Log in

View Full Version : Bush plans on sending more troops to Iraq



Guerrilla22
20th December 2006, 21:32
Bush Wants Increase in Size of Army


Dec 20, 1:52 PM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT





WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush says he is inclined to believe that the United States needs to increase the size of the army and the Marines. But Bush said he has not decided whether to order a short-term surge in U.S. troops in Iraq in hopes of gaining control of the violent and chaotic situation there.

"There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy," the president said.

Bush conceded Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at "establishing security and stability throughout the country."

The president spoke as Robert Gates made his first visit to Iraq since being sworn in earlier in the week as defense secretary. Bush said he has asked his new Pentagon boss to report to him as quickly as possible on plans to enlarge the size of the Army and Marine Corps.


(AP) President Bush, center, smiles after signing the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Wednesday,...
Full Image


At his traditional year-end news conference, Bush pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.

Bush didn't wait for the first question before assessing the past 12 months, saying, "2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people."

He also said he supports a moderate coalition in Iraq, a new effort by the government to "marginalize the radical and extremists" in Iraq.

"We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources," the president said. "We can ask more of our Iraqi partners and we will."

Most of the questions dealt with the war in Iraq, but the president was also asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.


(AP) President Bush, seated, signs the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006,...
Full Image


"I know Mary and I like her and I know she is going to be a fine, loving mother," said Bush. Neither he nor his questioner referred to Cheney's partner, Heather Poe.

Bush confronts a Democratic Congress as he begins the final two years of his presidency. Even so, he said he intends to "sprint hard to the finish."

He said he saw an opening for compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress that convenes on Jan. 4. He cited Social Security and immigration as two major areas in which common ground might be found. He also called for fresh efforts to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious - things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.

"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.


(AP) President Bush speaks during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower...
Full Image


"Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."

Bush also explained a striking shift in position - his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was "absolutely winning."

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, "I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted."

Looking ahead, Bush said a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Iraq rests on whether a specific, achievable mission can be defined. Top generals worry that a troop surge could strain the military overall and might be ineffective unless accompanied by political and economic changes in Iraq.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission said a quick buildup of troops could be helpful if the military commanders on the ground thought it would be effective in arresting what it called a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.


(AP) President Bush speaks during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower...
Full Image


White House officials had earlier said the president intended to address the nation before year's end to set out a revised plan for Iraq. That speech has been put off until after the holidays.

Bush was asked whether he was like Lyndon Johnson, who had difficulty sleeping during the difficult days of the Vietnam War.

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that "my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives." And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on terror - and will.

It "is the calling of our generation," he said.

Not for the first time in his presidency, Bush also expressed frustration that classified material continuously finds its way into print.

"Turns out you can never find the leaker," he conceded.

He said it was possible an investigation is under way into the recent leak of a memo from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley that was critical of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Phalanx
20th December 2006, 23:57
Not surprising, since the military is extremely overstretched at the moment. With an army like this, how could he possibly attack Venezuela or Iran?

I'd like to know how he could possibly get enough cannon fodder when recruiters are failing to meet their goals. I don't think a draft anytime soon is likely, so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Guerrilla22
21st December 2006, 00:46
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.

Tekun
21st December 2006, 05:12
They're scrambling to fix the problem
Considering that Bush and Blair are slowly running out of time b4 they leave office, I think that they're willing to do just about anything to get a handle on the situation or at least get the upper hand on the insurgency
Even if that means decreasing troop levels in other areas of the word (NK, PI possibly)


"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.
Hmm, I wonder how that happened?
Maybe the conflict that you and your bosses created intensified the sectarian strife?
Ever think of that?


I think its fair to say that this lil press conference of his was the last b4 he goes on his extended vacation for xmas
He sure as hell won't be thinking about Iraq while he's opening presents and drinking hot cocoa on xmas morning

Janus
30th December 2006, 08:19
It's obvious that the US armed forces are stretched yet it doesn't seem likely that Bush is gonna get what he wants. The army is already having difficulty managing troop strength even with their recently reduced standards and with it's continued commitments, it seems quite doubtful that troop strength can actually be increased significantly.

