logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The Surge in Bagdad, Plan or Ploy?
DaytonRocker
post Jan 10 2007, 03:27 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



Question for debate:
Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

Right now, Bush is in a lose-lose position. If he withdraws troops from Bagdad, he loses his base completely and will certainly be viewed in history as a failed president. On the flip side, he can't get enough troops to actually make a difference in salvaging Iraq. There is literally nothing he can do.

But the third option is the best for him - pin the loss on someone else. Announce your plan for victory knowing the democrats will kill any plan that involves escalating the war and putting more targets between the Sunnis and Shi'ites. And when that plan gets killed, what do you do? Tell America the democrats are soft on terror, tell America you can't fight a war because the democrats won't let him, and tell America we are less safe because of defunding "the central front on the war on terror".

Bush will use the "it's not my fault" excuse to defend the loss in Iraq. And if he frames the debate and takes control of it, the democrats will suffer big. If we get hit with a terror attack between now and Nov 2008, America might hand the keys to the house back to the republicans.

In my opinion, the democrats have already taken the bait and not left themselves a very effective out.

Plan or ploy?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
32 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
A left Handed pe...
post Jan 10 2007, 05:13 AM
Post #2


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 333
Member No.: 4,459
Joined: February-3-05

From: Southwest Conneticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

If it doesnt work, it will hurt him, so if he doesn't think it will work, it makes no political sense for him. Thus one must assume he thinks theres a chance that it might succeed.

Many people are acclaiming this as a "we'll I can't think of anything else to do" plan.

I am pretty sure it won't succeed in any significant sense. It may increase the holding capacity of the army, but not enough to end the game of "wacka mole" I should think. Especially since it sounds like these troops are going mostly to Bagdad? 20,0000 just ain't enough, and of course he can't get funding for much more.

Democrats basically want to pressure the Iraqi government into doing whats neccessary to resolve the secular disputes, by starting a phased withdrawal. There is a very good chance that wouldn't work...leaving would likely motivate factions to consolidate their power for self defense...maybe it would provoke overtures, I don't know, I shirk to imagine the potential consequences if there no effective ones.

To quote Obama "We face with a quagmire to which there are no good solutions". There probably no way to salvage the bad situation we face, but leaving it would be a catastrophe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post Jan 10 2007, 05:14 AM
Post #3


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



I would not want to be the President of the United States right now. I agree with you that the situation in Iraq is pretty much a no-win situation. Every possible choice of action seems like a bad one. It's hard to see what is the least of many evils.

What really disturbs me is that there is some indication that many military leaders -- the people who actually have to run the war -- are not in agreement with the idea of a "surge."

Link

QUOTE
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: Ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

. . .

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.


I cannot read the mind of the President, but I hope this is less of a cynical attempt to avoid blame, and more of an act of desperation when faced with an impossible situation.

This post has been edited by Victoria Silverwolf: Jan 10 2007, 05:15 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Jan 10 2007, 03:09 PM
Post #4


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Victoria
What really disturbs me is that there is some indication that many military leaders -- the people who actually have to run the war -- are not in agreement with the idea of a "surge

Victoria I think there is, as you would expect, more than one opinion in the military about this issue. The quote below is from the same article.

I see the change of commanders there as a way of getting a fresh look at the problems. One comment I have heard from commanders and foot soldiers is than many in the Military feel our “Rules of Engagement” need to change because they are effectively being used against us. While some blast us for killing even one civilian the enemy regularly uses Mosques and civilians to cover themselves preventing soldiers from getting to them. I will bet that cleaning out Sader City will be a nightmare if it can even be done with current ROE


Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.

This post has been edited by Ted: Jan 10 2007, 03:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vampiel
post Jan 14 2007, 04:33 PM
Post #5


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 557
Member No.: 3,815
Joined: October-24-04

From: The Great Oak Circle with Druids
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Jan 10 2007, 12:14 AM) *

I would not want to be the President of the United States right now. I agree with you that the situation in Iraq is pretty much a no-win situation. Every possible choice of action seems like a bad one. It's hard to see what is the least of many evils.

