US 'troop boost in Iraq likely

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Noone saw this one coming... after months of dithering by the administration, perhaps they've finally realised that indecisiveness = weakness.

US 'troop boost in Iraq likely'

US soldier in Baghdad

Nearly 3,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003

US President George W Bush is likely to boost troop levels in Iraq next year, an administration official has said.

Up to 25,000 more troops could be deployed to try to help end the violence, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The comments come a day after prominent Republican John McCain called for up to 30,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq.

Mr Bush had been due to announce a new strategy on Iraq next week, but has delayed his speech until January.

He is holding a flurry of meetings with top US and Iraqi officials and experts on how to change his policy.

In Iraq, the country's biggest humanitarian organisation has accused US troops of attacking its offices and vehicles.

The Iraqi Red Crescent's vice-president said attacks by US-led forces were the biggest problem it faced.

The US military said it was checking the allegations.

'Serious situation'

The US administration source said the mission of the additional troops would be threefold, the BBC's Adam Brookes reports from Washington:

* To help secure Baghdad amid daily car bombings and kidnappings

* To make a renewed push to quell the insurgency in the Western province of Anbar

* To tackle the militias behind much of the sectarian violence in the country, but especially the capital.

The remarks appear to be setting the tone for Mr Bush's announcement of his new Iraq strategy, our correspondent says.

He says the idea of boosting troop levels for one final push at halting the spiralling violence has been much discussed in Washington recently.

The comments came a day after Senator McCain called for more troops to stabilise Iraq.

"The situation is very, very serious," he said in Baghdad.

"It requires an injection of additional troops to control the situation and to allow the political process to proceed," he said.

There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq.

Military scepticism

Since a high-level review group published its findings last week, President Bush has been consulting with his military commanders and Iraqi political leaders to shape a new strategy.

Outgoing Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush ®

President Bush has bid farewell to his outgoing defence secretary

Military commanders, however, have been expressing scepticism that extra troops on their own will have much effect, our correspondent says.

They say that stability in Iraq can now only be had by political means.

The Iraq Study Group, composed of top Democrat and Republican legislators and experts, said combat troops could be withdrawn from Iraq by early 2008.

They said the current US strategy of "staying the course" was no longer viable.

On Wednesday, Mr Bush said he would not be rushed into making "a difficult decision".

"I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat. And I reject those ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done; ideas such as not helping this government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."

[Ban Hammer 14,419]

[Alex+R 0]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Charles is one of those people who can't handle a debate - so instead of posting something related to the topic, the only thing he can motivate himself to do is rubbish the topic.

Free speech and all that of course - but "lazy big mouth" is the image that jumps out at me

Is it the news story he objects to - or just my commentary on it. We may never know...

Expect the thread to go off the rails at this point as Charles makes it all about him, or goes off on a spirally tangent of semantic irrelevance.

[Ban Hammer 14,419]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Charles is one of those people who can't handle a debate - so instead of posting something related to the topic, the only thing he can motivate himself to do is rubbish the topic.

Free speech and all that of course - but "lazy big mouth" is the image that jumps out at me

Is it the news story he objects to - or just my commentary on it. We may never know...

Expect the thread to go off the rails at this point as Charles makes it all about him, or goes off on a spirally tangent of semantic irrelevance.

it's not debate unless it follows your viewpoint. that more troops are being deployed isn't news.

Edited December 16, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Alex+R 0]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Except this comes from an anonymous administration official ahead of Bush's new Iraq strategery. Someone got a tip, they followed a lead - they got an inside scoop. That 'is' news. In other words its the closest thing to an official confirmation of a new plan for Iraq, a plan which the President has said he won't unveil until next year.

I guess that's old news too

Edited December 16, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,419]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may be to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

Except this comes from an anonymous administration official ahead of Bush's new Iraq strategery. Someone got a tip, they followed a lead - they got an inside scoop. That 'is' news. In other words its the closest thing to an official confirmation of a new plan for Iraq, a plan which the President has said he won't unveil until next year.