( R )evolution
30th December 2006, 08:23
Yeah especially with the morale low. Recurting levels very low. I really dont see anything that can strength the numbers of the military unless they impose a draft but I doubt that is gonna happen. Well just less people to fight during the revolution.

coda
31st December 2006, 09:07
--------------

Dimentio
31st December 2006, 09:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia

Guerrilla22
31st December 2006, 19:48
Originally posted by Serpent+December 31, 2006 09:47 am--> (Serpent @ December 31, 2006 09:47 am)
[email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia [/b]
:lol: Probaly

SmashCapitalism
31st December 2006, 20:14
Why doesn't that dumbass send his two daughters over to Iraq? Maybe then he'd care more about killing everyone else's kids.

Isn't it amazing, that these senators who approve the wars don't have kids involved in them. Just another way for the rich to get richer with the blood of the commoners.

Janus
1st January 2007, 23:14
Isn't it amazing, that these senators who approve the wars don't have kids involved in them. Just another way for the rich to get richer with the blood of the commoners.
Yes, and supposedly that's the basis on which one of the Democrat Senators is trying to bring back the draft. Of course, it would still be very possible for the children of such powerful figures to somehow escape combat.

Severian
2nd January 2007, 04:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 02:19 am
It's obvious that the US armed forces are stretched yet it doesn't seem likely that Bush is gonna get what he wants. The army is already having difficulty managing troop strength even with their recently reduced standards and with it's continued commitments, it seems quite doubtful that troop strength can actually be increased significantly.
I don't entirely agree. But it would cost a lot to increase the army size - they'd probably have to increase pay, benefits, and bonuses to keep and recruit more soldiers.

Tekun
2nd January 2007, 12:48
Originally posted by Severian+January 02, 2007 04:42 am--> (Severian @ January 02, 2007 04:42 am)
[email protected] 30, 2006 02:19 am
It's obvious that the US armed forces are stretched yet it doesn't seem likely that Bush is gonna get what he wants. The army is already having difficulty managing troop strength even with their recently reduced standards and with it's continued commitments, it seems quite doubtful that troop strength can actually be increased significantly.
I don't entirely agree. But it would cost a lot to increase the army size - they'd probably have to increase pay, benefits, and bonuses to keep and recruit more soldiers. [/b]
Considering the long term "goals" and conflicts that this adminstration has laid out, specifically the so-called "War on Terror," I doubt that bonuses and pay would attract many to join the military
I think that most military personel joined before 9/11 ocurred, during the relative peace
And now that the country is involved in two conflicts and in several face offs with "rogue" nations, many who are and will consider joining the military will think twice b4 signing up

Red Tomato
2nd January 2007, 21:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 09:32 pm
Bush Wants Increase in Size of Army


Dec 20, 1:52 PM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT





WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush says he is inclined to believe that the United States needs to increase the size of the army and the Marines. But Bush said he has not decided whether to order a short-term surge in U.S. troops in Iraq in hopes of gaining control of the violent and chaotic situation there.

"There's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before, you know, I agree on that strategy," the president said.

Bush conceded Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at "establishing security and stability throughout the country."

The president spoke as Robert Gates made his first visit to Iraq since being sworn in earlier in the week as defense secretary. Bush said he has asked his new Pentagon boss to report to him as quickly as possible on plans to enlarge the size of the Army and Marine Corps.


(AP) President Bush, center, smiles after signing the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Wednesday,...
Full Image


At his traditional year-end news conference, Bush pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.

Bush didn't wait for the first question before assessing the past 12 months, saying, "2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people."

He also said he supports a moderate coalition in Iraq, a new effort by the government to "marginalize the radical and extremists" in Iraq.

"We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources," the president said. "We can ask more of our Iraqi partners and we will."

Most of the questions dealt with the war in Iraq, but the president was also asked about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.


