The "Surge"

[Velokid1]

Many soldiers say troop surge a bad idea

By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.

President Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.

In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.

Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.

But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.

Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

Based in Fort Lewis, Wash., the battalion is part of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division. Deployed in June, its men were moved to Baghdad from Mosul in late November to relieve another Stryker battalion that had reached the end of its tour.

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad.

"The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.

But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.

"The more guys we have training the Iraqi army the better," he said. "I would like to see a surge there."

During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.

"We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.

Some in the 5th Battalion don't think training will ever get the Iraqi forces up to American standards.

"They're never going to be as effective as us," said 1st Lt. Sean McCaffrey, 24, of Shelton, Conn. "They don't have enough training or equipment or expertise."

McCaffrey does support a temporary surge in troop numbers, however, arguing that flooding Baghdad with more soldiers could "crush enemy forces all over the city instead of just pushing them from one area to another."

Pfc. Richard Grieco said it's hard to see how daily missions in Baghdad make a difference.

"If there's a plan to sweep through Baghdad and clear it, (more troops) could make a difference," said the 19-year-old from Slidell, La. "But if we just dump troops in here like we've been doing, it's just going to make for more targets."

Sgt. James Simons, 24, of Tacoma, Wash., said Baghdad is so dangerous that U.S. forces spend much of their time in combat instead of training Iraqis.

"Baghdad is still like it was at the start of the war. We still have to knock out insurgents because things are too dangerous for us to train the Iraqis," he said.

Staff Sgt. Anthony Handly disagreed, saying Baghdad has made improvements many Americans aren't aware of.

"People think everything is so bad and so violent, but it's really not," said Handly, 30, of Bellingham, Wash. "A lot of people are getting jobs they didn't have before and they're doing it on their own. We just provide a stabilizing effect."

Staff Sgt. Lee Knapp, 28, of Mobile, Ala., also supported a temporary troop surge, saying it could keep morale up by reducing the need to extend units past the Army's standard tour of one year in Iraq.

"It could help alleviate some stress on the smaller units," he said. "It could help Baghdad, but things are already getting better."

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."

[hambone]

Lawd have mercy, Vietnam 2....yeah training the s. vietnamese forces really went well, just as well as it's goin over in Iraq. Watch everything crumble when we pull out.
War is not the answer! Too late I guess....

[Velokid1]

Why are we there? Seriously. What is the objective at this point?

It seems like the only clear objective ever "articulated" by the White House these days is that we will not quit. Hmmm... not quitting. What a noble endeavor.

"They're never going to be as effective as us," said 1st Lt. Sean McCaffrey, 24, of Shelton, Conn. "They don't have enough training or equipment or expertise."

We can train our soldiers to fight in just a year. I think Lt. McCaffrey overestimates his own capacity for being trainable and underestimates the Iraqi's.

And as for them not having enough equipment... we're already spending billions on the war, why not stock the Iraqi military with all our fancy weapons and let THEM stand around as targets instead of our own young men and women? Train them for a year or two, then let them handle themselves. As a taxpayer, I'd rather subsidize that than subsidize the current boondoggle that is taking place over there in my names.

[hambone]

"domino theory"

[twinfalls]

Thanks to the US a civil war is going on in Irak. The US govt is doing all sorts of contorsions to avoid the term "civil war", because that's exactly what it is.
On the same kind of non sense; Remember:
When the soviets invaded Afghanistan, the US armed the opposing Afghans: The Talibans. Irony: Nowdays, those are back in good shape.

[LiveonJG]

This sums it up well:



-John

[steve74baywin]

Why are we there? Seriously. What is the objective at this point?

I am going to be repetitive here..
So many people,,,so many times, ask questions like yours above...News dudes on TV spend hours trying to figure out the ridiculous non sense doings of the powers to be. The answer that answers all thoses....

It all makes sense when you realize their agenda is to control, dominate and get rich.

That's just it,,,stop asking questions under the assumption there objective is truely the one they got us to believe, know their objective is to control, dominate and get rich and we might be able to get one step ahead of them.

[RussellK]

Steve, I wish I had your faith that there is an agenda. I am not nearly as certain there is an organized approach as you seem to be. I do believe there exists a vastly different value system than mine but I don't think there is a "they" that is actually capable of organization on such a grand scheme.

[Velokid1]

I actually tend to agree with that whole schtick ... money and power ARE the major motivators for MOST ambitious people in the world.

