Display:


Really? (none / 0)

I think I may just disagree that we're going to significantly increase the level of violence in Iraq by adding 15,000 or 30,000 more Americans. The bulk of the violence in Iraq is a raging civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Militias and insurgent groups number in the tens of thousands each, and kill far more Iraqis than the US forces do. Which is not to say that we couldn't escalate the killing in Iraq, even without dramitically increasing troop numbers - we could, say, start carpet bombing Sadr City - but I don't think that any sane person is suggesting this, nor is the Administration. I think we're seeing recommendations for increasing the number of troops for 'clear and hold' type missions in the Baghdad area, manning checkpoints, and training and cooperating with Iraqi security forces.
Which, to reiterate, still won't 'win' the Iraqi Civil War, but also doesn't qualify as escalation.
by James Gatz on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 03:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

If you look, the strategic thrust here is to put more combat troops in trouble spots and try to rein in the Shia militias, who we have not really fought against. This would most likely bring a couple million more trigger-fingers (or IED detonators) to bear on our supply lines, prompting some additional reaction in defense.

Since the whole deployment is hopelessly vulnerable from the supply-chain standpoint (no number of HUMVEE escorts will make it secure), the likely response will be large and blunt, designed to deter rather than actually prevent, increasing guerrilla attacks; likely much in the style of Israel vs Palestine.

Once we start blowing up populated apartment blocks with A-C130-fired howitzer shells to wipe out suspected safehouses, it's all downhill from there.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 04:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]