I guess that's old news too

same song different verse. we've seen the same song sung over the past what, 3 years?

Edited December 16, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

I believe this story suggests "additional" troops. Did you read the article? Or like Kaydee, do you think its not necessary to read a piece of journalism before rubbishing it?

Except this comes from an anonymous administration official ahead of Bush's new Iraq strategery. Someone got a tip, they followed a lead - they got an inside scoop. That 'is' news. In other words its the closest thing to an official confirmation of a new plan for Iraq, a plan which the President has said he won't unveil until next year.

I guess that's old news too

same song different verse. we've seen the same song sung over the past what, 3 years?

Yep you're right there - same old business as usual. Thanks for pointing out that the President clearly doesn't have a clue

[Ban Hammer 14,419]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

I believe this story suggests "additional" troops. Did you read the article? Or like Kaydee, do you think its not necessary to read a piece of journalism before rubbishing it?

yes, erekose, i've read it. just like those i posted. additional troops is not news, is it? unless the military digs up an additional division and dumps it there, it's business as usual. perhaps you should read the links i posted for a change and see that it's just ssdd.

Yep you're right there - same old business as usual. Thanks for pointing out that the President clearly doesn't have a clue

i guess that counts as your obligatory swipe at bush. you can't even carry on a halfway respectable debate without aiming jabs at him, can you?

[Alex+R 0]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

Charles, I've started typing a response to that about six times now, but I can't even begin to address how stupid your last post was. I'm really sorry. Maybe someone else can.

[Alex+R 0]

At least I will add this quote from the NYTimes story:

Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive.

At present, only about 17,000 American soldiers are actively involved in the effort to secure Baghdad, so even the low end of the proposals being considered by military and budget officials could more than double the size of that force. If adopted, such an increase would be a major departure from the current strategy advocated by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., which has stressed stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible.

Yup. Business as usual, Charles. Why don't you try reading the actual article?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

I believe this story suggests "additional" troops. Did you read the article? Or like Kaydee, do you think its not necessary to read a piece of journalism before rubbishing it?

yes, erekose, i've read it. just like those i posted. additional troops is not news, is it? unless the military digs up an additional division and dumps it there, it's business as usual. perhaps you should read the links i posted for a change and see that it's just ssdd.

Yep you're right there - same old business as usual. Thanks for pointing out that the President clearly doesn't have a clue

i guess that counts as your obligatory swipe at bush. you can't even carry on a halfway respectable debate without aiming jabs at him, can you?

It's "news" because an administration insider has named it. Whether or not he knows the goods will probably become clear in the course of time.

Incidentally the BBC article suggests an increase of 25,000 troops not 1300 or 1500. If true, that is a significant step up.

[Ban Hammer 14,419]

Why does this information bore you, Charles?

quite simply, it's not news

link August 25, 2005 1,500 more troops headed for Iraq

link October 26, 2004 U.S. May Increase Troops In Iraq

link November 22, 2004: More Troops for Iraq

link US and Coalition Troops in Iraq, June 2005

link May 19, 2006 More Troops Being Deployed to Iraq

link posted May 31, 2006 US sends more troops into Iraq

link Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

Do you see a difference between sending more troops, and sending more troops despite the fact that the team of experts you hired has advised against it?

do either you or erekose ever consider that "sending more troops to iraq" may to rotate out ones that have been there? probably not. regardless, whether it is a rotation or an increase in the total number there, some will make an issue of it. like it's worthy of news after such has been done for several years now.

Charles, I've started typing a response to that about six times now, but I can't even begin to address how stupid your last post was. I'm really sorry. Maybe someone else can.

perhaps the only stupid one is the one who can't put their thoughts into a sentence, eh? go to bed alex, you're tired.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep you're right there - same old business as usual. Thanks for pointing out that the President clearly doesn't have a clue

i guess that counts as your obligatory swipe at bush. you can't even carry on a halfway respectable debate without aiming jabs at him, can you?

Just following your example of putting words in your mouth, and jumping to wild conclusions that bear little resemblance to what you actually said. Tastes good doesn't it?