US To Reduce Amount of Troops in Iraq

Having nobody there isn't going to solve the problem either. Neither is sustaining the current level of patrols...there's not enough coverage of the warzone, the "Sunni Triangle." Also, the forces need to be more agile so they can better fight a guerilla force that relies on agility and being in tight little places that tanks and humvees and Apache helicopters can't go.
 
Yes that is right.
As I have said Bush administration failed in diplomacy and is still failing.

You can of course claim other countries of that not being receptive to arrogance and "we are the big boys"-attitude but that doesn't really work in reality outside of kindergarden.

It's very sad that international cooperation wasn't there and US has to soak up the damage now. It's in fact especially sour now that Bush claimed to war being over when it's really not. Just think of these casualties as combat casualties.

Why there wasn't cooperation?
Apart from the attitude I mentioned there was this right wing - left wing political strife that seems to ruin everything nowadays. Nations are failing to compromise and find middle ground. And above all people don't war nowadays and they don't want to hear the truth. This weakens the possible strenght behind politics that could actually lead world into more peaceful times.

But maybe situation in Iraq will eventually calm down and amount of troops will drop. It has to, otherwise Middle East is screwed.
 
The plan was always to reduce troop strength over time, and to rotate forces. This is nothing new.
What is needed is no necessarily large amounts of further troops, but a concentration of appropriate forces in the troublesome Sunni triangle; the further multinational division will allow such redeployment in due course. An ACR to further cut off and aggressively patrol the Syrian or Iranian borders in conjunction with the 3rd would also be useful.
 
You're right...the problem is getting to that point. I don't have a whole lot of faith right now in the teams being able to bring the military to that point. It still is about the "boots on the ground." I thought General Shinseki was right then and he's even more right now. Too bad he was quickly shut up and tackled by everyone.
 
Well, he had to be vaguelly correct about one thing for the wrong reasons during his mishapen tenure.
 
Come now Simon!
I'm sure you'll agree that Gen. Shinseki was able to accomplish an amazing degree of transformation and improvement in the US Army!
Need I remind you that it was he who brought us the stirring Army motto of "An Army of One"?
And who do you think was able to see fit to make the wearing of the black beret standard throughout the Army? I'm sure you would agree that the Rangers shouldn't be the only unit on the battlefield cutting a stylish pose.
Of course, my favorite is the institution of the revolutionary "Consideration of Others" classes that are required quarterly. What could inspire a more hard edged martial spirit than a group hug in the motor pool followed by singing "Somewhere over the Rainbow"?
 
Not asking and not telling behind the tank shed?
And of course berets are more important than providing proper boots.
Extremely positive steps in transforming a warfighting force to the armed wing of Oxfam.
 
If the Americans are to succeed in raising troop levels in Iraq and pacify the country (assuming they go hand in hand), then a good idea would be to take most of the infantry out of Korea. America could then move most of its Korean bases further south and have them focus on non-infantry tasks in a Korean conflict. This is largely due to the continuing increas in ROK strength. America could thus still have a huge power in Korea without leaving infantry as targets. These infantryman can then be sent to Iraq.

An American draft might be nice too. Send people from all classes and areas of America, rather than just poor people that have to join the volunteer forces to bring home the bread. Make sure none of the rich kids have their parents influence the draft-board into not making them go (wouldn't want another generation of chicken-hawk rich boys). This might not only help them win, but force the country to truly understand what war is about. Then maybe we won't have internet forums full of arm-chair generals that know nothing about actual war, trying to get other peoples kids to fight in their pissing contests.
 
The draft just sends even more poor people into the fire. The way it's worked before is that those who could buy it off or manage to find their way to college escaped. Although, I remember reading about some ROTC members in college being called up for the war.....so maybe just those people in Harvard will get a pass.


An interesting editorial from The New York Times

The Chicago Way
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: November 9, 2003

WASHINGTON

In the movie "The Untouchables," Sean Connery, a cop named Malone, instructs a naïve Eliot Ness on going up against gangsters.

"If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way, because they're not gonna give up the fight until one of you is dead," he says. "You wanna know how you do it? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

As the president offered his lofty "vision thing" for spawning democracy in the Middle East, America was at a rough juncture. The administration opened the can on these worms in Iraq. Are Americans now prepared to do what it takes?

The Bush crowd hurtled into Baghdad on the law of Disney: Wishing can make it so. Now they're ensnared in the law of the jungle: the rules of engagement don't apply with this scary cocktail of Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters and terrorists, who hold nothing sacrosanct, not human rights organizations, humanitarian groups or Iraqi civilians.