What really disturbs me is that there is some indication that many military leaders -- the people who actually have to run the war -- are not in agreement with the idea of a "surge."


Im not sure why it would be disturbing to disagree with some military leaders that are "actually" running the war in Iraq, more like a breath of fresh air because they are obviously not doing a very good job.

I believe it is a legitimate plan that needs to be implemented in conjuction with the Iraqi government. Not only are US troops being retained and redeployed quicker for this plan but thousands of the Iraqi governments own forces are being deployed to different area's and I can only hope they are sending the most competent and reliable troops they have. They also need to be given full authority to do whatever is neccessary. None of this tip toing around the bad guys because you might make someone angry.

What Iraq needs to quell the violence is permanent troops on the streets period. There's no other magickal way to do it without the grunt work of security.

It's not a question of will more troops work, it's a question of how many. If we leave now we'll just be back later.

This post has been edited by Vampiel: Jan 14 2007, 04:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jan 14 2007, 05:36 PM
Post #6


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



I think the "duh" in this entire plan lies in the stupidity of the premise in the first place- simple math.

We had, at our peak of the occupation, 165k troops+ or - a couple thou, with the "surge" they will now have 155k troops- at least 10k less than we have had there before.

So how in the heck is this surge supposed to work when 165k didn't work before? Um, "DUH".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 14 2007, 05:44 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



CR, your post and 'Duh's' only address the number of troops, not the tactical plan itself. There is no reason to believe at face value that it will fail based solely on your simple math.
I have no doubt that politics played a large role in Bush's plan, but the plan itself can work. Will it work? We'll see. I for one, would much rather debate you on why specifically the plan cannot work, rather than compare numbers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jan 14 2007, 06:23 PM
Post #8


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

It's not a political stunt, and it's not a plan that could possibly work, either. It's an attempt to ensure that George Bush won't have be the one who admits defeat. Give him two more years, and by then, he'll be out of office. Then he and his diminishing band of supporters will have the luxury of saying that if only Jon Edwards, or whoever happens to be president then, had only tried as hard to win as they did, "victory" would've been inevitably achieved.

It is starkly obvious that the perpetrators of the Iraq war never believed that it was about the security of the United States. If they had, they would've called for sufficient national sacrifice necessary to expand the army and send the 300,000-400,000 troops necessary to do the job. There would've been a draft, and steeply increased taxes to pay for it all. But no, it was always war on the cheap; war without sacrifice except for the saps unlucky enough to be in uniform or stupid enough to believe that they should sign up and Save America from Terror. Except for the unlucky few to have children or spouses in uniform, there has been no sacrifice from ordinary citizens, beyond the cost of one of those magnetic yellow ribbon thingies that you stick on your tailgate. It has been war based on utter ignorance of Iraqi society, and the false assumption that Iraqis would hail us as their saviors from the brutal Saddam. There was scant understanding that Saddam Hussein, for all his brutality, actually stood for something important to many Iraqis.

And it was all forseen by us anti-war people, you know? I stood on the street corners of my home town here in Ohio on several successive Saturdays leading up to the war, with several hundred other folks from this particular corner of our city, and held up signs against it, and plenty of people honked their horns in favor. And I debated some deluded "patriotic" counter-demonstraters who were there, saying pretty much exactly what I am saying now. Except that the debate then was more focussed on weapons of mass destruction. I remember saying, "You BELIEVE that they have those things!?" And they said, "Yeah, and Bush has better intelligence about it than YOU do, so who do you think we believe?" How times do change! But I remember thinking that these particular idiots weren't alive for Vietnam, so they don't know that the U.S. government ALWAYS lies when it wants to go bash some little country somewhere.

But I also remember saying, "You know, war is terrible and unpredictable. If you unleash he dogs of war, you never know what you'll get." James Webb even predicted a long insurgency. But no, it was going to be a glorious display of fireworks followed by a flower-drenched parade.

