More Troops to Iraq (1 Viewer)

[hipsterdufus]

CNN is reporting that 1,500 MORE troops are headed to Iraq. The NYT puts the number at 3,500 more troops.

So much for the "As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." placation...
Anyone remeber Cheney saying one year ago that the insurgency was in its "last throws"?

There goes the GOP hopes of giving the illusion that we're winning the war and we will start sending troops home in time for mid-term elections.

You guys better stick to gay bashing....

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military has moved 1,500 troops from Kuwait into Iraq to bolster security in the troubled Anbar province, officials said Tuesday, while attacks across Iraq killed dozens of people for the second straight day.

Terrorists and insurgents have control of parts of Anbar, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said last week.

"The situation in al-Anbar province is currently a challenge but is not representative of the overall security situation in Iraq, which continues to improve as the Iraqi security forces increasingly take the lead," Lt. Col. Michelle Martin-Hing, a military spokesperson, said Tuesday.

With roughly 133,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq, the U.S. announcement said the new deployment would be "short-term."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/iraq.main/index.html

 

[Iriemon]

CNN is reporting that 1,500 MORE troops are headed to Iraq. The NYT puts the number at 3,500 more troops.

So much for the "As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." placation...
Anyone remeber Cheney saying one year ago that the insurgency was in its "last throws"?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/iraq.main/index.html

Whatever happened to the plan they announced about 6 months ago of withdrawing troops starting this year?

"Last throes". With guys that clueless running our government its a wonder anyone has any faith that they are up to the job.

 

[KidRocks]

CNN is reporting that 1,500 MORE troops are headed to Iraq. The NYT puts the number at 3,500 more troops.

So much for the "As Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." placation...
Anyone remeber Cheney saying one year ago that the insurgency was in its "last throws"?

There goes the GOP hopes of giving the illusion that we're winning the war and we will start sending troops home in time for mid-term elections.

You guys better stick to gay bashing....



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/30/iraq.main/index.html

What we need in Iraq is 1 million Red Chinese troops, that might free up our troops and send them home.

Psst, do you think the Chinese would of invaded Iraq if we had paid them 200 billion dollars to rid Saddam and the WMD's back in March of 2003? And wouldn't that of made more sense? Plus the Chinese could've kept any "bearings of fruit" as part of the deal.

 

[KidRocks]

Ok, ok!

Maybe 200 billion dollars would of not been realistic, how about 300 billion tops?

China could of sure used the dollars and we could of avoided this mess. Remember, the Chinese take no prisoners and they don't abide by the Geneva Convention.

 

[Captain America]

You guys better stick to gay bashing....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

:rofl
:2rofll:

 

[scottyz]

Whatever happened to the plan they announced about 6 months ago of withdrawing troops starting this year?

"Last throes". With guys that clueless running our government its a wonder anyone has any faith that they are up to the job.

Now they have made a new prediction that the Insurgency will last into 2007. We must have killed many more insurgents than what our own experts stated existed at the beginning of the war. There are obviously way more of them than anyone in our Gov. wants to admit.

 

[Iriemon]

Now they have made a new prediction that the Insurgency will last into 2007. We must have killed many more insurgents than what our own experts stated existed at the beginning of the war. There are obviously way more of them than anyone in our Gov. wants to admit.

In 2007 they will say it will last until 2008. In 2008, with the elections, they will say we are really winning and withdraw a token number of troops to prove the point.

 

[scottyz]

In 2007 they will say it will last until 2008. In 2008, with the elections, they will say we are really winning and withdraw a token number of troops to prove the point.

I woudn't be surprised if Bush pulls out all or most of the troops before the '08 elections and announces victory. I'm sure there will be lots of pressure from within his party to do so. If Democrats do pick up the majority in the House I would think it would be almost guaranteed to happen.

 

[Iriemon]

I woudn't be surprised if Bush pulls out all or most of the troops before the '08 elections and announces victory. I'm sure there will be lots of pressure from within his party to do so. If Democrats do pick up the majority in the House I would think it would be almost guaranteed to happen.

I'm sure there will be some pressure in his party to do this. But unless the situation in Iraq changes dramatically over the next two years, a pull-out runs the risk of the Govt collapsing, and Iraq devolving into a civil war and ultimately ending up with a pro-Iran radical Islamic Govt that would be a lot worse that Hussein was. This would make clear the whole Iraqi intervention was a failure, which I think Bush would not risk because of the damage to his legacy. Also the fall-out could be just as damaging to the GOP.

