More Troops in Iraq?

November 20, 2006

There is indication today that the US may increase the number of troops in Iraq on a temporary basis. While US President Bush, who is currently in Jakarta, was non-definitive on the plan of action, Pentagon officials may opt for an increase in troops. The idea is to restore security in the country, particularly Baghdad, by bringing in as many as 20 000 new troops.

In their midterm Congress bid the democrats vowed to not increase troops in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party will handle this, if the Bush Administration truly decides to go ahead with a troops increase. With 144 000 troops already on the ground, the Democrats’ may be accused of being unpatriotic.

With violence in the country rampant, security has to be somehow restored and decreasing troops can potentially put American troops in danger. Without a commitment from Iran and Syria, a plan favored by British PM Tony Blair, it’s hard to imagine the right plan for the Administration to take. In fact, a troops increase could be a last attempt at a decisive victory, which the Bush Administration has been thirsting for a while.

It is clear that within the next twelve months or so the US will decrease their troops in Iraq, but the next few months can go either way.

The most interesting story to follow is the way the Democrats will be handling it.


6 Responses to “More Troops in Iraq?”

  1. unitedcats Says:

    20,000 additional troops will allow them to “restore security” in Iraq? Is this a joke? And where are these troops going to come from? The Coast Guard? Watching Washington debates about Iraq is starting to become about as reality oriented as seeing people arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. There aren’t going to be any decisive victories in Iraq, at least not for Bush.


  2. Ya..that’s a good question. All of that.

    The Iraq debates, if you look at them, they’re so all over the place, which shows how little the administration had planned. How few viable plans there are right now. And how there is no strategy right now whatsoever.


  3. causauk Says:

    I think that it is a safe bet to say troop levels will be up. It is an even safer bet to say the number of advisers to the Iraqi Army will be doubled.

  4. lightcontrast Says:

    How long is a “temporary basis?” Is 20,000 even enough?

  5. unitedcats Says:

    If the 20,000 are like, really studly I suppose. Can we have Steven Segal cloned? “Temporary basis” means “until Bush is safely out of office and this mess can be pawned off on the Democrats.” jmo Doug

  6. Doug,

    I still think we’ll see a troops withdrawal/redeployment under the Republicans. For one, there’s always the wonderful idea of going into Iran.

    But on a more serious note, it really doesn’t seem like there is much of a plan beyond another 12-14 months and there has been more and more talk of leaving security up to Iraqi forces. And as we’ve discussed in the other thread here (and I really was thinking about it all day, while at work, so I had to post a blog entry on it), the idea of an Iraq-Iran-Syria participation is becoming more of a reality. If the three truly participate, then stability will be possible, especially if the US commits to a troops withdrawal.

    After all, despite its intricate underground system (which makes it hard to strategically bomb), Iran does not sit well with the idea of the presence of US troops so nearby and it is in its interests to see those troops out of the area. Because, actually, there always is the option of redeploying into Iran.

    Who knows. A few thoughts, I guess.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: