US To Reduce Amount of Troops in Iraq

[cgannon64]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...06/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_worldwrap_031106221306

I think this could actually be good news if they put in troops that are more appropiate to the situation, like replacing artillery units, etc.

Or maybe Rumsfeld could just be exaggerating, and the troop capability will not actually increase.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Exactly the WRONG move.

Troops in Iraq are ALREADY stretched. Think what it's going to be like in a few months when missions start expiring - or in a few years, when soldiers must choose whether or not to re-enlist.

Unfortunately it's the only POSSIBLE move because our soldiers are already strained to the limit - we have maybe 3-4 brigades at home out of 33 and that's it.

There are plenty of other countries with soldiers to spare. None of them wants to lend them to the USA. We are seeing on the ground in Iraq why and how our diplomacy was a failure.

The moment State and the Pentagon realize the disaster we are facing in just a few months, they'll pack off Mr. Bush to the UN again - this time with a real humility, a real agenda, and real responsibilities and rewards for the UN and member nations. Then and only then, we can start to pull ourselves out of the hole.

Unfortunately it looks like Bush and Co are heading in exactly the OPPOSITE direction because they keep talking about how the solution is now "an Iraqi police force".

We all know how well that worked in Afghanistan.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

I read somewhere that there are only 28.000 frontline combat troops patrolling in Iraq. The rest are support, logistics and so on.

Compare to New York where there are 39.000 police officers (really?) to keep order. And i presume the amount of assault rifles handheld rocket-launchers are significantly lower there. The population of New York is parhaps also less hostile to authority.

Naturally what can be achieved security wise in Iraq, a country the size of France, will at best be negliable.

Anyway the country's infrastructure is destroyed and that was perhaps the whole point of the whole exercize.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

when will our troops be leaving kosovo? germany? japan? korea?

 

[Yago]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
when will our troops be leaving kosovo? germany? japan? korea?

St. Never day, I fear.

 

[The Yankee]

Not good. That just makes it even more thin. You do know that it's not like there are actually 130,000 people patrolling the streets.....the far majority of those people are running support systems. The number of patrols is far lower than that.


Dr. Dr. Doktor......I read that same thing too. It was in the New York Times....an op-ed piece pointing out the situation and what was to be done.


And yes, there really are some 39,000 NYPD. That's a little down, actually, from a peak during better years.

 

[onejayhawk]

What is needed now is a different mix of troops than has been in country since spring. The heavy fighting is over, so a shift to more security oriented troops is due. For that matter some refit and retrain is due as well.

J

 

[The Yankee]

In other words.....more soldiers that actually patrol. I would agree with that.

 

[cgannon64]

Yes, it was an op-ed piece. And to clarify what I meant in my first post:

Perhaps the troops that are being taken out are support troops that are not really necessary, in which case its not a bad thing. In fact, the amount of patrolling troops could even go up if less support troops are taken out then actual patrolling troops are put in.

 

[Ossric]

not a lot of troops left in Kosovo, the EU is taking over that job
a lot of the soldiers in Germany are already in Iraq

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Unfortunately it looks like Bush and Co are heading in exactly the OPPOSITE direction because they keep talking about how the solution is now "an Iraqi police force".

We all know how well that worked in Afghanistan.

An Iraqi police force and army is exactly the RIGHT move to sort out the peace over there. Many Iraqis understandably have major problems with Americans on their streets enforcing peace when they cannot speak the same language and thus are unable to deal appropriately with the concerns of the people and with events on the ground. Having their own countrymen dealing with problems is FAR more sensible and is the first major step to rebuilding the country.

Comparisons with Afganistan are not appropriate in this instance, the two countries are wildly different. Iraq is a far more modern country where (despite certain opinions) the infrastructure of the country is not totally destroyed as is the case in Afganistan. Iraq is more than capable of ruling itself and looking after its own problems now that Saddam has been removed, they simply need our help and support in doing so in the short term. Many Iraqis recognize this and whilst they look forward to a time when the US and UK can leave they recognize that for the moment we are needed.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
only 28.000 frontline combat troops patrolling in Iraq. The rest are support, logistics and so on.

Yup. Most Army personnel - at any given time - are employed in safe drudgery. Mr. Rumsfeld wants to change that. He envisions a "smaller" army composed of pure combat soldiers (a lot more of them than now), supported by a vast second rung of private contractors independent of the army. Bigger is smaller. Trim the fat by flowing on the gravy. Mmm, gravy.

So today's army cook will soon carry a rifle, and a McDonald's lunch.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom


Yup. Most Army personnel - at any given time - are employed in safe drudgery. Mr. Rumsfeld wants to change that. He envisions a "smaller" army composed of pure combat soldiers (a lot more of them than now), supported by a vast second rung of private contractors independent of the army. Bigger is smaller. Trim the fat by flowing on the gravy. Mmm, gravy.

So today's army cook will soon carry a rifle, and a McDonald's lunch.

Wait a minute. That is exactly the way the Russian army functions. During the Great Patriotic War as the losses mounted the whole logistic train was taken over by an impossible assortment of 'private contractors', villagers, peddlers, notaries, medicine men, vagabonds, shepherds, prostitutes and what have you, all following the track where the money were.

So one day there will possibly be a case of logistics officers selling ammo and ordnance to Iraqis, just like it is recurrently happening Chechnya.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Just recently they were complaining they don't have enough troops. Are the neo-cons getting cold feet about the whole affair?

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

Hoo boy. Ummm, what can I say that hasn't been said already? I guess Bush'll be learning his lesson soon, hopefully. And I kinda hope Pontius is right on Bush actually being humble enough to go to the UN soon...

 

[Kentonio]

I cant believe you guys actually want the head of your nation to have to go begging to a bunch of other leaders. Do you actually remember who makes up the UN or has it taken on some mystical wonder in peoples eyes? The UN is a no more or less than a group of countries who basically fight for whats best for themselves whilst condeming the worst excesses of others. If you really think that America being humiliated in the eyes of the world is a good thing then I suggest you consider emigrating.

'Real humility'? To the other members of the UN, that has got to be a bad joke...

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I cant believe you guys actually want the head of your nation to have to go begging to a bunch of other leaders.

Is nationalistic pride worth the death of our soldiers that we supposedly support, of the people we supposedly came to liberate, and the prospect of democracy in the Middle East that the administration supposedly espouses?

I suppose so, according to you.

 

[Kentonio]

Lmao, worth the lives of US soldiers? Because somehow according to you bringing in the UN would stop people from being killed yes? What would they do? Wave a big magic UN wand and make all the badness go away?

Or maybe you just think its better to get some of everybodies troops to go do some dying, much more civilized that way yes?

 

[The Yankee]

Jeff Bolton, KFAB radio host, blames the media for all this and says that troop number isn't the issue, but it's the media's always reporting US deaths that are defeating the American cause (which is kind of ironic considering he's in the media). He hosts "Drive Time Osama." Essentially, he's saying that every time the media reports some "kid getting killed" is not appropriate and is not needed.

Buchanan & Press right now....Both Press and Buchanan are arguing points against him.

 

[cgannon64]

@ Yankee: I saw a funny cartoon mocking that stance. They had a newscaster saying:

"In other news, 110,567 Americans didn't die in Iraq today..."

"Wait, make that 110,566...65...64..."