No Comments on Bush's Speech

[canis582]

Kurto, the point of the speech was to get everybody to relax a little bit, ya know...quiet the rabble.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
He made it very clear why the extra troops will help. Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

[/ QUOTE ]

The population of Iraq is 26 million. We need over 500,000 troops to achieve the 50:1 ratio.

We have two options here.
1. Withdraw
2. Man up and admit that General Shinseki was right, that we should have used several hundred thousand troops. Institute a draft to achieve the necessary manpower, and raise taxes to pay for it.

Since 2 is politically impossible, 1 is inevitable.

[kurto]

I'm not so concerned about the point of the speech. I do think our presidents should normally address the nation about their plans.

When it comes to evaluating the speeches I'm interested in (1) is what the president saying accurate and (2) will it work.

I have always been a big opponent of Bush's war. I think its gotta be one of the worst mistakes our nation has made in God knows how long.

How to leave things now is a question I can't pretend to answer. I don't for a second think Bush is the right man for the job. That being said, what he proposed, if it is enacted the way he described, is certainly better then what they've been doing.

Do I think for a second this is going to win the war on terror or fix his bungle? Hell no.

Is it possible that the plan if enacted as proposed have some positive effect in Iraq? Its conceiveable. Its certainly better then business as usual.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty amazing it took them three years to figure that out.

[amplify]

This 50:1 ratio assumes competent and well-trained personnel. The Iraqi troops are neither.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing politics with our troops like this and trying to force the politics and the American Public (who isn't behind Bush anymore) into this is just the typical tyrannical Bush that America has learned to hate and disrespect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, now, this is typical of all of Washington D.C. Don't pretend like it's just him.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
This 50:1 ratio assumes competent and well-trained personnel. The Iraqi troops are neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 50:1 is for US troops only, in the Baghdad and Anbar areas.

It won't work though. Such levels might have prevented the collapse of security after the invasion but they won't restore security with a raging insurgency and civil war in place and the US apparently about to turn the Mahdi army against it. Also, the population size isn't the only factor; Anbar is HUGE and there won;t be anything like enough troops to secure it or patrol it properly.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're no Bush groupie, but I don't see why this would be encouraging. This was politically forced on Bush, he basically had no choice other than to change his approach. And of all the choices for change he's chosen the absolute worst one.

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're no Bush groupie, but I don't see why this would be encouraging. This was politically forced on Bush, he basically had no choice other than to change his approach. And of all the choices for change he's chosen the absolute worst one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Politically the only positive outcome is that Bush's democratic successor will be the one who has to make the difficult decisions, who will have to pull the troops out to republican criticism of weakness, indecision, and softness.

[lehighguy]

We've had "surge" levels of troops in Iraq in past years.