But I really don't see where you're going with repeating it all the time.

Whatever your intention is, the end result is usually that it seems like you are short-circuiting any discussion that comes within a mile of that concept. I'm in agreement with you on that statement, for the most part... and yet I don't understand at all why that should curtail the discussion.

[steve74baywin]

I actually tend to agree with that whole schtick ... money and power ARE the major motivators for MOST ambitious people in the world.

But I really don't see where you're going with repeating it all the time.

Whatever your intention is, the end result is usually that it seems like you are short-circuiting any discussion that comes within a mile of that concept. I'm in agreement with you on that statement, for the most part... and yet I don't understand at all why that should curtail the discussion.

I followed you a bit, then you lost me.......
1) The discussion doesn't have to stop due to my statement.
2) If I truly feel there agenda is as I say, then that would mean I see a discussion going on and people trying to get an answer,,but they are barking up the wrong tree so to speak,,and I can help them. (wrong tree being the assumption that they want peace there and it's all been for our safety)
3) As to why I repeat it,,,perhaps after someone scratches their head enough for dumb move #1 by this admin, or dumb move #3, or #25,,, it may just click,,,hey,,,they,,,a group of adults in high positions can't possible being doing so many dumb moves time after time, maybe there motive is not as we all assume,,,,maybe they have another agenda.

So,,,I'd like to reserve the right to point out that I feel there agenda isn't to help all of us out the only way possible each time I see a discussion for a dumb butt decision they made assuming there motives are as they said.

Also, I guess when I post I'm thinking that more than the same one or two of you will be reading my post, and that it doesn't vanish in a day or two. I post with the thought in the back of my mind that someone is out there reading it,,,whether brand new to the site, or been around a bit,,,or maybe not yet reading the site,,,and it might help them see the light.

Perhaps we should ask why was this thread started in the first place,,,,,,is it not a repeat of things past on here?????

Edited to add this...
Perhaps you, Velokid, need to look at my reply as being in response to one comment,,,not a reply to the whole thread. The discussion of whether to send in more troops or not can still go on cause it is a option this country has, a decision needs to be made,,,,,I'm just pointing out that we need not go too crazy on why assuming they have unadulterated motives?

Forgive me for going on,,,but you stated that you don't see where I'm going by repeating this,,,,well, perhaps if Mr X sees that for the last 5 crazy butt things this admin did that no one can figure out why they are so stupid,,,maybe at some point Mr. X will say,,,you know,,,Steve's answer does seem to fit for just about everything done in the last 5+ years.. That is why I repeat it,,,and I believe that the more people who know the truth,,,the much better chance we have of bringing this country back on track. Think of the lives that could be saved if they were stopped in there tracks this year??

[RussellK]

If you have proof of your claim share it with us. Otherwise you're just repeating a hunch. Why should anyone embrace your view based only on your ability to repeat it. I'm not trying to be a smartass. But let's say I'm at a party this weekend and the topic of the war and why we are there comes around. I offer up there is an agenda at play to line the pockets of the rich & powerful. Someone that believes there is a higher purpose calls me on it. What shall I say?. Oh, some guy on the internet say's so?

Who is the "They" in "Their". Is Dick Cheney's Halliburton profiting? Hell yes. But is there a group in a smoky backroom? That gets a little murky.

[PDX_Hops]

Lawd have mercy, Vietnam 2....yeah training the s. vietnamese forces really went well, just as well as it's goin over in Iraq. Watch everything crumble when we pull out.
War is not the answer! Too late I guess....

This is what I'm worried about. No matter how long we stay there, it's gonna be a clusterf*ck when we leave.

[steve74baywin]

If you have proof of your claim share it with us. Otherwise you're just repeating a hunch. Why should anyone embrace your view based only on your ability to repeat it. I'm not trying to be a smartass. But let's say I'm at a party this weekend and the topic of the war and why we are there comes around. I offer up there is an agenda at play to line the pockets of the rich & powerful. Someone that believes there is a higher purpose calls me on it. What shall I say?. Oh, some guy on the internet say's so?

Who is the "They" in "Their". Is Dick Cheney's Halliburton profiting? Hell yes. But is there a group in a smoky backroom? That gets a little murky.

I understand,,,,your being a smartass,,,,"just kidding"
Well, first someone may just make the connection that they couldn't be so dumb all the time,,,and perhaps they will figure the rest out on there own,,,,Sometimes if you just sit and start thinking about one of the dumb moves with my phrase in mind you can quickly see how there dumb move does work to their advantage,,,IE,,I see it in almost all if not all things,,,I see where what they did was perfect for the result they want....