The safer course for him is to maintain the status quo and pass the buck to the next president (I don't envy him or her). Then when the troops are withdraw Bush and the GOP can say it's not their fault.

 

[jfuh]

THere really is no alternative. Withdrawing now is completely irresponsible, and the amount of troops there now make for great target practice for the insurgency. You can never replace the authority and demonstration of power that is goverend by overwhelming force. That's the only way. If we pull out completely now, you're leaving a total power vacuum that will be more then likly dominated by the insurgency and sectarian rule.

 

[Kandahar]

Ok, ok!

Maybe 200 billion dollars would of not been realistic, how about 300 billion tops?

China could of sure used the dollars and we could of avoided this mess. Remember, the Chinese take no prisoners and they don't abide by the Geneva Convention.

I never thought of that. That's actually a great idea. :lol:

 

[scottyz]

I'm sure there will be some pressure in his party to do this. But unless the situation in Iraq changes dramatically over the next two years, a pull-out runs the risk of the Govt collapsing, and Iraq devolving into a civil war and ultimately ending up with a pro-Iran radical Islamic Govt that would be a lot worse that Hussein was. This would make clear the whole Iraqi intervention was a failure, which I think Bush would not risk because of the damage to his legacy. Also the fall-out could be just as damaging to the GOP.

I've often wondered which direction this will go. At some point Bush will have to decide between his legacy, the country and his own party. My presumption is that neither he or his party really care about Iraq and they do not want to lose power over it. The Iraq war was effective as a divisive topic when the majority of people supported it, but now the support is no longer there. I think most of the Republicans know that Iraq will never be a success. The U.S. will be lucky to get a polished turd out of the deal and we will never get the men&women, equipment or money back.

The safer course for him is to maintain the status quo and pass the buck to the next president (I don't envy him or her). Then when the troops are withdraw Bush and the GOP can say it's not their fault.

I know he has previously stated that it will be up to the next President to decide when the pull out happens, but he says a lot of things.

 

[KidRocks]

I never thought of that. That's actually a great idea. :lol:

Thanks, I'm thinking why can't we outsource our dirty work? Why can't we use capitalism to defeat terrorists? I'm mean we used it successfully against the USSR didn't we? We can pit the have-nots against the have-nots and winner take all, hundreds of billions of dollars that is!

Am I crazy, or what?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Ok, ok!

Maybe 200 billion dollars would of not been realistic, how about 300 billion tops?

China could of sure used the dollars and we could of avoided this mess. Remember, the Chinese take no prisoners and they don't abide by the Geneva Convention.

Ick! It's bad enough that we've been torturing people. I can't imagine the political fallout if the world found out we paid China to invade Iraq, especially knowing the human rights atrocities China might commit in the process. It's an interesting and origional idea, but by avoiding one mess we would be creating another, maybe bigger.

 

[Iriemon]

THere really is no alternative. Withdrawing now is completely irresponsible, and the amount of troops there now make for great target practice for the insurgency. You can never replace the authority and demonstration of power that is goverend by overwhelming force. That's the only way. If we pull out completely now, you're leaving a total power vacuum that will be more then likly dominated by the insurgency and sectarian rule.

What is the alternative to withdrawing? Permanent occupation? That does our interests more harm that good. It continues to piss off the entire Muslem world. It continues to make us look deceitful and continuously damages our credibility. Rather than a handful of Muslem fanatics out to get us it will be 1.2 billion of them.

We told the world we were invading Iraq because it had WMDs. We told the world that our intent was not to occupy Iraq and control their government and oil, but for the limited purpose of disarming its WMDs and removing Hussein. That is what our President said. We have accomplished those objectives. We have set them up with the structure for a new Govt. It is now up to the Iraqis to determine the Govt they want to have. The Iraqis will not stand up until we stand down.

Our credibility would be much improved if we announced we had accomplished what we set out to do, we are withdrawing in 6 months, and after that it is up to the Iraqis.

 

[Iriemon]

Thanks, I'm thinking why can't we outsource our dirty work? Why can't we use capitalism to defeat terrorists? I'm mean we used it successfully against the USSR didn't we? We can pit the have-nots against the have-nots and winner take all, hundreds of billions of dollars that is!

Am I crazy, or what?

