?
-
"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter -
A number of folks. Powell, for instance.
I certainly haven't heard of a realistic plan to get a few hundred thousand more American troops in Iraq. Besides a draft, but that isn't politically viable (i.e. realistic)."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
If the goal is to win with military force alone, yes. If the goal is to contain the situation in Baghdad enough to create more space for politics, to make it easier to reduce the influence of the militias, and to make sure any negotiations we go into with regional powers we do so from a position of relative strength (compared to the current situation) then it might well be enough.Originally posted by Ramo
Not knowing the best way to resolve a very complicated situation is not equivalent to being a dufus. And yes, I do think that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colon Powell, and John Abizaid are much more qualified in strategory than a tiny sample of non-officers that may not be representative. Pardon me for valuing education and experience...
The article also doesn't address the numbers needed, which is they pivotal issue here. The Bush-McCain surge is probably too small by an order of magnitude."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
More troops will help but fundimentally it won't work in the end. The amount being considered (20,000) isn't large enough and it is coming 3.5 years to late. The insurgency is now indemic and few Iraqis believe the US presence will out last them.
The time to have the extra troops was during the intial invasion when the Pentagon said they needed them but the administration over ruled them. 20k now is a band-aid over a sucking chest wound.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Originally posted by Maquiladora
Reboot, no press ctrl+alt+del, CTRL+ALT+DEL!
"God damn, that mission resulted in a total system crash."
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
The administration is currently play testing the 20k surge in the media. NPR was reporting that the administration was sending out trial balloons by leaking certain details of the White House's new plan and seeing how they fly with public opinion.Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Who says?
One thing is clear and that is the administration is currently making big promises about how 20k will help stablize the situation so if in 3-6 months after the intial surge things aren't dramaticly better then the people who support this surge are going to have political troubles.
BTW the Democrats in Congress will sign off on this out of fear of looking weak on defense.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
The police just found another 76 bodies in the city. It may not cause decrease enough violence to substantially offset the resentment-fueled violence due to more troops. Occupying Sadr City is not going to be easy or win us very many friends.If the goal is to win with military force alone, yes. If the goal is to contain the situation in Baghdad enough to create more space for politics, to make it easier to reduce the influence of the militias, and to make sure any negotiations we go into with regional powers we do so from a position of relative strength (compared to the current situation) then it might well be enough.
As Oerdin said, too little, too late."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Anyone who thinks that those 15 soldiers weren't handpicked and that this whole thing wasn't scripted ahead of time is incredibly naive. This whole thing is so obviously Potemkin I have a hard time believing that some otherwise intelligent people on this thread don't realize it.Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Lets see we got Joint Chiefs, Abisaid, and Powell. So that is 6+1+1 vs. 15 dogfaces.
The ayes have it.Stop Quoting BenComment
-
Yet the generals whose expertise you respect think a more train and equip will be enough. Combined with a political miracle, which, oddly enough, they arent responsible for achieving.Originally posted by Ramo
As Oerdin said, too little, too late.
I cant see how the Sunnis are going to cut a deal as long as their people are being ethnically cleansed. I cant see how THAT can be stopped without someone dealing with the militias in Sadr City. And with the Sunni attacks that win legitimacy for those Shiite militias. Now you can argue that nothing will work now, and we should just give it up and get out. Thats at least a coherent position. But AFAICT its not BH's position, and its not Abizaids position, or JCS'."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Yep. I was assuming that they weren't for the sake of the argument. 'Course it's not bloody likely given how politicized this Admin's foreign policy is."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I thought I made my position clear in the other thread: we need to engage Iran and Syria to try to reduce the violence (i.e., roughly Baker-Hamilton).Yet the generals whose expertise you respect think a more train and equip will be enough. Combined with a political miracle, which, oddly enough, they arent responsible for achieving.
I cant see how the Sunnis are going to cut a deal as long as their people are being ethnically cleansed. I cant see how THAT can be stopped without someone dealing with the militias in Sadr City. And with the Sunni attacks that win legitimacy for those Shiite militias. Now you can argue that nothing will work now, and we should just give it up and get out. Thats at least a coherent position. But AFAICT its not BH's position, and its not Abizaids position, or JCS'.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I see and you have hard evidence of this. While your supposition could and may even likely be true treating the above statement as FACT is equally ludicrous. And even were they hand picked that doesn't in of itself mean the sentiment is not widley shared by boots on the ground. Further even if scripted that would indicate GASP a faction of soldiers on the ground that disagree with Joint Chiefs and Abisaid. (teh horror)Originally posted by Bosh
Anyone who thinks that those 15 soldiers weren't handpicked and that this whole thing wasn't scripted ahead of time is incredibly naive. This whole thing is so obviously Potemkin I have a hard time believing that some otherwise intelligent people on this thread don't realize it.
The straw poll people use to dismiss the arguement against action is almost equally valid. For every Powell saying give up the ghost you have a Reid saying its worth a try."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
And what reasonably could we offer in negotiation that would have any allure to Iran-Syria?Originally posted by Ramo
I thought I made my position clear in the other thread: we need to engage Iran and Syria to try to reduce the violence (i.e., roughly Baker-Hamilton)."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
I think that while we disagreed there on Irans motives to end the violence, you stated that its ABILITY to do so was limited. I dont completely disagree with that.Originally posted by Ramo
I thought I made my position clear in the other thread: we need to engage Iran and Syria to try to reduce the violence (i.e., roughly Baker-Hamilton).
Even if I granted (which I dont) that SCIRI was allied to Iran - if Sadr cant stop rogue Mahdi army elements, what are the odds that Al-Hakim can stop rogue Mahdi army elements?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by SlowwHand
This article echoes the words of all the military, and their families, that I've had the good fortune to speak with.
They don't want to stop in the middle. They want it to be completed. They naturally mourn their friends that have been lost, but want the losses to be for a reason.
Cut and run now, it would have been for nothing.
You just expressed your opinion without personal insults to anyone!
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
Comment