More guys with guns equals less violence. Sure.

wingnut rag lies to support wingnut talking point. hmm.

i thought bearing false witness was a sin?

so much for that Party of Values thing...

Worst foreign policy disaster in at least a hundred years, thanks to George W. Bush.

ALl options are either awful or horrific. Definition of a quagmire.

Thanks Bush and thanks to those who facilitated this abysmal idiocy.

What's really going on here is:

More Troops = More Money for Bush/Cheney Cronies in the Military-Industrial Complex

Well, 20 million troops would cut down the violence real quick.

Impressive work by BruceR.

If only the cabal believed in facts based analysis.

Stuntz's argument, as summarized here, doesn't rise above the level of "Hey! I can count!" We've made a mess of Iraq, we can't agree on how to fix it, but we can count.

Relating number of troops to (dubious) number of deaths isn't even as meaningful as classifying groups of stars as constellations.

Any of a number of other variables, most of them beyond our control, would send deaths or troops through the roof or through the floor.

Allow me to have a Rumsfeldian dialogue: Was the argument worth making? Only in support of a foregone conclusion. Was the argument worth refuting? Only in the hope that it stop here and now.

Well, 20 million troops would cut down the violence real quick.

Where are you going to get them, pull them out of your ass, like your comments?

Well, 20 million troops would cut down the violence real quick.

I trust that you're heading down to your local Army recruiting office to sign up then.

Shouldn't it be pretty obvious to anyone that the raw number of troops in Iraq (or the Iraqi theater, since there are plenty of supporting elements not within Iraq's borders) is a really lousy metric to use in arguments about "boots on the ground"? Are the troops in question deployed on patrol in cities, holed up in bases far from insurgent activity, or what? Furthermore, violence against "coalition" forces is a similarly lousy metric. If we had no US troops being killed at all, but 2000 Iraqi civilians, army volunteers and police recruits turning up dead every day (i.e. even worse than things are now) there aren't a lot of sane people who would say that meant the violence had been brought under control.

Kevin,

I've tried to forgive the misguided HAWKS (spit) who wanted this war of choice, but every time I read articles like this my anger at you and your ilk flares anew.

You ruined a country; you’ve set generations of people against each other because you wanted vengeance. I know you've apologized and you've got your excuses (misled, bad execution, etc.) but that and a shovel have helped you bury a generation.

I can never forgive you HAWKS (spit) who wanted this war.

It's their way of being "Churchillian"--the Churchill who dispatched a division to Singapore just in time for them to disembark and surrender. Using soldiers' lives to maintain the illusion of strength when the fact of it is gone.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the illogic in K-Y Drum's post. Is there any doubt that 1:1 ratio between troops and Iraqis would stop all violence by Iraqis?

paul:

Thank you for pointing out even more of the faulty logic. We need to put the right amount of troops, in the right places, doing the right tasks, to get the job done. Just like every other war we've fought.

One last push. That's what we're hearing now and we'll be hearing again for the next two years. Then we'll get a new president (R or D) and I expect we'll hear the same thing. One last push.

No one wants to leave until we stabilize Iraq. One reason Iraq is unstable, however, is because we're there. Catch-22.

This is going to go on for years and I am afraid that even a Dem president in '09 may fall in the same trap once he's in office. Or she...especially she...if she ever gets elected, I doubt that Hillary will pull the plug. Not till we have one last push and a lot more damage is done.

Jeffrey, thanking paul: Thank you for pointing out even more of the faulty logic. We need to put the right amount of troops, in the right places, doing the right tasks, to get the job done. Just like every other war we've fought.

You're parading your logic around in a bit of a circle there. What's the "job" and how do you know when it's "done"? With the leeway you give us here, we can define the job as turnover of power to a "democratically elected" Iraqi government, and we can pack up and go home. And we can believe that we must have had "the right amount of troops, in the right places, doing the right tasks."

Sorry about the mess.

Stuntz is measuring the wrong thing. Coalition fatalities have been relatively steady over the course of the occupation. But Iraqi fatilities have been rising exponentially.

So what Stuntz proves, if Stuntz is right, is that when the coalition has more troops, the coalition is better able to protect its own troops. But it doesn't say anything about the coalition's ability to control Iraq.

The issue isn't whether we have more or less troops. The issue is staying the course.

Liberals want to cut and run, and hide behind troop numbers to disguise their real motives.

It seems that the argument that more troops will help ignores the possibility of a political solution while at the same time putting money into the pocket of black-ops bedfellows of Tricky Dick Cheney and Co. Yeah, fascism has a price and there appear to usually be people willing to accept payment...especially if they can be assured that there will be no accountability. Further, it also ignores the fact that the Bushites ignored the advice of US Army when they went in--now it appears that their apologists are trying to spin them an "original" idea of putting more troops on the ground...kinda like Vietnam.

Basically, war feeds itself and when stupid stupids are in control, it gets worse, not better. Frankly, the only way to win this one is to put Iraq under UN control and start negotiating for nuclear disarmament world wide. I don't have a chart to say whether that's a good idea or not but I'm sure that some arms running fascists will trot out an old horse on how that is bad for his business and political influence. Of course, they'll try not to word it quite that way...

