An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Will Sending More Troops To Iraq Help?
Here’s one argument about why it won’t.
4 Responses to “Will Sending More Troops To Iraq Help?”
The author makes a lot of sense. My biggest arguments against sending more troops have been that —the military doesn’t have the manpower to do so and sending more in without any analysis of the likely results or stating how the troops would be used is the same kind of flawed reasoning that got us into this mess’o'potamia in the first place. We are already spending at the rate of 7 billion a month, so sending good money after bad seems counterproductive.
As the appearance of achieving victory has mattered more than actual milestones in this conflict, I’m worried that Bush/Cheney might see this as a politically sound decision,even though it might be tactically just the opposite. If we could maintain the illusion that we are winning by calming the violence with more troops, the next commander-in-chief who actually had the cojones to admit that it is a lost cause, would be blamed for the loss if he withdraws them.
Good link, Joe. The neocons should have learned this from Vietnam. When the enemy looks just like the civilian population, all they need to do is stash their AK47 and play civilian til the soldiers leave. They can wait. They live there. [of course the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history]
And Kim, I agree that it could look like ‘progress’ and provide some cover, but if we’re still mired in Iraq in 2008, I can’t see any way for it to play well for the Republicans. Maybe Bush is selfish enough to try to save his legacy at the expense of GOP legialstors, but I doubt they’re willing to go down in flames so Bush doesn’t go down in flames in the history books.
Bravo. As someone who was in a gang in my teens, he nails a good point.
Another analogy I use is the Capone/Dillinger analogy to Saddam/Osama. People who try to link the two do so because the two associated with the same frelance criminals, who would do ‘jobs’ for either/or. That does not mean DSaddam &Osama were pals, anymore than Capone &Dillinger. Both pairs of killers were known to be contemptuous of each other.
The problem is that the military sees these thugs as military foes. The gang analogy is apt because it is corrcet. Al Quaida is the Crips or the Yakuza or the Black Hand with a religious hard on.
Deal with them the way you deal with gangs and this idiotic war in Iraq wd have been avoided. Of course Bushco’s masters would not have enjoyed the billions they’ve raked in profits.
Maybe Bush is selfish enough to try to save his legacy at the expense of GOP legialstors, but I doubt they’re willing to go down in flames so Bush doesn’t go down in flames in the history books.
GreenDreams He is selfish enough-he proved that by firing Rumsfeld when it was too late to help the GOP hold onto Congress.He’s also proven it by sending too few soldiers in at the beginning, allowing the looting and sending unqualified loyalists to work in the provisional government, almost ensuring that we would lose, and that Iraq would never have security or freedom.
I think his legacy is all he’s concerned with. As far as the legislature, I thought all they could do is refuse to fund the war, which is how we got out of Viet Nam. I can’t see them refusing to supply the troops, no matter how bad it gets. I agree with you that if we are still in Iraq in ’08 it will cripple the GOP in all branches.