About the urge to surge, why only by 20,000 kids

[Nimrod2005]

I have been hearing about 30K, or 40-50K??? Why now only 20K? Is it because we don't have more to send?

If they say they are going to surge by 50K (to secure THE CITY of Baghdad) then maybe they can, maybe it can be done, just securing one city...But 20K is a guaranteed failure.

Are they trying to fail on purpose?
Are they trying to make this a bigger mess before dumping it into the Dems. lap?
Do they want it to get really ugly so that we can NEVER EVER leave?

The decision to surge is a dumb one to begin with, by only 20K is highly suspicious to me...!

[katsy]

1. Maybe that's all the political capital that little dick can manage?

:shrug:

[Nimrod2005]

2. Again, anyone can explain that fewer troops means less results?

[katsy]

3. Nimrod...

do you think he wants failure? Or is this the action of a petulant, defiant child that will only listen to the demons inside his own twisted brain.

If, as suggested by someone in his staff, this is a political maneuver, it is of the most nefarious and impeachable actions that can be taken by any commander-in-chief IMO.

I do not believe bush* is sane and so I cannot fathom what is behind this 20K troop escalation.

[Nimrod2005]

4. I asked last week, if the law allows us to go arrest him, in the WH?

If the military said no, and Congress said no, and the people said no, and he does it anyway, acting like King George, then can sombody or someone oreder his arrest?

[katsy]

6. A "no" with some teeth, maybe...

congress should not fund this political maneuver which puts Americans in harm's way.

[catmandu57]

5. They're probably scraping the absolute bottom

to get that many. It wouldn't work if we had 100,000 or more all that's going to happen is more death and destruction.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. That appears to be the required number of sacrifices to the alter of bush's legacy

It's all a political move to attempt to save face on their part. They know the war is lost and have decided to attempt to sacrifice these extra 20,000 people for the stage effect of "giving it their all."

[Avalux]

8. 50K won't work, neither would 75K.

It's clear this whole thing isn't about a dramatic change in strategy. In reality, we'd need to send in well over 100K troops and do things DIFFERENTLY to make things happen. Instead, they're gonna send in 20K troops (not new ones, just extended tours of those already there and early arrivals) to do the same things already being done.

This is all political deception - stay the course repackaged to make people think they're actually doing something.

[Jacobin]

10. really?

:wow:

550,000 didn't 'pacify' the Vietnamese who finally ran us out of THEIR country.

Why would 250,000 troops pacify Iraqis who want out us out of THEIR country?

[Avalux]

11. I never used the word 'pacify'

I was pointing out that if the Bush administration truly wanted to change course and "win" (as they so fondly say) - they'd have to do a hell of a lot more than send in 20K troops. I want our troops home NOW, but Bush has decided to stay, regardless of the loss of life (on both sides) and public sentiment.

[Jacobin]

13. I don't understand what people say when they say they want to

"win" in Iraq.

We've lost. We've destroyed the country. It is a sectarian nightmare that only the Iraqis will be able to fix. There is nothing to 'win'

[Jacobin]

9. Jeebus spoke to the Decider and told him 20,000 would do it

Cheney said that would be fine, nice round number.

Should allow them to dither about for another 24 months until the Chimpster is out of office and then he can blame the democratic president for losing Iraq.

Simple, see?

[Nimrod2005]

14. lol...

[Nickster]

12. My guess is political posturing. He gets to stomp around and sound like he still has the muscle to

drop 50k troops if he needed it on Iraqi soil. Meanwhile the reality is probably that he can't sustain another 50k for a long period of time. The 20k numbers sounds like the exact same amount of troops they were able to finagle by holding some guys a little longer and accelerating the planned deployment of new troops into the country, so you get a bump in total headcount for a short while, but not really anything substantial. I picture another photo-op offensive somewhere in the next few months, but that's about it, remember Operation Move Together Forward, I think that was the name. This whole thing is window dressing.