Democrat Party shifting Iraq policy(s)

[Parkbandit]

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”


Damn.. a Democrat I agree with. You don't win a war being a pussy ass and worrying about feelings.. you go in there and end it quick.. then pick up the pieces.

Pussies never win fights... why do we insist on fighting wars like one?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

[TheEschaton]

I thought I've always been relatively clear that I don't think we should phase out of Iraq? I didn't think we should of been there in the first place, but now that we're there, we can't leave.

-TheE-

[DeV]

Also, there is no such thing as "ending it quick" with regard to the current state of affairs in Iraq.

[Back]

Its the “Democratic”*party, not democrat party. But you know that full well.


Excerpts from a letter from Iraq Study Group co-chairs James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton:

"There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The president and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support."

[Parkbandit]

Its the “Democratic”*party, not democrat party. But you know that full well.

Repiblicans = Republican party
Democrats = Democrat Party

We don't call you Democratics, do we?

[Gan]

I'm all for deploying more troops if there's a chance we can eliminate the large threates that stand in the way of the new Iraqi leadership from gaining enough momentum to stand on their own.

I say kick the tires and light the fires.

[Seran]

Bomb the hell out of all of them like we did in Vietnam, then leave just like we did there because the subversives are going to take over in the end anyways.

Barring that, I do agree with an eight month military increase in which to stage an offensive against militants. Once that is done, turn the country over to the idiots we put into power, because they're already sneering behind raised hands.

Isolationism is what works.

[Bartlett]

The only way for us to get out of this war now is to make it their problem instead of ours. 20-30k more troops is a step in the right direction. More support and training for the newly installed government is the only way they will function on their own, which is the only way we will be leaving. I'm glad now that the democrats have full control they changed their tune to this approach, which the republicans have been trying to push, instead of the "get everyone out right now" approach they have been crowing for. Now I guess they can get the credit for it, so it's a great idea. It is unfortunate they had to stall the process all this time though.

[Tsa`ah]

Bomb the hell out of all of them like we did in Vietnam, then leave just like we did there because the subversives are going to take over in the end anyways.

The post you made in the congressional schedule thread lead me to believe you were some kind a moron. The post I'm quoting pretty much confirms that initial belief.

Brush up on your history numb nuts.


Barring that, I do agree with an eight month military increase in which to stage an offensive against militants. Once that is done, turn the country over to the idiots we put into power, because they're already sneering behind raised hands.

Isolationism is what works.

Yes, because we all know kicking an ant hill we had no business kicking and then leaving it will solve the problem we created.

Other than that you sound like a republican advocating "cut and run".

[Parkbandit]

Isolationism is what works.

Read some history imo.

[xtc]

It is a tough question and it is interesting to note that Reyes was one of a handful of Democrats to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2002. However I think his reasoning is flawed. He believes an increase in troops can dismantle the militias. I doubt it, it will only create greater hatred of the US, both in Iraq and in the region. It will only provide the militias with a greater target.

To quote the article "I think he [Reyes] needs a course in Insurgency 101,” said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst "

The militias and death squads do not dismantling, however I believe the US has lost credibility. I think a UN force would be a better bet but I doubt other nations want to fix a problem Bush created.

[Atlanteax]

More U.S. forces will help control the insurgency and quell the Shitte vs Sunni attacks.

Have you not noticed the very distinct pattern that *after* U.S. (or U.K.) forces leave a "pacified" area, to go work on a different one... violence in the vacated region jumps, but diminishes significant in the newly occupied one (after the initial forceful pacfication).

The problem is that there is not enough U.S. to leave behind some in pacified areas to keep it pacified. Because so few in Iraq, it's *safer* for the U.S. soldiers to *not* be left behind in insufficient numbers and folded into the new offensives.

Perhaps with more U.S. troops available, it will indeed be "safe enough" to leave behind a sufficiently-sized U.S. presence in pacified areas while sending troops to quell troublespots.

.

Right now, it's as if the U.S. has enough troops to pacify two regions out of A, B, and C.

A & B are "pacified" C isn't.

Pull 1/4 of A and all of B to quell C. Some troops are likely killed/injured in the projcess.

A & C are "pacified", B flares up again.

Pull 1/4 of C and all of A to quell B. More troops are likely killed/injured in the process.

.

See a pattern?

This is why having 400k troops instead of 200k at the start of the Iraq invasion would had gone a long way towards the "Westernization" of Iraq.

... and may have prevented an "Iraqi Quadmire" from developing in the first palce.