We are. Half the stuff going on over their is done through contractors. Why do you think they gave Haliburton that $9 billion no-bid contract? Other than its ties with Cheney, I mean.

 

[BWG]

Outsourcing sounds good. I hear Tom 'The Bugman' DeLay has connections in the Mariana Islands. :lol:

 

[jfuh]

What is the alternative to withdrawing? Permanent occupation? That does our interests more harm that good. It continues to piss off the entire Muslem world. It continues to make us look deceitful and continuously damages our credibility. Rather than a handful of Muslem fanatics out to get us it will be 1.2 billion of them.

We told the world we were invading Iraq because it had WMDs. We told the world that our intent was not to occupy Iraq and control their government and oil, but for the limited purpose of disarming its WMDs and removing Hussein. That is what our President said. We have accomplished those objectives. We have set them up with the structure for a new Govt. It is now up to the Iraqis to determine the Govt they want to have. The Iraqis will not stand up until we stand down.

Our credibility would be much improved if we announced we had accomplished what we set out to do, we are withdrawing in 6 months, and after that it is up to the Iraqis.

I don't think I've stated anything of permanent occupation. It was a ***** up to go in there over questionable intel in the first place. It was even more a ***** up to go in there with only a half a$$ effort. It would be the greatest ***** up to withdraw troop presence given the current trigger happy atmosphere of purly ethnic civil unrest.
It's better to go in totally secure the nation of Iraq with an overwhelming troop presence.
Look we're the invaders, nothing you nor I can do will ever change the screw up that this administration has accoplished, but what's done is done. Being that we invaded, we need to act the invader and secure the area so that it will not turn into Iran 2.0. The mistake of Vietnam was because of slow escalations, an unwillingness to go all out. Failure of Iraq, regardless of the screw balls that started it, is unacceptable. Again I'm not saying we need to stay there permanently, quite honestly I really don't know for certain just what and when will be enough presence. I do believe that when the Iraqi military is up to par with international standards as well as the police force and the government is compitent, then we should pull out all the way (this sounds kinda pornographic huh?).

 

[Kandahar]

Being that we invaded, we need to act the invader and secure the area so that it will not turn into Iran 2.0.

That's quite a plan. That's what American troops have been trying to do ever since the invasion, and the security isn't any better today than it was in 2003.

The mistake of Vietnam was because of slow escalations, an unwillingness to go all out. Failure of Iraq, regardless of the screw balls that started it, is unacceptable.

Failure in Iraq is not merely a choice that we can accept or not accept. Failure in Iraq is virtually a foregone conclusion at this point. We can either acknowledge it now, or wait until several thousand more US troops die and several hundred billion more dollars are wasted.

Again I'm not saying we need to stay there permanently, quite honestly I really don't know for certain just what and when will be enough presence. I do believe that when the Iraqi military is up to par with international standards as well as the police force and the government is compitent, then we should pull out all the way (this sounds kinda pornographic huh?).

This assumes that if we just stay there long enough - even if you aren't sure exactly how long - that they will eventually be able to defend themselves. Security is no better now than in 2003, so that is quite a bold assumption to make given the total lack of improvement so far.

 

[jfuh]

That's quite a plan. That's what American troops have been trying to do ever since the invasion, and the security isn't any better today than it was in 2003.

Emphasis on "trying" to do. The troops have been trying to do this, but have been unable to do this because there simply aren't enough numbers. Adding more troops will certainly help in making it a reality.

Failure in Iraq is not merely a choice that we can accept or not accept. Failure in Iraq is virtually a foregone conclusion at this point. We can either acknowledge it now, or wait until several thousand more US troops die and several hundred billion more dollars are wasted.

Yes, thus far it's been a failure, but it would be an even greater failure if we pull out now admist this civil war. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. It's either spend a hundred billion dollars now, or trillions of dollars later.

This assumes that if we just stay there long enough - even if you aren't sure exactly how long - that they will eventually be able to defend themselves. Security is no better now than in 2003, so that is quite a bold assumption to make given the total lack of improvement so far.

Like I said, I really've no clue. What I do know is that pulling out now is going to spell a disaster that we will only later regret. Why? Because unlike Vietnam, this country is still very much completely grabbed in the balls by oil. So we're still going to be around there.

 

[Iriemon]

Emphasis on "trying" to do. The troops have been trying to do this, but have been unable to do this because there simply aren't enough numbers. Adding more troops will certainly help in making it a reality.

