Why We Need More Troops in Iraq

[Moooooo]

By Joseph Lieberman
Friday, December 29, 2006; Page A27

I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.

Snip...

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/

[freedomburns]

Bullcrap.  Only 11% of the American people support sending more troops to Iraq.  Why don't we call this "surge" what it is?  An escalation.  This is Vietnam all over, with the same tired, hackneyed, unconvincing lines coming from the government.  We are training the South Vietnamese Army to stand up while we stand down.  The we can reduce the troop levels.  Ya rite.

11%

That's how many of us support this escalation in the war.  And they are going to try to do it anyway.  Kucinich is right.  I am so glad he is running for President again.  We need to get out of there in two months, tops.  This is easily doable, and whoever claims it isn't is lying.  Again.
 
SR

[adam]

Bullcrap.  Only 11% of the American people support sending more troops to Iraq.  Why don't we call this "surge" what it is?  An escalation.  This is Vietnam all over, with the same tired, hackneyed, unconvincing lines coming from the government.  We are training the South Vietnamese Army to stand up while we stand down.  The we can reduce the troop levels.  Ya rite.

11%

That's how many of us support this escalation in the war.  And they are going to try to do it anyway.  Kucinich is right.  I am so glad he is running for President again.  We need to get out of there in two months, tops.  This is easily doable, and whoever claims it isn't is lying.  Again.
 
SR

Oh it's doable...so long as you forget to factor in the sectarian violence and instability in the Iraqi government. It's doable so long as you don't mind showing the world that America is weak. It's doable so long as you are all right with projecting the image that America is willing to attack a country and leave it in ruins. It's doable, so long as you assume the big liberal assumption that islamofascism is not a threat to world peace.

Kid, I can respect an anti-war position...but only when intelligent people with facts and arguments take that position. You are not that intelligent person.

PS
Only 11% huh? Well, that's still 9% more than Nader managed to win in 2 tries.

[freedomburns]

The failed policy is what shows America as weak.  Prolonging that FAILURE by not facing reality only shows us as even weaker.  We are continueing to fail because we do not have the political will as a nation to do the right thing here, which is to get American boys and girls out of harm's way ASAP. 

I do not buy the silly line about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".  When have we ever had to fight Iraqis over here??  Everyone agrees that the war in Iraq only serves to fuel terrrorism and hatred for the invaders.  It does not serve to quell terrorism.  Every report issued by the government agrees on this point.

The number of votes which a third party candidate received in an election over six years ago hardly seems germane to the issue at hand.  Does it really seem relevant to you, or are you simply grasping at straws and seeking to misdirect rather than face up the the horrendous, ghastly crime that the Iraq was is?   It is a crime...still...today...tomorrow...and every day that we continue our illegal stay in their country.  We are murdering people to no end.  It is increasing world-wide hatred of Americans.  Wake up.  Whining about Nader won't save a single American life.  Getting the heck out of Iraq ASAP will.

fb

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Joe's in the 11% lunatic fringe. Too bad that Lamont wasn't able to beat him both times.

[freedomburns]

Joe's in the 11% lunatic fringe. Too bad that Lamont wasn't able to beat him both times.

Only because the "real" Republican who ran was a degenerate gambler douche-bag.

[adam]

The failed policy is what shows America as weak.  Prolonging that FAILURE by not facing reality only shows us as even weaker.  We are continueing to fail because we do not have the political will as a nation to do the right thing here, which is to get American boys and girls out of harm's way ASAP. 

I do not buy the silly line about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".  When have we ever had to fight Iraqis over here??  Everyone agrees that the war in Iraq only serves to fuel terrrorism and hatred for the invaders.  It does not serve to quell terrorism.  Every report issued by the government agrees on this point.

The number of votes which a third party candidate received in an election over six years ago hardly seems germane to the issue at hand.  Does it really seem relevant to you, or are you simply grasping at straws and seeking to misdirect rather than face up the the horrendous, ghastly crime that the Iraq was is?   It is a crime...still...today...tomorrow...and every day that we continue our illegal stay in their country.  We are murdering people to no end.  It is increasing world-wide hatred of Americans.  Wake up.  Whining about Nader won't save a single American life.  Getting the heck out of Iraq ASAP will.

fb

We have toppled a dictator at the benefit of a nation, we have terminated terrorist leaders at the benefit of the world. Their will be casualties, that is war. However, anyone who denies the fact that the world is a better place than it was with that horrid man in power is a blind full who has been consumed by the rhetoric  of the afraid.