Well, now that the aquarium has been turned into fish soup, there's no way to turn it back into an aquarium again. There is no popular support for escalation, and the situation in Iraq is a disaster. George Bush's war has been a miserable failure. After four years of fighting, the insurgency is stronger than ever. There is no government of Iraq that has any power outside the Green Zone. The Iraqi infrastructure remains in ruins, though half-hearted and poorly-overseen attempts rebuild it have enriched several U.S. corporations. There are 3,000 dead U.S. troops and many more terribly wounded, and something on the order of 100,000 dead Iraqis. And there is no sign of anything getting any better.

I really cannot believe that there are people here, like "Donttreadonme," who think the burden of proof should be on those who oppose this paltry little increase in forces, to show that it cannot work. What, when several successive Administration plans haven't worked, not to mention the glorious war itself, who should have the burden of proof? The real question is not whether we should allow George Bush to have this face-saving little delay, but how best to withdraw the forces we already have in Iraq.

No more American sons and daughters should have to die or be wounded, merely to postpone our nation's facing facts in Iraq until George Bush is out of office.

This post has been edited by Vladimir: Jan 14 2007, 06:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 14 2007, 06:31 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 12:23 PM) *


I really cannot believe that there are people here, like "Donttreadonme," who think the burden of proof should be on those who appose this paltry little increase in forces, to show that it cannot work. What, when several successive Administration plans haven't worked, who should have the burden of proof?

You may, or may not have noticed, that the question for THIS debate thread is about the recent plan to secure Baghdad. You're eloquent post is largely off topic. But let me break it down for you like this: the plan has already been laid out. You are free to poo-poo it, but you like others have not answered why it won't work. Thus since the plan is out for dissemination, the burden does rest upon you if you desire to prove it's ineffectiveness.
Now, I don't know if it will work, and niether do you, but at least I am prepared to debate it on it's merit's, not fall back on the same script that has been recited over and over and over.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jan 14 2007, 06:41 PM
Post #10


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 14 2007, 06:31 PM) *

QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 12:23 PM) *


I really cannot believe that there are people here, like "Donttreadonme," who think the burden of proof should be on those who appose this paltry little increase in forces, to show that it cannot work. What, when several successive Administration plans haven't worked, who should have the burden of proof?

You may, or may not have noticed, that the question for THIS debate thread is about the recent plan to secure Baghdad. You're eloquent post is largely off topic. But let me break it down for you like this: the plan has already been laid out. You are free to poo-poo it, but you like others have not answered why it won't work. Thus since the plan is out for dissemination, the burden does rest upon you if you desire to prove it's ineffectiveness.
Now, I don't know if it will work, and niether do you, but at least I am prepared to debate it on it's merit's, not fall back on the same script that has been recited over and over and over.......


Yes, I did indeed assume that what was being debated here NOW was something of relevance now, namely, the "Surge." But it's is ironic that we had before people saying, "PROVE the plan to defend Baghdad won't work," who now say, "PROVE the 'Surge' won't work." Who the blazes should have the burden of proof, after four years of disaster and failed plans?

And as for "reading from a script that has been recited over and over," the point is, this is pretty much what we anti-war people have been saying since BEFORE THE WAR, while the Administration and its defenders have offered a series of shifting rationales for the war and a series of highly-touted and poorly thought-out plans to win it.

You know, when you have the facts on your side, you DO tend to point to them again and again. Especially when the other side is off in Cloud-Cuckoo Land with plans to win the war by turning around three times and whistling. Our people are dying over there, you know?? And by All-Seeing Zeus, there should be a better reason for keeping them there than, "Prove to me this won't work!" Especially when it's very obvious that the real reason for the continued dying is to save George Bush's face.

This post has been edited by Vladimir: Jan 14 2007, 06:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 14 2007, 06:53 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 12:41 PM) *


Yes, I did indeed assume that what was being debated here NOW was something of relevance now, namely, the "Surge." But it's is ironic that we had before people saying, "PROVE the plan to defend Baghdad won't work," who now say, "PROVE the 'Surge' won't work." Who the blazes should have the burden of proof, after four years of disaster and failed plans?