How many more? Where will they come from?

Yes, thus far it's been a failure, but it would be an even greater failure if we pull out now admist this civil war. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. It's either spend a hundred billion dollars now, or trillions of dollars later.

It's a hundred billion a year now, that is not counting the $200 billion more per year defense spending has increased since 2001.

But why is the option trillions later? What would cost trillions?

Like I said, I really've no clue. What I do know is that pulling out now is going to spell a disaster that we will only later regret. Why? Because unlike Vietnam, this country is still very much completely grabbed in the balls by oil. So we're still going to be around there.

What is so regrettable about having withdrawn from Vietnam? 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam, more wounded or maimed, and it had negative impacts on the economy. Would it have been better to stay there another 5 years and another 50,000 dead? How so?

What is the issue about oil that requires an indefinite occupation of Iraq? Iraq's current oil production compared to the world market is miniscule.

What will be the disaster if we pull out of Iraq? It may slide into civil war, but it already is. At least it won't be Americans killing them. Many Iraqis resent the US for its intervention, but most polls show they want us to leave. If Iraq ends up with a radical Islamic government, that is the risk Bush took. If the new government takes hostile action with the US, we deal with it like we do any other government that takes hostile action.

I think the longer we stay there, the more resentment will be built against us (with things that are invevitable in war, like innocent civilians getting killed) and the greater the likelihood that when we finally do leave, the government that eventually comes to power will be anti-American.

That was the history of Iran, where our government ousted an elected government and set up and supported a dictator for years. The anti-American resentment blew up and Iran ended up with a radical anti-American government, an action continues to have consequences to this day.

We invaded Iraq to find WMDs and take down Hussein. We have accomplished the mission. Unless the Admin was lying to us, the mission was not to maintain an indefinite occupation a la Germany or Japan. What is so wrong about actually doing what we said we would do for a change.

 

[jfuh]

How many more? Where will they come from?

I don't know, and I can't say. However the amount would be what Gen. Shinseki said when grilled by congress on the neccesary numbers of troops.

It's a hundred billion a year now, that is not counting the $200 billion more per year defense spending has increased since 2001.

But why is the option trillions later? What would cost trillions?

As stated later, we're still very much reliant on oil imports from that region of the world, thus that region still represents a vital interest to the US. We're still going to be around there regardless of. If Iraq becomes Iran 2.0 there's going to be even greater instability within the gulf region that will ripple outwards. The US will be particularily hard hit as India and China continue to increase oil demands. Remember that this economy is completely dependent on cheap oil.

What is so regrettable about having withdrawn from Vietnam? 58,000 soldiers died in Vietnam, more wounded or maimed, and it had negative impacts on the economy. Would it have been better to stay there another 5 years and another 50,000 dead? How so?

I haven't said that withdrawing from Vietnam was regrettable, though I have stated that going to Vietnam was regrettable in other threads.

What is the issue about oil that requires an indefinite occupation of Iraq? Iraq's current oil production compared to the world market is miniscule.

Now you're being rash, I haven't stated there be an indefinite occupation. Iraq's oil production will soon have a very large impact as China and India are also grabbing oil from Saudi arabia, and Iran - so on.

What will be the disaster if we pull out of Iraq? It may slide into civil war, but it already is. At least it won't be Americans killing them. Many Iraqis resent the US for its intervention, but most polls show they want us to leave. If Iraq ends up with a radical Islamic government, that is the risk Bush took. If the new government takes hostile action with the US, we deal with it like we do any other government that takes hostile action.

Topple Iraq a 2nd time? Then what would be the worth of those 2400 lives lost and billions of dollars spent? Here we are in the final legs of the war and we should give up because of polls showing public support at lows? That would be an utter failure.

I think the longer we stay there, the more resentment will be built against us (with things that are invevitable in war, like innocent civilians getting killed) and the greater the likelihood that when we finally do leave, the government that eventually comes to power will be anti-American.

I don't doubt this, which is why only an increased troop presence will quicken our withdraw. The more troop presense is in, the faster the nation would be secured and the quicker we can get the hell out of there.

That was the history of Iran, where our government ousted an elected government and set up and supported a dictator for years. The anti-American resentment blew up and Iran ended up with a radical anti-American government, an action continues to have consequences to this day.

Can't undo the past dude, what's done is done, the only way out is to ensure that the new government is one of laws and peace not of one of the Koran and insanity.

