Bush is sending more Troops into Iraq

[Zak33]

US President George W Bush has announced plans to send more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, particularly Baghdad.

In a statement broadcast live to the nation, Mr Bush also said he took responsibility for any policy mistakes made in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6250625.stm

[pollaxe]

There's an old saying in the military: never reinforce failure.










(It may've been a Napoleon quote but I don't like him so let's not give him credit.)

[Zak33]

There's already a fair few troops there tbh.

[pollaxe]

Agreed but what are we looking at, do you think? A failure of strategy or rather a lack of manpower to effect that strategy?

As far as I can see it's more a case of the former than the latter. Throwing more men at it may help but there are also additional factors to consider - many who are still on tour out there and were expecting to come home in the next couple of months will now be there until the summer - that's going to affect morale greatly. Additionally, the American troops over there have the reputation for firing first and asking questions later - I'm not convinced the U.S. military is geared towards what is an essentially policing role. The Brits do it better but ultimately these people are soldiers, not policemen.

JMHO, of course.

[[GSV]Trig]

I dont know enough about it to comment really but I think its a bit of a co-incidence that when America gets a president thats into his oil they then decide to move into the middle east...

I dont think they'll ever get rid of terrorism as long as they go about it in a forceful way and I can see this just turning into another Vietnam for the US but I think that the whole Nam thing will make them very stubborn and will make them not want to leave so he can send as many troops in as he likes he's being drawn into a war that force wont win, terrorism is a waiting game and these terrorist cell's will just go dormant, bush will say americas great and move out and then we'll see a new round of bombings, might not be for 20 years but it'll happen....

[pollaxe]

Just sent to me by a friend in the U.S.

[SirusVirus]

Firstly my thoughts are with all servicemen and women over in the theatres of war, and I have a cousin who is going over mid this year for logistics reasons to Iraq.

Now, as for re-inforcements, Bush is unable to understand why, with the death of Saddam and the conquer of Iraq how the violence isnt subsiding.

I believe nearly 100% that this country will never go back to "normality" (I use that loosely!) until another dictator like Saddam rules. A democratic goverment can only do and control so much, but an authority like Saddams was massive and he had a better grip on his country for better or worse. Ok there's always going to be opposition and conflict, but you get that in every country, even UK and USA.

I am in NO way praising what Saddam did, but he had a control over his country, however all for the wrong reasons.

Bush is too egotistical and proud to realise he isnt going to win this, but I predict he will send more troops in until he buries the country before the withdraws.

[rootjuiceUK]

it is and was on the most part to secure oil. plain and simple!! i agree with sirusvirus i cant see iraq being run successfully as a democracy either.

[nichomach]

I was listening to an American correspondent on R4 this morning who was talking about the broadcast that Bush made announcing the extra troops; he made an interesting point regarding the language chosen, specifically that where mistakes were being admitted, Bush switched to the passive voice - "mistakes were made", rather than "I made mistakes", as though it was someone else occupying the Oval Office when they were made. Basically, I think that SirusVirus has a point regarding Bush being functionally incapable of admitting that [B]he[/I] made mistakes, and without that willingness to take ownership of his failures, he's never going to be able to make the radical shifts in policy required to achieve any improvement in the situation in Iraq. Look at the result of setting up the Iraq Study Group; get some of your best and brightest, your most experienced area specialists, get broad cross-party support, and a membership list for whom there is real respect across party lines from both Liberals and Conservatives, receive a highly detailed report - and then ****can everything it says.

[Koolpc]

Expect more bodybags then!!

[YorkieBen]

There's already a fair few troops there tbh.

Thats not really many troops to be honest. The reason there are so few is that the 'Rumsfeld Doctrine' - the pentagon wanted 400,000 troops to invade Iraq, Rumsfeld only want 60,000 (!!!). In the end there was a compromise but more troops are needed. The lack of troops has been a major problem for the Americans.

The increase in troops could well be a temporary measure - send some more in to settle a few scores before started to pull out.

[SilentDeath]

he made an interesting point regarding the language chosen, specifically that where mistakes were being admitted, Bush switched to the passive voice - "mistakes were made", rather than "I made mistakes", as though it was someone else occupying the Oval Office when they were made.

Thats what politicians do, its there job, and the reason they should all be shot.

Unfortunately americans seem unable to realise what bush is really saying.. hence how he got reelected.

[iranu]

I'm not convinced the U.S. military is geared towards what is an essentially policing role. The Brits do it better but ultimately these people are soldiers, not policemen

Nail hit squarely on the head there my friend. America considers itself to be the worlds policeman but unfortunately it doesn't have any police. You cannot expect soldiers to police. The British Army is probably the only force in the world that has extensive experience of doing this i.e. 30 years in NI and does it very well. It's also a cultural thing too. Yank troops tend to hide behide sunglasses and armour and couldn't give two monkeys about your average Iraqi.

Whilst I never had much respect for Paddy Ashdown when he was leader of the Lib Dems he did a pretty stirling job sorting out the cluster**** that was Balkans. I read an interesting interview where he basically states that the key to law and order and therefore stability is the creation of a policeforce. It's the Gendarmerie, Cabineri, Bobby on the beat that produces the stability and not soldiers with guns simply because they don't have the required skills.

I'm pretty sure that the Geneva convention states somewhere that any occupying force must ensure law and order/security for the population which it is occupying. This hasn't happened in Iraq for the simple reason that the pig headed Rumsfeld wanted a smaller force for teh war and didn't think about what would happen after "hostilities" finished. Security and rule of law was sacrificed for a swift "war" and it's now cost 3,000 American lives and who knows how many Iraqi lives not to mention British lives.

Security may well have been achieved if the Iraqi Army and Police force had remained intact but unfortunately the Yanks did something no occupying force has ever done and that was remove ALL civil and military structures in the name of "de-bathification". Additional troops are most likely not going to achieve much and the world is going to be left with a gaping power vacuum in Iraq which is likely to suck in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey. Oh joy.

[nichomach]

Quite true; and worse (in the self-fulfilling prophecy stakes), by creating that vacuum, the Bush administration has created the perfect circumstances for organizations like Al Qaeda (whom Saddam despised probably at least as much as the US, and who cordially detested him) to flourish and garner new recruits. Refresh my memory; the War On Terror - who're the enemy again? No....that can't be right, because if it were, no administration in their right mind would...ah, right, just spotted the flaw there...

[Saracen]

I was listening to an American correspondent on R4 this morning who was talking about the broadcast that Bush made announcing the extra troops; he made an interesting point regarding the language chosen, specifically that where mistakes were being admitted, Bush switched to the passive voice - "mistakes were made", rather than "I made mistakes", as though it was someone else occupying the Oval Office when they were made.

I said much the same to the wife when we watched Bush's speech on the TV.

He didn't admit to making mistakes, just to being responsible for those made. Basically, it was a Trumanism ..... the buck stops here. All he admitted was the equivalent of a company MD taking responsibility for decisions made by subordinates .... as the boss, it's your responsibility, even if you didn't know of the decisions, and even if it wasn't your fault. It was a rather carefully-phrased, weasel-worded admission of responsibility, not fault. As such, my impression was that it was a PR-induced attempt at a little humility, because that can go a long way in aiding credibility .... something GB is rather lacking in.

He does, it seems, at least admit mistakes were made. Maybe it's a start. But he may have just been referring to operational matters and strategy, like disbanding the army and Iraqi state machinery, rather than any fundamental reassessment of the whole fiasco.

[Knoxville]

More american troops = more bodybags filled, when the u.s army faces up to its flaws and takes a severe look at the way it fights wars maybe things will change.