Regardless of the merits of "staying the course" in Iraq (there seem to be almost none), the Dems would be politically stupid if they try to block "the last push". Like it or not, "Shrub" is still going to be in charge for foreign policy during the next two years. Far better to let him dig an even bigger hole for himself as well as his political party. Let's at least make sure that this time, the Dems don't end up as scapegoats for "cutting and running" from Vietnam II just as the enemy was about to be defeated. This time, it looks as if another ideology (neoconservatism) will be discredited for a generation thanks to Iraq.
---
Furthermore, let's name the "final push" the "McCain Plan". And let's pay for it mainly by raising taxes for the rich (or some other GOP priority) in return for Democratic support. Mr.Straight Talk is already unpopular with the GOP base; an expensive and futile final campaign in Iraq to further erode support for hawkish neoconservative policies is not exactly going to help him in the 2008 elections.

MARCU$

A withdrawal timeline makes perfect sense. It sends a message to the Iraqi government that they better have police units ready to go. In 6 months (1 FU), they better have x number of squadrons ready, and we withdraw the same number off troops. In 12 months, they better have 2x squadrons read, and in 18 months, the job should be complete.

It's like teaching a child to ride a bike. They won't learn to ride a 2-wheeler if you don't take off the training wheels (ask Normie, he still uses them).

Sorry, I opposed the Iraq War before it happened, but this is a pretty stupid analysis, on both sides of the debate. There are many, many factors in Iraq's stability, and the appeal to linear correlation concerns what would happen if 20,000 more troops were added, *all things being equal*. Well, all things are never equal in a situation like this, and the substantive issue is what the administration and military would actually use those troops for. Correlation does not imply causality, and lack of correlation also does not imply lack of causality because there are so many other factors at play. Gee, maybe the military would use addition troops for operations that are different from what previous troop increases have been used for. Maybe not.

So forget about these statistics, nothing but red herrings.

I agree, Chris G, but you have to admit also there is SOME point where the increase in troops -- even if they simply follow around every Iraqi man 24/7 -- would reduce the violence. Much like 2 or 3 cops tailing every gang member would. I'm not saying this is a solution, but it is at least logical.

MeLoseBrain?:

That also send the message to the terrorists that they won and, at worst, they just have to lay low for 6, 12, 18 months -- then pounce hoping the Iraqi government is not ready. No, the best option is to stay until the Iraqi government is ready to completely take over defense.

I thought that a lot of studies of counterinsurgencies supported the following notion, from BruceR's blog:

"It's not necessarily counterintuitive that more troops could increase violence levels, either. If the occupying troops are on the balance an irritant to the society being occupied, increasing their numbers could conceivably serve to increase the irritation."

That is, as a rule, when the foreigners get out, things tend to settle down. The classic counterexample, if I remember, is Malaysia, but in that case, there were two sets of foreigners, the British and the Chinese. The Chinese were less popular even than the British.

Doesn't our recent experience disprove the notion that more troops reduces violence? Didn't we bring troops into Baghdad to flood it with military power? And didn't violence escalate dramatically there?

This war has suffered from an excess of simple-mindedness already; please no more from the likes of Stuntz.

Why don't we just annex Iraq? Then we can chart the rate of violence based on the entire population. If that isn't enough to convince conservatives that we are on the edge of victory, maybe we could start adding inanimate objects to the mix... I mean, how many chocolate bunnies are strapping bombs to themselves? They are clearly on the side of American and Jesus and Democracy.

Don't mean to poke holes in BruceR's statistical musings, but, in all fairness to Stuntz, they are comparing different things. Stuntz's claim is about "Iraqi civilian" deaths and "American troops wounded". BruceR's analysis uses "coalition hostile deaths", which is neither of the categories cited by Stuntz.

So BruceR has an argument, but it is not a direct rebuttal to Stuntz. It does go to the same point, since one would expect correlation between all casualty categories if Stuntz's claim were at all reasonable. But Stuntz's claim is implausible on so many fronts, it doesn't really matter.

Another factor missing is the capabilities of the Iraqi units being groomed to take over. After 3+ years,the Iraqi units seem best trained to be local militia. The reports from the DoD,if read closely,show units with no real armor (the one div. has tanks donated by Hungary) no transport (trucks: Naz and Gaz (old Soviet models;helicopters: traffic control,not airlift),no artillery (none) and so no way to get to a fight,deploy to counter it or have the firepower to win it.
The US isn't arming the Iraqi units and the ones that are created have as little as 40% of their manpower available on a given day.Add to that,the casualty rate of the ISG and they lose a battalion a month.
The Iraqi army isn't going to stand up so we can stand down.It can't.

MARCU$, I like your idea, politically, but I do not want the US to kill anymore Iraqis. If only Americans were to die in the final putsch, that would be too bad, but at least they would deserve it. Unfortunately, usually more US troops just means a lot more dead Iraqi civilians, and even if that means more political success for the liberal opposition, it would be wrong.

I agree with Chris G, there is no exact linear correlation between troop levels and violence. The impact of having significantly fewer or greater numbers of troops in theater is governed as much by the rules of group psychology as it is by simple physics.

For instance, while it may have been effective post-invasion to have hundreds of thousands of troops to keep order, the situation on the ground has changed now. At this point where there is a Shia-dominated government and powerful Shia militias and so much sectarian blood shed on all sides, doubling or trebling troops numbers could have unintended effects.

For instance, while it may be impolitic to point it out, were the Shia militias prevented by American troops from controlling their own turf and caryying out revenge killings with impunity, they might foreseeably turn their rage against American forces and fight then openly, and they'd find themselves in the midst of thousands of well armed nationalistic Iraqis. And as these militias have ties to parliament, this could even lead to a crisis and possibly collapse of the government.

