It certainly makes a lot of sense to increase America's forces for the short term so that an exit could be done ''properly." However , can Bush be trusted not to use the troop build up to extend America's involvement rather than properly prepare for an exit ? The US constitution clearly makes Congress and the President co-decision makers yet Bush claims to be "the " decider.
IRAQ: Military Build Up / Troop Surge
- Thread starter shimmy
- Start date
Two things.
1.
President Bush is the Commander in Chief of the United States Military. He does not share that authority with the U.S. Congress. Military organizations are not led by committee.
2.
Words like "trusted" "properly" and "extend" suggest that you are not familiar with the operational objectives of OIF. The POTUS was trusted, twice, by the U.S. Public and is carrying out policy to protect U.S. National Security Objectives. With the Defeat of Iraq and Removal of Saddam Hussien. The current main effort with regard to OIF is to facilitate a stable independent democratic Iraqi Government friendly to U.S. Interest that is able to protect itself from inside and out. That will determine when it is proper to consider an exit and not domestic U.S. politics. Keep in mind the United States is still in Europe, Japan and Korea 50+ years later. Think about it from a National Security point of view and it will make more sense.
DA
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Commander and Chief
True , the US Prsident is the Commander and Chief but he is not commander of the economy. If Congress wants to stop the Iraqi involvement , they can cut off funds. The only sane way around these problems is for Legislature and Executive to be in joint control.
In 1898 McKinley did not want the Sapnish-American War but Congres did. Congress refused to pass a budget until McKinley asked for a declaration of war. Today the situation may soon be reversed. I hope it does not come to it but it theoretically could.
True , the US Prsident is the Commander and Chief but he is not commander of the economy. If Congress wants to stop the Iraqi involvement , they can cut off funds. The only sane way around these problems is for Legislature and Executive to be in joint control.
In 1898 McKinley did not want the Sapnish-American War but Congres did. Congress refused to pass a budget until McKinley asked for a declaration of war. Today the situation may soon be reversed. I hope it does not come to it but it theoretically could.
It's too late for that. The United States is at war and the U.S. Congress isn't going to cut funding as long as that is the case no matter what you hear on TV. Remember, Congress people need to get elected too.
DA
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Congress
Congress does not have to completely cut the military funding-all they have to do is keep it low enough so that American military in Iraq stays at the present level. This would obviously force Bush to het out asap. Getting out is the important thing to most Americans. They would probably support a budget that does not increase troop numbers.
Congress does not have to completely cut the military funding-all they have to do is keep it low enough so that American military in Iraq stays at the present level. This would obviously force Bush to het out asap. Getting out is the important thing to most Americans. They would probably support a budget that does not increase troop numbers.
Most American don't have a clue about the most important thing. That's why we elect leaders with specialized knowledge and access to classified information who then appoint generals and admirals to make recommendations. In this case, the POTUS has nothing to fear RE: elections and he can get anything he needs based on the recommendations of his military advisers. The U.S. Congress is checked politically and will have to approve any funding deemed necessary to support the POTUS agenda.
DA
I think it would be political suicide for any government in any country to cut of funds necessary to keep its troops as safe as possible whilst they are in a hot war zone. That means adequate equipment, ammunition, supplies and troop numbers. Therefore, whilst the US is in Iraq, I can't see Congress not providing the funds, even if it disagrees with the deployment.
Cheers
What we see in the US is the hypocrisy of the democrat party.For quite sometime they have been yammering for a change in strategy. So Bush comes up with the surge plan to make an attempt to put an end to the insurgency and the democrats suddenly decided what they really want all along is for the US to withdraw from Iraq. They are unconcerned with the consequences. If we were to pull out now one scenario is an Iraq that is closely allied with Iran. Another would be Turkey moving into the Kurdish region and perhaps the Saudis and others to move into Anbar to protect the sunni population from extermination.
radiosilence
jints
Sending extra troop into Baghdad and surrounding provinces has been tried a few times before and failed to stop the violence.
Actually thats not entirely true. We have held units in theater that were due to rotate back to CONUS with great result. Late last year to try to stop the violence in Baghdad we moved stryker units into the city which had mixed results because we didnt have enough troops to take their place in Mosul and Anbar. This time by bringing in 5 more brigades we will be able to improve security in Baghdad without stripping the other sunni provinces of troops.
radiosilence
jints
Great result? Its wishful thinking if you believe this surge is going to work. There is a civil war going on there now.
Last edited:
Actually, I do believe the surge will work. The so called civil war if you remember kicked off about the time Israel went into Lebanon. Coincidence you might ask ? Not at all. We had killed Zarqawi and the sunni insurgnecy was in talks on ending the bloodshed. Iran couldnt allow peace to occur so they told the shia militias to go after the sunni's. We have already started cracking down on the Iranian backed militia's in advance of the "surge". The top leaders not already in custody have left Baghdad. Al Qaeda of course has no interest in peace so they have to be dealt with as well. Many of the sunni's now realize that the presence of US troops is the only thing between them and the death squads. The Maliki government has to figure out a way to offer some form of amnesty to Saddam's thugs still at large otherwise they have no choice but to fight to the death. The other problem is that the shia see that numbers are on their side and are not eager to share power with their former masters.
radiosilence
jints
It actually began after the bombing of the shia mosque by Al-Qaeda in the Iraqi city of Samarra on February 22, 2006 .
Edit:
Iraq slips towards civil war after attack on Shia shrine
link
Last edited:
radiosilence
jints
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
Those who "Know" what is important
With all due respect, I worry about people with Darth America's views about who knows whats important. I feel that every time that attitude is taken , the nation suffers.
To feel that there is one small group of those who"know what is important" or "know that answers" is usually one step away from tyranny.
I also feel that there is no such small group(or large one for that matter.) and that we all make mistakes(there is a great book named "Misteaks.") and are all gullible.
With all due respect, I worry about people with Darth America's views about who knows whats important. I feel that every time that attitude is taken , the nation suffers.
To feel that there is one small group of those who"know what is important" or "know that answers" is usually one step away from tyranny.
I also feel that there is no such small group(or large one for that matter.) and that we all make mistakes(there is a great book named "Misteaks.") and are all gullible.
The problem is that we have Iraq's neighbors involved and its not for the good. Iran and Syrian support of the insurgents and shia militias.
US troops are still en route to Iraq. There is one new brigade in country. Two new Marine battalions are also en route. I think its going to take another month or so to get the troops into the AO. To top it off the Iraqi brigades coming into Baghdad seem to be at 60% strength, which isnt helpful either.
radiosilence
jints
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
Surge?
If the US House ( and Senate ) vote to give Bush up to 20,000 "extra" troops for a short-time, surge to help the US get out of Iraq, what do you see as their exact function(s). How long will "short time" be ? Can Bush/Cheney be trusted to keep it at "short time" action or will these soldiers become part of the mess that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created?
If the US House ( and Senate ) vote to give Bush up to 20,000 "extra" troops for a short-time, surge to help the US get out of Iraq, what do you see as their exact function(s). How long will "short time" be ? Can Bush/Cheney be trusted to keep it at "short time" action or will these soldiers become part of the mess that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created?
radiosilence
jints
This thread should be merged with "Iraqi Build Up ?" . Its basically the same.