The gangsters are getting ever bolder about picking off our soldiers on land and out of the sky. With three Army helicopters hit in the last two weeks, killing 22 Americans, soldiers are reduced to flying low and fast, as they scan for the glint of sunlight coming off the rockets of the invisible guerrillas. It's an eerie flashback to the 10-year war of attrition Afghans waged against the mighty Soviets, when worn-down Soviet soldiers complained that the Afghan fighters were "ghosts" who would shoot down their helicopters with American Stinger surface-to-air missiles and fade back into the mountains.

On Wednesday, Senator John McCain offered a vinegary critique of the Bush team, urging the president to be more engaged on Iraq, and not leave decisions to subordinates. He also swatted Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that troop levels are fine, saying 15,000 more troops should be dispatched to avoid risking "the most serious American defeat on the global stage since Vietnam."

Senator McCain, nervous about both Army morale and Iraq shattering, believes we must get in deeper to make progress.

Administration officials, nervous about President Bush's election chances shattering, believe we must show progress by starting to pull out.

That is why the Pentagon announced last week it would reduce the number of troops by next summer, replacing them with Iraqis.

But some fret that the Pentagon — growing desperate as the Turks, the Indians, the Pakistanis and other allies refuse to send reinforcements — has been turning out new Iraqi police officers and guards as swiftly and sloppily as Lucy and Ethel turned out chocolates on the assembly line.

The Washington Post reported that tens of thousands of Iraqis were being shoved into action "with little or no formal training in democratic standards and relevant job skills."

Many diplomats were shocked to read the Times report that the back-channel attempt of Iraqis to avert war, with Richard Perle as go-between, was blown off with the C.I.A. message, "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."

But the Bush brigade had many dovetailing reasons not to be dovish.

Mr. Rumsfeld thought the war could showcase his transformation of the military to be leaner and more agile. Paul Wolfowitz thought the war could showcase his transformation of Iraq into a democracy. Dick Cheney thought the war could showcase his transformation of America into a dominatrix superpower. Karl Rove thought the war could showcase his transformation of W. into conquering hero. And Mr. Bush thought the war could showcase his transformation from family black sheep into historic white hat.

But now Wolfie's messianic vision of growing democracy in the Middle East is at odds with Rummy's stubborn desire to shrink the Army.

Our military around the globe is tapped out, so strained by Iraq and Afghanistan, as the Times military correspondent Michael Gordon discovered, that a unit from the Army's Old Guard is even being dispatched overseas. The guard is best known for ceremonial duties such as standing vigil at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery and serving in color guards for visiting dignitaries.

The Old Guard has not been deployed abroad since Vietnam.



 
Originally posted by Sobieski II
If the Americans are to succeed in raising troop levels in Iraq and pacify the country (assuming they go hand in hand), then a good idea would be to take most of the infantry out of Korea. America could then move most of its Korean bases further south and have them focus on non-infantry tasks in a Korean conflict. This is largely due to the continuing increas in ROK strength. America could thus still have a huge power in Korea without leaving infantry as targets. These infantryman can then be sent to Iraq.

I think moving some of the troops in Germany would be better than leaving the Korean Peninsula.
 
Originally posted by The Yankee


I think moving some of the troops in Germany would be better than leaving the Korean Peninsula.

I was actually going to say move both, but I forgot to write Germany. It is more assumed, I guess than Korea
 
Yes, but if you make the National Guard, The Reserves, and the Regulars go, it will be harder for men to hide in the Guard the way they did in Vietnam

More control over the draft boards might manage to send more rich kids abroad. Either way a draft would send more people to war, and thus show more of the country what they are actually doing abroad. I wonder if Darkshade would go fight? He seems to have the balls to talk on the internet about sending other people to war, but I wonder how he would do in a Falluja firefight.
 
They will find their way out...I don't doubt that. Or if they do go, they'll find some cushy jobs.

I don't like the draft for reasons of this nature, but if I was told to go, I'll strap on a helmet and go. I did try to get into the military not long ago through West Point.
 
Originally posted by The Yankee
They will find their way out...I don't doubt that. Or if they do go, they'll find some cushy jobs.

I don't like the draft for reasons of this nature, but if I was told to go, I'll strap on a helmet and go. I did try to get into the military not long ago through West Point.

Of course many of the rich would find their way out, but much of the upper middle class and middle class as well as some of the rich would go. The views of the people going and their families likely wouldn't continue supporting the idea of starting wars left and right. It isn't the rich you have to convince, its the people that vote for them.
 
Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
when will our troops be leaving kosovo? germany? japan? korea?

Our troops probably won't leaave Korea until we have gotten rid of the dictatorship in the North.
 
Back
Top Bottom