The Surge

[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.

[Kagemusha]

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

[Tribesman]

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

Thats the clever part , in order to get more troops for deployment they are asking people who are no longer in the service to re-enlist .
It was just a bit of a screw up that they sent please re-enlist letters to people who were no longer in the service because they had already been killed in Iraq .

[Xiahou]

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

Here's where some troops are currently deployed overseas. Obviously, this doesn't include troops stationed in the US nor is the overseas list comprehensive(last I heard, we have troops in something like 130 countries around the world).

It's not that I think we couldn't- I'm not sure why we should.

[Kagemusha]

Thanks for the link Xiahou.But i already have pretty good source of the current deployments:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...iraq_orbat.htm

I was just intrested would they try to handle this via redeployment of current troops or organizing new ones. My personal opinon on the surge is that in the current situation i wouldnt send more troops in. I dont see that the situation on Iraq will be getting any better with the additional troops. With few more divisions when the occupation was started,who knows,in the long run if i would be American i would support withdrawal from Iraq,since there is nothing else to gain, then more casulties there.