President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps to Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

 

By Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 20, 2006; 6:52 AM

 

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

 

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

 

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point.

 

Article

I want to throw up. GWB may be the worst president ever.

Here is a plan for troop strength Mr. President. Get em out of the crossfire while you are tryig to decide what to do. Could have saved a few thousand.

Have we been winning up until today?

Here is a plan for troop strength Mr. President. Get em out of the crossfire while you are tryig to decide what to do. Could have saved a few thousand.

 

I say we send Bush's 2 daughters oversea's so he can feel what some of these parents are going through.

Did he really even need to say we weren't winning? He wouldn't be making plans to increase troop numbers if we were.

 

I like the way he says, "...we aren't winning, but we aren't losing..."

 

:lol:

 

We can't fight terrorists/Islamic extremists with standard war procedure.

 

I read something the other day that said we wouldn't attack a terrorist group because they were gathered for a funeral at a cemetary. Should we or shouldn't we is detable in that situation, and not my point. Here is my point...we told them that we wouldn't attack in situations like that. Even if we are going to make a cemetary off-limits, we shouldn't tell them. These terrorists have proven to be fairly intelligent, so I'm sure they wouldn't be above using a cemetary as a gathering spot. Anyway, I'd give a link but the page is under construction right now and I can't get to it...I'll try to put one up in the future when I can access it again.

Anybody else notice that we have not had a terror attack on the U S soil since the Dems were elected on Nov 7th. LOL

Anybody else notice that we have not had a terror attack on the U S soil since the Dems were elected on Nov 7th. LOL

You mean besides the article in the paper from last week that said Dems are poised to pass a bill that allows illegal immigrants to receive federal college scholarship money for attending college in the US.

 

Just pulling your chain DD. You are right, no terror attacks on US soil since the Dems were elected or Bush was elected in 2004.

Anybody else notice that we have not had a terror attack on the U S soil since the Dems were elected on Nov 7th. LOL

 

Except they havn't taken office yet.

Except they havn't taken office yet.

:lol:

GWB looks more like LBJ everyday.

Gee, GWB finally starts to recognize reality. I think we should change Bush's title from President to Captain Obvious.

Gee, GWB finally starts to recognize reality. I think we should change Bush's title from President to Captain Obvious.

 

Come on, H. To be fair to W, you have to admit that a lot has happened since November 10th....

 

I mean, it isn't like he could have possibly known that the war was going badly before yesterday. The people that have been telling him that for the last two years or so (you know - Americans) were probably just guessing.

 

Makes you wonder if he is about to come to the realization that the national debt is off the charts, and that that might be a bad thing.

 

 

 

Frances

Define what is "winning" or "losing" in Iraq.

If we are going to define "winning" or "losing", we might first want to clearly state the goal of the war.

 

Is our goal to kill all Iraqi's? Is our goal to establish a democratic government? Is our goal to bring peace to the Middle East? Is our goal to try to salvage the legacy of a certain president?

 

When we have clearly stated the goal, I think we can be much clearer as to what our status is, in terms of "winning and losing".

 

Then again, if W says we are not winning, it must be so.

 

 

Frances