One idea for more troops in Iraq.

[Little Raven]

There is fierce debate in Washington as to whether or not Iraq is 'hopeless.' Obviously, there's growing momentum behind the idea that it is, but it's hardly set in stone. However, virtually nobody is denying that Iraq is in very, very bad shape, and that drastic measures will be needed now if it is to be saved.

One of the most popular 'remedies' is of course more troops. But troops aren't exactly easy to come by. In fact, it's almost impossible to see where we could get more troops via conventional methods without seriously compromising other military obligations.

So...on to the unconventional. Retired Army General Jack Keane suggests (audio link only, sorry) that one way to quickly and effectively boost troop levels would be to change the rotation schedule. Right now, troops rotate in and out of Iraq on an annual basis, give or take a few weeks. (Yes, some get stuck there longer, but the Army tries for a year.) Keane suggests that it's time to think about doing away with that, and essentially keeping troops there 'until the job is done, like we did in WW2.' (It's unclear whether or not troops would be allowed to leave when their tour expired, or whether they would be kept on via stop-loss orders and the like. What did we do in WW2?) He acknowledges that this would be a serious sacrifice on the part of the military, but thinks that with the right leadership, it is one that could be made. And there's no question that it would allow us to place and keep larger numbers of boots on the ground. In addition, they would be experienced units, already familiar with the landscape and equipped with much of the knowledge they need. Jack Keane believes that winning Iraq is absolutely necessary for America’s continued security, and that we should be prepared to sacrifice accordingly.

Could our military pull off this kind of radical redeployment strategy? Would the American public support it? Would you?

 

[JollyRoger]

The better solution would be to use the tools of the NSA to track down war supporters and conscript them for service.

 

[Steph]

I'm not sure I understand the idea. Does it means when a soldier set foot in Iraq, he remains there until it's finished?

In other words, you could put 500k troups "forever", instead of putting 100k because they can stay there only 1 year out of 5?

BTW, these figures may not be accurate.

 

[nc-1701]

We could, but I don't like it because it would effectively kill recruiting and morale.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

How would one define 'the job being done.' In WWII there was an obvious end

 

[Little Raven]

I'm not sure I understand the idea. Does it means when a soldier set foot in Iraq, he remains there until it's finished?

Well, right now, when a soldier sets foot in Iraq, he knows that there's a very good probability that he'll be going home in 12-15 months regardless of what happens on the ground.

This would presumably change that. We rotate new guys in, but we don't bring the old ones home...they stay there. Each rotation 'in' adds to the force already stationed there. (This would have to be accompanied by some strategic repositioning of forces...it's not like the guys rotated out are just sitting around doing nothing.)

How this meshes with things like tours ending isn't exactly clear, but then this idea is obviously at the 'vague suggestion' phase; it's not a fully developed proposal yet. But presumably we could look to WWII as a guide.

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm not sure I understand the idea. Does it means when a soldier set foot in Iraq, he remains there until it's finished?

If that assumption is correct then it would not be a war to provide and rebuild Iraq but a colonization.

 

[IglooDame]

I think in WWII enlistments were "for the duration, plus six months". Of course, when you have conscription in the first place, enlistment times are much more easily adjusted than with volunteer armies.

I think this is a really really bad idea.

#1 - at this point most of the American electorate does not consider Iraq essential to American security
#2 - morale in the Army and Marine Corps would plummet, and recruiting would become an expensive exercise in futility
#3 - "the duration" doesn't have a specific goal post, and suddenly tying when troops can actually come home to "peace with honor/cutting and running" type political maneuvering is the quickest way to incite even more "national security as a political football" hostilities

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Its a dumb idea. The problem today in Iraq is no longer that there arent enough American troops. That was only important in the months immediately after the toppling of Saddam. We already screwed that part up a long time ago, its settled. Sending more troops in, in an attempt to rectify previous mistakes is nothing more than a new mistake. Today the problem in Iraq is a burgeoning civil sectarian war over control of the oil assets of the former Iraq. Sending more US troops wouldnt resolve the Sunni Shia conflict because its an ancient one, and has little to do with our inept administration or troop deployments. Its also a much wider regional conflict, the former Iraq merely serves as a battlefield.

Our mission was to create a stable, democratic Iraq. We failed. Time to wrap things up and bring these people home, before our stupidity gets more of them killed, for nothing.

