McCain Says More Troops Needed in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Is he correct? Do you agree with his assessment?
Your opinions please.
Link

BREITBART.COM - McCain Says More Troops Needed in Iraq

 

[Kandahar]

I don't agree with him; it's too late for us to win in Iraq by any standard. We should get out of Iraq (or at least the Arab part of Iraq) rather than send more.

With that said, McCain's idea is better than the status quo approach to the war. Just about anything would be.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

I'm not going to argue whether we need more troops or not--for McCain to state this as a problem solver for Iraq and for the potential voters to believe it as the remedy and vote for him on this issue is laughable--he needs another sound byte on Iraq. :idea:

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Is he correct? Do you agree with his assessment?
Your opinions please.

I rather disagree, both with his idea and his reason. First of all, it is my understanding that a huge amount of the violence against US troops is caused by the Iraqi people's perception of them as an occupying force. Most of the insurgents aren't terrorists so much as poor schmucks who just want the Yankees gone. If we do go away, they'll many of them lay down their arms and go back to being barbers or tailors or interpretive dancers. Conversely, if we send in more troops, still more Iraqis will get bitten by the nationalism bug and decide to take potshots at the "occupiers." More troops would be folly, I think; it's pretty well evident that we don't have the resources to put the entire country under lockdown, so any smallish additions to the force we have in Iraq could very well be so much cannon fodder.

The reason for an increase that the article has McCain offering also makes no sense to me. al-Zarqawi was never anything more than a figurehead (look at the effect his death had on the insurgency); what cause do we have to believe that the other guys who happened to be on his side shared all of his ideas? bin Laden, though he seems to have once been much more than a mere figurehead, has comparatively little operational power now, I think. Afghanistan has really screwed with al-Qaeda, and the cells that weren't broken up seem, judging from what I've read, seem for their part not to have any sort of central leadership or direction now.

If neither of the two leaders had or has any real power, then, should we really fear their words enough to let them decide our next move in Iraq?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Is he correct? Do you agree with his assessment?
Your opinions please.
Link

BREITBART.COM - McCain Says More Troops Needed in Iraq

I'm torn I really don't care what McCain says he's only a politician, but the Generals can't agree either:

General Abizaid rejects Levin's call to withdraw troops in 4-6 months

November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin got a negative response from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East Wednesday after the Michigan Democrat said during committee hearings that the United States must tell Iraq it'll begin withdrawing troops in 4 to 6 months.

Gen. John Abizaid warned the Senate Armed Services Committee against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

That assertion seemed to put Abizaid at odds with Levin and some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Specific timetables limit that flexibility, the general said.

General rejects Levin's call to begin troop withdrawal in 4-6 months

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/wa...5military.html

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/...d-mccain-iraq/
​

Abizaid want's to keep the troop levels as is and given that he's the top field commander in Iraq and the head of CENTCOM I'm going to side with him but the retired Generals Batiste and Zinni think that more troops are needed and their opinions should not be dismissed out of hand, about the one things they can agree on though is that the Democrats plan of cut and run would be a disaster.

 

[jujuman13]

Part quote by TOT
(Democrats plan of cut and run would be a disaster.)

TOT please PLEASE do us all a favour and read your news from a greater variety of outlets.

A Senior democrat is proposing to send in MORE troops, at least short term.

Cut and run seems to be YOUR suggestion, it most certainly is not all the democratic party's policy.

 

[aps]

I have heard that we don't have more troops to send in. Also, it's too late to send in more troops. We should have had more troops to begin with, and Rumsfeld and Bush decided to go against Shinseki's recommendation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Part quote by TOT
(Democrats plan of cut and run would be a disaster.)

TOT please PLEASE do us all a favour and read your news from a greater variety of outlets.

A Senior democrat is proposing to send in MORE troops, at least short term.

Cut and run seems to be YOUR suggestion, it most certainly is not all the democratic party's policy.

And Carl Levin the future head of the Armed Service Committee says he wants to begin withdrawal in 4-6 months, and Charles Rangel the future head of the House Ways and Means Committee says he intends to cut the funding for the war. Atleast for you you're lucky that Abscam Murtha didn't become House Majority leader because he wants to cut and run too.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What are you basing your belief that if we leave, most of them will set down their weapons on? I understand where you're coming from, that since the motivator to violence is US presence, take away US presence, and you take away the motivator to violence, but the world is never that simple. Violence begets violence. A sunni sets up a car bomb to take out some Americans, and it kills several Shia, who respond by attacking Sunnis, and so on and so forth.

The Sunni want to kill the Shia the Shia want to kill the Sunni, and the Wahhabists want to kill everybody this will not change if the U.S. leaves; furthermore, if we do leave the Generals say it will only escalate the dissent into civil war. Lucky for us it is a very small minority that has joined the sectarian gangs, there's something like 24 million Iraqi's who want freedom and prosperity, and there's like 50,000 *** holes ruining it for the rest of them.