Who said I was "whining" about Nader? It makes me happy to see anti-war candidates fail. The relevance is that, while supposedly 89% are so strongly opposed to this war...only 400,000 people chose to vote for the only candidate that stood with their values. Over 99% of Americans voted for a candidate that would continue military action. I don't think your anti-war movement is as in vogue as you think.

[freedomburns]

The failed policy is what shows America as weak.  Prolonging that FAILURE by not facing reality only shows us as even weaker.  We are continueing to fail because we do not have the political will as a nation to do the right thing here, which is to get American boys and girls out of harm's way ASAP. 

I do not buy the silly line about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".  When have we ever had to fight Iraqis over here??  Everyone agrees that the war in Iraq only serves to fuel terrrorism and hatred for the invaders.  It does not serve to quell terrorism.  Every report issued by the government agrees on this point.

The number of votes which a third party candidate received in an election over six years ago hardly seems germane to the issue at hand.  Does it really seem relevant to you, or are you simply grasping at straws and seeking to misdirect rather than face up the the horrendous, ghastly crime that the Iraq was is?   It is a crime...still...today...tomorrow...and every day that we continue our illegal stay in their country.  We are murdering people to no end.  It is increasing world-wide hatred of Americans.  Wake up.  Whining about Nader won't save a single American life.  Getting the heck out of Iraq ASAP will.

fb

We have toppled a dictator at the benefit of a nation, we have terminated terrorist leaders at the benefit of the world. Their will be casualties, that is war. However, anyone who denies the fact that the world is a better place than it was with that horrid man in power is a blind full who has been consumed by the rhetoric  of the afraid.

Who said I was "whining" about Nader? It makes me happy to see anti-war candidates fail. The relevance is that, while supposedly 89% are so strongly opposed to this war...only 400,000 people chose to vote for the only candidate that stood with their values. Over 99% of Americans voted for a candidate that would continue military action. I don't think your anti-war movement is as in vogue as you think.

I say you're whining - like a little baby.  You can't find anything current to rant about, so you have to troll back to six years ago?  Pick up a newspaper buddy, we don't live in the year 2000 anymore.

The mainstream moved along and left you behind, pal.  I guess some choose not to believe in evolution.  The rest of us are living in the current year.  We see the reality that exists TODAY.  We don't have to harp back to SIX YEARS AGO to try to manufacture a jibe at sensible people and how they are thinking NOW.

Keep believing what you want to.  I respect your right to live in whatever "reality" you choose to.  I completely disagree with your interpretation of what we have been doing in Iraq.  In my opinion, your assumption that what we have done there is somehow "of benefit to the world" is highly dubious.

The only thing I am afraid of is wing-nuts like you ruining our country AND its reputation.


fb

[Ban my account ffs!]

How do you suppose we'll get more troops?  Nobody wants to join the military anymore.  Of my friends in the military, 5 of 6 want out.  That is a bit contrary to the rosy picture Fox News paints about how much the troops love it in Iraq.  One is so fed up with the marine corps and the sh**tty way he has been treated.  He was in Iraq for 2 7 month tours.  He kicked down doors in Fallujah in late 2004 and then patrolled around Baghdad in 2005 until he was hit by a roadside bomb and suffered burns to his face, chest, and arms and had both of his ankles fractured.

The marine corps thought it was torn ligaments and made him stand for full duty.. until he caused permanent damage to his ankles and the doctors finally said "whoops!"  Now the taxpayers (whining Republicans included), will be giving him a nice $50,000 severence check when he finally gets out in September.

They'll tell you right now that Iraq is a hell hole and they think their efforts are futile.  Yet we have Lieberman (slimebag) over here telling us how we need to get more troops to Iraq to prove how big and strong America is.  Well, hello Joe.. do we have our next LBJ on our hands?

Tell me where we get more troops from.  A draft?  Don't count on it.  More National Guard?  Pffft.. The governors are already fed up enough with that.  Reserves?  Okay.. let's get some out of shape 35 year olds over there proving how big and strong America is.  That's just embarrassing.

All so the 11% that have serious mental sicknesses can play out their sick little solutions to problems they have created.