(AP) President Bush, seated, signs the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006,...
Full Image


"I know Mary and I like her and I know she is going to be a fine, loving mother," said Bush. Neither he nor his questioner referred to Cheney's partner, Heather Poe.

Bush confronts a Democratic Congress as he begins the final two years of his presidency. Even so, he said he intends to "sprint hard to the finish."

He said he saw an opening for compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress that convenes on Jan. 4. He cited Social Security and immigration as two major areas in which common ground might be found. He also called for fresh efforts to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious - things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.

"The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.


(AP) President Bush speaks during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower...
Full Image


"Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."

Bush also explained a striking shift in position - his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was "absolutely winning."

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, "I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted."

Looking ahead, Bush said a decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Iraq rests on whether a specific, achievable mission can be defined. Top generals worry that a troop surge could strain the military overall and might be ineffective unless accompanied by political and economic changes in Iraq.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission said a quick buildup of troops could be helpful if the military commanders on the ground thought it would be effective in arresting what it called a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.


(AP) President Bush speaks during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower...
Full Image


White House officials had earlier said the president intended to address the nation before year's end to set out a revised plan for Iraq. That speech has been put off until after the holidays.

Bush was asked whether he was like Lyndon Johnson, who had difficulty sleeping during the difficult days of the Vietnam War.

In response, the president said it was difficult knowing that "my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives." And yet, he said, the United States must prevail in the global war on terror - and will.

It "is the calling of our generation," he said.

Not for the first time in his presidency, Bush also expressed frustration that classified material continuously finds its way into print.

"Turns out you can never find the leaker," he conceded.

He said it was possible an investigation is under way into the recent leak of a memo from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley that was critical of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
president bush is an idiot. first of all, if the american government increased the size of its army in iraq it would only lead to more deaths of americans and iraqis. second, it would lead to civil war in iraq in a larger sense, though it has begun the moment america stepped foot there. :ph34r:

Dimentio
2nd January 2007, 21:34
Originally posted by Guerrilla22+December 31, 2006 07:48 pm--> (Guerrilla22 @ December 31, 2006 07:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:47 am

[email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia
:lol: Probaly [/b]
When the US is overstretched, it uses allies in the third world. The Ethiopian-Somalian war is a manifestation of that. But it is a bad strategy if you want to keep control because it would turn those allies stronger. So strong that they may not be dependent on the US any more.

Red Tomato
2nd January 2007, 21:35
Originally posted by Serpent+January 02, 2007 09:34 pm--> (Serpent @ January 02, 2007 09:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 07:48 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:47 am

[email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia
:lol: Probaly
When the US is overstretched, it uses allies in the third world. The Ethiopian-Somalian war is a manifestation of that. But it is a bad strategy if you want to keep control because it would turn those allies stronger. So strong that they may not be dependent on the US any more. [/b]
lol yep. and then the US will not be able to depend on anybody :lol:

Dimentio
2nd January 2007, 22:28
The UK. ^^

Or Lichtenstein :P

Janus
2nd January 2007, 23:28
I don't entirely agree. But it would cost a lot to increase the army size - they'd probably have to increase pay, benefits, and bonuses to keep and recruit more soldiers.
Either that or mobilize more reserves or perhaps thin out troops in other non-combat areas.


When the US is overstretched, it uses allies in the third world.
Well, not exactly. The US simply finds it more expedient and useful to use proxies regardless due to the strategies adopted during the Cold War.

Brownfist
2nd January 2007, 23:36
I think that this proposed increase to the size of the army demonstrates a growing crisis in American imperialism abroad. It is unimaginable that an advanced capitalist imperialist country like the USA has been unable to gain control of the situation in Iraq, this is not sign of an imperialist country at its peak, but rather an imperialist nation in decline. However, the problem is that much like the left in Iraq, there is not an international communist movement that is prepared and organized for such a crisis. I do not think that the crisis of which I speak is right around the bend as I am not a prophet, but I do think that American imperialism is in decline. This can also be seen due to the unpunished intransigence of the DPRK, successes of progressive movements in Latin America, the revolutionary movements in Nepal and the Philippines, and the American governments inability to deal with any of the above international issues. However, this decline in American imperialism is not akin to a crisis in capitalism necessarily.

