Pentagon raises estimate of troops for Iraq

[LiberalNation]

Not a good deal. You;d still need 20 times the troops to really "fix" the situation anyway. Looks like a waste of time to me. The terrorist are easily going to hold out longer than us. They actually live there and all that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070306/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc;_ylt=AjhZDGaDgxvgvGo5bYIG9e0DW7oF

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out President George W. Bush's Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.

In a speech to the American Legion veterans organization, Bush insisted the new Iraq security plan he announced was making gradual progress, despite new violence.

The new estimate of the rising number of troops being committed to the war came as House Democrats continued wrangling over how to end America's combat role in Iraq.

After a meeting of leaders and the 233-member Democratic caucus there was no sign that liberals, moderates and conservatives in the party were getting behind an comprehensive war plan.

But Democratic Rep. James Moran (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, who sits on a House panel overseeing war funding, said upcoming legislation would include a date in 2008 for ending the war.

Democrats are targeting a $100 billion emergency war spending bill for conditions that could prompt a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. House leaders want to pass the bill before a two-week recess starting the beginning of April.

Democratic leaders said the bill would increase U.S. funds to battle al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, impose "benchmarks" for measuring the Iraqi government's progress in taking over security activities and enforce Pentagon standards for equipping and training U.S. troops headed for combat.

But a fight over possible presidential waivers for such conditions continued among Democrats.

Arguing against any congressional attempt to scale back the mission, Bush said: "The mission is America's mission and our failure would be America's failure."

"Iraqi and U.S. forces are making gradual but important progress almost every day and we will remain steadfast until our objectives are achieved," Bush said.

His comments and the Democratic maneuvering came as the Pentagon announced nine U.S. troops died in two bomb attacks north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, insurgents killed 112 Shi'ite pilgrims heading to Iraq's holy city of Kerbala.

The new attacks are likely to increase sectarian tensions between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs that have threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.

The deaths of the nine U.S. soldiers made for the deadliest day for U.S. forces since they launched the security crackdown in the capital three weeks ago.

The estimate of 4,000 to 7,000 new support troops needed for Iraq contrasts with a February 6 forecast by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that as many as 3,000 would be needed.

The higher estimate could raise the projected $5.6 billion price tag of the troop surge by about $1 billion, if about 4,000 support troops are needed, England said.

The Pentagon would "reallocate," or shift some money around, to pay for the added costs instead of asking Congress for additional funds, England said.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick)

[Gunny]

Not a good deal. You;d still need 20 times the troops to really "fix" the situation anyway. Looks like a waste of time to me. The terrorist are easily going to hold out longer than us. They actually live there and all that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070306/pl_nm/iraq_usa_dc;_ylt=AjhZDGaDgxvgvGo5bYIG9e0DW7oF

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out President George W. Bush's Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.

In a speech to the American Legion veterans organization, Bush insisted the new Iraq security plan he announced was making gradual progress, despite new violence.

The new estimate of the rising number of troops being committed to the war came as House Democrats continued wrangling over how to end America's combat role in Iraq.

After a meeting of leaders and the 233-member Democratic caucus there was no sign that liberals, moderates and conservatives in the party were getting behind an comprehensive war plan.

But Democratic Rep. James Moran (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, who sits on a House panel overseeing war funding, said upcoming legislation would include a date in 2008 for ending the war.

Democrats are targeting a $100 billion emergency war spending bill for conditions that could prompt a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. House leaders want to pass the bill before a two-week recess starting the beginning of April.

Democratic leaders said the bill would increase U.S. funds to battle al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, impose "benchmarks" for measuring the Iraqi government's progress in taking over security activities and enforce Pentagon standards for equipping and training U.S. troops headed for combat.

But a fight over possible presidential waivers for such conditions continued among Democrats.

Arguing against any congressional attempt to scale back the mission, Bush said: "The mission is America's mission and our failure would be America's failure."

"Iraqi and U.S. forces are making gradual but important progress almost every day and we will remain steadfast until our objectives are achieved," Bush said.

His comments and the Democratic maneuvering came as the Pentagon announced nine U.S. troops died in two bomb attacks north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, insurgents killed 112 Shi'ite pilgrims heading to Iraq's holy city of Kerbala.