You are correct in one regard, the burden of proof rests on the Bush Administration. Whether or not the plan will work will be known when it reaches completion, either in success or failure. I've already stated numerous times, that I (nor you for that matter) knows whether or not we will meet with success or not.
I am left wondering how you can be so convinced, without even taking into account the merits or pitfalls of the plan. So much of your previous post is filled with statements that I agree with, yet you single me out as carrying the banner for Bush, and rely on generalities to make your case. Believe me when I say this, the administrations handling of the war has gone sour ever since the replacement of Jay Garner with Bremer. So many mistakes have been made, it's almost hard to count them. We have clearly been our own worst enemy in Iraq.
But at least with this plan, there has been some thought to all aspects of the fight; civil, military and political.
I completely understand your desire for full and expeditious withdrawl, and essentially I want the same thing. I just happen to believe that plan for Baghdad has a chance of working.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Jan 14 2007, 07:34 PM
Post #12


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?
Plan or ploy?

I think the general consensus around ad.gif is that the current situation isn't working. In the past, Bush has insisted that the generals on the ground in Iraq have not requested more troops.

As others have pointed out, the cynic can say that Bush is simply using this for political advantage (to win in '08??). The optimist would say he's trying something.

Of course, both are probably partially right. Bush needed to do something and this is a good time to do it with the Democrats rhetoric on insisting on justifications for all increases in funding.

Of course, the real question is whether or not this will turn the tide in Iraq. That is yet to be seen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jan 14 2007, 07:48 PM
Post #13


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Vladimir- DTOM is no GW apologist- that is why he has credibility here- the only folks that have 0 credibility in this debate are those that STILL think he is doing the right thing and always have, and it is the liberals that is causing GW horrific failures laugh.gif

That being said- I don't think it will work, because it is primarily a face saving attempt, because the ISG report's recommendations are along the lines of "I told you so" for many folks.

At this point- I believe we could double the number of American troops, even triple it, and it would have no real effect on the outcome at this point, with the plan as he has it now.

In fact, I believe that the Americans are so provocative to the general pop that any plan that relies on US force, with some backhanded reference to turning over the country to others (eventually) is doomed to fail.

If anything, we need to get other countries to pony up- and the only way to do that is do an end run around GW, which I don''t think is possible- GW has turned out to be the most dangerous man on the planet- for Americans and foreigners.

I believe the only way to start to turn the tide is to really rub GWs face in the dirt on the global scene.

We need to repudiate him like we wish the Islamic leaders would repudiate violence. The fact that our nation doesn't literally hang GW makes it very hard for us to stand up and say "Why do you allow these poeple to operate in your midst" (meaning allowing terrorists to live amongst them) - I think one of the MAIN underlying cause of the problems now in Iraq is highlighted occasionally on this board- that, one US soldier is worth 10k Iraqi lives, that we are making Iraq pay for our 3k dead by killing 600k of them- even though they had nothing to do with it, from Saddam on down.

This is a war, not as much as force, as about making friends and influencing poeple- and that part is a definate failure.

We are trying to use a military solution to solve a societal problem here- don't you agree? It is thier SOCIETY that we are fighting- NOT thier army. They have a limitless number of recruits- and, I understand that portions of this plan involve (finally) training the military in the customs and language and what not- but it is too little, too late. Had this been done from the begining, perhaps things would have been different- but the damage is done now.

And the ISG report certainly adressed this issue better.

QUOTE(Amlord @ Jan 14 2007, 10:34 AM) *

Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?
Plan or ploy?

I think the general consensus around ad.gif is that the current situation isn't working. In the past, Bush has insisted that the generals on the ground in Iraq have not requested more troops.

As others have pointed out, the cynic can say that Bush is simply using this for political advantage (to win in '08??). The optimist would say he's trying something.