Noah
3rd January 2007, 00:10
The Americans have fucked the Iraqi people over in every way possible, adding more troops is a way of justifying their failed attempt to stablise Iraq before leaving..Anyway, if the Americans could deal with the terrorists then they would have but the fact is that they cannot, they cannot beat guerillas, more troops simply means more chance of a roadside bomb / or any other explosive connecting with a US soldier.

If things get better when/if a surge takes place and they stabilise Iraq then I can only give it to them because I have family there but I am sceptical...

Dimentio
3rd January 2007, 00:56
Actually, if we for a moment ignore all empathy, all international courtesy and all moral codes of civilisation, it actually is possible to succeed with an imperialist conquest. But then the conqueror must be completely remorseless, and build up layer upon layer of steel repression.

For every American soldier killed, execute 100 civilians. Round up the population and create marshal laws. Give the Sunnis all power and armor and then reinstall a puppet dictatorship.

It is physically possible to create order that way, at least as long as the occupation forces are there. In fact, it is the only way to create order there right now from the perspective of the occupant.

But the Bush administration won't do that since it would ruin what little international status the US got left.

manic expression
3rd January 2007, 05:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:56 am
Actually, if we for a moment ignore all empathy, all international courtesy and all moral codes of civilisation, it actually is possible to succeed with an imperialist conquest. But then the conqueror must be completely remorseless, and build up layer upon layer of steel repression.

For every American soldier killed, execute 100 civilians. Round up the population and create marshal laws. Give the Sunnis all power and armor and then reinstall a puppet dictatorship.

It is physically possible to create order that way, at least as long as the occupation forces are there. In fact, it is the only way to create order there right now from the perspective of the occupant.

But the Bush administration won't do that since it would ruin what little international status the US got left.
There are conquerors who tried those tactics, many of them failed. Look at what the French did in Spain, lined up civilians and shot them after French soldiers were ambushed; the French were eventually driven out.

Machiavelli himself held that colonizing a target area is much better than stationing troops and trying to subjugate it militarily.

Pawn Power
3rd January 2007, 06:17
Originally posted by Guerrilla22+December 31, 2006 02:48 pm--> (Guerrilla22 @ December 31, 2006 02:48 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 09:47 am

[email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia
:lol: Probaly[/b]
Maybe, but they are defiantly looking in to increasing recruitment of non-US citizens. Probably more of them with come from Mexico and Central America then Ethiopia, but the use of mercenary like soldiers appears to be a direction the US is planning on going.

Military considers recruiting foreigners (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/)

Janus
3rd January 2007, 08:20
but the use of mercenary like soldiers appears to be a direction the US is planning on going.
As can be seen by the way in Iraq, warfare is definitely becoming more commercialized something that has only recently begun to truly disembark not only in terms of resource distribution/transportation but also in terms of manpower.

Pawn Power
3rd January 2007, 17:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:20 am

but the use of mercenary like soldiers appears to be a direction the US is planning on going.
As can be seen by the way in Iraq, warfare is definitely becoming more commercialized something that has only recently begun to truly disembark not only in terms of resource distribution/transportation but also in terms of manpower.
Actually the practice of enlisting foreign soldiers is not particularly recent or original, from the article:


O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military -- in the Revolutionary War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the colonists, and locals were recruited into US ranks to fight insurgents in the Philippines.

Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese soldiers called Gurkhas have fought and died with British Army forces for two centuries; and the Swiss Guard, which protects the Vatican, consists of troops who hail from many nations.

ComradeR
4th January 2007, 12:43
Originally posted by Noah(pbuh)@January 03, 2007 12:10 am
The Americans have fucked the Iraqi people over in every way possible, adding more troops is a way of justifying their failed attempt to stablise Iraq before leaving..Anyway, if the Americans could deal with the terrorists then they would have but the fact is that they cannot, they cannot beat guerillas, more troops simply means more chance of a roadside bomb / or any other explosive connecting with a US soldier.

