Skip to main content

View Diary: Pentagon Wants to 'Double-Down.' Sadr the Target (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree with this (0+ / 0-)

    I know a lot of my fellow kossak do not agree with this, but i think its our only hope to get our troops home.....

    Its just impossible now, to just leave and let saudi and iran to get in a war that could erupt throughout the middle east...Ive always said that if we leave now, we will end up by coming back to a bigger mess then it currently is.

    I think they will try to pull more troops in, probably 50,000, then they would quick to crush sadr militia and all armed forces that arent the iraqi army...then, once the get a better security hold of bagdad, they will try to rebuilt and create jobs as fast as possible to lure some of those people away from violence...they will also have enought troops to hold places, then rebuilt..this is a huge problem right now because the army just doesnt have enought troops to hold those places where they go in and raids, then leave, to only found out this place that they cleaned up a couple weeks ago, is now controlled by the same bad guys.

    •  About one thing you're definitely right ... (10+ / 0-)

      ...most Kossacks don't agree with you about this.

      To pick just one missing piece from your analysis: an open pitting of Shi'ite against Shi'ite, SCIRI's al-Hakim against the very popular al-Sadr, is a risky business that will certainly worsen the violence in the short run with absolutely no guarantees it will reduce the violence in the long run; indeed, a very great likelihood that it will worsen.  

    •  50,000 troops wouldn't cut it. (14+ / 0-)

      There is no way an extra 50,000 troops would be able to "hold places, then rebuild".  You would likely need 500,000 to do that.  In fact, we had 500,000 troops amassed in Gulf War One and Daddy Bush decided, rightly so, that we shouldn't try to take and hold Iraq, even with that number of soldiers.

      50,000 troops won't do a whole lot more than provide 50,000 more targets.

      •  Exactly (9+ / 0-)

        We are still a long way from the number that Shinseki thought we would need. A long way from the numbers that are recognized as the amount needed to to occupy a country. Even, if we used those type of numbers, our prospects for success would be doubtful. Sadr will not confront us in a conventional fashion. There will be not only an increased amount of American casualties but a huge amount of Iraq civilian casualties as well. It will barely put a dent in weakening Sadr and will most likely bring him more followers.

        If one was against the war from the beginning, it makes no logical sense to see any plan right now as a salvation. One of the major reasons to be against this war from the start is because we knew it would eventually lead to a hopeless quagmire. If one were to think at this point that there is some magic plan out there, one might as well have supported this war from the start.

        There is no good alternative. One of the least painful options would be to get out and have the Saudis and Iranians participate in peace talks to end a Civil War (that will go on for years) that they now strategically have an strong interest in.

        Way to go Dubya! Civil Wars are on the march!

    •  Welp (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RonV, Gorette, creeper

      this is a huge problem right now because the army just doesnt have enought troops to hold those places where they go in and raids, then leave, to only found out this place that they cleaned up a couple weeks ago, is now controlled by the same bad guys.

      That right there should tell you why we shouldn't do this.  We can't even identify who the bad guys are let alone kill them.  And it's not like Sadr's gonna stand in the street with a sign saying here I am, please kill me.  Sadr City is a poverty stricken, urban area with lots and lots of place for snipers to hide and bottlenecks and ambushes to be set up.  Unless the US is prepared to level and I do mean level Sadr City this has no hope of working.

      this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around!

      by demkat620 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:31:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe our military recruiters can target -> (5+ / 0-)

      -> Republican campaign rallies? Better yet, we can all download infantry application forms from, print out a stack, and every time you see a SUV with a Bush/Cheney sticker or a magnetized "support the troops" sticker (funny, that magnet part) you can slip an application under the windshield wiper. I'll bet recruitment would quadruple!

      "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush

      by David Mason on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 03:49:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We don't have 50,000 more troops to send (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm DePlume

      Even adding 20,000 is a squeeze, which they get by accelerating rotations  coming in and slowing them going out.  This proposal is a Battle of the Bulge gambit -- it has to work and work quickly or it won't work at all.  The insurgents can simply wait us out, picking off four to five of our men per day until the hurt gets unbearable.  If the US actually Falluja's Sadr City, that toll easily rises to ten per day.  I can see it happening, but I can't see it succeeding.  This last gap will be finished by May, and we will be worse than we started, like the Israeli's when they failed to finish off Hizbollah.

      •  the Falluja analagy is interesting (0+ / 0-)

        because thats how it would need to be done.

        Each and every city that is a Sunni insurgent stronghold would have to be reduced in that way.

        On the Shiite side the same thing.  Stasrt with Sadr city, then the cities in the south.  Basra to?

        40-50k more troops wont be enough.

        The iranians must be giggling over this.  The US destroys the Sunni AND Shiite power centers that are opposed to their own clients. isnt the iranian backed militia Badr Brigade inside most of the army and ministries?

        the overwhelming lust of the Republicans to keep control of Capitol Hill no matter what it costs the United States of America in blood and treasure...

        by Osiris on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 06:55:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The National Guard and Reserves (0+ / 0-)

        The Pentagon is already asking Gates to push for more control over deployment of National Guard and Reserve units.  That is the right-wing "solution" for more troops.  These troops were never intended to be sent on long deployments overseas in front line combat roles, but that is the situation that Rumsfeld's keen managment has led us into.

        Just think what's going to happen when it gets too hot for the 100K+ private contractors in Iraq.  They'll get up and leave.  And who is going to fill that void?  By out-sourcing such significant amounts to the private sector, Rumsfeld has really set us up for an even bigger disaster if (or when) the lid is blown completley off in Iraq.  Soldiers cannot just up and leave without going AWOL whereas our private contractors can hop a flight to Amman the next day.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site