<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 09:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 21 2008, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 21 2008, 09:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I insinuate reality. Reality is that the only thing keeping Iran out of Iraq is the presence of our troops. Reality is that voters in Iraq have turned out to vote 2 or 3 times, in bigger numbers %-wise than we see here in the USA. The numbers do indicate the people there want democracy and for it to work. I find it rather sad that people are interested in inflicting revenge in Afghanistan, while the humanitarian cause in Iraq is downplayed for political gain. Saying it's a joke isn't a well articulated argument for anything.</div> Reality is you ignoring how much stronger we've made Hamas. </div> Hamas? That's a bit of a tangent, considering that Olmert has much to do with Hamas' recent empowerment as the present US administration. </div> D'oh! </div> Yeah, because victory is so close right now in Iraq.
Victory was had after the first three weeks. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...nterstitialskip U.S. to sit down with Syria, Iran for regional conference on Iraq Updated 2/27/2007 10:59 PM ET WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday that it will join Iran and Syria at a meeting of Iraq's "neighbors" next month — and it did not rule out one-on-one talks with either country. The meeting, organized by the Iraqi government and aimed at finding ways to stabilize Iraq, would put the United States at the table with countries President Bush has sought to isolate. "The Iraqi government has invited Syria and Iran to attend. … We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq — and to work for peace and stability in the region," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the move was consistent with the administration's position that it would talk with Iran and Syria if discussions were confined to Iraq. Critics of the administration's policies called it a change of course. The move comes as the administration is pushing for tougher United Nations sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its nuclear program. The administration has resisted calls for broader dialogue with Iran and Syria, which it says are prime sponsors of terrorism and are feeding instability in Iraq. McCormack said he could not "exclude the possibility" of conversations between U.S. and Iranian officials on the sidelines.
^ Something is up, and my guess is that it's related not to Iraq, but to Israel/Syria talks that Olmert is trying in order to save what's left of his political career.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 09:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Victory was had after the first three weeks. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...nterstitialskip U.S. to sit down with Syria, Iran for regional conference on Iraq Updated 2/27/2007 10:59 PM ET WASHINGTON — The Bush administration said Tuesday that it will join Iran and Syria at a meeting of Iraq's "neighbors" next month — and it did not rule out one-on-one talks with either country. The meeting, organized by the Iraqi government and aimed at finding ways to stabilize Iraq, would put the United States at the table with countries President Bush has sought to isolate. "The Iraqi government has invited Syria and Iran to attend. … We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq — and to work for peace and stability in the region," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the move was consistent with the administration's position that it would talk with Iran and Syria if discussions were confined to Iraq. Critics of the administration's policies called it a change of course. The move comes as the administration is pushing for tougher United Nations sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its nuclear program. The administration has resisted calls for broader dialogue with Iran and Syria, which it says are prime sponsors of terrorism and are feeding instability in Iraq. McCormack said he could not "exclude the possibility" of conversations between U.S. and Iranian officials on the sidelines.</div> What do you consider winning?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ look at the date on the article</div> Ah, I thought it was in relation to the next foolish round of 'talks' between Israel and Syria... I have that on my mind today.
Winning? The Iraqi army was completely defeated. Saddam ran away and hid until he was captured and put on trial. Saddam was permanently disarmed. We occupy their country while they build a nation around a demand economy (you might google the difference between a demand economy and command economy and then tell me how fast you think a switch can be accomplished). When do you think the US Civil War ended, and who won? I'll give you a clue: the North occupied the South (militarily) for decades, there were insurgents who lynched black people and the Republicans who were there to work with them to rebuild southern society, and it was written into the constitution that those who governed the southern states could never again hold office (much like de-baathification in Iraq).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Winning? The Iraqi army was completely defeated. Saddam ran away and hid until he was captured and put on trial. Saddam was permanently disarmed. We occupy their country while they build a nation around a demand economy (you might google the difference between a demand economy and command economy and then tell me how fast you think a switch can be accomplished). When do you think the US Civil War ended, and who won? I'll give you a clue: the North occupied the South (militarily) for decades, there were insurgents who lynched black people and the Republicans who were there to work with them to rebuild southern society, and it was written into the constitution that those who governed the southern states could never again hold office (much like de-baathification in Iraq).</div> I agree that Saddam's army was defeated, that's quite a short-term perspective though. We have a significant amount of troops there and General Petraeus would be pressed to tell you when we would be able to win this.