 

[Little Raven]

Ah, IglooDude, glad to see you found your way to this thread. I must admit, your military experience made me particularly interested in seeing your views on this proposal. Now we just need to lure Mobboss in here....

Anyway, the military is actually one of the loudest voices in Washington at the moment among the crowd that says Iraq is not hopeless and should not be abandoned. Doesn't that suggest a certain willingness to make the kind of sacrifices necessary to 'win' it? (I agree that there are problems with 'the duration' as some kind of marker, but didn't those problems exist in WW II as well?)

 

[CartesianFart]

Our mission was to create a stable, democratic Iraq. We failed. Time to wrap things up and bring these people home, before our stupidity gets more of them killed, for nothing.

Nothing?...Nothing?

I am sure that they died for something or anything instead of nothing.Rediculous on your part to say that.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Nothing?...Nothing?

I am sure that they died for something or anything instead of nothing.Rediculous on your part to say that.

Its much more ridiculous to send men and women to die for nothing, than it is to remark on it.

 

[CartesianFart]

Its much more ridiculous to send men and women to die for nothing, than it is to remark on it.

That is what the difference between me an you.You define it as "nothing' and i define it as something or anything.

Remember this,they(the people who are there)volunteered for this job.They know the risk of getting killed or maimed.

Now tell me,is that dying in Iraq is nothing?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

That is what the difference between me an you.You define it as "nothing' and i define it as something or anything.

Remember this,they(the people who are there)volunteered for this job.They know the risk of getting killed or maimed.

Now tell me,is that dying in Iraq is nothing?

Thats another thread. This ones about strategery

 

[REDY]

There is still possibility estalbish Saddam back;-)...I know, bad joke....I think mentioned step only will do more problems than before, especcialy in behaviour of young soldiers. But how realy solve it? Hmm. I think Americans could ask France and others to send more units to Afhanistan and remove all their troops to Iraq...

 

[MamboJoel]

There is still possibility estalbish Saddam back;-)...I know, bad joke....I think mentioned step only will do more problems than before, especcialy in behaviour of young soldiers. But how realy solve it? Hmm. I think Americans could ask France and others to send more units to Afhanistan and remove all their troops to Iraq...

So that at the end of the equation, France and others support the war effort in Irak

 

[REDY]

Well I know its hard for France but now its not war between USA and Iraq...it should be their goal help Iraqi people to have stable country, within reason of destabilization...

 

[CartesianFart]

Sometimes i get an impression that France foreign policy stance is nothing but to establish another different proposal alternative in contrast to Anglo-American foreign policies in this global world to say the least.

France is the ugly cousin that begs the question on how to manage the world peacefully.

 

[IglooDame]

Anyway, the military is actually one of the loudest voices in Washington at the moment among the crowd that says Iraq is not hopeless and should not be abandoned.

Got link? (Not questioning it, just that I haven't seen such and would be very interested in seeing their position clarified.)

Doesn't that suggest a certain willingness to make the kind of sacrifices necessary to 'win' it? (I agree that there are problems with 'the duration' as some kind of marker, but didn't those problems exist in WW II as well?)

If the military is seeing that they can pacify provinces with sufficient forces to lock places down, then sure. In fact, I would tentatively agree with them - you can break insurgencies not through dropping bombs, but providing enough security that the local population doesn't feel it necessary or useful to pick up a rifle themselves, and neighborhood by neighborhood is how it spreads. I personally don't think the general American population is going to buy it, though - Bush has poisoned the well with all his "I am only doing what my generals recommend" crap.

And a cessation of hostilities is a very WWIIish concept. Perhaps if Saddam had handed over his sword and signed a surrender document when Baghdad fell (or even just killed himself in some traditional way so a subordinate could take over and announce a surrender), Iraq might be a very different place lately. But if you stop-loss the entire Iraqi theater, there will only be well-publicized grumbling from the military folks - along with outraged screaming from the home front, and recruiters attempting to sign up homeless bums because no one else will answer their phonecalls.

 

[MamboJoel]

Sometimes i get an impression that France foreign policy stance is nothing but to establish another different proposal alternative in contrast to Anglo-American foreign policies in this global world to say the least.

No, it's to give every peaceful option a try before starting a war.
Note that it's not only France's foreign policy, it surely hasn't invented it, and it's shared by a lot of other nations.
Note also that what's happening since 2003 hasn't contradict this policy.