So there are no easy answers, but it's foolish to think naively in terms of one to one ratios.

Yet with all the propaganda we've been handed over the past two years "proving" how conditions in Iraq have been improving every day, the better topic for a post might be:

"More Tropes = Less Violence?"

(I see as I'm about to post this that David in NY has already made a similar argument)

If only Americans were to die in the final putsch, that would be too bad, but at least they would deserve it.

???

none of our troops deserve to die over Bush's folly .

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the illogic in K-Y Drum's post. Is there any doubt that 1:1 ratio between troops and Iraqis would stop all violence by Iraqis?

No, none. There is also no doubt that a death ray that only killed insurgents would also stop all violence by Iraqi insurgents. Or if we had Indiana Jones and the Ark of the Covenant at the head of our troops, that would really stop those suckers.

Want to try arguing a POSSIBLE point now?

tomeck,
No thanks. I prefer to nitpick the pedantic points.

The Final Push could be a withdrawal tactic. They realize they cannot reach their goal of pacifying the whole country, so perhaps they need the troops to guard the long supply lines as they roll back into Kuwait and the castle-bases. They may try to police some regions like in Afghanistan, but it is doubtful. Shiite cooperation would be necessary to reduce troop exposure.

If the planners are sanguine enough they hope the Shiites will crush the Sunnis. This would eliminate one enemy and greatly simplifying the situation for future action. The long hope may be to lay siege to Iran, including limited attacks to reduce material capacity, and reduce the power of the whole Iran-Shiite axis. Resistance to Western will must be seen as costly. American forces could project power into the region from the substantial bases encircling Iran. If the Iranians go nuclear this strategy will fail.

What's missing in this data is the number of "true" boots on the ground. Just because the number of troops went up did not in any way mean that the number of troops that interact with Iraqis went up. How many of these troops patrolled and how many were simply Support units?

A better data field would be one that compared patrols, combat operations, and maybe resupply runs on the MSRs to combat KIA/WIA numbers.

Having served in Iraq three times during this war, once in DS, and three times in Iraq/Turkey (Zako) during the Clinton war on Iraq (Provide COmfort)I’m a little sensitive to this and don’t want all the academics/Libs who’ve never been in the Army let alone Iraq to start making false comparisons.

The 1SG.

I am still trying to figure out who all those new troops (which don't exist by the way) are going to fight. Are we going to side with the Syrians, er, sunnis because they are the underdog, or are we going to side with the Iranians, er Shiites because they were oppressed so long? Could somebody tell me who all these new soliders are expected to kill?

tomeck:

That was the fake "Jeffery" since I wasn't just being nitpicky. I know we can't get 20 million troops into Iraq, but maybe some number short of that would still bring down the violence. Once you admit my point is logical, and Kevin's is not, then we start haggling.

Ron:

I don't want American troops killing civilians anymore than you, but even during WWII there was collateral damage as we went after Nazis, right?

Kevin, would it be possible to put the "posted by" line at the top of posts, to make it easier to skip those we know will be claptrap? I get sucked into reading far too many posts by Al/Charlie/Thomas/Jeffrey before I realize who wrote them.

No, the best option is to stay until the Iraqi government is ready to completely take over defense.

And by what metric do you plan to measure this inchoate goal, moron?

So we should have used the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.We said that four years ago.If only this dipshit of a leader would just listen.My God he should just resign!!!

Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq.

Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not.

Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass before Iraq can endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.

Martin van Creveld, Forward, November 25, 2005

Jeffrey- I know where you're coming from on the 1:1 argument, but it is a short-run argument and assumes a fixed number of violent extremists. The political dimension is important--for pragmatic reasons. It could also be that if we got up to that number of troops, it would inflame political tensions even more, create more violent extremists, and on balance make things worse over the long run. Of course, withdrawing prematurely without doing anything else could have equally as dire consequences. It seems to me that the optimal solution will bring other factors into play, and my own sense is that these factors are political, not military.

Here's the amazing thing:

We're spending our treasury, lives, and sacred honor to establish an ally of Iran in the area.

Once Iraqi Shia are firmly in control and the Sunni resistance is squarshed, we will have done all that to give Iran a boost.

No wonder the neo-cons want to nuke Iran: everything they've dreamed of so far will benefit an enemy.

Them guys is smart.

No wonder the neo-cons want to nuke Iran: everything they've dreamed of so far will benefit an enemy.

ah.. but which enemy benefits if we nuke Iran? these neocon masterminds are probably thinking two or three steps ahead of the rest of us...

ah.. but which enemy benefits if we nuke Iran? these neocon masterminds are probably thinking two or three steps ahead of the rest of us...

Radioactive Iranian oil? Benefits 2 enemies of America: Texans and Saudis.

Jeffrey, I wasn't talking about collateral damage, I was talking about who we would target. According to everything I have read there are three sources of violence in Iraq--a few, now very few, foreign fighters, insurgents from the sunni community and shiite militias. Most all of the killing in the last weeks has been shiite on sunni. The sunnis have killed a bunch of shiites as well. That is why they call it a low grade civil war. Ok, our soldiers aren't numerous enough or stupid enough to get between armed sunnis and armed shiites and simply tell them to stop shooting. They have to support one side or the other. Who are they going to support. The sunnis because they are getting their butts handed to them or the shiites because they are going to win? You tell me, jeffrey, just who is going to be the army strong target in this last great push? Which side do you want to first see ethnically cleansed and then massacred?

