Why have we waited so long to send more troops?

Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MzMia -> Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:25:49 PM)
IF we have needed more troops in Iraq for a while, and all indications seem to suggest that: Why have we waited MONTHS to send more troops over there? I have thought about this for a long time. All I can think of, it must be political. Anyone can see that country has been in a civil war for months. Could it have been due to the elections? I did not support this "invasion"/war from day 1, in fact I protested it twice. But I do support our troops that are in harms way. IF we are going to fight, we need to go all out. I don't understand the logic or the thinking here. IF we have needed more troops over there for months, as all indications show, why have we waited months to do this? I feel so sorry for those fighting over there, what must they be thinking? Can anyone tell me what the logic is here? Is the point to win with as few troops as necessary? What the hell is going on?

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:39:56 PM)
I was in the car with my mom, she listens to Air America, and the Randy Rhodes show (spelling on her name, I am not a great fan of hers[:D]). She was talking about a formula that military people have known for an extremely long time. The formula for the amount of troops needed to peacefully occupy a country are 1 troop to every 40 individuals. If we had followed this formula there would have been at least 125k troops needed for the city of Baghdad alone, 250k-275k for the entire country. Rummy thought that new technologies would reduce the necessary amount of troops on the ground to get the job done, he experimented as if this was some fortune 500 investment and not a military occupation of an unfriendly country. It was not bad enough that he underestimated going in, he stubbornly refused to admit that the military folks knew better than he did. Part of the sad thing is that any country that would have been occupied in the manner that this one was would have ended the same way most likely, because the formula is right on. Instead of looking at how we screwed it up, the Iraqis are thought of as uncivilized and unable to govern themselves... truly sickening

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I was in the car with my mom, she listens to Air America, and the Randy Rhodes show (spelling on her name, I am not a great fan of hers[:D]). She was talking about a formula that military people have known for an extremely long time. The formula for the amount of troops needed to peacefully occupy a country are 1 troop to every 40 individuals. If we had followed this formula there would have been at least 125k troops needed for the city of Baghdad alone, 250k-275k for the entire country. Rummy thought that new technologies would reduce the necessary amount of troops on the ground to get the job done, he experimented as if this was some fortune 500 investment and not a military occupation of an unfriendly country. It was not bad enough that he underestimated going in, he stubbornly refused to admit that the military folks knew better than he did. Part of the sad thing is that any country that would have been occupied in the manner that this one was would have ended the same way most likely, because the formula is right on. Instead of looking at how we screwed it up, the Iraqis are thought of as uncivilized and unable to govern themselves... truly sickening {{{Julia}} you are one of the regs I have always liked. You are dead on here, WTF was Rummy thinking when most of this war is being fought by foot soldiers going door to door? Thank you, this clears up a lot of the madness so far, Rummy. Again, I don't agree with the reasons we are over there, but hell if you are going to fight, fight hard or go home!

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:51:18 PM)
Here is a Washington Post article about it quote: When NATO forces went into Kosovo in 1999, they followed the same proven formula: 50,000 troops for a population of 2 million, one soldier for every 40 inhabitants. A recent Rand Corp. study by military analyst James Quinlivan concluded that the bare minimum ratio to provide security for the inhabitants of an occupied territory, let alone deal with an active insurgency, is one to 50. In Iraq today, coalition forces number about 160,000, or one for every 160 Iraqis. (Even adding in an estimated 20,000 civilian security contractors working in Iraq, that still translates to one for every 140 Iraqis.) In response to the unremitting attacks and continuing instability, U.S. commanders have now canceled plans to cut troop strength by some 20,000 this year. It is a significant about-face, and one that has unquestionably put a severe strain on both regular and reserve units whose deployments have been extended well beyond what they had originally been told http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10161-2004May8?language=printer

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:55:43 PM)
Can you say or spell: DRAFT?

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 9:58:57 PM)
I do not think most would accept one, I know my son wouldn't. If enough people tell Uncle Sam to go to hell how could they possibly have a draft? Are they going to arrest every young person that will not go (and if there is a draft the girls are going too)? I just do not see it as feasible.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:00:48 PM)
Thank you Julia, that article was great...I especially like the last part: """.....What it takes to defeat an enemy army and what it takes to occupy and secure a country have never been exactly the same. But smart weapons and modern air power have created a startling disconnect between the two. The grave danger is that this has made it easier than ever to make the initial decision to use military force, while pushing off to the future the true costs in lives and troops and money -- costs that emerge only after the smoke has cleared and the battlefield is ours. Going to war used to be a step that America rightly approached with the greatest reluctance and gravity, given the far-from-certain outcome of any war (and the near-certainty of the huge sacrifice in human life that would ensue, even in victory). The effectiveness of modern American air power has now made victory as certain as it has ever been in the history of warfare; it has rendered the nightmare prospect of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of battlefield deaths a bad memory from the seemingly distant past. But it has made it no easier to deal with the consequences of victory. In Iraq, the Pentagon's real miscalculation was not that it believed that a ground force of such small size could defeat a well-armed enemy: It was to believe that the Iraqi people would so welcome us as liberators that no "occupation" would even be necessary. The advocates of transformation are right in saying that we don't need huge World War II-style armies to win wars today. But we certainly need far more men and women on the ground than the current U.S. military can supply on its own, especially when we assume the burden of security and nation-building in a country whose government we have defeated on the battlefield. """ Quoted from: The WashingtonPost article: May 9, 2004.."A Proven Formula For How Many Troops We Need"! Thanks Julia!... Julia? we need you in politics!

