The Surge

[Seamus Fermanagh]

With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq, the numbers needed for effective suppression (10-2 ratio of okay-rated+ troops) approach 1M. Since only a small percentage of the "standard" Iraqi Police groups can be counted on in a pinch, a 20k increase (current rumored level of increase) would help, but nowhere near enough to make a definitive difference. Perhaps the small increase will keep U.S. casualties down a bit and let the "band-aid" last through the beginnings of the next administration -- a true solution it is not.

[Sjakihata]

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

[Ice]

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. soldiers.

Our military was/is meant to destroy, not occupy. We could beat the crap out of most countries, with the exception of a select few, quite quickly.

[CrossLOPER]

[Lemur]

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work?

The answers are a lot larger than this little thread. A sample reason: Of 1,000 or so people working in the Green Zone, there are only 6 Arabic speakers (and only three are supposed to be truly fluent). This is almost four years into the war, mind you.

It's little things like this that hamstring our operation. Details, details, it's always in the details.

[edit]

Hey Crossloper:

[BigTex]

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

Sun Tzu has some words as to why we cannot overcome the situation.

He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

Occupying and destroying a insertion would take something the majority of the US people and the head's of state wont allow at this point in time. No occupying force has managed to win doing what we're doing now. We failed to properly subdue the population before instituting a "free democracy". We allowed it to fall into anarchy without instituting our own laws. We tryed to play the nice guy instead of doing the right thing by them. We allowed their museums to be looted, their infrastructure attacked, all the while looking on screaming look at what freedom we have brought to them.

I think 20,000 will help, but the only thing that will work is more totalitarian methods that no one here wants to see happen. Iraq wasnt screwed by the invasion, it had a good shot then, it was screwed by the soft PC croud.

[Duke Malcolm]

In comparing the situation to HoI2, or Vicky, send them! Another 2 divisions does wonders to keep the revolt risk down...

[PanzerJaeger]

What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.

[Mooks]

Seems to me that they dont want a democracy. Leave them be if thats the case. If they want a totalatarian priest/dictator then let them have one, how is it our problem?

[ajaxfetish]

Actually Im surprised that the number one military power, that uses somewhere around 260 bn dollars on their defence budget cannot cope with the situation. How come can America not come up with a strategy and a operational plan that will actually work? It stuns me as much as it surprises me. Had been the secretary of defence or the president I would make a lot of initiatives to make the situation work, not just send another 20,000 soldiers.

It's not a military problem, it's a political/social one. The American military is up to just about any military task. When it's asked to do non-military work with bad political planning, it's doomed to failure in spite of its military prowess: same problem we faced in Vietnam.

Basically, Iraq's future is in Iraq's hands. America suffers from a great deal of pride in thinking we can change the world at will. Those other billions of people tend to have a pretty big effect, too, especially on their own turf. We need to accept now that we can't expect things to turn out exactly as we wish, and start figuring out what the Iraqi people really want for their country.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

What we need to do is put the jack boot on these people. We tried the nice approach, now we need to crush their spirit.

Wow , the nice approach , I must have slept through that .
When was it ?

Good idea though , the crush their spirit approach , now when has that ever worked in anything like the medium-long term in modern times, or even as an effective short term solution .

[Lemur]

Developing info: Brits will not match the surge. They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Last updated at 16:53pm on 8th January 2007

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy, has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests.

[Tribesman]

Developing info: Brits will not match the surge. They've got some crazy idea about handing over responsibility to the locals.

Well fair play to Blair , at least he has the excuse that he was on holiday when the British army went in to disband the death squads in uniform and retrieve the people held there the other week so perhaps you can give him the benefit of the doubt .

Then again he wasn't on holiday the previous time when the British army went into the same base to retrieve the people held there , maybe he just forgot about that .

Perhaps its a pattern emerging , Blair just wants to forget about Iraq .


Anyhow , a nice development from the US with their new strategy (though for it to be new it would suggest that they had an old one which doesn't appear to have been the case) they are no longer going to talk of milestones , instead they will now talk of benchmarks .

[Navaros]

It's a terrible idea.

Iraq is the new Vietnam and the "new plan" just solidifies that fate.

[Pindar]

With 70-100k insurgents/terror fighters on the ground in Iraq...

Hi Seamus,

Where do the above figures come from?