| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| May I ask a question? No link, I just so respect you folks here at Rantburg U.... |
| 2004-04-13 |
| and Fred, I know I’m out on a limb here, but with the resources available here, I know of no better place to gather thoughts aobut all that is happening in war. Please delete if not appropriate to your wishes. The big question that keeps coming up... so many folks say, more troops needed in Iraq. Why? What will they be doing that is not already being done? I know the statements that Rummy doesn’t want them, I know W keeps telling us, whatever is needed. Realizing this is really a military question, I’m so curious. What else could more troops add? Considering all the support personnel that is needed, I just keep reading, more troops are needed. And no one tells me, what they will be doing. Maybe answers in email is more appropriate. Thanks... traveling_woman@yahoo.com |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #6 besides...we aren't so hot at border control anyway ;-) |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-14 10:03:06 AM |
| #5 I would like to see the Iraqi's do more of their own work. What say we recruit them instead. They fought Iran before, let's let them do it again. |
| Posted by: B 2004-04-14 10:02:02 AM |
| #4 Border control. If we can stop Hamas and Hezbolla and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Wahabbi moneybags from entering the country, the Iraqis will do just fine on their own. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-04-14 1:35:20 AM |
| #3 Sherry, the humorous answer would be to form press gangs and consider any illegal aliens to be new recruit material, but your question deserves a serious answer. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-14 12:24:04 AM |
| #2 Sherry, I would like to see more troops in theater for a function that Old Spook thinks is a critical vulnerability. We need to tighten up the border with Iran. For quite a while, I thought the answer was to reactivate Iraqi troops, but I no longer think that's the case. We don't need border police who run, take bribes or join the other side. Whatever we decide to do the plan has to be sustainable for several years. We had a larger military once and will again in several years. That doesn't really help us now. For the present, I trust that Rumsfeld and Myers are doing what they can to free up people to augment forces by reclassifying CONUS jobs that never should have been staffed with fighters. They are also slowly pulling troops out of countries where they are no legitimate security purpose for their presence. The process for that type of draw down is slow due to diplomatic realities. Other than that I can't think of any productive ideas to get more boots on the ground. You could put a stop loss on all Naval forces and train all incoming swabbies as temporary security personnel, but those sailors wouldn't be Marines, who are a special bunch ... as you know better than I do. What would be a sustainable rotation for military wives? I don't like to see rising military divorce rates; they are bad for everybody. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-14 12:20:46 AM |
| #1 The cry for "More troops" is often made by those who misunderstand our mission in Iraq and around the world. You first heard the term "boots on the ground" during the Afghanistan campaign, the theory being that since the British Empire and the Soviet Union had so much trouble subduing the Afghans, that we Americans would have an equal amount of trouble. A week later, Kabul fell, and with it, the Taliban. There are several reasons why people insist on more troops. Some honestly believe that more troops automatically equates to greater safety. However, its my opinion that most people who cry out for more troops do so in hopes of slowing down American action and resolve overseas. By tying down more troops in one theatre of action, Americans would once again be forced to use diplomacy and thus would need to 'cut a deal' with the learned and experienced European powers, who of course know all about the excesses of empire that we find ourselves in. These are the same people hoping and praying for a military draft. By having a military draft, it would slow our military power overseas and once again, turn America into a paper tiger that could be turned from its resolve. I think we are likely to see more troops enter the Iraqi theater of operations, however the additional troops are more likely to come from places like South Korea and Germany than they are to come from an expanded US military. Our mission in Iraq is not to subdue and control the Iraqis, but simply to provide enough security to see it get on its feet and become a free nation. We have no desire or mission to remain there for very long. Pouring in double the number of troops currently in theatre would cause a great deal of strain on the logistics train, and it would also remove the threat of possible military action elsewhere, which would have the effect of making it weaker everywhere. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2004-04-13 11:55:28 PM |