If things get better when/if a surge takes place and they stabilise Iraq then I can only give it to them because I have family there but I am sceptical...
The only way a troop surge could work is if they sent enough troops (talking millions here) to make movement impossible for the guerillas throughout the country, this 25-30 thousand they're talking about wont even be enough to secure Baghdad. Like you said it's just a way to save face for when they leave, The future of Iraq is pretty much set we're going to see a "Balkanization" of the region and a genocide that will make what Saddam did look like childs play.



Actually, if we for a moment ignore all empathy, all international courtesy and all moral codes of civilisation, it actually is possible to succeed with an imperialist conquest. But then the conqueror must be completely remorseless, and build up layer upon layer of steel repression.

For every American soldier killed, execute 100 civilians. Round up the population and create marshal laws. Then reinstall a puppet dictatorship.

That describes what the US did in Panama in 1989 perfectly.

Janus
8th January 2007, 08:10
Actually the practice of enlisting foreign soldiers is not particularly recent or original, from the article:
Obviously, mercenaries are nothing new. What is new is that actual corporations are getting more involved in the business of war itself. Besides, most of the private recruits are Americans rather than foreigners.

coda
8th January 2007, 18:29
-----------------------------.

Guerrilla22
8th January 2007, 18:42
The US government denies that so called "private defense contractors" have been involved in actual combat. However, in all likelyhood and according to eyewitness accounts they have. If Bush wants to send 20,000 more soldiers over there, they might have to be of the mercenary variety, because I have no clue how he's going to come up with an extra 20,000 US soldiers.

Pawn Power
10th January 2007, 00:29
In regards to increasing the size of the army the gallup poll shows-
Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%. Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26%, a record low.

Poll: Low support for Iraq buildup (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070109/1a_lede09.art.htm)

Phalanx
10th January 2007, 00:36
I'm not sure how he's doing it, but it looks like Bush will have his way:

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq)

OkaCrisis
10th January 2007, 05:55
Originally posted by Serpent+December 31, 2006 04:47 am--> (Serpent @ December 31, 2006 04:47 am)
[email protected] 21, 2006 12:46 am
I don't know where he's going to get an extra 35,000 troops from.
Ethiopia[/b]
Canada.

:(

^ Canadians in Afghanistan = ^ Americans in Iraq (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=33f4e491-f5ed-4d7d-b448-44c1f98f483d)

I know that 200 additional troops is nowhere near 35 000, but 'every little bit helps', as they say. After all, Canada has over 2000 troops in Afghanistan right now. It makes me wonder how many thousands of troops other countries, like Britain, have in Afghanistan (this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/06/nafg06.xml) article mentions at least 4600).

How many people from how many countries are fighting America's War?

La Comédie Noire
10th January 2007, 06:31
White House officials had earlier said the president intended to address the nation before year's end to set out a revised plan for Iraq. That speech has been put off until after the holidays.

I have a feeling Mr. Bush's last two years are going to be ones of great stagnation and death. He's obviously stalling because he doesn't want to do anything that will make him look worse than he already is, while at the sametime dumping the problems of the current administration on the next. When he makes speeches you can tell hes trying to be as vague and neautral as possible...


Bush also explained a striking shift in position - his statement on Tuesday that the United States is neither winning nor losing in Iraq, contrasted with his insistence at a recent news conference that it was "absolutely winning."

He said his earlier comments were meant to say that, "I believe that we're going to win, I believe that ... My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I had wanted."

Definatley not the "liberator" we remeber from 3 years ago. I don't think we can expect anything much better or much worse from this clown, he's nothing more than a washed up public relations nightmare.

Well then, onto the next tyrant in 2008.

Janus
12th January 2007, 19:59
The United States could start withdrawing forces from Iraq this year if the additional troops being sent to Baghdad reduce violence significantly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday

Gates sees fewer troops in Iraq in 2007 if plan works (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070112/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc)

Seeing as how the US has had a very poor record of accomplishing their goals so far, I doubt that any troops will be withdrawn at all.