We're spending our treasury, lives, and sacred honor to establish an ally of Iran in the area.

Now you tell us. Cheney tried to warn us that voting for Kerry would result in this, but I voted for him anyway.

20,000 troops ending the Iraqi civil war is a joke of an idea. Its just totally a joke. 200,000 troops could help quell violence, but we can't do that, and it would still be iffy even then. 20,000 just gives that many more people to get killed and maimed. The Iraqis want us out, and Americans want to leave. We should just leave. Arguments to the effect of "we can't set a date to leave" are all complete and total bullsh#t. As if some time will come in the future when we are suddenly just able to *poof* disappear from Iraq. No matter how long we stay and no matter what we do, we have to leave at some point, and whenever that point comes, our "enemies" will see that we're leaving. This would happen either tomorrow or 10 years from now. There is no way to just suddenly leave and have the insurgents somehow not know its happening. Its such childish logic, I don't understand who really believes any of this hokey crap.

You tell me, jeffrey, just who is going to be the army strong target in this last great push? Which side do you want to first see ethnically cleansed and then massacred?

a) who is

The Shia

b) i want

Oh, gosh. Let me count the ways....

The point of my post was the insanity that Bush's thoughtless policy inaugurated. Until, Bush and the neo-cons admit that, "well, yes, now that you mention it we were stupid, vain, abusive, and reckless and we mustn't ever be allowed near a goverrnment office again" it's pointless to proceed with policy suggestions from the Peanut Gallery. Such a question is designed to be either shot down and mocked or used to entrench in power the people who started the insanity.

Thanks for the link, Kevin.

Re Chris G: there is no doubt a troop levels analysis can say nothing about the value of other possible changes in the Iraq strategy. What it can influence is the debate what effect a troop level increase by itself, without other significant changes in strategy, would have.

Re 1SG: I think American policy makers should be given access to the kinds of statistics you're talking about, so they can draw the most accurate conclusions possible about military effectiveness, in any theatre. They are, of course, not ever likely to be publicly available, though.

Jeffery Davis,

Why the Shia? Our entire policy until now has been to help the Shia (and the Kurds.) That is what we accomplished by de baathifcation. That is what we have accomplished by all the elections held up tell now. Why change sides?

Oh shit, you are afraid that if the Shia win the Iranians will control an even bigger hunk of middle eastern oil? What do you think Chalibi's strategic aim was when he courted the neo-con boneheads. I hate it when a plan comes together for the other side.

I grew up during Vietnam, I lived through the cold war, I have studied history, but I have never encountered an entire American foreign policy apparatus so incompetent that virtually all of the their actions border on treason.

American Commander in Chief: 50,000 surrogate infantry troops are fully inflated and are ready for transport. Please furnish shipping instructions and party for invoice. Thank you for using Handy Army(TM)

Theodore Mellon
Account Executive

"They look like real soldiers!"(TM)

20k more troops might make some marginal difference in force protection, but the horse is long since out of the barn for it to make a difference in the sectarian bloodshed throughout the country. For that, you're talking 200k troops, and it's obviously a pipe dream.

Had we had a Shinseki-like number of troops initially, we might've been able to seal the borders, protect the oil, water, sewage and electricity infrastructures, secure the myriad high-explosive ammo dumps and been able to guard the contractors well enough to let reconstruction happen on a meaningful scale.

But that would've entailed an actual committment from our country to do the job right. And possibly a draft. And not goddamned tax cuts.

I don't agree with MeLoseBrain? about Carl Levin's "training wheel" theory; I agree with Abazaid. Withdrawing our forces is not going to help Maliki become strong -- it's going to merely weaken him. The central government needs our military to survive, and about the only concrete and lasting thing our military's doing in Iraq is keeping the Green Zone in business -- not that it's actually governing the country or anything. We start pulling out, the government -- such that it is -- likely collapses.

I agree with Marcu$ that the options are so bad we may as well let the Baker Boys take their shot, give Bush marginal support (allowing conservative Democrats to vote for what Bush needs in this regard) -- and then push for full-tilt withdraw as a platform in '08 -- because the problem is only going to be solved once Bush is outta there.

Bob

American forces are going to leave Iraq in short order. Only a fool could think the place will be pacified by the next election.

Democrats will do everything they can to deliver what the American people want. Top of that list is to claim victory and get out of Iraq come hell or high water.

Does anyone think the Republicans want the Iraq albatross hanging around their necks in 2008 AND have the most unpopular president in American history?

If Americans are still in the middle of that bloodbath in 2008 the political class is both arrogant and incompetent. Jim Webbs will sprout like mushrooms after a spring rain and the whole lot of them will get what they deserve.

Jeffery

The only way your point gets to be logical is if you deal with an increase in the number of troops that is possible. Start with the number of insurgents (I haven't heard an estimate of that for some time now). Multiply by 10 and that's your minimum level of troops you need to win (according to military doctrine that I've known).

Now figure the costs in terms of dollars and KIA.

Then tell me that you're willing to pay that price for Iraq.

Off the top of my head, I say it ain't worth it.