We invaded Iraq to find WMDs and take down Hussein. We have accomplished the mission. Unless the Admin was lying to us, the mission was not to maintain an indefinite occupation a la Germany or Japan. What is so wrong about actually doing what we said we would do for a change.

?? Are you serious?? Of course the Admin was lieing to us. From the first day he took office he was lieing to us. Ppl were dumb enough to elect him the first time and were even dumber to re-elect him. But we created the mess, now we need to clean up this mess.

 

[Kandahar]

As stated later, we're still very much reliant on oil imports from that region of the world, thus that region still represents a vital interest to the US. We're still going to be around there regardless of. If Iraq becomes Iran 2.0 there's going to be even greater instability within the gulf region that will ripple outwards.

No matter what form of government Iraq eventually adopts, they aren't going to be a serious threat to the United States for decades at the very least. Even an Islamist government is basically starting from scratch.

The US will be particularily hard hit as India and China continue to increase oil demands. Remember that this economy is completely dependent on cheap oil.

Not exactly. This economy is completely dependent on cheap oil until something else becomes cheaper.

Now you're being rash, I haven't stated there be an indefinite occupation.

That's what it sounds like to me. If we're still there in 2010, and security is exactly the same or worse than it is now, would you still argue that we need to stay there as long as it takes to stabilize the country? As though our presence is contributing to the stabilization of the country?

Iraq's oil production will soon have a very large impact as China and India are also grabbing oil from Saudi arabia, and Iran - so on.

As demand will increases, the price of oil will increase. Once the price of oil crosses a certain threshold, other forms of energy will be cheaper. Demand for those new forms of energy will encourage more innovation to make them even more efficient.

We won't be using oil forever; we won't even use it all up.

Topple Iraq a 2nd time? Then what would be the worth of those 2400 lives lost and billions of dollars spent?

Citing past mistakes to justify continued mistakes = Bad public policy

Here we are in the final legs of the war and we should give up because of polls showing public support at lows? That would be an utter failure.

The final legs of the war? There has been little to no improvement in the past three years.

I don't doubt this, which is why only an increased troop presence will quicken our withdraw. The more troop presense is in, the faster the nation would be secured and the quicker we can get the hell out of there.

There's a caveat to that argument though: More troops also means that Iraq will be more dependent on American troops, and therefore more likely to totally collapse if we make a quick getaway once the country is secured. So even if we go in with more troops, that doesn't mean that we'll be able to leave sooner.

Can't undo the past dude, what's done is done, the only way out is to ensure that the new government is one of laws and peace not of one of the Koran and insanity.

An Iraqi government based on the Qu'ran and insanity couldn't possibly do as much damage to the region as this civil war is doing.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't know, and I can't say. However the amount would be what Gen. Shinseki said when grilled by congress on the neccesary numbers of troops.

I think the prospect of adding another couple hundred thousand troops raises practical concerns. Despite the fact that defense spending has been increased by 2/3 annually since the Bush Administration took over, I don't believe troop levels have increased at all. I'm not sure where the extra $200 billion a year is going; my guess is there are a lot of happy defense contractors out there.

As stated later, we're still very much reliant on oil imports from that region of the world, thus that region still represents a vital interest to the US. We're still going to be around there regardless of. If Iraq becomes Iran 2.0 there's going to be even greater instability within the gulf region that will ripple outwards. The US will be particularily hard hit as India and China continue to increase oil demands. Remember that this economy is completely dependent on cheap oil.

What is your point? That gives the US legitimacy for any military action to a country keeps its oil flowing?

I haven't said that withdrawing from Vietnam was regrettable, though I have stated that going to Vietnam was regrettable in other threads.

OK, I misunderstood your point.

Now you're being rash, I haven't stated there be an indefinite occupation.

If it is a definite time, when is the date for withdrawal? Indefinite means there is no definite time set.

Iraq's oil production will soon have a very large impact as China and India are also grabbing oil from Saudi arabia, and Iran - so on.

1. I find it questionable about how soon Iraqi oil will be flowing, we have been told this from the get go.

2. What does Iraqi oil production have to do with whether we should continue to occupy?

Topple Iraq a 2nd time? Then what would be the worth of those 2400 lives lost and billions of dollars spent?

You cannot base continued occupation on the fact that people have died and billions have been spent. That is a self-justification. If that was the justification we'd still be fighting in Vietnam. The question is whether continued occupation is the right thing to do.

