Surge......

**~~Chaitanya~~** · 09 Jan 07,, 15:08

i donnknow, what you think?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...news-a_section

**Dreadnought** · 09 Jan 07,, 15:15

Do it mythodically and keep U.S. troops out of the hot spots and on the borders. However give the Iraqis the logistics they need and or the back up if needed air or ground support but let them choose their own battles to fight.

**~~Chaitanya~~** · 09 Jan 07,, 15:29

Some say "kick their butt"
Time will tell, DN.
Choose and again I SAY CHoose.

either with us, or against us.
simple.
Chai

**Dreadnought** · 09 Jan 07,, 15:54

You got it.

**Shek** · 09 Jan 07,, 19:03

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Do it mythodically

Is that a play on words or a typo

**Dreadnought** · 09 Jan 07,, 19:05

Originally Posted by shek

Is that a play on words or a typo

<never tellin

**SalemPoor** · 10 Jan 07,, 01:46

Surge....Stupid.

Too little, too late, for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

**~~Chaitanya~~** · 10 Jan 07,, 04:12

Originally Posted by SalemPoor

Surge....Stupid.

Too little, too late, for something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Yawn...........
, and yer point is?

**SalemPoor** · 10 Jan 07,, 05:29

Originally Posted by Chaitanya

Yawn...........
, and yer point is?

I would think that the point is rather self-evident and requires little elaboration. However, the amount of troops, be they 20,000 or 40,000 are insufficient to accomplish the mission of pacifying Iraq even by the estimates drawn up by Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, or by Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan call for no less than 30,000 troops over and above the boots on the ground to pacify Bagdad alone. That's 30,000 shooters, not clerks and bottle washers, where exactly are they coming from and for how long can they be deployed?

Any less is folly even by Petraeus' own estimates.

**SalemPoor** · 11 Jan 07,, 03:04

Well, I take it back, Bush's speech provide far more than I suspected. He has presented a fail-safe exit strategy; demand that the Iraqis perform as he knows full well that they can't, and when they fail, lay the blame at their footsteps. Quite clever if you ask me.

**smilingassassin** · 11 Jan 07,, 07:13

Originally Posted by Chaitanya

Some say "kick their butt"
Time will tell, DN.
Choose and again I SAY CHoose.

either with us, or against us.
simple.
Chai

Not so simple to those who are quite willing to replay the role of Chaimberland. Quite simple to those of us who understand just what terrorism is.

I for one thing a Surge is the correct way to go and Iraq is sending an additional 4,500 troops to Bagdad too for a total of 24,000 troops with the specific task of protecting Bagdad.

As for the arguement sending a surge now when it should have been done long ago, simply laughable. With that logic we should just quite the war. "We didn't fight hard nosed enough without remorse or respect for civilian causualty's in the begining to get our Instawar finnished in 6 months, kill all the insurgents, hang Saddam, set up a 100% stable govt. ect. ect......"

**SalemPoor** · 11 Jan 07,, 15:19

What surge? In December of 2005 there were 165,000 troops in Iraq, the "surge" brings the total to 153,000. You do the math.

"Too little, too late -- way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.

**TheChosenOne** · 13 Jan 07,, 02:55

Ah yes, the new infamous surge. Being a army SGT here in Iraq on the ground that is being extended to help implement this new plan I have some unbiased opinions onto why the surge may very well work in the short term. But in the long term is the question?

First and foremost, if this surge is to be successful we must as they are saying, occupy ground we have cleared and keep that ground. In order to do this, not only in Baghdad but in all the other places that this needs to be done, we need more then 150,000 troops in country. But here in lies the paradox that may result in two different options the enemy may choice to do. So far in the war after we have cleared a town, they have left and moved onto a new "target of oppurtunity", an easier target, a different town. So then we chase them into that new location leaving behind the place we just cleared for them to come back with either no troops or an substantial amount less then we originally had in that location since we took it away from them. They then regain the control they need in that place we just cleared in order to conduct operations on their own game plan once again. It's quite simply a damned if we do, we're damned if don't approach. Someone had mentioned only 3500 Iraqi troops in the capital. The new plan is to have three more Iraqi brigades on top of the current, I believe, two Iraqi battalions. If they show, that is the question. Adding 17,500 more (4,000 marines to the Anbar province for a total of 21,500) American troops will surely make an impact on Baghdad as long as we have nothing holding us back. I mean we need to be able to engage the militia's instead of having our hands tied due to political reasons.

I have more insight to write about but my shift is up and I'll be back on more often then not.

**TheChosenOne** · 13 Jan 07,, 02:58

I also wanted people to know that Shi'ites are also attacking us on many occassions. More then you think....

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Jan 07,, 03:02

Sgt,

1st allow me to thank you for your service. And I do want to hear more; especially about the Iraqi security forces and just how much can they realistically take over from the American/British forces.