Bush Contemplates Up to 40,000 More Troops In Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:38:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From the Sunday Times Online (UK): President Bush is considering a "double down" strategy in Iraq.

Having ruled out a “graceful exit”, Bush is tempted by the one option that presents the slightest chance of success: a sustained surge of up to 40,000 US forces into Baghdad and the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province.

He believes a sharp boost in troop numbers could salvage his reputation as a resolute war leader while presenting a satisfying break with the “cut and walk” proposal to reduce combat troops by early 2008 that came from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, his father’s secretary of state. This independent report is already gathering dust.

What a travesty. Our sinking leader cares more about salvaging his legacy than the lives of American troops.

< Rudy Giuliani Makes a "Rookie Mistake" | Bill Clinton: A Help or a Hindrance to Hillary? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush Contemplates Up to 40,000 More Troops In Iraq | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Impeach for Insanity (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by vwbug on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:12:30 PM EST

George has another thing in common with the first King george of this country, insanity. They can impeach him for being crazy. He obviously lives in a make believe world that he refuses to come out of.

Bush... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by desertswine on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:40:14 PM EST

is insane.

Or...He needs the troops for the next war (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by bx58 on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:41:19 AM EST

Does anyobody doubt that we're not itchin for a fight with Iran?

It's so transparent, from our deadly silence during the Israeli destruction of Lebanon's infra-structure to the wholesale demonization of our "next enemy" in the media.

As for the "current rules of engagement" I would guess Jarober wants the US to just bulldoze houses on top of people and shoot rockets into any home we think houses "terrorists?

It's worked for the Israelis. Right.

There is not too much risk of attacking... (none / 0) (#18)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:23:33 PM EST

...yet another country because we now have a tissue-thin paper tiger army.

The military has neither the personnel, the equipment, the ability to train new recruits, the ability to recruit new recruits, and military officers are ditching the military in record numbers.

You can bet that hugh numbers of personnel will leave the active services and the reserves in DROVES as soon as they possibly can and it will take a generation or more to restore respectability to American armed forces.

America, the greatest threat to world peace, even more so than radical Islamic terrorists.

bush is already going to be known as the first American president to lose two wars simultaneously; adding the loss of yet another war on top of Afghanistan and Iraq would not be good for his legacy - unless he WANTS a legacy declaring him to be America's first Insane president.

Nice job, mr. boosh.


: Facts please (none / 0) (#26)
by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:36:27 PM EST

Retainment is fine...
Retainment
America, the greatest threat to world peace, even more so than radical Islamic terrorists
If you believe that then how can you be argued with?
Really?

"double down" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 07:59:17 AM EST

He believes a sharp boost in troop numbers could salvage his reputation as a resolute war leader while presenting a satisfying break with the "cut and walk" proposal to reduce combat troops by early 2008 that came from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group

IOW, covering his ass is more important to him than the reality that his gambling addict fantasies have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. utterly destabilized the ME and probably started a world war.

A huge PR problem. But that's all it is to him.

Lives mean nothing to him.

Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East"

The Map of the "New Middle East"

The New Totalitarianism. Rule Through Barbaric Annihilation

Nice job indeed

: re: (Bush's) gambling addict fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by john horse on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 09:20:40 AM EST

Bush is like the gambler on a losing streak who keeps on doubling up on his bets in the belief that his luck is bound to turn around. However, war should not be like a game of chance and the chips he is using to bet are the lives of American soldiers.

The Ungraceful Exit (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by john horse on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:21:53 AM EST

Having ruled out a "graceful exit" Bush has opted for an ungraceful humiliating exit that will result in many more unnecessary casualties, weaken our military, and further damage our country's reputation.

According to Fareed Zakaria more troops may have made a difference at the beginning of the war but at this stage it is as Bush's daddy used to say "too little too late." The reason that bringing in more troops is not going to work is that the problem is primarily a political problem instead of a military one. These troops will be caught in the middle of a civil war. One day they will be fighting the Shiites under Moqtada al-Sadr and the next day they will be fighting the Sunni insurgents. More US troops is counterproductive as it keeps the various factions from having to work together to seek a political solution. It also runs counter to what some of our military leaders believe. (per Think Progess) CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid rejected McCain's calls for increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq, saying that he "met with every divisional commander, Gen. Casey, the core commander, Gen. Dempsey" and asked them if bringing "in more American troops now, [would] add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq and they all said `no.'"

So Bush continues his march of folly in Iraq despite the availability of more rational alternatives. By refusing to face reality he is setting us up for an even bigger fall. When that day of reckoning comes instead of coming to the realization that they and they alone are responsible for this fiasco that has cost 3,000 American lives and 22,000 wounded, Bush and his supporters will do the one thing that they are good at, blaming someone else. I can see it coming. When all else fails blame the Left.

Democratic Party enables militarism (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Andreas on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:57:58 AM EST

One of the main hurdles the military has faced to increasing the size of the occupation forces is that the military is already severely strained. A planned increase in the military's overall permanent troop strength, a move that has been long advocated by the Democratic Party leadership, would be intended to address this problem.
The Democratic Party, having won control of Congress primarily due to public opposition to the war, has already ruled out any cut off of funding for military operations in Iraq, and has also rejected any talk of impeachment. The spinelessness of the official opposition in Washington has once again handed over political initiative to the most right-wing militarist factions of the American ruling elite.