Truman and Nixon were actually less popular.

tomeck:

I'm willing to pay that price. More importantly, of course, the Commander-in-Chief is willing.

bellumregio:

That's about what I'm predicting will actually happen. I don't forsee us leaving in any preciptious way that shows a marked troop drawdown by '08. It will be the Bush/Baker half-solution tried and substantially failed -- while Democrats finally run with full voice into the withdrawal camp.

And Jim Webbs will sprout like mushrooms throughout the land.

Bob

Democrats will do everything they can to deliver what the American people want. Top of that list is to claim victory and get out of Iraq come hell or high water.

No.

Top of that list is a scapegoat.

The question is - will the Democrats be able to stop the Corporate Media from "pin the blame on the Donkey?"

OBF:

If the Democrats actually do vote to defund the war, do you not want that fact printed in the Corporate Media?

20,000 fighting soldiers or just troops?
Someone made a point normally US deployment of 1 solider means 10 troops (logistics, comm, truck drivers, cooks, etc). Since they couldn't mean 200,000 total, we have to go the other way - that 20,000 means really means 2,000 actual soldiers. Well, in these tough times, maybe 1:10 ratio may be a luxury, so let us peg it at 1:5.
So for all this big bugalloo, we are talking at best 4,000 soliders. Now, how much difference will this make? Minimal, I say.

Intellectually it's over. We all know it. The only thing that remains is in forcing Bush's hand or in removing him from office to get someone else to do the job.

The election was about corruption, but the facts around Iraq are obvious to anyone watching. And, the Republicans definately won't want the 2008 presidential race to be about Iraq. They'd lose a heckuva lot more of Congress over it.

So, will Bush yield?

Go ahread, MarkH, and defund the war in Iraq then.

Yeah, MarkH, man-up and use your magic powers of legislation and defund the war in Iraq!

More troops?

Too little too late.

That also send the message to the terrorists that they won and, at worst, they just have to lay low for 6, 12, 18 months -- then pounce hoping the Iraqi government is not ready. No, the best option is to stay until the Iraqi government is ready to completely take over defense.

Thanks, Charlie, you fucking idiot, because you know, the insurgents are certainly "laying low" right now. The plan that dumbfuck W and all of his appeasers (that's you, Charlie) rolled out doesn't work. You and your kind have been wrong about everything. Everything. Guess what, you don't have a dog in this fight. Nobody cares what you think. So shut the fuck up.

You have only just begun to see how wrong I can be.

What do you mean I don't have a dog in this fight?! When the terrorists hit us harder than 9/11 because of you coward Democrats, I think every right-thinking person will realize how wrong 11/7 was.

So we should have used the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.We said that four years ago.If only this dipshit of a leader would just listen.My God he should just resign!!!
Posted by: Thomas2.0 on November 16, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Fucker didn't even listen to his own god-damned Secretary of State. Resign nothing - someone should send him a copy of "Russian Roulette for Dummies" for Christmas.

That was a fake George W Bush at 9:11.

That is the question MarkH.

As always in the life of George W. Bush the adults have stepped in to help him along.

Let's not be silly. No one will vote to defund. No need. They will just let Murtha bang his big hammer and join up with the army-navy-airforce-marines until they get it to where they want it. The Republicans will try to score some points, but they will be just as happy to see Iraq behind them. The Project for a New American Century is over.

Yeah, I've heard that arguement before. More troops just might slow down the violence, but at what cost? All we would really be doing would be putting more innocent young men and women in the danger zone and setting them up for slaughter. The correlation between the size of the coalition forces and the drop in violence can be attributed to a number of other factors besides the theory that more soldiers scares off the insurgents. That is actually a ludicrous idea. The other danger of sending more troops is that it simply commits us to a longer fight because it sends a signal to the Iraqis that we are willing to do whatever is neccesary to win this war. Nice sentiment, but wrongminded. If we embroil more troops in the Iraq debacle, we only prolong the agony and enmesh the U.S. in an ever tightening tangle of missteps and bad ideas.

If the Democrats actually do vote to defund the war, do you not want that fact printed in the Corporate Media?
Posted by: Jeffery on November 16, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yes - of course I'd like to see some TRUTH in the Corporate Newsmedia.

I'm sure you have this fantasy image of me wanting Pelosi to put FoxNews on a leash. I don't want that at all. I just want Murdoch to stop telling his employees to make shit up.

But the consequences for what follows rests on George W Bush's head - we don't need the O'Really Fucktor telling us that it's the fault of the Democrats who were elected on 11/7/06 that Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 and murdered 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

I don't agree with MeLoseBrain? about Carl Levin's "training wheel" theory; I agree with Abazaid.

I honestly had not heard Levin make that analogy. Here I thought I was being metaphorical! I don't disagree, Bob, that nothing concrete will happen until Bush is out of there, but the last thing dems need to do is play it safe. They have no real power to force change, other than to defund the troops, which we all know will (and should) never happen.

When '08 comes around and repukes can point to any small success of the Baker panel's strategy, and dems can point to no concrete objections, what choice are we giving the American people? If they want someone to continue to administrate the war, they'll elect McCain, and we're in Iraq until 2012.

Congressional dems need to call for withdrawal. It's the only answer. The Iraqi have no faith in the puppet government we've set up. When we leave, whether it's next month or next decade, the government will be toppled, and likely replaced by a theocracy. Hell, the Bushies are now considering siding with the Shiites in the upcoming civil war! If you want democracy, the Shias aren't the side you want to pick! This is all lunacy, and the sooner we're out, the better.

The Project for a New American Century is over.

