General Casey says we need more troops.

[Little Raven]

A month ago, we were celebrating Zarqawi's death, and Maliki had just presented a new plan (Forward Together) to restore security in Baghdad. Part of that plan included upping the number of American troops in the city from 40,000 to 55,000 for additional security.

It hasn't worked. In fact, removing Zarqawi has had no noticeable effect at all on the rising violence in Iraq. The sectarian hatred he fostered has taken on a life of its own.

And to combat it, we're gonna need more guys.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, said Wednesday that “terrorists and death squads” were responsible for the surge in sectarian killings here in recent weeks, and that there might be a need to move more American forces into the capital to prevent the deadly cycle from worsening.

...

In a speech on Tuesday in Washington, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said retributive sectarian violence had overshadowed the three-year-old Sunni insurgency as the single biggest challenge to the nation’s stability.

A similarly blunt assessment, portraying Iraq as a nation on a precipice, was also offered by Mr. Maliki, who said in his speech to Parliament on Wednesday morning that his national reconciliation plan was “the only and last way to save the security and the political situation in this country.”

“We all have this last chance to reconcile and work hard to avoid the conflict and the blood,” Mr. Maliki added. “If it fails — God forbid — I don’t know what will be Iraq’s fate.”

Hmmm...Hate to say this, Nuri, but given how well Sadr is playing with the other children, it might be time to start working on Plan B.

 

[Capulet]

Another reason for a Democratic President in 2008.

 

[Little Raven]

Iraq is not going to suddenly start behaving just because a guy with a D by his name gets into the White House.

 

[Capulet]

Iraq is not going to suddenly start behaving just because a guy with a D by his name gets into the White House.

No, but with a better plan it might.

 

[CaptainF]

Oh but wait, Iraqis are taking over such and such province...

 

[Cuivienen]

From the British.

 

[CaptainF]

It is sarcasm, ye fine lass.

 

[amadeus]

Another reason for a Democratic President in 2008.

The Democrats are for increasing the defense budget?

 

[Capulet]

The Democrats are for increasing the defense budget?

Nah, we're for reality in Iraq. This is a war we can't win with military force alone. If Bush didn't ruin relations with the rest of the world, we wouldn't need more American troops - we would have our allies fill that gap.

 

[CaptainF]

Democrats also suck.

Spineless, blubbering weeners.

In other words, low-calorie republicanism.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Democrats also suck.

Spineless, blubbering weeners.

In other words, low-calorie republicanism.

Unless they are FDR or LBJ
(which gives a nice juxztapose of democratic presidents)

I dont see any democrate in the cut of either of these past presidents

 

[Capulet]

Unless they are FDR or LBJ
(which gives a nice juxztapose of democratic presidents)

I dont see any democrate in the cut of either of these past presidents

I'd say Kennedy is up there.

 

[potatokiosk]

Unless they are FDR or LBJ
(which gives a nice juxztapose of democratic presidents)

I dont see any democrate in the cut of either of these past presidents

So what? The Republican Party had Lincoln, but that's not doing them any good now. Just because good presidents were affiliated with certain parties doesn't mean that party is good now. Parties don't churn out good candidates, the good candidates make the parties.

 

[Elrohir]

So even while most of the country is stabilizing, Baghdad is still chaotic? No big suprise there.

 

[amadeus]

This is a war we can't win with military force alone. If Bush didn't ruin relations with the rest of the world, we wouldn't need more American troops - we would have our allies fill that gap.

No offense to you personally, but I think you're pretty naive. I'm glad we didn't have people like you at the helm during WWII.

 

[Little Raven]

So even while most of the country is stabilizing, Baghdad is still chaotic? No big suprise there.

Where do you get the idea that the rest of the country is stabilizing? We have attacks in Mosul, Baquba, and Kirkuk, and I'm only looking at the past few days.

This is your idea of stability?

 

[Elrohir]

Where do you get the idea that the rest of the country is stabilizing? We have attacks in Mosul, Baquba, and Kirkuk, and I'm only looking at the past few days.

This is your idea of stability?

I said "most" of the country. Which holds true; it's the four provinces of Baghdad, Al Anbar, Salah ah Din and Ninawa that hold most of the violence - 85% of the attacks. (Page 23, if you want to skip right to that part) That's out of 18 provinces. Twelve other provinces, together which count for half of the Iraqi population, receieve a mere 6% of the total attacks in all of Iraq.

Is Iraq fully under control? No. Will it be fully under control any time soon? No. Is progress being made? Yes. Is much of Iraq relatively peaceful? Yep.

 

[gotreg]

No offense to you personally, but I think you're pretty naive. I'm glad we didn't have people like you at the helm during WWII.

Yes. During WWII stays USA strictly neutral until Pearl Harbour, then it finds coalition friends )
Sorry man, but I thing that comparing WW2 with current conflicts (iraq for example) is silly and cheap.

 

[Little Raven]

Baghdad is the capital of Iraq, the heart of the country. It houses almost 25% of the population. Do you really think you can hold the country together if it tears itself apart?

Especially when you consider who controls the 'peaceful' South. I'll give you a hint: It's not us..

But hey, progress is being made. After all, you couldn't put it on the internet if it weren't true.

 

[Elrohir]

Baghdad is the capital of Iraq, the heart of the country. It houses almost 25% of the population. Do you really think you can hold the country together if it tears itself apart?

Especially when you consider who controls the 'peaceful' South. I'll give you a hint: It's not us..

But hey, progress is being made. After all, you couldn't put it on the internet if it weren't true.

It's actually between 20-21%, if you want to get technical. And no, I don't think we can hold the country if the capital is going nuts - but with the rest of the country becoming increasingly stable, the rest will follow suit.

I guess I can't really prove this to you, as we're talking about future actions. Time will tell, I suppose, and history will judge out actions.