Of course, both are probably partially right. Bush needed to do something and this is a good time to do it with the Democrats rhetoric on insisting on justifications for all increases in funding.

Of course, the real question is whether or not this will turn the tide in Iraq. That is yet to be seen.


That is why I posted on the "what now" thread on the dems taking power is to force Bush to use the ISG plan- when GW said "they don't have a plan"- that is a straight up damnable lie- there is a fantastic plan- the ISG report.

It is a political stunt because to use the good plan would show "weakness" by the neo-cons. And one thing a cowardly bully CAN'T do is lose face and appear weak to himself- but being a man and admitting he has been a miserable, idiotic, moronic boob is weakness to a coward.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rorschach
post Jan 14 2007, 07:54 PM
Post #14


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Member No.: 7,010
Joined: December-14-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jan 14 2007, 02:41 PM) *

That being said- I don't think it will work, because it is primarily a face saving attempt, because the ISG report's recommendations are along the lines of "I told you so" for many folks.

And the ISG report certainly adressed this issue better.


This is one of the tragedies of this entire debacle, how quickly the Iraq Study group was marginalised, and how quickly those few diehard supporters of the President's policy tried to demonise Baker.

Here we had a bipartisan group dedicated to anylising the various possibilities in Iraq and suggesting possible solutions, yet their report was utterly ignored by the President. The Iraq Study group actually considered the possibility of a troop surge and discounted it as unlikely to succeed.

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_r...roup_report.pdf

Yet less than three weeks after the Baker report provides its assessment, President Bush proposes a plan completely ignoring it, and one judged by it to be not worthwhile. One disapproved of by the great majority of Americans, and one which most major military commanders and the New secretary of defence have previously said would not work.

To me this is proof that President Bush makes up his mind and refuses to have his opinion altered by facts or reality. He suspected the ISG would give him a blank cheque to increase troops levels, and when it did not he simply ignored it. The ISG, when it was formed, was supposed to be a bright shining hope, finally a non-partisan group actually thinking out possible solutions in Iraq, why had this not been done three years earlier?

Yet when the report was released it was instantly sidelined and ignored by a president who had as little concern for disagreeing opinions as he does for contrary facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logophage
post Jan 14 2007, 08:03 PM
Post #15


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
August 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,456
Member No.: 3,058
Joined: May-8-04

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Rorschach @ Jan 14 2007, 11:54 AM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jan 14 2007, 02:41 PM) *

That being said- I don't think it will work, because it is primarily a face saving attempt, because the ISG report's recommendations are along the lines of "I told you so" for many folks.

And the ISG report certainly adressed this issue better.


This is one of the tragedies of this entire debacle, how quickly the Iraq Study group was marginalised, and how quickly those few diehard supporters of the President's policy tried to demonise Baker.

Here we had a bipartisan group dedicated to anylising the various possibilities in Iraq and suggesting possible solutions, yet their report was utterly ignored by the President. The Iraq Study group actually considered the possibility of a troop surge and discounted it as unlikely to succeed.

This really bothers me too. The ISG countenanced specifically against escalation of the type Dubya is now pursuing. Yet, here we are doing just that. The NeoCon contingent is still playing the same "Dems have no plan" song, yet this is patently false. Both the Biden plan of federalizing Iraq and the ISG phased-withdrawal plan are on the table but ignored (of course, the ISG is not a Dem plan).

Anyway, will troop escalation work? I believe that only way it could have worked is if 1-2 years we doubled/tripled the US troop presence in Iraq: 300 to 500 thousand troops. Only then could we have had sufficient numbers as policing operation. Not only is Dubya's plan too little, it is also too late.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jan 14 2007, 08:22 PM
Post #16


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 14 2007, 06:53 PM) *

QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 12:41 PM) *


Yes, I did indeed assume that what was being debated here NOW was something of relevance now, namely, the "Surge." But it's is ironic that we had before people saying, "PROVE the plan to defend Baghdad won't work," who now say, "PROVE the 'Surge' won't work." Who the blazes should have the burden of proof, after four years of disaster and failed plans?


