What A Surge Really Means

[jillian]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

[Dilloduck]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

If a 2 division surge DID make a difference now, wouldn't that be a huge set back for the Democrats ? Would they even allow it or admit it?

[Gaffer]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

Seasoned military people means?

"Some people say", is another way reporters say "I think that... " Its a copout to make people think everyone thinks that way. The reporters use this to avoid naming sources because they are giving their opinion and want to express it like they have a real source.

[Evil]

IAVA Blog
January 5, 2007
Time Magazine: What a Surge Really Means
Filed under: Troop Levels, White House — IAVA Staff @ 12:50 pm

Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush’s idea too little, too late?

By MICHAEL DUFFY

Posted Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007
For years now, George W. Bush has told Americans that he would increase the number of troops in Iraq only if the commanders on the ground asked him to do so. It was not a throwaway line: Bush said it from the very first days of the war, when he and Pentagon boss Donald Rumsfeld were criticized for going to war with too few troops. He said it right up until last summer, stressing at a news conference in Chicago that Iraq commander General George Casey “will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there.” Seasoned military people suspected that the line was a dodge–that the civilians who ran the Pentagon were testing their personal theory that war can be fought on the cheap and the brass simply knew better than to ask for more. In any case, the President repeated the mantra to dismiss any suggestion that the war was going badly. Who, after all, knew better than the generals on the ground?

*More*

http://www.iava.org/blog/?p=11408

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

[Gaffer]

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

[Evil]

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

I'm kind of mixed on which route they go next admittedly but it's in my opinion that this is the kind of stuff that circulates out there that really plays into the hands of some. Interesting when this war on iraq opened there was plenty of support for it especially when we marched right through the iraqi's so called army within a few days, then comes the insurgents, things get ugly, and now there is the perfect opening to dismiss the administrations effort. Just my opinion but I think this is where the culprit lies for the bad image of the iraq war, its right here at home, and this is why whatever is decided it won't work unless particulars get thier way.

[Gaffer]

I have mixed thoughts on it as well. I want to see success there. But at the same time its a muslim country and I don't see the democracy thing actually happening there. The current fighting shows that. Democray and islam are incompatable, because islam will always seek to dominate.

[Dilloduck]

I have mixed thoughts on it as well. I want to see success there. But at the same time its a muslim country and I don't see the democracy thing actually happening there. The current fighting shows that. Democray and islam are incompatable, because islam will always seek to dominate.

As does capitalism.

[Gunny]

Its a definate fact his opinion would not vary. he's out to bash Bush as usual.

The equipment the troops had was sufficiant for the job as it was at the begining. They upgraded the equipment as things changed, like in every situation. The enemy changes tactics, we change tactics. That's how a war is fought.

A battle plan never survives the first clash with the enemy.

Tactical rule of thumb .... the plan goes to shit with the first shot.

[jillian]

Yep, definitely an opinion piece here but is it really a worthy one? Seems this person claims the administration chose to go to war the cheap way on a personal theory, but now that the admin wants to boost the troops it's because the war is going badly but they don't want to admit it. Hmm, is it maybe the fact that whatever happens that this persons opinion would'nt vary too much?

I think it's a worthy opinion piece. And apparently the Iraq and Afghanistan vets thought so, too, since they linked it. Reikoff is pretty good about taking positions only for the benefit of the troops, IMO.

Perhaps the reason military folk are speaking their minds and acting as sources for articles like this is that they think Bush isn't listening to them.

[Gaffer]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

[jillian]

I have been reading on here and posting and doing other things and haven't looked at the milblogs yet today but I will see what they have to say. Of course most of the milblogs I read are conservative. Haven't really found any liberal milblogs. But maybe I'm not searching hard enough.

I think its just another Bush basher getting in his shots.

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

[Kathianne]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

It looks that others don't see the same as you either? That smilie doesn't really apply here, but it's cool.

[Gaffer]

Or perhaps they're just telling it like it is.

Try looking at IAVA.org (also called optruth.org)...

Or perhaps they have an agenda. I have NEVER read a liberal forum where they weren't on a Bush bashing binge. And out to make the administration look bad in anywaay posible. And in all the years I have been around I have never seen such a venomus attack on a sitting president in the end of his term. He's in the final two years and they are attacking him like he's running for office. This is why I can't take anything said by the dems seriously. They use iraq as a political football instead of supporting the troops and concentrating on the war with islamists.

I have plenty of things I don't like about Bush, but they are overriden by the poison spit out by the dems.

[retiredman]

the right never seems to consider that many of the people who question the wisdom of this "new strategy" are doing so legitimately and not merely "bashing Bush".