Termyn8or -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:10:21 PM)
The reason is that we do not have the troops. There has been talk of a draft for a few years now, how to get it done without commiting political suicide. We have a significant military presence in over 100 countries, and we are told that they are for defense. They are. They are for the defense of a government that we have bought and paid for. And installed. Saddam was the leader of such a government, but he fell out of favor. So the people of Iraq suffer. They suffered when we helped him, they sufferd when we helped him out of there. If we would have left Iraq alone in the firast place, there would be no terrorism. Terrorism is simply acts of war by people who see and believe they are at war. Perhaps it was the bombs that made them think this. We cannot stop supporting these puppet governments, the people would have a revolution and we would lose that piece. That is how they think, like a piece, or more like a country, but in a game of risk. Whenever they touch the US economy they think of it as a game of Monopoly. Ever play Risk ? Hell of a game, it really is. Ever see those movies where they are in a top level military planning meeting and they have the map and the pieces on the board for their map ?, err board ? Those people are just following orders. And then giving them. Earned their position yes, great military mind yes. The politicians who make them do it, your call. I say the politicians' kids should go first. Enough. T

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or The reason is that we do not have the troops. There has been talk of a draft for a few years now, how to get it done without commiting political suicide. We have a significant military presence in over 100 countries, and we are told that they are for defense. They are. They are for the defense of a government that we have bought and paid for. And installed. Saddam was the leader of such a government, but he fell out of favor. So the people of Iraq suffer. They suffered when we helped him, they sufferd when we helped him out of there. If we would have left Iraq alone in the firast place, there would be no terrorism. Terrorism is simply acts of war by people who see and believe they are at war. Perhaps it was the bombs that made them think this. We cannot stop supporting these puppet governments, the people would have a revolution and we would lose that piece. That is how they think, like a piece, or more like a country, but in a game of risk. Whenever they touch the US economy they think of it as a game of Monopoly. Ever play Risk ? Hell of a game, it really is. Ever see those movies where they are in a top level military planning meeting and they have the map and the pieces on the board for their map ?, err board ? Those people are just following orders. And then giving them. Earned their position yes, great military mind yes. The politicians who make them do it, your call. I say the politicians' kids should go first. Enough. T *You deserve a standing ovation for saying this so eloquently* Bravo, bring on the freaking draft.

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:14:20 PM)
quote: Thanks Julia!... Julia? we need you in politics! I am always humbled when I hear that, thanks[:)]

ardelle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:15:56 PM)
Greetings the sending of troops to other countries all start out with good intentions. To lend help where help is needed. Unfortunatly, as time passes and the general public sees no gain in sight; it becomes a war of politics instead. it is indeed sad

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:16:12 PM)
To tell you the truth, I have been waiting for a draft for at least 2-3 years. I am amazed we have made it this long without one. How the hell do you re-deploy troops 3 and 4 times back to Iraq? I mean whats next? I am going back to my 20th tour of duty in Iraq? Give me a break, already, we have no choice.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:18:35 PM)
Julia? do you know the main reason I want a draft? It will end all of this quickly. The people in the streets ended the war in Vietnam. Get my drift?

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:25:15 PM)
I do not want a draft, I just want them all to come home, preferably sooner than later, like in the next few months.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:29:50 PM)
Sorry Julia, that is not going to happen, that country has been devasted. Have you seen most of Iraq lately? It looks like a nuclear war bomb went off there. Do you think we can go there, start a Civil War and leave them with no real leadership in a place that looks like it has been hit with an atomic bomb? We have indeed made our beds there.

