Well, let's hear it.

 

Is Bush correct? Do the extra 20,000 troops allow us to achieve victory, with the understanding that the rules are being changed (regarding how this war will be fought)?

 

 

Frances

I am in no way even close to being an expert on military strategies or mindsets so I must defer to the leaders of the military. If they have requested an additional surge in troops, then I will go with that. I did not see the speech last night, so I don't know the particulars.

Two wars that the united states never had a chance to win: Vietnam and Iraq. Impossible to win religious wars. You can win wars of territory, economic interest, and military strategic interest, even governmental interest, but not religious interest.

America could very well spend the next 10 years attempting to establish a stable democracy in iraq to only watch it torn apart by extremists. The fact is, our democracy (which happens to be the longest freestanding government in the world mind you) was established on belief in the christian faith. I believe that is why our government is successful. Our government does recognize every nation, and every faith but was founded on christianity. Their government will never allow for such leaniency.

Two wars that the united states never had a chance to win: Vietnam and Iraq. Impossible to win religious wars. You can win wars of territory, economic interest, and military strategic interest, even governmental interest, but not religious interest.

America could very well spend the next 10 years attempting to establish a stable democracy in iraq to only watch it torn apart by extremists. The fact is, our democracy (which happens to be the longest freestanding government in the world mind you) was established on belief in the christian faith. I believe that is why our government is successful. Our government does recognize every nation, and every faith but was founded on christianity. Their government will never allow for such leaniency.

 

 

So the model of British democracy doesn't predate the Grand Experiment of America's Democracy?

Well, let's hear it.

 

Is Bush correct? Do the extra 20,000 troops allow us to achieve victory, with the understanding that the rules are being changed (regarding how this war will be fought)?

 

 

Frances

 

I was waiting for him to assess what his opinion of victory meant. As our Commander-in-Chief, had he simply told me that, I would have fallen in behind him and supported that objective.

 

Unfortunately he did not, but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that "victory" refers to establishing a stable government (notice I did not say "democratic" government) with sufficient quasi-governmental structures (economic, administrative, etc.) to operate and enough of a police force to sustain it.

 

Then no, I don't think 20,000 troops is going to cut it.

OIL OIL OIL....

That is America's only interest in the middle east. We sure as heck dont need them for lettuce or mp3 players.

For what it's worth, I found this article that shows the results of a poll taken immediately after the speech last night:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100282.html?nav=rss_email/components?nav=slate

 

 

Frances

OIL OIL OIL....

That is America's only interest in the middle east. We sure as heck dont need them for lettuce or mp3 players.

I think that was true before the jihad. Why shouldn't we have an interest in it for oil? It's pretty much the lifeblood of America. By the way, you're wrong about the MP3 player. If its plastic, its probably a petroleum product.

 

On the original question, yes Bush is correct, but he's about two years late. I always thought that unrealistic restrictions on rules of engagement was a bigger problem than troop strength.

.... I always thought that unrealistic restrictions on rules of engagement was a bigger problem than troop strength.

 

Now, where have we seen that issue before?

 

 

Frances

Now, where have we seen that issue before?

 

 

Frances

I think Donald Rumsfeld was a student of Robert McNamara.

I think Donald Rumsfeld was a student of Robert McNamara.

 

Oh my.

 

Of all the things you could say about a person, that one rates at the very bottom for me.

 

 

Frances

For the sake of the country I hope he is right this time. I'm not sure if 20,000 troops is the best solution, and if it is, it is probably too late. One thing I did hear him say about the strategy that I liked better than our current one is that they were going to be engaging more of a political war. Clearing terrorist, then going door to door and working to make sure the people there see that the government is doing a good thing. I think our most effective strategy there is winning the ideological war and having the people of Iraq embrace the government. Or at least accept it, which will be much easier to accomplish if they can show a stop in violence.

Now its 92,000 troops over the next 5 yrs. Which would bring the total to over 700,000 troops. Five yrs. seems like an awful long time to (learn) somebody to stand up for themselves.

Now its 92,000 troops over the next 5 yrs. Which would bring the total to over 700,000 troops. Five yrs. seems like an awful long time to (learn) somebody to stand up for themselves.

 

:confused:

Now its 92,000 troops over the next 5 yrs. Which would bring the total to over 700,000 troops. Five yrs. seems like an awful long time to (learn) somebody to stand up for themselves.

 

 

I saw that quote from Gates.

 

Sounds eerily similar to a guy named Westmoreland.

 

Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.