After 3 years, we've come to this?

Posted: 12/21/2006 by Floyd in Labels:

That is what I thought of when I saw this article about toying with the notion of sending more troops it is like a delayed reaction, violence was up some 43% from the summer heading into October and now we have come to this. The Iraq War has become a main focal point for the war on terror, while the battle is heating up in Afghanistan and the terrorists have gained a foothold in Northern Pakistan due mainly to the Pakistani government and their blindness from the ongoing al-Quadea operations and others in the area, while we are being constantly tied down in Iraq with most of our forces, terror continues to spread elsewhere.
Mike Skelton who is to chair the House Arms Services Committee, said that sending more troops could exasperate the situation even further and does not see it as a big help. However the decider sees it different and what he says goes, and dag gummed if we need more troops we need more. Well as the months continue on we will see where this leads.

Bush told the Washington Post that the increase is for the general war on terror, and in the interview with the post gives his assumption on the election;

the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed.

As quoted in the N.Y Times yesterday there is two very important opposing views to this, one is Gen. John P. Abizaid, senior commander in the Middle East and is supported by Gen. George W. Casey Jr. who is the senior American commander in Iraq, Abizaid calls for more trainers in Iraq to train the Iraqi Army and also states that the increase in forces were bound to be rejected by the Iraqis, we have already seen in previous polls conducted there, and it shows the Iraqis feelings on us being there so his statement is very highly possible, he also stated that you have to internationalize the problem, diplomatically and Geo-strategically, now lets look at what he is saying in layman's terms, he is saying you have to think outside the box. You can't think of downtown Baghdad but you have to look at the situation as a whole, in other words, you throw in a brigade of troops or so to try and stabilize a small portion of a big problem.
Sometimes one wonders how many blunders do we make before we learn from them and learn that others have ideas also and by conversing with our leaders in the field we can better learn what is working and what is not, as for now, put the square peg in the round hole.
Today the pentagon circulated a request for an extra $99.7 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if approved the proposal would boost this years budget for those wars to about $170 billion. Gates the incoming Secretary of Defense made a surprise visit to Baghdad to discuss the circulating 'surge option' which is an increase in troops to the area, he was to also confer with top Iraqi officials to discuss what America's role should be in Iraq. The presidents statement concerning the war and how the American people thinks about the war in Iraq, here given in an excerpt; ``But I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now,'' the president said. ``A lot of Americans understand the consequences of defeat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.''
Another statement relating to 'victory' he stated that in affect it was attainable, however, no mention was made exactly to what victory really means? And this is the hard questions that needs to be asked, what is victory in Iraq?
Other reading;
Sen. Reid on the Huffington Post


  1. Octavian says:

    It's nice to know they're on the ball. They don't even want to send in enough troops to make a difference. I'm beginning to think they have no idea how to get out of this.

    ...wait....I've known that for years haha!

  1. Floyd says:

    You got that right octavian my friend they don't know how to exit Iraq, they do need 100's of thousands more troops, the best thing we could do is re-deploy to Kuwait and in the Northern Kurdish controlled sections of Iraq.

    We are nearing the 3,000 mark on our military personnel killed, and many thousands more wounded, which will cost us according to the Study Group Report into the trillions, not billions but trillions. We know who will foot the bill for this don't we?

    Even on the news they don't paint an accurate picture, saying re-deployment won't work, but they only show you Kuwait and not the northern controlled sections which are controlled by the Kurds, we could also re-deploy troops in those sections, the point is they don't want this to work.

    In all of my days I never thought educated individuals, who have been educated at Harvard and Yale could be so dumb. The example that I'm aware of is on CNN where they supposedly have a General and show you a map if we were re-deployed to Kuwait and they had a problem north of there we could not respond, but using a little common sense and geography we can demise if we re-deployed also in the Kurdish regions, we could respond to the north.

    Geez how they obtained a degree from any reputable University is beyond me?