Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is one of the few articles I've seen which addresses the troubling reality that the troop surge in Iraq will end soon. Not because of politics, but because the Army really doesn't have enough fresh troops to maintain its current operational pace at current recruitment levels:
The dark side of Iraq's good news (http://www.slate.com/id/2177250/fr/flyout - broken link)
Quote:
The situation does present a paradox, however. If the surge is the reason, as the generals claim, we're in trouble, because the surge is about to end. If Iraqi reconciliation and ethnic cleansing get primary credit, and the surge is mostly acting as a catalyst, our inevitable drawdown over the next six months to pre-surge levels may not be catastrophic, because the positive trends result more from Iraqi societal shifts and less from American soldiers brokering the peace. As commanders plan for the 2008 reduction in troops, they must try to reconcile these competing explanations and find a way to sustain the success when there are fewer—or no—American soldiers on the streets...
In fact, American forces don't control very much in Iraq. Rather, we influence events there by our presence and activities, and we exploit opportunities where they arise. Though our commanders may take credit for the reductions in violence over the past few months, this recognition is misplaced. Our paltry force of 169,000 contributed to an improved security situation, and likely catalyzed the Iraqi security forces to restore order in parts of Baghdad, but our security measures pale in comparison to the decisions by tribal leaders in Anbar and by Muqtada Sadr's militias to abstain from violence...
the Iraqi army... still cannot sustain itself logistically, nor can it plan and execute complex operations. The Iraqi police force remains a mess, unable to protect itself from insurgents, let alone enforce the law or protect the Iraqi population. Worse, some members and units of the police force reportedly continue to moonlight as sectarian death squads.
This raises the question - what happens after the surge draws to its natural end? Is there a way to keep surging, or are we finally about to slam up against the reality of too few troops for too many tasks?
Yes- the question you won't get an answer to on this forum, because there is no answer. The insurgents in Iraq are not dumb. They can play the waiting game. They know we can't keep these troop levels up past springtime. So they just wait and bide their time. The Sunni and Shiite leaders want to preserve their men and weapons until then.
This is what is so amazing, that we are about to run out of troops to send to Iraq and people are now beating the drums to go after Iran. As if the military can do this forever.
Yes- the question you won't get an answer to on this forum, because there is no answer. The insurgents in Iraq are not dumb. They can play the waiting game. They know we can't keep these troop levels up past springtime. So they just wait and bide their time. The Sunni and Shiite leaders want to preserve their men and weapons until then.
This is what is so amazing, that we are about to run out of troops to send to Iraq and people are now beating the drums to go after Iran. As if the military can do this forever.
And what would you have them do? Run home and promise never to come back?
And what would you have them do? Run home and promise never to come back?
The point of the OP being we are going to come home no matter...whether people like it or not. Due to purely practical reasons relating to military resources. This is something you won't hear about in the debates though...probably because that would lead to talk of a possible draft and Lord knows politicians don't want to go there. We will probably leave a small force in reserves to go Al Qaeda hunting, that is all we can do, ain't nobody else left to send.
The point of the OP being we are going to come home no matter...whether people like it or not. Due to purely practical reasons relating to military resources. This is something you won't hear about in the debates though...probably because that would lead to talk of a possible draft and Lord knows politicians don't want to go there. We will probably leave a small force in reserves to go Al Qaeda hunting, that is all we can do, ain't nobody else left to send.
Hillary disagrees with you. And I think she's going to call the shots.
Hillary disagrees with you. And I think she's going to call the shots.
Nah, she is just playing the politics now. She knows she has to keep playing along with this charade so she will not be made to appear weak and be as Patriotic as Rudy "September 11" Guliani. Once she becomes Pres. she can be clear with the people.
I like Dennis Kucinich's ideas of replacing the US troops with half-Middle Eastern UN "peacekeeping" troops... it seems likely that the sectarian war will be the quickest and the least bloody if the foreign security forces aren't seen as favoring one side over the other. The Sunnis, who we're supposedly forming alliances with now to defeat Al Qaeda, hate us the most. That's just to me, though, I could be totally wrong.
Nah, she is just playing the politics now. She knows she has to keep playing along with this charade so she will not be made to appear weak and be as Patriotic as Rudy "September 11" Guliani. Once she becomes Pres. she can be clear with the people.
Care to place a wager on that? Keep in mind that she is already planning her 2008 campaign...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.