Here we are in the final legs of the war and we should give up because of polls showing public support at lows? That would be an utter failure.

Upon what do you base the belief we are on the final legs of the war?

I don't doubt this, which is why only an increased troop presence will quicken our withdraw. The more troop presense is in, the faster the nation would be secured and the quicker we can get the hell out of there.

That is a questionable proposition. More troops my provide more security. They do not necessarily the underlying issues driving the resistance.

Can't undo the past dude, what's done is done,

Same argue applies to the people who are dead and the hundreds of billions spent.

the only way out is to ensure that the new government is one of laws and peace not of one of the Koran and insanity.

That is not the only way out of it. Just leave.

?? Are you serious?? Of course the Admin was lieing to us. From the first day he took office he was lieing to us. Ppl were dumb enough to elect him the first time and were even dumber to re-elect him. But we created the mess, now we need to clean up this mess.

Unless cleaning up the mess creates more damage than leaving it. It appears to me that is what our continued attempt to clean up the mess is doing. It is our presence in Iraq that is making the mess -- drawing in foreign radicals and fueling the insurgency. It may be the best way to clean up the mess is simply stop making a mess.

 

[jfuh]

Finally some real debate without the partisan slip slap though responding to you and iremon on almost the same things is a bit.... overkill for me, so forgive my slow responses.

No matter what form of government Iraq eventually adopts, they aren't going to be a serious threat to the United States for decades at the very least. Even an Islamist government is basically starting from scratch.

Military threat, no, economic threat yes. Afghanistan was not a military threat to us if it weren't for AQ. Also, why leave the threat to future generations? Why not take care of the situation right now, while we're there anyway?

Not exactly. This economy is completely dependent on cheap oil until something else becomes cheaper.

Unfortunatley, with the way the oil lobbiest work that doesn't seem to be in the forseeable future especially to avoid the show down with the PRC over oil. We're still slaves to oil for now with no forseeable end in sight.

That's what it sounds like to me. If we're still there in 2010, and security is exactly the same or worse than it is now, would you still argue that we need to stay there as long as it takes to stabilize the country? As though our presence is contributing to the stabilization of the country?

Let me reaffirm myself then. Simply just staying there with an overwhelming presence is not all I'm advocating, I'm also in advocating for a fundamental change in the strategy of this presence itself. The current strategy has prooved completely useless. An increased, overwhelming presence will help for the implication of a better strategy that would get us out of there much sooner and with successful results.

As demand will increases, the price of oil will increase. Once the price of oil crosses a certain threshold, other forms of energy will be cheaper. Demand for those new forms of energy will encourage more innovation to make them even more efficient.
We won't be using oil forever; we won't even use it all up.

Actually, when oil reached $60/barrel, the alternatives were already at the point of being attractive. However the shift has been heavily blocked by the oil industry, buying out of producers of ethanol and preventing the sale and distribution of. All current vehicles require modifications to burn 100% ethanol or any other alternatives, and unfortunately their current method of productions will not be able to keep up with the demand to replace oil.

Citing past mistakes to justify continued mistakes = Bad public policy

That's not the argument alone. Right now we can actually do something to prevent an all out disaster.

The final legs of the war? There has been little to no improvement in the past three years.

I only wish it wasn't so, but sadly that is true. PArtially however that has been the reluctance to put forth an all out effort into this pet project of the white house.

There's a caveat to that argument though: More troops also means that Iraq will be more dependent on American troops, and therefore more likely to totally collapse if we make a quick getaway once the country is secured. So even if we go in with more troops, that doesn't mean that we'll be able to leave sooner.

It's a real catch 22 isn't it? More troops would mean more dependence, but then less troops would make us sitting ducks, no troops would mean a blood bath civil war.
More troops however would make it so as to achieve the goal of dissarming those that need be disarmed while simultaneously training those that need training. Right now the job is split between very small numbers, overstraining those in the field. The field soldiers and officers are calling for more reinforcements, more troop presense, I would accept thier judgment on what they need to get thier job done. Right now it's the top guy who's rejecting that call.

An Iraqi government based on the Qu'ran and insanity couldn't possibly do as much damage to the region as this civil war is doing.

It's be much worse than Saddam that's for certain, and just how bad it would be in contrast to the civil war, you don't know that at all. It could be a brooding ground for even further fundamentalism against the west.