Bush's "last big push in Iraq," a final desperate attempt to prove he's a better man than his daddy

[Human Torch]

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html

[flobee1]

1. I have real problems with this plan

"Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown."

1- On the subject of troop levels, McCain is right. If we want to end it militarily massive troop numbers will be needed

2- 20,000 isn't going to cut it. More are needed. Is that all thet can get?

3- If defying the Dems is his only reason for upping troop levels-dont bother, george!
You STILL dont get it
Think hard george-Why are we making so much noise about bringing the troops home?
BECAUSE WE DONT WANT THEM KILLED FOR NO REASON!!!!!!
Do you think sending more troops over as a big F U to the Dems is going to make us anything but pissed off?

[aquart]

3. I don't think they can get the 20,000.

George has decimated our military. From the snippets I read here, I think they are putting sailors on ground patrol next.

If they pull all the national guard out of the country, and we have an earthquake, another bad hurricane season.....any of a number of natural disasters......and we have no one left to call on in America who has training.......George will be leaving abruptly.

So, basically he's gambling with our national security because he doesn't have a good grasp of the meaning of the term, and doesn't give a shit anyway.

[peacebird]

7. Sailors are already on ground patrol now

Have been for at least a year.

[rodeodance]

2. The day after the election, I knew in my gut, but the things he said that

he was not ready to 'make nice'

[aquart]

4. Spiteful toads do not make nice.

They make you sorry you were ever born.

[sutz12]

5. He couldn't hit..............a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle.

[sampsonblk]

6. I am in favor

If there's any possibility of cauterizing this massive wound that Bush has created, it will only be done by temporarily increasing troop levels, followed by an orderly withdrawal within the next six months or so. Right now, its a complete disaster, with no end in sight. There has to be a way to creat a greater Green Zone which will permit a regional summit inside Iraq and will facilitate the entry of other nations to help with this mess.

I don't see how Bush, with a straight face, can ask anyone to come in and help with the situation that exists today.

*I do not support a renewal of the Fallujah-type massacres we have seen over the past few years. If that's what they're planning, I am 100% opposed.

[annabanana]

8. Please explain exactly how

this will help..
What exactly will these additional troops do except further inflame animosities? If they are used to support an Iraqi "army" that is overwhelmingly made up of ONE FACTION of the warring constituencies over there,HOW WILL IT HELP?

edit: typing while hollaring

[sampsonblk]

10. Hollering is a good sign!

This situation has a lot of us doing that.

What I suggest is that a temporary increase in troop levels will allow the enlargement of the area where our people can move freely. We need help over there, from people (nations) who actually understand the culture and know what they're doing. Right now, we can't even ask them to come sit down and talk about it, because they might get their butts blown off.

So I suggest a temporary infusion of troops to confiscate any known large ammo caches and clear a larger safe zone to facilitate travel. They can also provide security for a regional summit to invite (beg) for nearby nations to help us out of this mess. We can't get anything done with bullets flying overhead.

*None of this Iraqi army stuff. I am talking about Americans and maybe Brits. Iraqi army is garbage and will get our guys killed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Sounds like the German Spring Offensive of 1918

And we all know how that ended...

[July]

11. Okay, did I dream it, or did a general announce earlier in the year

(with much fanfare) that we'd have reduced the troop levels to around 100,000 by late this year? We're near 150,000 now, with the proposal to add another 20,000? Fuzzy math strikes again.