No its not, I heard some of those neo-con morons just the other day. They claimed their theory was hunky dory, but the execution by the Bush administration was oofty gofty.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I agree the sun has set on those boobs.

Those clowns couldn't even win at a friendly game of Risk let alone geo-politics.

What do you mean I don't have a dog in this fight?! When the terrorists hit us harder than 9/11 because of you coward Democrats, I think every right-thinking person will realize how wrong 11/7 was.

Cowards??? Who the fuck are you to talk about cowards? I work in NY, asshole. I lived through 9/11, you piece of shit, I lost friends on 9/11, so don't talk to me about cowards, you worthless piece of garbage.

If you're so manly, punk, go enlist. Why send other men and women to do your job, punk? Do it yourself. Or are you going to claim, as you did when you used the nym ThomASS1, that you're 67, and you've voted damocratic all your life. You're a lying piece off shit, Charlie, and a fucking coward, to boot.

Those clowns couldn't even win at a friendly game of Risk let alone geo-politics.

Kids on Big Wheels.

Where'd I get that from? I love that.

MeLoseBrain?:

I've never posted as ThomASS1, nor have I ever promised to leave. I will stay as long as I want to.

Ron Byers:

There no such thing as a "friendly" game of Risk (I remember winning more often than not as long as I gained control of North America ; )

Calm down, MeLoseBrain. There are kids present. On Big Wheels.

Calm down, MeLoseBrain. There are kids present. On Big Wheels.

Sorry, shortstop, but rightards who have probably never set foot in NYC talking about the horrors of 9/11 without ever living through it and having suffered no real consequences because of it piss me off.

don't let him piss you off. he's a pathetic lying loser who enjoys making people mad at him. feel sorry for him.

I have set foot in NYC. I am not Charlie. I don't need to explain myself to you, although, I don't think I had a Big Wheels, come to think of it.

You just keep repeating that softly to yourself, cleek. Maybe it will help you sleep at night.

Jeffrey

I had a friend once who never went hunting. He said that once you hunted Mig 21s armed with 30 MM canon hunting unarmed animals just wasn't very exciting.

Same with Risk. Any game you don't need an M-16 to play is friendly. I don't care how loud you become or how many pillows you throw. The neo-cons sent our young men and women to play a decidedly unfriendly game of geopolitics. They executed the neo-cons plan, but those neo-morons can't plan worth a shit. People, including thousands of our people, have died in their hundreds of thousands. The end result of all the dying and injury and damage is going to be a strengthened Iran.

We lost the fucking game in the first move when the neo-con donut heads accepted promises from Chalibi the Iranian spy. Once they bought his line of crap, all the way down to debaathification, the game was over. We lost.

I have set foot in NYC.

Were you here on 9/11? Did you know anyone in WTC? Pentagon? If not, what the fuck did you really experience?

Try spending 8 hours walking up to and across the GWB. Try finding a payphone that worked to call your wife (sorry, Charlie, you obviously don't have one) to have her drive 20 miles to pick you up. Try finding out that you lost half a dozen frinds in the WTC, including a firefighter who ran upstairs knowing he would likely die.

That's a hero, Charlie, not that pathetic drunk you worship in the WH. Why haven't you enlisted yet, you coward?

Well, of course Risk is just a board game, Ron -- but war is hell -- it is certainly NOT a game. Perhaps you missed Bush laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Veteran's Day?

Jeffrey

You don't read for meaning very often, do you?

Don't tell me war isn't a game. Tell the neo-cons. They are the idiots who thought Iraq was part of a geopolitical game.

Well, of course Risk is just a board game, Ron -- but war is hell -- it is certainly NOT a game. Perhaps you missed Bush laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Veteran's Day?

Of course it was the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. God forbid he go to the funeral of a known soldier.

Speaking of known soldiers, the recruiting offfice closes soo. If you hurry, you can get there in time to enlist.

President Bush Honors Veterans at Arlington National Cemetery

"Thank you. Thanks for coming. Secretary Nicholson, thank you for your kind words and for your leadership. Members of the Cabinet, Members of Congress, members of the United State military, all veterans, all volunteers who have sworn to uphold the security of the United States, I thank your families for being here and I thank our veterans. I am proud to join you on this day of honor.

On this day, in this month, at this hour, our nation remembers the moment when the guns of World War I went silent -- and we recognize the service and the sacrifice of our nation's veterans. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, our veterans have borne the costs of America's wars -- and they have stood watch over America's peace. The American people are grateful to the veterans and all who have fought for our freedom.

Since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, the National Cemetery has reminded our citizens of the cost of liberty. The simple white markers testify to honor fulfilled and duty served. Most of these markers stand over graves of Americans who came home to enjoy the peace they earned. Too many stand over the graves of those who gave their lives to protect that peace. This day is dedicated to all who answered the call to service -- whether they live in honor among us, or sleep in valor beneath this sacred ground.

On this Veterans Day, we give thanks for the 24 million Americans who strengthen our nation with their example of service and sacrifice. Our veterans are drawn from many generations and from many backgrounds. Some charged across great battlefields. Some fought on the high seas. Some patrolled the open skies. And all contributed to the character and to the greatness of America.

