Seriously, how is sending more troops to Iraq going to help anything?

[Philosoraptor]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1538579,00.html

This is the much vaunted solution almost everyone suggests, send more troops, not enough troops to finish 'the job', whatever the fuck it is.

How is this possibly going to help? I think we could send troops till we are out of qualified fighters, which some say has already happened.

Its not a matter of numbers in my opinion, its a matter of impossibility, to bring peace to this region at the point of a U.S. gun.

---------------------

Despite isolated success stories, there is a palpable sense that things are getting worse in Iraq. A U.N. report says a record 6,600 Iraqis were killed in the past two months amid the lawlessness. Major General William Caldwell told reporters last week that six weeks into the battle for Baghdad there was an upward "spike in execution-style murders" in the city. The two major challenges facing the U.S. — quelling Sunni-Shi'ite conflict in Baghdad while subduing the jihadist insurgency in western Iraq — have raised questions among officers in Iraq about whether the U.S. has enough troops to keep the country from falling apart, let alone achieve anything resembling stability. That perception was bolstered this month by a classified Marine intelligence report that estimated the U.S. needed an additional 10,000 to 15,000 troops to defeat al-Qaeda-led rebels in Anbar province. In an acknowledgement of the problem, General John Abizaid last week reversed hints of a drawdown by the end of the year, saying U.S. troops will stay around the current 140,000 in Iraq until next spring.

Will that be enough?

[Kiouni]

1. I was reading something

the other day and it said that Japan has been the U.S.'s only successful occupation. That blew my mind!

[Lerkfish]

4. and we had to use nukes to accomplish that!

[Swamp Rat]

2. I know what it would help:

Body bag manufacturers.

[cornermouse]

3. It would certainly make it easier to attack Iran if they

already had more people over there for whatever reason, wouldn't it? How much interest has Bush shown in stopping the violence in Iraq to date? Not much, right?

[Lerkfish]

5. exactly....Iran is already in the plan for end of october

[maine_raptor]

6. From a military POV, it makes sense

Overwhelming presence. Put a platoon on every street corner. Have 10 guards for every combat engineer rebuilding the war damage and improving the infrastructure. Large scale patrols, foot and armored. Shut down any lawlessness. Give those under the occupation a sense of security and the ability to go about their "normal" lives.

If you do that, then maybe, just maybe, you can complete the mission without stirring up a low-level conflict.


That might have worked had we done that from day one, now we do it and it's just going to provide more targets for those terrorist trainers and their recruits.


One other note: One of the posters above commented that Japan was the last successful US occupation of a foreign land and got a reply that we had to use nukes to do that. Both Germany and Japan were "successful US occupation(s) of a foreign land". But both were treated differently according to political and cultural differences. The Japanese had had 20 plus years of rule by their own military and cultural imperatives gave the populace a willingness to obey authority. In addition, the emperor's acceptance of the occupation authority helped a great deal. The use of "nukes" to end the war had very little to do with the success of our effort.

Germans did not have as strong of a cultural imperative toward authority, but here the US (and the Western Allies) played it smart and allowed the Germans to do the necessary de-Nazi'ng. Something quite different than the Bushie's ill-conceived and badly done de-Baath'ng program.