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Can you say or spell: DRAFT? The politician who suggests it will be committing political suicide, as well as any politicians that vote for it. It is not just the number of troops, it is our military. 1) Our military is designed to fight a tank war in central Europe. This worked well against the Iraqi army, but the troops are not supplied or trained for urban pacification which is what they are being ordered to do. 2) Our military's approach to dealing with threats is to destroy them. Hostile populations generally look down on this. So our rules of engagement insist that military can only fire back when fired at. So instead of taking the fight to the enemy, they have to wait until the enemy fires at them. This violates everything they have been taught from their first day at boot camp. Standing around waiting to be shot at tends to wear at people's psyche. 3) There is a massive sense of betrayal felt by people of draft / volunteer / reserve age. Those coming of age have seen everybody a few years older who believed the whole one weekend a month and two weeks a year spiel get shipped off interminably to a foreign country, leaving their jobs and life behind. It is very similar to what happened in the Vietnam era; people stopped signing up for military service because they lost confidence in our country's leaders wisdom in how their service would be used. And we can thank Monkeyboy for this, because not only did he actively lie in almost every phase of his run-up to war, but a large percentage of people in this country believe he is lying to them every time his lips are moving and morphemes are emanating from his pie hole. When a similar thing happened while LBJ was running things, and later on, the term "credibility gap" was coined to describe the vast difference between what the leaders are saying and what people believe is happening. To answer the question the OP asked. We really do not have troops to send to Iraq. We have already gutted our reserves. We have already pulled people away from every aspect of the military used to build our military into the greatest military the world has ever seen in order to go babysit Iraqi cities. A perfect example of this is the Black Horse division whose job was to train our troops at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. For years they ran training simulations in the desert to build a superlative military. Now we no longer have a division training troops up there because Monkeyboy and his ilk decided to send them to Iraq. Not only that, sending another 20k over there really wont put much of a dent in the problem. Just me, etc. Sinergy

UtopianRanger -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 10:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia IF we have needed more troops in Iraq for a while, and all indications seem to suggest that: Why have we waited MONTHS to send more troops over there? I have thought about this for a long time. All I can think of, it must be political. Anyone can see that country has been in a civil war for months. Could it have been due to the elections? I did not support this "invasion"/war from day 1, in fact I protested it twice. But I do support our troops that are in harms way. IF we are going to fight, we need to go all out. I don't understand the logic or the thinking here. IF we have needed more troops over there for months, as all indications show, why have we waited months to do this? I feel so sorry for those fighting over there, what must they be thinking? Can anyone tell me what the logic is here? Is the point to win with as few troops as necessary? What the hell is going on? It’s a matter of military ideology that’s been trumpeted from the early part of the Clinton Administration and then pushed forward into this one. It stresses LEAN, mean, fast moving, technologically superior forces over raw manpower. A similar analogy is the one that involves the depletion of good, accurate intelligence from a standpoint that surrounds the reliance on technology and ‘’toys’’ over that of your classic human form of gathering intelligence ; that is able to infiltrate the opposition forces and gain intelligence that way. It boils down to an over-reliance on technology - It's a utopian military fantasy that replaces humans with gadgets and toys. As you can see for yourself, it doesn’t work now and it will never work. Both Shinseki and Swartzkoff stressed this from the very beginning – Shinseki was jettisoned for his adversarial opinions. This is perhaps the biggest problem with the neocons – They only surround themselves with people that agree with them. Anyone who disagrees with them either retires early or is sent to a new command structure. JMHO - R

UtopianRanger -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/9/2007 11:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia Julia? do you know the main reason I want a draft? It will end all of this quickly. The people in the streets ended the war in Vietnam. Get my drift? Yes.... I get your drift and agree with you wholeheartedly. Out of the dust from the nihilism and chaos that a draft will create, a new awakening we will see. We need the politicians to do something so utterly stupid, that it wakes everyone up. - R

seeksfemslave -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 2:11:29 AM)
The root cause of the problems in Iraq now is the intercommunal hatred that exists there. I dont really know what any advance military strategy could have done about that Political strategy, maybe, had it been known how intense the hatred is/was. When the troubles were at their height in Northern Ireland many people, non in power tho', called for total withdrawal and let the Irish fight themselves to a standstill if needs be. The current calm there has been achieved by giving away almost everything to one side,the Republicans. However the underlying weakness of the Loyalists, pro Brit , may have something to do with the lack of military response I dont know. So maybe a solution in Iraq is to judge which side may at least be not totally hostile to the West, boost them up, then leave. Trying to achieve balance there seems impossible.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 3:07:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave When the troubles were at their height in Northern Ireland many people, non in power tho', called for total withdrawal and let the Irish fight themselves to a standstill if needs be. The current calm there has been achieved by giving away almost everything to one side,the Republicans. However the underlying weakness of the Loyalists, pro Brit , may have something to do with the lack of military response I dont know. The weakness of the Loyalists or protestants was because they were 'loyal' for a reason of a pay off, rather than intrinsically loyal. They wanted the rest of the UK to secure them a tract of land on which they could govern themselves, a protestant land for a protestant people. Well being part of the UK is one thing but expecting the UK to secure them a tract of land where they could discriminate against another group of people was another matter. The protestants had the option of direct rule from Westminster in the early 70s when the nationalists would have probably accepted that arrangement. The protestants rejected it. Then along came the Sunningdale power sharing agreement. The protestant rejected it. Thirty years later came the Anglo-Irish agreement or as some have called it, Sunningdale for slow learners. The protestants got what they did because they rejected everything else. If the US doesn't want to be in Iraq for the next 30 years, the best they can do is neutralise the best they can the worst violence and then make both sides come to some power sharing agreement even if it takes holding a gun to their heads.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02