The new attacks are likely to increase sectarian tensions between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs that have threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.

The deaths of the nine U.S. soldiers made for the deadliest day for U.S. forces since they launched the security crackdown in the capital three weeks ago.

The estimate of 4,000 to 7,000 new support troops needed for Iraq contrasts with a February 6 forecast by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that as many as 3,000 would be needed.

The higher estimate could raise the projected $5.6 billion price tag of the troop surge by about $1 billion, if about 4,000 support troops are needed, England said.

The Pentagon would "reallocate," or shift some money around, to pay for the added costs instead of asking Congress for additional funds, England said.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick)

The terrorists might easily hold out longer than you and your ilk. All any enemy of the US needs to know is that if they hold out long enough, the left will force the throwing in of the hand.

[LiberalNation]

SO we should bankrupt are country to hold out in a place that really doesn't even matter against an enemy that really isn't strong enough to badly hurt us to begin with.

[Gunny]

SO we should bankrupt are country to hold out in a place that really doesn't even matter against an enemy that really isn't strong enough to badly hurt us to begin with.

No, we should tuck tail and run, and just sit here and wait for the next 9/11 from "an enemy that really isn't strong enough to badly hurt us to begin with."
Tell that to the family members of the 3,000 that went down with the Twin Towers. I'm sure they'll agree with you.:rolleyes:

[CSM]

SO we should bankrupt are country to hold out in a place that really doesn't even matter against an enemy that really isn't strong enough to badly hurt us to begin with.

Wont go bankrupt if we cut out welfare and free healthcare/education for illegal aliens....and raise taxes to exhorbitant rates for anyone registered as a Democrat!

[gabosaurus]

You can't expect the Bushies to actually care how many Americans die in Iraq. It is just meaningless numbers with no faces attached to them.
The Bushies had no clue about Iraq before they invaded. They certainly don't have a clue now. Just send 'em over and let them take their chances. We can alway order extra body bags.

[avatar4321]

SO we should bankrupt are country to hold out in a place that really doesn't even matter against an enemy that really isn't strong enough to badly hurt us to begin with.

First rule of life I've learned from comic books:

The strongest enemy is usually not the one that does the most damage.

Take Peter Parker. Takes care of strong villians all the time. The one that huts him the most is the petty criminal he doesnt bother to catch who later kills his uncle traumatizing him for life.

Likewise Bruce Wayne. Deals with creeps like Joker or Riddler all the time. No problem. Still suffers dramatic trauma from the mugger with the gun who killed his parents.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with real life. And our enemies might not be "strong" but they don't have to be to kill lots of people. All they need is fear and a media willing to report their agenda and they can bring us to our knees. And you guys enjoy playing right into their hands.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the attack wasn't as devestating as 9/11. But it moblized a nation to not only defeat the Japanese kamakazis, but also the Nazis. And because a nation supported the war effort we won.

With 9/11, we have half the nation acting like a bunch of p***ies doing what ever they can to keep us from defeating the enemy and then whining that we arent winning fast enough. And why? What is the real reason you guys are acting like this? is it because you have some moral high ground? No. Is it because you are geniune pacifists? No.

I'll tell you why. It's because George W Bush recieved more votes in Florida than your guy are you are still bitter about it.

Grow up people. Because if you don't there is a good chance none of us are going to be alive to talk about it. All because of those "weak" enemies.

[CSM]

You can't expect the Bushies to actually care how many Americans die in Iraq. It is just meaningless numbers with no faces attached to them.
The Bushies had no clue about Iraq before they invaded. They certainly don't have a clue now. Just send 'em over and let them take their chances. We can alway order extra body bags.

That is just plain rhetoric. But then you can't expect a lib to understand anything; they don't think, they just spout emotional bullshit.

[Gaffer]

The securing of baghdad is going very well. Whole areas where there were constant attacks and murders are now secure and people are moving back in. The media is quick to tell us about the US casualties that occured this past week. They fail to tell us about the hundreds of casualties suffered by the enmy. The thousands of weapons and ammo captured and the success of the iraqi army and police in quelling the problems in the nieghborhoods around baghdad.

