Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[Pidesco]

I thought it was called the Monroe Doctrine

 

Two completely different things, although I guess one could argue that the Truman Doctrine is a natural consequence of the Monroe Doctrine.

[alanschu]

How valid are plans that don't descry the possible ramifications later on? That's sort of the idea behind plans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Agreed. It would be true fatuity not to.

[Sand]

How valid are plans that don't descry the possible ramifications later on? That's sort of the idea behind plans. Not factoring for the future mostly leads to the sort of cluster**** Hades_One is (ostensibly) against.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like the Iraqi invasion being a catalyst for a Iraqi civil war. Bush planned ahead real well on that one.

[alanschu]

How valid are plans that don't descry the possible ramifications later on? That's sort of the idea behind plans. Not factoring for the future mostly leads to the sort of cluster**** Hades_One is (ostensibly) against.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like the Iraqi invasion being a catalyst for a Iraqi civil war. Bush planned ahead real well on that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

So shouldn't he have dealt with some "what ifs" rather than just living in the now?

Edited January 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Nartwak]

Yeah. I'm sort of pointing out to you, Hades_One, that you've disowned that criticism with your new 'no ifs' stance.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Nartwak

[Colrom]

more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots

 

:crazy:

 

 

thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clausewitz discovered that by applying greater force to a smaller one, the greater force loses less casualties.

 

So your over-simplistic model fails.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no question that the number and quality of troops committed to a battle makes a difference in the outcome.

 

You can even develop equations for attrition processes.

 

The problem is that while the event of winning a battle can be reasonably well defined it is not as easy to define the event of winning a war. It is historically common for folks to imagine that they have won and be dismayed that the war continues and then later to decide that they have lost.

 

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and now. If the additional US and UK forces are intended to be used to kill Sadr - which is what I think they hope to accomplish (according to my reading of the news stories over the last few years, US and UK forces and agents have tried several times in several different ways) - then I think they may very well succeed if they act quickly and with great force.

 

On the other hand, I think success in accomplishing that event will lead to great harm to the interests of ordinary US, UK and Iraqi citizens and most US, UK and Iraqi businesses. It will destabilize Iraq by eliminating a popular and strong leader. It will alienate Shiites. It will alienate many others in the world - reenforcing the all too common image of the US as a bully state which seeks to control world events by assassination and overthrow of leaders who do not conform to US demands - especially demands relating to US business interests.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Colrom

[Sand]

If he dealt what was before him we would not have invaded Iraq in the first place. The Taliban was the threat. Osama Bin Ladin was the one who attacked us. Iraq had no means to harm the US.

[Pidesco]

And now they won't have the means to harm the US for a long time.

[Sand]

Only thing Iraqis can do now is kill each other.

[metadigital]

There is right and wrong.  I question America's success in the cold war was a good thing or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's amazing you are actually able to type such drivel, considering you are living in a country whose safety was guaranteed by the US Cold War victory.

[metadigital]

And thanks for that meta.  I figured you'd know.  I knew it started with a 'G' but was thinking of names like Garrick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's the least I can do, considering how many times you email the Unix User Manual to those people who need a reminder of reality, chapter and verse.

 

That's a metaphor, based on a location joke, meaning bring all the facts to an argument.

[Colrom]

And now they won't have the means to harm the US for a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which they is the "they" you have in mind?

[metadigital]

I said I question if winning the cold war a good thing or not, not that I think that it was a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I never said otherwise.

 

 

If you question that it's not a good thing, then that means there is some of you that feels that it was a bad thing.

 

Because there's right and wrong. Right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pidesco]

And now they won't have the means to harm the US for a long time.

 

Which they is the "they" you have in mind?

 

Iraq as a country.

[Colrom]

There is right and wrong.  I question America's success in the cold war was a good thing or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's amazing you are actually able to type such drivel, considering you are living in a country whose safety was guaranteed by the US Cold War victory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure there was a cold war victory.

 

You might even consider that we all of us on this planet lost the "cold war". Look what we have now. :crazy:

 

I'll say this about the cold war - at least back in the cold war days we didn't all piss in our pants in fear of some arab with a bad attitude leading a camel across the desert.

[Colrom]

And now they won't have the means to harm the US for a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which they is the "they" you have in mind?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Iraq as a country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did they attack us sometime when I wasn't looking?

[Pidesco]

No. Hence the preemptive nature of the Iraqi war.

[Sand]

A preemptive strike based off false information.

[alanschu]

There is right and wrong.  I question America's success in the cold war was a good thing or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's amazing you are actually able to type such drivel, considering you are living in a country whose safety was guaranteed by the US Cold War victory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure there was a cold war victory.

 

You might even consider that we all of us on this planet lost the "cold war". Look what we have now. :crazy:

 

I'll say this about the cold war - at least back in the cold war days we didn't all piss in our pants in fear of some arab with a bad attitude leading a camel across the desert.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And who's to say that the end of the Cold War was the cause of all this? Places like Beirut and Lebanon in general were hardly "happy places" during the 80s.

[Sand]

Well, we can speculate all day of what could happen, what should happen, what will or won't happen as well. The reality of which we find ourselves in is that Iraq is in a middle of civil war and bringing in more US soldiers in will not stop this. If 140,000 soldiers can't keep the peace, what use is 20,000 more.

 

The most prudent thing to do is this. Have our troops maintain border control so that no one can get in or out. Let the Iraqis have their civil war and when they are done killing each other and sick of all the violence, then go in and help rebuild. Trying to play referee in a war will only get more of our soldiers killed.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

I'm not sure there was a cold war victory.

 

You might even consider that we all of us on this planet lost the "cold war". Look what we have now.  :crazy:

 

I'll say this about the cold war - at least back in the cold war days we didn't all piss in our pants in fear of some arab with a bad attitude leading a camel across the desert. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's crazy talk.

 

Even ignoring the safety of the citizens of the USA from global thermonuclear strike, look at all the former-USSR countries (a lot of which have now joined or are about to join the EU) for one example; I would say their populations are pretty pleased with the outcome.

 

Having two immense alliances of countries facing each other down is not a safe state, even if it is (temporarily) stable.

[Sand]

You do have a point there, Meta.

[metadigital]

Well, we can speculate all day of what could happen, what should happen, what will or won't happen as well.  The reality of which we find ourselves in is that Iraq is in a middle of civil war and bringing in more US soldiers in will not stop this.  If 140,000 soldiers can't keep the peace, what use is 20,000 more.

 

The most prudent thing to do is this.  Have our troops maintain border control so that no one can get in or out.  Let the Iraqis have their civil war and when they are done killing each other and sick of all the violence, then go in and help rebuild.  Trying to play referee in a war will only get more of our soldiers killed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is even worse than your global foreign policy pronouncements (if that is even possible).

 

I surprised you aren't advocating selling arms to both sides, and charging tickets for spectators.

[Sand]

They are going to try and kill each other anyway. Is it better for them do so with our soldiers getting caught up in the crossfire or not in the crossfire?

[Eddo36]

EdD'Oh!'s equation is too simple, because the amount of opposition will not necessarily increase with the increase in allied forces.

 

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36