Kristol and Lowry want more troops in Iraq

[RamboLiberal]

First off boys, get your boots on and get your butts over there. I know there are troops serving older than you. And just in case you're older than the enlistment age, I'm sure you can get get your buddies in the Admin to get you an age exemption.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100879.html

We are at a crucial moment in Iraq. Supporters of the war, like us, have in the past differed over tactics. But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.

There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better. Those neighborhoods intensively patrolled by Americans are safer and more secure. But it is by no means clear that overall troop numbers in Baghdad are enough to do the job. And it is clear that stripping troops from other fronts risks progress elsewhere in the country.

The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment. This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. The president should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad.

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops. The administration often says that it doesn't want to foster Iraqi dependency. This is a legitimate concern, but it is a second-order and long-term one. Iraq is a young democracy and a weak state facing a vicious insurgency and sectarian violence. The Iraqis are going to be dependent on us for some time. We can worry about weaning Iraq from reliance on our forces after the security crisis in Baghdad has passed.

[LynnTheDem]

1. More troops in 'Nam.

Same shit.

Same assholes.

[AtomicKitten]

2. nail on head

Suit up, boys.

[Renew Deal]

3. I think there are 2 options, lots more troops or pull out.

Short of firing up the draft and putting 500,000 troops in Iraq in 6 months, it's not worth doing this. 100,000 more troops wouldn't even be enough. We also need a change of leadership (Rummy, Bush, etc).

BTW, these guys must have just read Fiasco by Tom Ricks and gotten a clue. No one was talking about politics in Iraq a few weeks ago.

[Erika]

4. Let them send their kids

Oh, they just changed their minds. The chicken hawk elitists.

[Renew Deal]

5. Right

They don't say how many troops or where they will come from. The military is taking up to 42 now. Let's start with the Kristol and Wolfowitz clans.

[Skittles]

6. please remind me when Kristol and Lowry served their country

oh why do I even bother

[calimary]

7. Well then, put your money where your mouths are, gentlemen.

Dear messers kristol and lowry,

More troops are needed in Iraq? I can think of at least two targets for recruitment.

[Cocoa]

8. Lowry cover story "We're Winning"

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200504270759.asp

It is time to say it unequivocally*: We are winning in Iraq.

If current trends continue, our counter-insurgent campaign in Iraq will be fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the British victory over a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s, a textbook example of this form of war. Our counterinsurgency has gone through the same stages as that of the Brits five decades ago: confusion in the initial reaction to the insurgency, followed by a long period of adjustment, and finally the slow but steady erosion of the insurgency's military and political base. Even as there has been a steady diet of bad news about Iraq in the media over the last year, even as some hawks have bailed on the war in despair, even as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has become everyone's whipping boy, the U.S. military has been regaining the strategic upper hand.

This doesn't mean the war couldn't still go wrong. "It's not over," says a top officer in Iraq. A key assassination, continued Sunni rejectionism, an inter-sectarian explosion, or something unforeseen — all could still derail us in Iraq. Nor does it mean that our effort is perfect. "I give us a B minus," says an administration official, a tough grader who is nonetheless an optimist. But it does mean that as of mid-April 2005 we are winning, just as surely as we were losing in the darkest days of the dual radical-Shia and radical-Sunni uprisings a year ago.



un·e·quiv·o·cal (ŭn'ĭ-kwĭv'ə-kəl) pronunciation
adj.

Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous: an unequivocal success.
unequivocally un'e·quiv'o·cal·ly adv.

[FrenchieCat]

9. So why do they think they "know" anything.....

Why do these "amateurs" even have anything to say? Did they ever "win" anything to anyone's recollection? Why are those who are not informed on such matters even given a platform from which to speak?

On the one hand, no matter how many times Democrats provide "plans" for Iraq, the song and dance is "Democrats have no plan"....then in comes two dumb ass journalists that don't know their ass from their mouth with some grand "plan". :wtf:


I don't get it!