Latest disastrous plan: More GIs to Iraq

[bemildred]

Many of the wise people in this country who supported the Iraq war at the beginning now contend that the answer to the problem is to send more troops to Iraq. Sen. John McCain says that 20,000 more should be enough. Some of the military "experts" on television are hinting that 100,000 more will do the job. Rumors are being leaked from the Iraq Study Group established to shape "new strategy" that they will recommend more troops, too. The New York Times editorial page recommends more troops temporarily in Baghdad.

One begins to wonder who won the election and whether McCain plans to seek the presidency two years hence with the blood of more American men and women, to say nothing of Iraqi women and children, on his hands. One has to ask all these wise people how they know that more troops will prevent Iraqis from killing one another or merely provide more targets for snipers and roadside bombers.

What serious neutral expert could possibly predict that more troops will solve the problem? Does not all the literature on guerrilla war suggest that traditional military force, no matter how large, cannot cope with dedicated shadow warriors? There were a half million Americans in Vietnam and they could not end the war. Gen. Earle "Bus" Wheeler asked for 200,000 more troops without any guarantee that they could find the light at the end of the tunnel. Lyndon Johnson finally said "no" and in effect resigned from the presidency.

Is McCain prepared to stake his reputation for "experience" in matters military on the promise that 20,000 more American targets would win the war? Is the new secretary of defense (a member of the Iraq Study Group) willing to risk becoming a new scapegoat for more failure and more death in Iraq?

SunTimes

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. ...looks like the definition of insanity to me....

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think the plan is actually to let the Dems object to a military buildup

and then blame them when everything falls apart because they "wanted to lose, so they tied our hands and wouldn't let us do what needed doing."

[bemildred]

3. Yeah, basically a stalling tactic.

Hoping for something to happen or to shift some of the blame. Meanwhile people are dying and the country is going deeper into debt to pay for nothing.

[LynnTheDem]

4. And what happens when that extra 20,000 (or 200,000 or 2 million) troops

LEAVE Iraq?

How can so many supposedly sentient people be so damned stupid?

America; where bush is considered "intelligent" by the stupid half of the country.

[indepat]

5. Will someone please explain to me what the job is that more troops are needed for?

:shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Several Hundred Thousand Are Needed

Several hundred thousand more were needed at the beginning to keep the peace - many more are needed now to restore it.

This is nuts.

[lapfog_1]

7. I suggest that should such proposals be made...

the Dems hold hearings... and then the increase is mentioned, make the generals and DOD officials "swear under oath" that this could end the war in one year... and also "how many do you need? How much more money?"

And finally, "where will you find that many?"

The number of people calling and writing their representatives and the President after the hearings are held will kill this plan.

[rgbecker]

8. My money says they'll recommend more troops!

Think about it.  Papa Bush and his friends are certainly not
going to let the history books show W going down in defeat in
Iraq on his watch.  Best to clear away the major anti
"Decisive Force" Rumsfeld, and let the military have
their 250,000 to 350,000 to "Secure the Peace". 
Baker will ramp it up then let the next administration worry
about pulling out.  Envision helicopters ferrying out the
remains of our "Supported" troops from the green
zone in 2009. 
"Teach your children well" so they won't be lured
into the "Glory" of war one generation after
another.