You are correct in one regard, the burden of proof rests on the Bush Administration. Whether or not the plan will work will be known when it reaches completion, either in success or failure. I've already stated numerous times, that I (nor you for that matter) knows whether or not we will meet with success or not.
I am left wondering how you can be so convinced, without even taking into account the merits or pitfalls of the plan. So much of your previous post is filled with statements that I agree with, yet you single me out as carrying the banner for Bush, and rely on generalities to make your case. Believe me when I say this, the administrations handling of the war has gone sour ever since the replacement of Jay Garner with Bremer. So many mistakes have been made, it's almost hard to count them. We have clearly been our own worst enemy in Iraq.
But at least with this plan, there has been some thought to all aspects of the fight; civil, military and political.
I completely understand your desire for full and expeditious withdrawl, and essentially I want the same thing. I just happen to believe that plan for Baghdad has a chance of working.


I singled you out merely for your insistence, which you continue, that it's up to the detractors of Bush to demonstrates that a very marginal increase in troops, plus some nice-sounding words, will make a difference in Iraq.

As for "a chance" of working, I propose that instead of this plan, we build a great alter to Baal surmounted by a large golden calf, then slaughter 10,000 sheep on it. THAT would "a chance" of working -- Baal might actually exist and be so delighted with his renewed worship that He would grant us victory -- and it would not endanger 20,000 more U.S. troops.

Actually, I do "know" that Bush's plan has no chance of working, in the same way that I "know" sacrificing 10,000 sheep to Baal won't work either. The history of the war has already amply demonstrated the futility of attempting to use military force to impose the desired political order on Iraq. If there is going to be some major structural change in Iraqi politics to change that, then it will bring Bush his much-longed-for victory whether we have 140,000 troops there or 160,000. But if, as I think almost certain, there isn't going to be any such change, then 20,000 troops and some shiny power-point presentations most certainly won't accomplish anything except delaying our withdrawal. We've already had our troops up to 160,000, and what difference did it make?

Really, what is there but a lot of cheerful whistling by the Administration and its supporters, to distinguish this plan? And we've already heard a lot of very similar whistling before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Jan 14 2007, 08:47 PM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

It is a plan with a different objective.

The small increase in manpower will not be enough to effect change in any meaningful way unless...the increase is used for reasons other than providing security.

To cut to the chase DR, he is using the ploy of security to goad an attack on Iran.

Part one of Mr. B's plan involves removing the pessimistic dissenters, namely John Abizaid, (a fellow with extensive experience with on the ground operations) and replacing him with William Fallon, a general in the navy with both air and sea experience. Unfortunately General Fallon's skillset does not bring the needed criteria to end this conflict.

I argue, his appointment is a tacit admission that all communications in Iraq have deteriorated to unsalvageable levels

Fallon is precisely the general you would want on hand if you wanted to expand the war into a new territory with a bombing run.

CNN interviews Globalsecurity analyst John Pike who makes a compelling arguement that the use of Patriot missiles are not of any use to a ground based enemy that has no missiles.

Also, Bush's recent address suggests that an attack on Iran or Syria is a real possibility. Joe Scarborough does a piece (wait through commercial) which addresses the most important aspect of this tread, the attacking of an Iranian consulate with recognized military forces at the same time the CIA gets the green light to start financial interference against the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The justification for the consulate attack was not satisfactory among the Kurds. To add insult to injury the men were defended by Iraq's foreign minister and let go despite US assertions

If a reasonable explanation cannot be put forth with the requisite evidence than the attack could be considered an act of war as Pat Buchanan outlined above. Such an action runs a risk of alienating the Shias and adding to the chaos from Iraq and the rhetoric of escalation has little to do with Iraq as it is a ploy to engage Iran.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 14 2007, 09:37 PM
Post #18


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 02:22 PM) *

I singled you out merely for your insistence, which you continue, that it's up to the detractors of Bush to demonstrates that a very marginal increase in troops, plus some nice-sounding words, will make a difference in Iraq.