Bush administration preparing to boost US troop strength in Iraq
By Joe Kay, 15 December 2006

: Ain't it a-m-a-a-a-a-a-z-z-i-i-n-g... (none / 0) (#21)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 04:07:30 PM EST

...how democrats have failed before even assuming power?
But thanks for replaying one of the oldies but goodies from the Republican Talking Points Songbook.

Er, the polls (none / 0) (#3)
by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 11:53:58 PM EST

seem to say that some percentage north of 60% of the American population wants fewer troops there, not more.

Is this a case where he actually believes the BS he and his minions spread around about "not governing by polls?"

I don't know how much the Dems can do about this, but they sure as hell ought be yelling loudly.

Or... (none / 0) (#4)
by jarober on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:17:21 AM EST

Or perhaps, the president thinks winning the war is the right thing to do, and has decided to actually try that. If so, I hope the current (absurd) rules of engagement are changed. Just because he's not following the left's preferred "give up now, and be stunned by how much worse it gets later" strategery doesn't mean that he's "only after his legacy. It means that he disagrees with you.

Define winning. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 12:25:24 AM EST

you're close, jarober (none / 0) (#11)
by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:29 AM EST

Or are you just spinning it?

perhaps, the president thinks winning the war is the right thing to do

Sure, jarober. See here.


Winning (none / 0) (#27)
by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:42:27 PM EST

Jarober brings up a good point. If the president ingnroes the media and goes ahead and puts more troops in he should do the troops the favor of untying their hands.

For every Abu Grahib there are probably 100's of examples of US Soldiers doing too little to protect themselves and operating under restrictive rules of war.

IMHO the anti war crowd wants it both ways. They want to support the troops until the fighting starts. I think if they are there, which they are then we should let them do their job and stop holding them to such high standars so they have no hope to succeed.

Great article about if we send more troops how we should do it. I agree with the anti war crowd in some way in that we can't just send more troops in hopes that numbers alone help. If we send them they need to go there for a reason...

Ralph Peters


Here's the plan (none / 0) (#28)
by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:53:48 PM EST

Supposedly this is what we will here.

Talk amoungst yourselves.

plan


link (none / 0) (#29)
by Slado on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:54:14 PM EST

The Plan


: Vietnam Redux (none / 0) (#34)
by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:18:20 PM EST

I'm flabbergasted that they left out some of the the most important ingredients in "pacification": napalm, Agent Orange and B-52 carpet bombing. The last is an especially nice touch if done over the twelve days of Christmas.

Talk amongst yourselves my ass. (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 07:36:42 PM EST

If you actually think this is a plan, and since you brought it up, then defend it.

From your link:

Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president's reaction, according to a senior adviser, was "very positive."

Of course bushs' reaction was "very positive". What else could it be? The guy cannot admit mistakes.

At least overtly, he can't. But he just admitted, with his "very positive" reaction, that he invaded Iraq without a friggin' plan. With only a PR briefing full of slogans. With nothing. De Nada. Not even a clear goal.

With. Nothing. The only plan he has, ever had, or ever will have, is to cover his own worthless ass.

What's the latest body count, Slado? Iraqi? And American? How many? Dead? Maimed? Burned? Disfigured? Destroyed. Disappeared? For nothing.

Go look it up. Christ.


I concluded this (none / 0) (#7)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:57:30 AM EST

weeks ago. There is no other option for their kind. The ISG report is kept in the presidential bathroom in case he runs out.

: And that makes me sooooo happy. (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:26:52 AM EST

The ISG was a group of old politicians/judges who think we are still fighting the cold war.
I hope this is their last hurrah.

: The ISG report ... (none / 0) (#15)
by Sailor on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:35:07 AM EST

The ISG report is kept in the presidential bathroom in case he runs out.
of the constutution.

jarober (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 10:26:41 AM EST

if bush really thought (there's scant evidence he does.) winning the war was the "right thing to do", he would have taken the professional's advice to begin with: overwhelming force. we would have gone in with 500,000 troops, cleared the country out from one end to the other, sealed the borders, and immediately crushed anyone getting in our way.

of course, that would have required an actual declaration of war, by congress. probably a draft as well. with that, there would have been a whole lot more scrutiny of the "evidence" presented by bush, for invading in the first place.

that didn't happen. i wonder why that might be?

Touche, Sailor (none / 0) (#17)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 01:53:43 PM EST

I'm told we need more troops to train the Iraqis.

But he never mentions the FACT that a... (none / 0) (#19)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:31:27 PM EST

...recent international poll found that 37% thought America is the greatest threat to world peace, while only 18 or 19% think that radical islamic terrorists rate that title.

: It's even (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 03:53:47 PM EST

worse than that, Bill.
Americans Believe U.S. International Strategy Has Backfired:; Majorities See World More Fearful of U.S. Military Force,
Making Governments More Likely to Pursue WMD