• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More troops=Victory?

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Is victory in Iraq possible with the number of troops we have there now? personal opinions on the war aside, is it strategically impossible to have victory in Iraq without more troops?
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Is victory in Iraq possible with the number of troops we have there now? personal opinions on the war aside, is it strategically impossible to have victory in Iraq without more troops?
The progress that has been made so far has been acconmplished with (about) the same number we have now - and so, victory, as defined, is possible with the current force size.

If victory is NOT possible- what argument is there that we should start pulling troops out?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The progress that has been made so far has been acconmplished with (about) the same number we have now - and so, victory, as defined, is possible with the current force size.
If we had more troops in, do you think it would've reduced casualties? I think it might have.

If victory is NOT possible- what argument is there that we should start pulling troops out?
Despite what a lot of anti war peeps say I actually believe Iraq is more similar to Somalia then Vietnam. True we don't have the whole damn country after us but when we try and stop two certain groups of people who hate each other, it usually proves not to help very much. In this case, we are supporting a group of people that hates another but is no better then them. I think victory is possible but not in a way which is morally just.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
If we had more troops in, do you think it would've reduced casualties? I think it might have.
More troops in theater = more non-combat casualties (more accidents)
More troops in theater <> fewer combat casualties (more targets)
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
In this case, we are supporting a group of people that hates another but is no better then them. I think victory is possible but not in a way which is morally just.
It appears to me that we're supporting people that are working towards a western-style democracy. How are these people "no better" than the murderous thugs that would have otherwise?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It appears to me that we're supporting people that are working towards a western-style democracy. How are these people "no better" than the murderous thugs that would have otherwise?
Because they have an agenda just the same as the murderous thugs you mentioned, and they are that. And no, I don't have any evidence of that besides what I've observed on the news and in reading about Islam in general. Sunnis and Shiites hate each other for whatever reason but it wouldn't have anything to do with us if it weren't for the fact Saddam was a sunni himself. Saddam was a dictator and he wielded his power to control his enemies (the shiites). Saddam seems to be unique as he happens to enjoy killing people and has, therefore, commited numerous attrocities during his reign as dictator. When we invaded and Saddam fell, we supported the obvious option, and that was the oppressed Shiites. But thats where the mistakes begun. We didn't take into account the vast and complex politics of Iraq's tribal system and other such things so when ever we killed a civillian, whether mistakenly or otherwise, it caused more anger and outrage and the insurgency began to grow larger. The sunnis, motiviated perhaps by their desire to gain back the power we enjoyed under the old regime or maybe for more personal reasons (we cannot know since we refuse to try and understand their motivations) , started attacking the shiites they hate. Innocent shiites who had nothing to do with whatever the hell they think was going. They attacked the US cause they supported the shiites as well. Strangely though recently there have been less attacks on us and more on shiite civillians. The shiites who kill sunnis are perhaps given a free ride but I do remember noticing a headline where Iraqi police raided a prominent Sunni's apartment and killed him, similar to what Saddam did minus the horrible torture methods Hussein used. Killing political enemies etc. My opinion with all of this is that we are actually supporting people who do not have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart so therefore, if I am correct, it can never be a moral victory if the Iraqis just end up being oppressed, even if a minority is. though I disagree with invading Iraq in the first place anyways, if our goal is to establish a friendly country here so we can have a strategic advantage against the middle eastern countries there, we may not get that with an a government like that. And even if we do, whats the point if its just going to affect the Iraqis negativly? In the end, it will only prove to further our own interests while ignoring the needs of others.

Wow that was much longer then I intended.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
More troops in theater = more non-combat casualties (more accidents)
More troops in theater <> fewer combat casualties (more targets)
But with all the attacks going on in Iraq, shouldn't we send more for security purposes? We are an occupation force, despite what others might say. Its not a negative term its just true. Don't we have to maintain security there?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
War isn't won on the amount of troops, but the strategy to lead the troops to victory.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
But with all the attacks going on in Iraq, shouldn't we send more for security purposes?
The question asked if more troops = fewer casualties.

We are an occupation force, despite what others might say. Its not a negative term its just true. Don't we have to maintain security there?
We occupy Iraq like we occupy Germany. The Germans keep their own security.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
Because they have an agenda just the same as the murderous thugs you mentioned, and they are that.
Given that the Shi'ites and Kurds are woking together to bring a western-style democracy to Iraq, and have made numerous efforts to bring the Sunnis into the fold as well - how can you be right?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
M14 Shooter said:
If victory is NOT possible- what argument is there that we should start pulling troops out?
This seems an absolute no-brainer. So, perhaps I've misunderstood your hypothetical situation.
"If victory is NOT possible," what good does it do to let more good folks get killed? That seems to be a rock-solid case to "start pulling troops out."
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
This seems an absolute no-brainer. So, perhaps I've misunderstood your hypothetical situation.
"If victory is NOT possible," what good does it do to let more good folks get killed? That seems to be a rock-solid case to "start pulling troops out."
The question was if victory is possible with the number of troops we have now.

If not, then it doesnt make sense to pull troops out, it makes sense to add troops.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
M14 Shooter said:
The question was if victory is possible with the number of troops we have now.

If not, then it doesnt make sense to pull troops out, it makes sense to add troops.
See, I knew I missed something. I didn't add in the phrase "with the number of troops we have now."
 
Top Bottom