The short-term perspective is that the Iraqi nation could be rebuilt in under a decade. There's no excuse, and it's downright shameful, for politicians to make the situation into something it's not (quagmire, vietnam-like, can't win) for political gain.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 21 2008, 09:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The short-term perspective is that the Iraqi nation could be rebuilt in under a decade. There's no excuse, and it's downright shameful, for politicians to make the situation into something it's not (quagmire, vietnam-like, can't win) for political gain.</div> Hardly the consensus. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Heavy Troop Deployments Are Called Major Risk Readiness Is Dangerously Low, Army Chief Says By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 2, 2008; A04 Senior Army and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years. In a stark assessment a week before Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is to testify on the war's progress, Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military. "When the five-brigade surge went in . . . that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army," Cody testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's readiness panel. He said that even if five brigades are pulled out of Iraq by July, as planned, it would take some time before the Army could return to 12-month tours for soldiers. Petraeus is expected to call for a pause in further troop reductions to assess their impact on security in Iraq. "I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer. Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, one of the chief architects of the Iraq troop increase, has been nominated to replace Cody. Odierno is scheduled for a Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow. The testimony reflects the tension between the wartime priorities of U.S. commanders in Iraq such as Petraeus and the heads of military services responsible for the health and preparedness of the forces. Cody said that the Army no longer has fully ready combat brigades on standby should a threat or conflict occur. The nation needs an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a Stryker brigade ready for "full-spectrum operations," Cody said, "and we don't have that today." Soldiers and Marines also lack training for major combat operations using their entire range of weapons, the generals said. For example, artillerymen are not practicing firing heavy guns but are instead doing counterinsurgency work as military police. The Marine Corps' ability to train for potential conflicts has been "significantly degraded," said Gen. Robert Magnus, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. He said that although Marine Corps units involved in the troop increase last year have pulled out, new demands in Afghanistan, where 3,200 Marines are headed, have kept the pressure on the force unchanged. "There has been little, if any, change of the stress or tempo for our forces," he said, calling the current pace of operations "unsustainable." Magnus suggested that if more Marines are freed from Iraq they could also go to Afghanistan. Marines "will move to the sound of the guns in Afghanistan," he said. But he said it would be difficult to keep the force split between the two countries because the Marine Corps has limited resources to command a divided force and supply it logistically. The Marine Corps is "basically in two boats at the same time," he said. Both the Army and Marine Corps are working to increase their ranks by tens of thousands of troops -- to 547,000 active-duty soldiers and 202,000 Marines -- but newly created combat units will not be able to provide relief until about 2011. U.S. soldiers are currently deploying for 15-month combat tours, with 12 months at home in between. Marines are deploying for seven-month rotations, with seven months at home. Both services seek to give their members at least twice as much time at home as time overseas. "Where we need to be with this force is no more than 12 months on the ground and 24 months back," Cody said.</div> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0102444_pf.html
Wow, just wow. Here's Max Cleland's 2005 Democratic Radio Address where he's complaining the administration didn't send in 500,000 troops: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/senator_max_cle.php "There is no strategy to win. The President disregarded the advice of top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The President committed only one-fifth of that force to the war. Consequently, our military is completely overextended. Many servicemen and women are returning to Iraq for their third tour. The all-volunteer force is suffering - not only in the active force, but also in the Guard and Reserves. "Iraq is still not secure and we don't have the forces there to make it secure.</div> 3 years later and they're singing the same tune. Think we can last another 3 years? LOL
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The President disregarded the advice of top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The President committed only one-fifth of that force to the war. Consequently, our military is completely overextended. Many servicemen and women are returning to Iraq for their third tour.</div>
BTW http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms0.pdf US Military strength (number of forces) as of 4/30/08: Army 524,681 Navy 331,566 Marine Corps 189,546 Air Force 328,202 Total: 1,373,995 In Iraq: 130,000, or 10%