The media is al queda's friend. It's biggest supporter and ally. You will NOT hear the success news from them. The tide has turned in iraq and the surge has barely begun.

As for how many troops end up going, who cares, if they accomplish the mission soon they can all come home that much sooner. More troops means more contact with the enemy, which means more enemy dead.

[LiberalNation]

We killed a lot of the enemy in Vietnam too. They lost way more than we did but they still won. Why because the American people will not accept a never ending war without a clear exit plan/time. They wouldn't then and wont now.

[CSM]

We killed a lot of the enemy in Vietnam too. They lost way more than we did but they still won. Why because the American people will not accept a never ending war without a clear exit plan/time. They wouldn't then and wont now.

That's not why we lost but then you knew that.

[LiberalNation]

We lost because Americans were fed up, fed up with war, and really fed up with the draft. Our longest war and a war we lost even though we won every single major battle. Iraq will end the same way.

[CSM]

We lost because Americans were fed up, fed up with war, and really fed up with the draft. Our longest war and a war we lost even though we won every single major battle. Iraq will end the same way.

... We lost because the libs, anti war crowd and Congress sold us out. That's why we lost. You are right in that Iraq will end the same way because the same bunch is busy ensuring that treason prevails. I have already stated what I think of that bunch.

[LiberalNation]

Anti-war crowd, ya know that was most of the country near the end of the Vietnam war. Tet just started the downward slide.

It will end the same way because people don't thinkt he admin is in touch with reality or are flat out lying. Cheney said the enemy was in it's last throws a year ago. Johnson said the enemy was weaking and we were winning. It didn't turn out that way and that turns Americans off. The Admin are just as much to blame as congress or the people. As for congress they were/are just acting on the will of the people.

[Dilloduck]

Anti-war crowd, ya know that was most of the country near the end of the Vietnam war. Tet just started the downward slide.

It will end the same way because people don't thinkt he admin is in touch with reality or are flat out lying. Cheney said the enemy was in it's last throws a year ago. Johnson said the enemy was weaking and we were winning. It didn't turn out that way and that turns Americans off. The Admin are just as much to blame as congress or the people. As for congress they were/are just acting on the will of the people.

Politicans at in thier own best interest--who are you kidding? The only thing that keeps them from going totally overboard is the Constitution and they are getting pretty good at twisting that thing around too. Think bigger.

[avatar4321]

We killed a lot of the enemy in Vietnam too. They lost way more than we did but they still won. Why because the American people will not accept a never ending war without a clear exit plan/time. They wouldn't then and wont now.

They didn't have a problem with it during the revolution, War of 1812, Civil war, World War 1, World War 2, or Korea. Why the heck should they start now?

The American people didn't have a problem with Vietnam. The liberal kooks did. We wont the war. But the liberal congress abandoned our allies we were sworn to protect in the cease fire agreement.

[Dilloduck]

They didn't have a problem with it during the revolution, War of 1812, Civil war, World War 1, World War 2, or Korea. Why the heck should they start now?

The American people didn't have a problem with Vietnam. The liberal kooks did. We wont the war. But the liberal congress abandoned our allies we were sworn to protect in the cease fire agreement.

There are a LOT of Americans who will tolerate continually fighting those who wish to kill us until they stop. And they CAN stop. If they responded to diplomacy I have no doubt that would be the method of choice but I don't see any of em with any interest in talking this one out. Them shooting and us talking is a deal I and many Americans wont' stand for any more.

[LiberalNation]

The American people didn't have a problem with Vietnam. The liberal kooks did. We wont the war. But the liberal congress abandoned our allies we were sworn to protect in the cease fire agreement.

Yeah right so all those liberal kooks forced Johnson not to run again and voted in Nixon who at the time said he would drawback our forces in Vietnam.

They support Iraq, really. that's why they voted out the republican congress last November after all polls said Iraq is the main issue American are concerned over. I'd say it's more than just a few liberal kooks.

[Dilloduck]

Yeah right so all those liberal kooks forced Johnson not to run again and voted in Nixon who at the time said he would drawback our forces in Vietnam.