On this Veterans Day, we honor a new generation of men and women who are defending our freedom. Since September the 11th, 2001, our Armed Forces have engaged the enemy, the terrorists on many fronts. At this moment, more than 1.4 million Americans are on active duty, serving in the cause of freedom and peace around the world. They are our nation's finest citizens. (Applause.) They confront grave danger to defend the safety of the American people. They've brought down tyrants, they've liberated two nations, they have helped bring freedom to more than 50 million people. Through their sacrifice, they're making this nation safer and more secure -- and they are earning the proud title of veteran. (Applause.)

On this Veterans Day, we're humbled by the strong hearts of those who have served. Last week, Secretary Nicholson told me about a visit he made to New York City where he met a group of veterans who lost limbs in this war. Secretary Nicholson asked them how they could keep their spirits up. One man answered, "Sir, it is because we feel the American people are so appreciative of our service." Many of our veterans bear the scars of their service to our country - and we are a nation that will keep its commitments to those who have risked their lives for our freedom. That young man was right -- we do appreciate the service of those who wear our uniform. (Applause.)

To help Americans show our appreciation to those who have served, Secretary Nicholson has asked all our nation's veterans to wear their medals today. I urge our citizens to go up to those men and women and shake a hand and give a hug, and give a word of thanks. I ask you to consider volunteering at a veterans hospital or a nursing home. I encourage you to work with your local veterans group to help support our troops in the field -- and their families here at home.

As we raise our flag and as the bugle sounds taps, we remember that the men and women of America's Armed Forces serve a great cause. They follow in a great tradition, handed down to them by America's veterans. And in public ceremonies and in private prayer, we give thanks for the freedom we enjoy because of their willingness to serve. (Applause.)

I thank you for honoring those who serve today, and for honoring those who have set such a sterling example -- our nation's veterans. May God bless our veterans, may God bless all who wear the uniform, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061111-1.html

Ron Byers:

President Bush does not consider this war to be a game.

Wow, what a patriot, a president who give a speech at Arlington on Veteran's Day!!! Who woulda thunk it?

Time's awastin', Chuckles, get to the recruiting office. I'm sure you want to do your part to spread liberty and freedom throughout the Middle East!

President Bush knows that when he sends twenty million more troops, Iraq will become as placid as Switzerland in springtime. That's why you should vote Republican, in November.

I already told you I don't need to explain myself to you.

President Bush does not consider this war to be a game. Jeffery

How do you know what, or if, George W. Bush thinks?

Fake Jeffery:

Didn't you mean: "Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp With Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden"?

Ron Byers:

Just based on everything he says and does re: the war.

Ron Byers:

Bush has said over and over how seriously he takes this.

The civil war/genocide MYTH about Iraq has been created by Bush's mob.

The myth has been created by paying vicious thugs, to kill multitudes of both Sunnis and Shiites, and dump the bodies. Then they pin the blame on the other side.

These American paid killers often torture these poor farmers just for the media SHOCK value (not to find out what seed they planted in the spring, as some claim).

This allows the vicious Americans to claim that the people doing most of the killing (ie, the Americans) need to stay "to prevent killing/genocide."

Of course, the reason that Iraq is happening at all, is because:

That Bush is a JEW.

How many folk think that the 30 or so pictures of GW Bush, and cohorts, having fun with rabbis, etc, at

Bush is a Jew.

are sufficient evidence to believe Bush is a Jew.

If you feel the photos are not enough, when his actions, which are NOT at all Christian, are factored in,... you have a proof,... beyond a reasonable doubt.

So will people here publicly claim that indeed Bush is a Jew?

If not, will they explain why they refuse to believe their own eyes and senses?

Jeffery

Where I come from actions always speak louder than words.

In any event the geopolitical game was the game played by the neo-cons to advance the interests of their friends in the House of Saud, Israel and the various petroleum companies. I am willing to stiputlate that George W. Bush wasn't part of that game, he was just the rube the neo-cons sold.

As I said the neo-cons couldn't plan for shit, nor could they advance the interests of their patrons. Everybody suffers. Of course in 100 years Bush will be the guy history calls a loser. Ken Adelman et al will be footnotes at best. Of course, God only knows how many people will be dead and how many more will have been wounded in Bush's excellent adventure.

Jeffrey, please go enlist. Otherwise none of your commentary means anything.

Put your money where your mouth is. And please drag all the rest of the chickenhawks as well.

Did I say everbody suffers? Not exactly, the Iranians win. They won't even suffer many casualties.

One of the Jefferies was refering to the fake Bush at 5:24PM.

It appears that our resident troll lost his paid troll gig after the election, and so is now spending all his free time destroying this blog in revenge.

Oh joy.

looks like the anti-Semite is probably a regular reader, if not a regular poster. he sure picked up on the "Springtime" thing pretty quickly.

Jeffery on November 16, 2006 at 5:11 PM:

President Bush Honors Veterans at Arlington National Cemetery

Let's look at how Dubya 'honors veterans':

A record budget that focuses more on modernization than people programs is forgetting that it is people who make the military run,” said VFW Commander-in-Chief Jim Mueller, a Vietnam veteran from O’Fallon, Mo.

A paltry 2.2-percent pay raise proposal does little to close a civilian pay gap that is twice that amount..

The administration also proposed across-the-board premium increases to retirees under the age of 65 who are enrolled in the military’s Tricare healthcare system. If approved by Congress, enlisted retirees in the grade of E-6 and below will experience overall premium increases of 41 percent for single or family coverage within two years, and senior enlisted and officer retirees will see increases of 106 and 204 percent, respectively. The budget proposal also has automatic premium increases built-in for the out years.