In today's news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin Operation in Sadr City Is an Iraqi Success, So Far Published: May 21, 2008 BAGHDAD — Iraqi forces rolled unopposed through the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City on Tuesday, a dramatic turnaround from the bitter fighting that has plagued the Baghdad neighborhood for two months, and a qualified success for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. As it did in the southern city of Basra last month, the Iraqi government advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias. This was a hopeful accomplishment, but one that came with caveats: In both cities, the militias eventually melted away in the face of Iraqi troops backed by American firepower. Thus nobody can say just where the militias might re-emerge or when Iraqi and American forces might need to fight them again. By late Tuesday, Iraqi troops had pushed deep into the district and set up positions around hospitals and police stations, which the Iraqi government was seeking to bring under its control. The main military question now is whether Iraqi soldiers can solidify their hold over Sadr City in the coming days. And the main political one is whether the Maliki government will cement its gains by carrying out its long-promised, multimillion-dollar program of economic assistance and job creation to win over a still wary population and erode the militias’ base of support. Sadr City has long been a simmering trouble spot, a haven for Shiite militias and a conduit for what American commanders say are Iranian-supplied arms, including explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb. In the past two months, it has also become a test of the government’s ability to find its footing in the slippery terrain of Middle Eastern Shiite politics and internal divisions among Iraq’s governing Shiite parties. The recent fighting flared up in late March after Mr. Maliki sent troops to gain control of the port city of Basra. Shiite militants responded by taking over Iraqi Army checkpoints on the outskirts of Sadr City and using the neighborhood as a launching pad to fire rockets at the Green Zone, the seat of the Iraqi government and site of the United States Embassy. American and Iraqi forces had little choice but to fight their way in to suppress the rocket fire. They pushed their way to Al Quds Street, which gave them a measure of control over the southern quarter of Sadr City. A massive concrete wall was erected along the thoroughfare to try to keep the militants out. But that still left most of Sadr City in the hands of Shiite militias, which continued to lob rockets at the Green Zone and attack the Iraqi and American troops in the neighborhood’s southern tier. Mr. Maliki had responded to a challenge from Shiite militias in Basra by mounting a hasty operation. The military campaign caught American officials by surprise and appeared to sputter at the start as the Iraqi forces faced logistical problems and more than 1,000 desertions. But as the Basra operation proceeded and Iraqi troops began to pour into the city, militia commanders drifted away. Mr. Maliki was strengthened politically in his drive to shape an image as a strong and decisive leader, the kind of leader many Iraqis, Sunni and Shiite, think is needed to control the country. Emboldened by the outcome in Basra, the prime minister wanted to act quickly against the militias in Sadr City as well, according to American and Iraqi officials. He was inclined to see the struggle as a test of wills, which he could win by striking a decisive blow, the officials said. Iraqi and Americans commanders, chastened by the stumbling first week of the Basra operation, favored a more deliberate approach. Sadr City is densely populated, with more than two million people, a bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, and a neighborhood with a resilient collection of militia cells adept at hiding among the populace. With operations in Basra, Mosul and other parts of Iraq, the Iraqi military was stretched. Additional forces were brought in, including the Third Brigade of the First Iraqi Army Division, a quick reaction force from Anbar Province. Lt. Gen. Abud Qanbar, the commander of Iraqi forces in Baghdad, developed a plan to advance north into the heart of Sadr City. The military preparations appeared to be serious, a fact that loomed large for leaders of Mr. Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army, who told one reporter last week that the militia was convinced that military operations were imminent. Maj. Gen. Mizher al-Azawi, the commander of the 11th Iraqi Army Division, said that the operation would be carried out by Iraqi ground forces with the support of American airpower.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said that the heavy deployments are inflicting "incredible stress" on soldiers and families and that they pose "a significant risk" to the nation's all-volunteer military. "When the five-brigade surge went in . . . that took all the stroke out of the shock absorbers for the United States Army," Cody testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's readiness panel. He said that even if five brigades are pulled out of Iraq by July, as planned, it would take some time before the Army could return to 12-month tours for soldiers. Petraeus is expected to call for a pause in further troop reductions to assess their impact on security in Iraq. "I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.</div> I guess he's just not qualified enough to give an opinion then. Must be lack of military experience or something.
While Gen. Cody has considerable credentials, the bulk of his experience has been as a staff officer or commander of troops in less than hot zones.
When you have 130K troops in Iraq and up it to 160K, you don't have to be a math expert to understand we've 30K less troops available to use elsewhere. Now, imagine if we had put in 500K troops! They'd still be there. The alternate plan has been to build up the Iraqi forces so they can do the things they're now able to do, witness the NYT article. You have to consider what 500K troops in Iraq would mean to the Iraqis. If they feel occupied now, they'd REALLY feel occupied with that many more troops there. That we have to have troops there at all, instead of a more proper force of police and doctors and engineers, is the failure of our leaders up to the toppling of Saddam - including Clinton and Bush I.