And why shouldn't I insist? Not a single person on this thread has even attempted to explain why it won't work, just that it won't work. That's certainly the easy way out. Too many people are stuck on the numbers of troops alone, and are paying no attention to what the troops will be doing. The plan will live or die by it's merits and it's success, not by the current head count of soldiers.
Either you are open to debate, or you are not. By the tenor of your posts, it is clear that you are the one not interested.

This post has been edited by Dontreadonme: Jan 14 2007, 10:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post Jan 14 2007, 10:17 PM
Post #19


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 14 2007, 09:37 PM) *

QUOTE(Vladimir @ Jan 14 2007, 02:22 PM) *

I singled you out merely for your insistence, which you continue, that it's up to the detractors of Bush to demonstrates that a very marginal increase in troops, plus some nice-sounding words, will make a difference in Iraq.

And why shouldn't I insist? Not a single person on this thread has even attempted to explain why it won't work, just that it won't work. That's certainly the easy way out. Too many people are stuck on the numbers of troops alone, and are paying no attention to what the troops will be doing. The plan will lve or die by it's merits and it's success, not by the current head count of soldiers.
Either you are open to debate, or you are not. By the tenor of your posts, it is clear that you are the one not interested.


But didn't I already point the marginal character of this increase, and to the lessons of four years of war already fought? Aren't these valid arguments? What NEW facts have come before us, that would make anyone think that THIS will change the course of the war?

It is not as if we've had four years of gradually increasing success, and are now suffering military reverses that might be overcome by the application of a little military force. On the contrary, since our initial conquest, it's been pretty well downhill so far as containing violence in Iraq is concerned. Many have said, we're trying to solve a internal Iraqi political conflict by military means, and suggested that that is impossible. So doesn't all this weigh against further dithering?

I do protest that the things I have said here and earlier do indeed address this question; at least, I think they do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
barnaby2341
post Jan 14 2007, 10:38 PM
Post #20


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Member No.: 5,682
Joined: December-1-05

From: St. Louis, Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 14 2007, 04:37 PM) *

And why shouldn't I insist? Not a single person on this thread has even attempted to explain why it won't work, just that it won't work. That's certainly the easy way out. Too many people are stuck on the numbers of troops alone, and are paying no attention to what the troops will be doing. The plan will live or die by its merits and its success, not by the current head count of soldiers.

The plan has numerous logical flaws. First, the increase in troops is going to support the Iraqi Security Forces in stabilizing the provinces of Baghdad. The reason the provinces are not stable now were stated by the President in his speech on Jan. 11, 2007.
QUOTE
Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

This begs the question; why do these forces need to be American? If this is a numbers problem, why does American blood solve the equation? If there are not enough Iraqis willing to join the Security Force then that means we will be in Iraq forever. If the Iraqi Security Forces are not skilled enough to stabilize a region, when will they be? Will they ever be? The insurgent are smart enough to wait for our troops to leave an area before they continue the violence. What is going to stop them from waiting until we leave the country or withdraw from a province?
QUOTE
political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
The President fails to mention why these neighborhoods were off-limits. My guess is because entry into these neighborhoods would incite violent responses. We are going to find that out. I get the impression from the President that we are going to be aggressive in our home invasion, our door-to-door operations. How many more insurgents will that create? How many supporters to the new Iraqi government are going to be lost when an innocent citizens door is kicked down by an American backed by the Iraqi Security Force? Or vice versa? This plan is a disaster.

President Bush said to Prime Minister al-Jaafari on June 24th, 2005:
QUOTE
This is an enemy that will be defeated," Bush pledged. "You don't have to worry, Mr. Prime Minister, about timetables."
Then this on Jan. 11th, 2007.
QUOTE
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.
That's a timetable. This statement, coupled with the ever-changing justification for this war make Pres. Bush impossible to believe. His word is worth nothing.

This post has been edited by barnaby2341: Jan 14 2007, 10:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

32 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 25th, 2018 - 08:03 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.