Of course, there's many similar ways that Dubya 'honors' this nation's veterans...

'The prospects...seem dim.' The middle of that sentence is needlessly specific. The Bush presidency may ultimately be viewed as being as beneficial to the cause of western civilization as the fall of Rome was.

At least, the next 2 generations of humanity will pay a terrible price for his hubris. The world economic/energy structure is a house of cards and rather than working desperately to build a more sustainable edifice, Bush turns on a fan.

There is some truth to the "more troops will help" meme, but there is also a few huge problems with it.

1: 20,000 troops? If we are talking about 20K more troops on patrol and in combat operations we are really talking about 60K men and women more in theater even with the support of contractors. Now we are talking about 180K increase in the size of the army unless we want to strip all of our other military commitments soley for service in Iraq.
2. 20K is a number that is nice and round and way way way to damn small. That might just be enough for Baghdad but after that... Try 100k to 200K per tour. Short of a draft this just aint gunna happen. Period.
3. None of this gets us to a point of allowing us to ever get out. These plans only allow us to make Iraq the 51st state.
4. This might (and even then only might) have worked if we had included these troops as part of a plan from the beginning. Even a year after the invasion the chances were piss poor but still theoretically possible, but now its far too late.

Hell having a post invasion plan PERIOD might have done some good. Now, all we are doing is delaying the inevitable. The damage is done, we have done far more than just broken this nation, we have vaporised any infrastructure Iraq had before we got there. We have no credibiltiy with the Iraqi people or the militias.

One Last Push is just another variation on Westmorland's Kill Ratio and is nonsensical.

One of the problems in US understanding of has been achieved militarily is that there is a natural tendency to equate numbers with results - this is a fallacy. Troop numbers do have their own power and effect but the prime metric is the quality of what those troops do - as Napoleon said, "The moral is to the physical as three is to one".

The quality of America's efforts in Iraq has sucked pretty well consistently since day one. It is pretty clear that the US military did not recognize or respond to what was obviously an evolving insurgency morphing into a general civil war. The indisciminate and brutal nature of the US response has been a major recruiting factor for the other side - and continues to be so. Fallujah, just the name, is a powerful recruiting symbol and US military operations continue to provide more.

The troop number graphs are pretty well meaningless unless you can somehow introduce the changes and improvements the US has made in the way they use their troops on the ground. Its not how much you have so much as what you do with what you have.

One Last Push is just another variation on Westmorland's Kill Ratio and is nonsensical.

One of the problems in US understanding of has been achieved militarily is that there is a natural tendency to equate numbers with results - this is a fallacy. Troop numbers do have their own power and effect but the prime metric is the quality of what those troops do - as Napoleon said, "The moral is to the physical as three is to one".

The quality of America's efforts in Iraq has sucked pretty well consistently since day one. It is pretty clear that the US military did not recognize or respond to what was obviously an evolving insurgency morphing into a general civil war. The indiscriminate and brutal nature of the US response has been a major recruiting factor for the other side - and continues to be so. Fallujah, just the name, is a powerful recruiting symbol and US military operations continue to provide more.

The troop number graphs are pretty well meaningless unless you can somehow introduce the changes and improvements (or otherwise) the US has made in the way they use their troops on the ground. Its not how much you have so much as what you do with what you have.

It's not how much you have so much as what you do with what you have.

I keep trying to tell my wife the exact same thing.

Bob

It's not how much you have so much as what you do with what you have.

I keep trying to tell my wife the exact same thing.

Bob

Those righties are incredible, aren't they? They have only one solution to every problem: get tough. If killing thousands doesn't work, kill thousands more. I guess they must all beat their kids. If they don't like their pastors' sermons do they take turns slugging them on the way out of church?

The reason Shrub was so brave over at Robert E Lee's old home was that he did not have to take a drug test. The last time he wore a uniform he boogied when drug tests were announced for flight physicals. Suddenly, he was too quivery to fly a 102 by himself - He could fly a trainer with an instructor - Perhaps there should have been a qualifed instructor for play acting as cINc. Small cees on purpose.

Hey Jeffery (You are not spelling your assumed name right.) God doesn’t seem to be blessing the Americans like he once did. Maybe he is actually a Muslim, because that side seems to be winning. Maybe your people are right and he did insure the election of George W. Bush because he knew George would mess the world up so badly he would bring about Muslim domination. You better make nice with those people or you may be the next to be forcibly converted. You know, just like your people have done throughout the world for the last 2000 years.

On the other hand, lately God seems to be a Democrat. Perhaps world peace and solutions to problems other than kill-kill-kill is something God likes. His son sure used to talked that way. Leave the warnicks, Jeffery, and be born again on the side God is really on. He will bless you, brother.

Umm, okay, I'll explain the drops in a well-known and predictable manner:

When all those extra troops were coming in between September and February, what was happening to the temperature? Getting a little bit less than God-forsakenly hot, maybe? And what happened at the same time they were pulled out in the Spring? That's right, the temperature rose again. Yes, Iraq does have seasons. Not wild temperature swings, but enough to notice and enough to affect human behavior.

Now, it's just as logical to say the extra soldiers in the area caused Hell's fires to stop burning so hot and thus made it cooler. But, seeing horses instead of zebra here, I'd posit that the trend in Iraq is roughly the same as everywhere else in the world:

*** VIOLENCE INCREASES WITH TEMPERATURE ***

Duh. Why are we even discussing this?

免费性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 <