I'm a bit angry.  I watch friends go over there and suffer for nothing.  The Republicans would entrust a fat, heart-attack-waiting-to-happen draft dodging party/war-industrial complex-connected neo-con to write our foreign policy.

Look how well it's gone so far.  Take off the rose colored glasses and stop smoking the peyote.. we screwed up.  Now it's time to CUT our losses and RUN!  And then the Republicans can start finding ways to try and blame Clinton for Iraq.

[freedomburns]

2996

[Nym90]

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, if it would actually work. If sending more troops now would mean that we could leave earlier and with a better overall result, it may be worth it.

That being said, I'm highly skeptical that that an increase would be temporary and would overall lead to a quicker or less bloody exit, especially with the current Administration in charge of things.

[© tweed]

Have we not learned anything from Vietnam?

I don't really see the point of sending more Americans to die in a desert to referee a civil war.  Saddam's dead.  We provided "regime change".  Now lets not have any more of our boys killed.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Only because the "real" Republican who ran was a degenerate gambler douche-bag.

That "degenerate gambler douche-bag" would have made ten times the Senator that Joe Liebergoon is.

And of course Lieberman supports escalation.  This is his war more than it is Bush's.  He has even said so.

[MasterJedi]

So I see the crazies (FreedomBurns, Jfraud, BRTD and Progress) have been out in force lately.

[© tweed]

So I see the crazies (FreedomBurns, Jfraud, BRTD and Progress) have been out in force lately.

Why don't you contribute something instead of just labeling certain posters "crazies" and moving on?

Why do you believe we should ask another American to die in Iraq?

[MODU]

Why do you believe we should ask another American to die in Iraq?

No one said war was pretty or without risk.  Everyone that raises their hands and takes the oath knows that one day they might find themselves on the front line for a war they may or may not personally support, but understand that they will give their lives in the line of duty for their country.  In this case, if you talk with our troops who are in harms way, many of them will tell you that they understand the goal of the war and are fighting for victory.  The real question is, why do people believe we should weaken the foundation of our troops by doubting their progress or their ability to suceed?  Our boys and girls have done one hell of a job over there and should be supported and encouraged to complete their mission, rather than told their efforts and sacrifices don't mean anything, and in turn, hand over the victory to the enemy.

[Beet]

This is a really tricky issue. I believe if we had gone in with 500,000 troops and made a serious effort, in collaboration with the UN and the other moderate Muslim governments in the region to actually build up a new nation in Iraq, we could have accomplished it. The problem is that the modern conservative movement is ideologically opposed to nation-building, as George W. Bush stated in 2000. They prefer sadism.

And therefore the result is that we were very successful (and are very successful) at killing destroying things, and at spending everything from gobs of money and the lives and limbs of troops, and our own prestige and standing, to kill and destroy things, but we aren't very successful at building anything. This is still the same old paradigm of 'more troops-less troops'. It's going to take more than just troops to succeed in Iraq.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Below is a nice summary of my thoughts on the folly of sending more Troops to Iraq.  It is a re-post from another thread of which the topic was about expanding the size of the United States military "to meet our commitments."

Instead of dropping American boys into a meat grinder with their hands tied behind their backs by our own government, maybe we should end this damned War in Iraq.  Then we would not need a draft, or hundreds of billions dollars in new appropriations for the military to increase its size to meet its "commitments across the globe."

Instead of spending over half a trillion dollars on a war that our government refuses to let us win, and a war in which "victory" (as declared by the neocons) brings little to nothing to protect the lives or interests of Americans, maybe we should reevaluate our military priorities.

Maybe the Government should dramatically increase research and development of DEFENSIVE tools and weaponry (like S.D.I.) so that we may prevent a future nuclear holocaust.  Certainly this would be a better use of our hundreds of billions of dollars and the precious lives of our Troops instead of the present course in Iraq and in other spots which the neocons choose to intervene us around the world.

[Conan]

I think a larger escalation is needed.  We should also use more technology based power. Al Sadr must be killed to make any progress.

[GOP = Terrorists]

So I see the crazies (FreedomBurns, Jfraud, BRTD and Progress) have been out in force lately.

I've said this a dozen times by now but I'll say it again.  If I am insane you are batsh**t - thinkin you're Lucile Ball - crazy.