US 'troop boost in Iraq likely

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

Perhaps if you read the article you'd note there is a trifling difference between 1500 and 25,000+

[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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

How so, Charles? That sounds like a Kaydee-esque argument there. Not a good sign.

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

Perhaps if you read the article you'd note there is a trifling difference between 1500 and 25,000+

no kidding. thank you for the news flash. now how many times has that number been thrown around before in the news?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Weak, Charles weak.

Back to rubbishing the topic. I seem to remember saying that at the outset. Always reassuring to be proved right.

[Alex+R 0]

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Charles, an unquantified troop increase is not the whole story. If those are all the details you can handle in one evening, fine. Try the story again tomorrow.

TTY then

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

How so, Charles? That sounds like a Kaydee-esque argument there. Not a good sign.

color it any way you want, ignorance on your part does not mean you're right

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Weak, Charles weak.

Back to rubbishing the topic. I seem to remember saying that at the outset. Always reassuring to be proved right.

and this topic fits right in with your agenda so you can bash bush et al as usual. carry on, soldier.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

Perhaps if you read the article you'd note there is a trifling difference between 1500 and 25,000+

no kidding. thank you for the news flash. now how many times has that number been thrown around before in the news?

I guess you weren't watching the political debates about how to fix the "Iraq" problem, or the findings and subsequent debates over the Iraq Study Group Report.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

How so, Charles? That sounds like a Kaydee-esque argument there. Not a good sign.

color it any way you want, ignorance on your part does not mean you're right

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Weak, Charles weak.

Back to rubbishing the topic. I seem to remember saying that at the outset. Always reassuring to be proved right.

and this topic fits right in with your agenda so you can bash bush et al as usual. carry on, soldier.

That's right Charles - its all about you and me. That is indeed why I started the thread - so I can get into a mundane semantic argument with an idiot.

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Charles, an unquantified troop increase is not the whole story. If those are all the details you can handle in one evening, fine. Try the story again tomorrow.

TTY then

alex, you seem surprised by this news. how long have people been saying boost the troop levels, such has occured over time, and now this story is surprising? given the trend towards ramping up the levels in iraq, it bores me.

although i do tend to wonder where someone would come up with a division to spare. we used to have more divisions 15 years ago

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

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?

perhaps if you worked with or near the military you'd realize that such isn't exactly a bolt from the blue, alex.

How so, Charles? That sounds like a Kaydee-esque argument there. Not a good sign.

color it any way you want, ignorance on your part does not mean you're right

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.

ah yes, let's print interim rumor classified information

there has been talk about increasing the level of troops for years, erekose. i'm not impressed with this as news.

now back to the regularly scheduled bushbashing with your host, erekose

Weak, Charles weak.

Back to rubbishing the topic. I seem to remember saying that at the outset. Always reassuring to be proved right.

and this topic fits right in with your agenda so you can bash bush et al as usual. carry on, soldier.

That's right Charles - its all about you and me. That is indeed why I started the thread - so I can get into a mundane semantic argument with an idiot.

ah yes, more personal attacks. whine some more, erekose. that you post a topic like this isn't a surprise, it's typical bashbot material. bash away

Edited December 16, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[girlfrmoz 1]

Well regardless.....my SO is US military so I hope he doesn't have to go back to Iraq. That is what it means for us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ah yes, more personal attacks. whine some more, erekose. that you post a topic like this isn't a surprise, it's typical bashbot material. bash away

Well the personal attacks work for you and your bum-chums, so I see no reason not to continue in kind. So in answer the earlier question - you don't object to the article as much as my comment on it. Finally a straight answer from you. Back to "is it news" semantics.

Incidentally here is a lengthier article on the story from the New York Times:

Options Weighed for Surge in G.I.'s to Stabilize Iraq

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major “surge” in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Discussion of increasing the number of American troops, at least temporarily, has coursed through Washington for two months, as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units, and to seek a cost estimate from the White House Office of Management and Budget, signifies a turn in the debate.

President Bush has made no final decision, the White House said. Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said that no memorandums outlining the options for increasing troop strength had gone to the president. But one senior official said the subject was discussed at length on Wednesday during Mr. Bush’s briefing at the Pentagon, and the president has reportedly asked detailed questions that some officials have interpreted as suggesting that he is strongly leaning in that direction.

Two retired Army veterans who served in the unit that took control of the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar in 2005 — Col. Joel Armstrong and Maj. Daniel Dwyer — helped draft a new study issued Thursday by the American Enterprise Institute that called for sending an additional four or five combat brigades, or some 14,000 to 17,500 troops, to Baghdad.

The study determined that the military could sustain a surge of that level, but that it would require sending several Army brigades back to Iraq a couple of months early and extending the customary yearlong Army tour to 15 months.

In its report last week, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group rejected the idea of a “substantial” force increase on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 troops, saying that those levels were not “available for a sustained deployment” and would feed fears in Iraq that the United States was planning a long-term occupation.

“We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad,” the report added, “or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.”

Well regardless.....my SO is US military so I hope he doesn't have to go back to Iraq. That is what it means for us.

Fingers crossed for you that he doesn't.

[Ban Hammer 14,674]

ah yes, more personal attacks. whine some more, erekose. that you post a topic like this isn't a surprise, it's typical bashbot material. bash away

Well the personal attacks work for you and your bum-chums, so I see no reason not to continue in kind. So in answer the earlier question - you don't object to the article as much as my comment on it. Finally a straight answer from you. Back to "is it news" semantics.

Incidentally here is a lengthier article on the story from the New York Times:

Options Weighed for Surge in G.I.'s to Stabilize Iraq

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.

Discussion of increasing the number of American troops, at least temporarily, has coursed through Washington for two months, as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units, and to seek a cost estimate from the White House Office of Management and Budget, signifies a turn in the debate.

President Bush has made no final decision, the White House said. Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said that no memorandums outlining the options for increasing troop strength had gone to the president. But one senior official said the subject was discussed at length on Wednesday during Mr. Bush's briefing at the Pentagon, and the president has reportedly asked detailed questions that some officials have interpreted as suggesting that he is strongly leaning in that direction.

Two retired Army veterans who served in the unit that took control of the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar in 2005 — Col. Joel Armstrong and Maj. Daniel Dwyer — helped draft a new study issued Thursday by the American Enterprise Institute that called for sending an additional four or five combat brigades, or some 14,000 to 17,500 troops, to Baghdad.

The study determined that the military could sustain a surge of that level, but that it would require sending several Army brigades back to Iraq a couple of months early and extending the customary yearlong Army tour to 15 months.

In its report last week, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group rejected the idea of a "substantial" force increase on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 troops, saying that those levels were not "available for a sustained deployment" and would feed fears in Iraq that the United States was planning a long-term occupation.

"We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad," the report added, "or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

ah yes, you state "you and your bum-chums" so the personal attacks continue. is this what you mean by debate, you attack those who disagree with you?

as for deployment of the numbers listed above, i'll believe that when i see it.

what's up next, fears of a draft discussion?

Edited December 16, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[girlfrmoz 1]

Thanks Erekose. It's hard because I am not really into the politics (like most Australians) and he may go again later in 2007 and he only just got back in Feb this year.