The Surge

**Kagemusha** · 01-09-2007, 00:42

From where would US redeploy those 20000 troops?

**Tribesman** · 01-09-2007, 02:32

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** · 01-09-2007, 02:45

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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** · 01-09-2007, 04:14

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.

**spmetla** · 01-09-2007, 04:51

I'm opposed to this 'surge'. I myself also believe that initially as in two years ago two or three more divisions would have made a significant difference in establishing security and training native security forces.

The situation as it is now is not so much one of a fight against the occupiers but a fight between Iraqis (sunnis vs shias vs kurds). The best I think we can do is continue the training of security forces the Iraqi government with the current number of troops while advising policy to the Iraqi government.

Seeing as Sunnis are pissed about their being taken out of power and the Shiites are getting their revenge we need to try and clamp down on the government corruption and misuse of security forces. Iraqis will have more faith in their government when the police don't use their off duty time to act as death squads and hopefully allow people to rely on the police and not militias. As for the Sunnis a complete reconciliation with all non high ranking Baath party members would probably be good, that way those sunnis with a mind for politics will resort to political dialoge instead of violence. Instead of pretending that their government is mature and stable we should point out their flaws and see to it that they are corrected. These changes though are probably impossible to achieve now.

The 20,000 troops are really of a too little too late effort. Not enough to do what we claim they do and too late to effect the upswing in sectarian violence.

The really testing of the Iraqi government will be when the British step down from their primary role of security in the south to just supporting the local authorities this Spring. If the British pullout if you want to call it that, is for the most part successful then it might set a standard for a US pullout of Kurdistan and that in effect would give the Iraqi government the basis for self reliance which would hopefully allow them to fix their miltia problem and provide security for both Shiites and Sunnis. I know that this is a very simplistic outlook of mine but my optimism is just about finished with, yes a know it's taken a while.

**KukriKhan** · 01-09-2007, 05:29

20K

20,000

Twenty-thousand

A hundred companies.

500 platoons.

No matter how I break it down... it ain't enough.

I have no claim to military strategy genius. The Powell Doctrine posited that if 6:1 is required for victory, then 10:1 should be committed for the duration. Overwhelming force. Every national resource. "Go big, or stay home."

Half-assed so-called war, on-the-cheap, won't cut the mustard, I think. If a 20K 'surge' is the best we can slap together, then the military I spent most of my adult life in is broken. FUBAR'd. Irrelevant. Our presicion-honed bayonet dulled by use as a screwdriver and hammer.

I hope not.

If KukriKhan were in charge, now would be "all hands" time, every swinging (poncho) from every remote US installation worldwide swarms the place, trying to make a silk purse from this sow's ear our politico's have given us. Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Postal Inspection Service, Texas Rangers - everybody.

Anything less means we didn't mean it in the first place - which many of us suspected all along.

**spmetla** · 01-09-2007, 06:09

If Chuck Noris went with the Texas Rangers then perhaps that'd equal 20K troops.

On the serious side, you're absolutely right Kukri, these halfassed halfhearted efforts do nothing. The US should have either put everything into this or not done it at all.

**Samurai Waki** · 01-09-2007, 08:16

America may be the King of Battle, but when it comes to doing anything serious we can't handle it.

Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.

I always knew Luxembourg was up to something

**Ice** · 01-09-2007, 08:40

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Plus, why are those troops still stationed in Europe? I don't see any percieved threat coming from Russia for awhile.
:

Funny you should say that. I talked to a buddy of mine over my winter break who is in the air force stationed in California. He works with nuclear weapons of some sort, I'm not sure the specifics. Anyways, guess where the our nukes are still "concentrated" at? You guessed it, Russia...