I'm curious about what all of you over there right now think of Bush's "Surge" plan for more troops.  I was there (Baghdad: Dora/Hor Ajeb) in 2005/2006 as an Infantry soldier.  The problem we saw was 2 things:  3rd ID (in charge of Baghdad in 2005) or higher not wanting to fight an agressive war.  Second, the Iraqi military/police letting us do the majority of the fighting with little real agressive effort on their part.  They talked a good game, but didn't seem to be getting anywhere.

So is Bush's "Surge" going to do any good?  Do you need the help?  Or does the US military just need to be allowed to take the gloves off and fight this like a real war?  Before they send me back again for another tour this year, I'd sure like to know if it's going to make a difference.

F.A.S. Out

Quoted: ...does the US military just need to be allowed to take the gloves off and fight this like a real war? ... F.A.S. Out

damned straight!!!!!!!!!! we could get this finished with fewer troops if we'd just have some common sense about it.

i'm headed out for parts unknown mid-summer as it stands now. wish they'd send me to the right place though.


HUA!! HUA!! DOUBLE HUA!!

I was never for us going in there to try to democratize them in the 1st place, but since we're now in it, we should do the job right.  We could start by untying the troops hands & letting them get the job done instead of micromanaging much like Vietnam.  I tend to believe that there's no such thing as moral high-ground on the battlefield, so the "be-nice" rules need to end & serious boot-to-ass needs to be applied for permanent affect.

Bring gun, get some, move on.  'Nuff said.

Being as Almost every millitary advisor and expert on the subject including Colin Powell and Ollie North say it wont work, I think Bush is fucking retarded for even thinking about it.

Will it work or not?  Well I swallowed the pill early on, whatever the prez says goes for me.

I just like killin' folks.  I don't care if we invade Switzerland or Denmark, I'm just about leaving a bloody trail.

Besides, the F-ing Swiss have had it coming for a long time....all neutral and stuff.  Lame, f-ing soft.

PG



(update)..see my response was put up there to irritate at least one person.  I have failed, I feel so used.......then again it would be fun to invade Switzerland.

From my favorite armchair general's opinion (me).

20K is not enough to effect the problem in the whole country.  It could have a localized effect in certain areas, but many insurgents would just end up squirting to another AO.  We would end playing "whack-a-mole" throughout the entire country.

Hindsight being 20-20, we should have kept max numbers of troops in Iraq from the beginning.  Think Clear-Hold-Build.
Personally I think the only way to pull it off is max out the number of folks in country, cut off the PC bullshit, clear out the media, and systematically clear out the country.  It will take MUCH longer doing that now, versus 4 years ago.  To completely do the job now, we'd have to sit in country for at least 10 or more years.  Obviously this can be affected by how long it takes to get decent, not corrupt IA/IP units operating.    

I give Petraeus' plan a thumbs up.

The 20k bump is nowhere near as important as the ROE changes and the division of Baghdad.

Quoted: I give Petraeus' plan a thumbs up. The 20k bump is nowhere near as important as the ROE changes and the division of Baghdad.

+1 on this. It isn't Bush's plan, it's Petraus' plan. The center of gravity of Iraq is Baghdad. We could spend pages discussing why. The 20K are going to secure the center of gravity. That's a good thing. You have to have a stable seat of government.

Not going to happen no way no how. When The rest of MY republican party comes to terms with reality, we can move forward. As of now to the leaders are to fucking busy covering up their past mistakes with new ones to make us forget about the old ones. Am I the only conservitive that feels this way?