Secondly,,,,I could explain alot more as to why I feel this way,,,,It takes a bit of explaining,,,,some of the links I have shared explain it..... I need to write some pages and set up a website,,,,I have thought of this alot lately....
Maybe this is the incentive I need to start writing essays...


Let me try to start with one of the first examples since 9/11..
We fear another attack from Terrorist,,,IE,,the Bin Laden group...
Dumb thing done, Invade Afghanistan, but don't allow our men to get Bin Laden,,(yes, there are plenty of reports that our men knew where he was but wasn't allowed to get him)... Invade Iraq...
What should have been done,,,it would seem to me,,,any group of semi intelligent men assembled together after 9/11 with no means to profit,,,,would have built up our borders, military,,etc,,prepared us more so from a terror attack or nuke attack from any country or group in the world,,,,more anti missiles, more satellites.... To invade a country to get bin laden and his 19 men from Saudi,,,and then to only look at the bad intel to determine to invade a country that didn't have bin laden types and never attacked us,,,while not preventing terrorist from being able to enter our country,,,is outright retarded. Okay,,,now, if they want to control, dominate and get rich what would they do,,,well, he who controls a much needed natural resource is in a good position.... OIL,,,very plentiful there.... Also, we invade Iraq but scatter the military, leave it unsecure, don't rebuilt the infrastructure,,,,why? Well, if you need prolong conflicts to by time to build your pipeline,,,and feed your defense contractors, now it makes sense....They rounded up tons of innocent people over there,,,yes, there are reports from soldiers and bounty hunters,,,and reports that say 90% of the people are innocent. Why do this? To make them love us and bring freedom there? Or to have more conflicts there to continue your war for profit? Torture,,,well known by us that it is useless,,,why did we do it,,,we just went dumb again? Or does it make them people even more mad so we have more conflict? More conflict equals more money for them...... There is alot more and I could take more time to explain, that's why I need to write essays...
Now,,,how do they accomplish this..... I'd need to take much longer to explain how propaganda and mind conditioning took place while they showed the towers burning for weeks on TV...But one area I will attempt to explain is that not everyone involved knows everything......You have the Think Tanks,,,like PNAC, Trilateral commision,,etc.... Skull and Bones,,,Bohemian Grove,,,,these secret societies have many tiers, and due to there secretness info is kept from flowing between the levels...The CIA has a criminal side....
I don't have enough time now,,,but check out..
www.infowars.com
www.hermes-press.com

Or go ahead and ask me specific questions,,,,,or, perhaps what your saying is maybe I should take the time to explain why I think my phrase fits into a given thread.....Yeah,, I like that idea. I will take the time to explain how my phrase fits,,,and maybe explain how they deceived the people,,,,as near step by step as I can.....

[steve74baywin]

Here is my take on the troop numbers....
We did not send enough troops there cause we wanted a conflict to go on for a long time, those in power did not want to free the people and make us safe as fast as they could, they wanted time to build the many permanent bases they are building, and they wanted to continue there wars for the defense contractors and oil men..... The also hired 60,000 or so contractors to make huge profits off of them....Check out the movie "Iraq for Sale". Check out PNAC's document for 2000 where they state invading countries that have natural resources like we need,,,like Iraq, should be what we do. Now the GOP needs to do something,,,Bush has said for years that he listens to the Generals on the ground,,,many Generals if not all of them have been saying for many, many years that they need more troops. They could withdraw, right? Why not do what the people want? That would probably settle that area,,,it would save our troops...but no,,,now that they have to do something with the new congress, they finally bring up sending more troops. Sending more troops will allow them to continue there war, the war they want to never end.

[Velokid1]

Knowing a person's agenda doesn't do much in the way of explaining their motives or their objective.

Let's use a simplified example:

Let's say that my agenda is to have tons of sex before I die.
Last week I decided to buy a black coffee table instead of a brown one.
Why did I choose black over brown?

Not because my agenda is to have tons of sex before I die. Even though my agenda hadn't changed, it still doesn't explain my preference for black furniture over brown.

So if you think the question, "What's the objective in Iraq?" is a silly question because you are of the opinion that it is answered by the fact that the people running the country have an agenda to be rich and powerful, you'll have to forgive me if I ask for a little more substance than that.