Bush to replace Top Generals

[dmf]

Originally posted by oboe
You guys need to have faith that Bush knows this war better than the generals on the ground over there.  Hitler was also forced to replace two top generals during the Russian Campaign, when they suggested retreating in order to save their forces.  He later told Erhard Milch:

We can't settle for anything less than complete victory, and according to Mr. Bush, all it will take is a surge of 20,000 more troops.    How can you fault that logic?    If the trained military professionals can't see that, then we should get them out of there.

Always remember that Hitler was a madman too BTW if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.

[Flatbar]

Originally posted by dmf
if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.

Not true!

The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics.

[Hap]

Originally posted by dmf
Always remember that Hitler was a madman too BTW if he'd had listened to his generals instead of replacing them we'd all be speaking German right now.

Oh pish on the 2nd sentence.

Regards,

hap

[Catalyst]

Originally posted by Flatbar
Not true!

The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics.

[oboe]

Originally posted by VOR
The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.

Gen Casey was against the addition of more troops, before he was for it:

DefenseLink News, 23 Dec 2005

"As I've said before this is not a conventional war, and in this type of war that we're fighting, more is not necessarily better," he said. "In fact, in Iraq, less coalition at this point in time, is better. Less is better because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation, it doesn't work the culture of dependency, it doesn't lengthen the time for Iraqi forces to be self-reliant, and it doesn't expose coalition forces to risk when there are Iraqi forces who are capable of standing up and doing it."

Bush had been dropping hints for weeks about increasing troop levels - long enough for the story about the Joint Chiefs to come out against additional troops before Gen Casey flip-flopped and asked for them.   There is a lot more to this story than we'll probably ever know.

[dmf]

Originally posted by Flatbar
Not true!

The prevailing language in the inner cities would be Gerbonics.

Ok your right LMAO

[dmf]

Originally posted by Hap
Oh pish on the 2nd sentence.

Regards,

hap

Oh pish on your psih

[VOR]

Oboe, that only paints half a picture without looking at the shifting strategic climate within the theatre from then to now. Iraq 2007 isn't Iraq 2005.

I'm skeptical of the conspiracy angle. I just can't figure what's to gain by an unpopular prez sending more troops into an unpopular war when there's no perceived need by the top brass.

[dmf]

Heres an Idea, pull all our troops out of there and let them kill each other, If they complain, tell them they had plenty of time to take over for them selves, whats it gonna do make the world mad at us?

[oboe]

Originally posted by VOR
Oboe, that only paints half a picture without looking at the shifting strategic climate within the theatre from then to now. Iraq 2007 isn't Iraq 2005.

I'm skeptical of the conspiracy angle. I just can't figure what's to gain by an unpopular prez sending more troops into an unpopular war when there's no perceived need by the top brass.

Your example gives the impression that his comments are 2 years old (2005 to 2007) but in reality his comments are a little more than 1 year old.   I do take your point though - this has been a horrible year in Iraq, and maybe that has changed some minds with regard to necessary strategy.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by VOR
The additional 20k troops were originally requested by Casey (the guy making the logical battle plan you mentioned), not Bush.

There still is no battle plan, or maybe ive missed it/  In a country the size of irq, what are 20k troops supposed to be able to do?  And how does this lead to an American victory.  In order to tell us how the 20k troops are going to do this, you need to define 'victory in iraq'?  If we send 20k troops over there and there is no reasonable change then what?  More troops, and more?  I say bahhh, we either need to support the sunni's in an attempt to exterminate the shi'ites, or pull out.There is no way to occupy a country peacefully.

[VOR]

Whoa, Whitehawk. I'm not on the battle staff. What goes on behind closed doors at theater-level command is as much a mystery to me as it is to you.

[Yeager]

whitehawk, 20,000 combat troops is ONE HELL OF A BUNCH OF WARFIGHTERS....don't be fooled by all the pelosi rhetoric escaping the nations anus.....err capitol

Also, 20,000 additional warfighters although a nice tidy sum, when added to whats already in country doesn't bring us anywhere near the 200,000 level.  As you should know this amount inst anywhere near the 500,000 we had gathered to expell saddams sneaker shoe rag tag army back in 91.  If rummer can be faulted for any one decision, using so few combat troops back in 03 is a primary reason we have the force failure we are experiencing now.

Lastly,  I regret to see so many Americans so eager to abandon Iraq today, regardless of what tomorrow brings.  I have always been of the opinion this country deserves the future it gets and giving Iraq to the wrong people sets us up for a major war that would otherwise be avoided with even a semi stable Iraq.