They support Iraq, really. that's why they voted out the republican congress last November after all polls said Iraq is the main issue American are concerned over. I'd say it's more than just a few liberal kooks.

Did it ever occur to you that the Republican congress was not re-elected because they were being to wimpy in Iraq and spending too damn much money ? The "mandate" on bringing our troops hope is only a liberal assumption. When the polls (yuck) gave Bush negatives on his handling of the war there was no differentiation made between those that wanted to retreat and those that wanted to be more agressive.

[LiberalNation]

Well the leave and nuke em comes up a lot but then genocide of the Iraqis would look very bad on us. I don't think most people hold that view though. most don't care as long as the troops come home wether we get tought then leave or just leave.

[Dilloduck]

Well the leave and nuke em comes up a lot but then genocide of the Iraqis would look very bad on us. I don't think most people hold that view though. most don't care as long as the troops come home wether we get tought then leave or just leave.

The belief that America should do something because "most" people think a certain way is open to question and trying to interpret why people voted the way they do ain't no exact science either. Polls ? blechhhhhh A silly way for the media to try and read the minds of Americans ( or sway them )

[Gaffer]

Here's a little Vietnam history lesson.

There were actually two Vietnam wars. One involving us. We won. A cease fire was established and our troops were pulled out. Then the evil little democrat bastards in congress decided to cut all aid to South Vietnam. No equipment, no ammo, no nothing was to be given to them. With that done the North launched their invasion of the south,the second Vietnam war. The world watched as the south collapsed under the norths armored assaults and quick capture of Saigon. Served the bastards right for not wanting to live under communism. How dare they stand up to the commies and the democrats.

That's the senario that the democrats want to do in iraq now. Exactly the same senario. It's been their goal since the start of the war. And once again the democrats can defeat America.

[LiberalNation]

No the dems wanted us to win at the start of the war, it's after it drug on and on that made many of them just want to get out. America doesn't like long wars.

[Gunny]

No the dems wanted us to win at the start of the war, it's after it drug on and on that made many of them just want to get out. America doesn't like long wars.

How quaint. Perhaps "Americans" -- at least the ones you allude to -- should get over themselves.

A simple concept of war for ya': you fight until the enemy is incapable of waging further war, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

[LiberalNation]

Not in an unconventional war because that is not possible. Unless you plan on killing everyone in the country.

[Gunny]

Not in an unconventional war because that is not possible. Unless you plan on killing everyone in the country.

Really? It worked just fine in Europe and Japan. That's because we treated our enemies for what they were.

[LiberalNation]

and those were conventional wars unlike Vietnam and Iraq which are gorilla wars fought by a loose invisible enemy who mainly employs hit and run tactics. Pecking and pecking until they achieve victory. Able to loose far more and having far more to loose. And we can't kill those we can't even regonize as the enemy until they start shooting at us.

[Gunny]

and those were conventional wars unlike Vietnam and Iraq which are gorilla wars fought by a loose invisible enemy who mainly employs hit and run tactics. Pecking and pecking until they achieve victory. Able to loose far more and having far more to loose. And we can't kill those we can't even regonize as the enemy until they start shooting at us.

They are guerilla wars because we allow them to be. Back before liberalism turned US foreign policy into a paper tiger, we were quite adept at quelling guerrilla wars.

It can be done. It'd just cause too much whining among those who are more concerned for the enemy's rights than the continued existence of this Nation and society.

[LiberalNation]

Genocide of large areas of Iraq would cause us more problems than it would solve. plus many fighters aren't even from iraq and don't care how much you destroy. You would have to expand the war to several other ME countries for that to work.

[Gunny]

Genocide of large areas of Iraq would cause us more problems than it would solve. plus many fighters aren't even from iraq and don't care how much you destroy. You would have to expand the war to several other ME countries for that to work.

Or effectively shut down Iraq's borders.

And genocide is not required to carry out simple search and destroy missions.You kill enough bad guys and the people helping them, and th emessage will get out.

[LiberalNation]

We tried that for 6 years in Vietnam. It kinda didn't work all so well.