Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   Increased U.S. militarty presence in Baghdad has radically decreased violence and car bombings. That silence you hear is John Murtha's explanation of how troops could have done it just as easily from Okinawa   (abcnews.go.com) divider line
327
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

8100 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 23 Aug 2006 at 6:12 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



327 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
pontechango
2006-08-23 4:36:44 PM  
Flashback.

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
 
Pelagius
2006-08-23 4:46:48 PM  
Uh. Yeah. Keep up the good work.

[image from img396.imageshack.us too old to be available]
 
bobgilbert
2006-08-23 4:51:56 PM  
JASON DJ FMAM J repeated over and over in that graph....Is that islamic for something?
 
rockhound [TotalFark]
2006-08-23 4:55:11 PM  
bob, I believe those are abbreviations for months, starting with August 2003.
 
bobgilbert
2006-08-23 4:58:20 PM  
rockhound: bob, I believe those are abbreviations for months, starting with August 2003.

Heh, that was a joke, thanks though!
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-08-23 4:58:38 PM  
And how was it accomplished? By diverting forces from elsewhere in Iraq. And what will happen when we rebalance the forces? Bagdhad goes right back to the way it was.

Either put more, fresh troops (and I mean fresh - not recalled or "loss prevention" forces) and get the damned job done, or bring them home.
 
KaponoFor3
2006-08-23 5:03:48 PM  
Diogenes: Either put more, fresh troops (and I mean fresh - not recalled or "loss prevention" forces) and get the damned job done, or bring them home.

Is that like thinking in poker "OK I'm either going all-in here or folding?"
 
Diogenes [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2006-08-23 5:15:43 PM  
KaponoFor3: Yes and no. If Bush insists we remain, then he's got to stop putting lipstick on the pig and face the grim realities he's caused. Personally, I think it's too late to fix it. I'm in the phased redeployment camp.
 
SchlingFo
2006-08-23 5:35:45 PM  
I'm seriously happy we were able to reduce the violence and killings.

I'm seriously sad that the Iraqis weren't able to do it on their own.

With the way things are going, we're going to be keeping a couple of hundred thousand soldiers in the combat zone known as Iraq for quite a while.
 
Bonzo_1116
2006-08-23 5:57:53 PM  
Increased US militarty presence in Baghdad has radically decreased violence and car bombings. That silence you hear is John Murtha's explanation of how troops could have done it just as easily from Okinawa

Mili-tart-y?

Did they let Lynddie England out of the brig already?
 
dameron
2006-08-23 6:01:14 PM  
submitter: That silence you hear is John Murtha's explanation of how troops could have done it just as easily from Okinawa


23,000 Marines prepare to deploy; troop levels in Baghdad may grow by 5,000

...many of its subordinate units, as well as units from the Okinawa, Japan-based III MEF and Marine Forces Reserve, are on the deployment list and will fall under the operational control of I MEF in Iraq.

LOL. That's rich.
 
Bill_Wick's_Friend
2006-08-23 6:09:04 PM  
Did they let Lynddie England out of the brig already?

no. that would be "mili-fugly"
 
LocalCynic
2006-08-23 6:15:32 PM  
So when are the Bushbots going to call for increasing to 500,000 troops so we can do this to the rest of Iraq?

Oh, wait, that would be politically unwise.
 
Kervokian
2006-08-23 6:16:35 PM  
Whack-a-mole, iraqui style. Let's see where violence pops up next.
 
Klyde
2006-08-23 6:18:39 PM  
and when they leave for the rest of iraq. Bushbots are just farking mendacious assholes.

WWW.GOARMY.COM
 
Crown_of_Shoes
2006-08-23 6:19:27 PM  
Localcynic

That's a good point. While it may temporarily help, in Bagdad proper, it takes forces away from other areas, which will no doubt be far more violent than before.

If the only solution to the security problems is tons of troops, then I switch from GENIOUS to OBVIOUS tag.
 
rppp01a
2006-08-23 6:19:52 PM  
I like the part where the generals going into Iraq in 2003 asked for a lot more troops to do the job and were denied. Ooops, guess we needed more troops, eh?
 
spleef420
2006-08-23 6:20:20 PM  
article sponsored by Wal-Mart...credibility shot to zero.
 
skookum
2006-08-23 6:20:33 PM  
Like it or not, what's eventually going to have to occur is America's first wartime draft in over thirty years.

We're going to have to have fresh ground troops, face it. And airpower isn't going to be enough when it comes to possible incursions in Iran and yes, Lebanon.
 
BravadoGT
2006-08-23 6:21:06 PM  
Don't be so hard on Murtha! "Cut and run" might work, right? I mean, if there's one thing that the Islamo-facists respect, it's the enemy giving up and going home....Or maybe we could have a friendship circle, where we all sit around and share our feelings? We simply explain that their God doesn't really want them to kill all of us, using charts and graphs and such.

That's gotta work-right?
 
AdeptusAstartes
2006-08-23 6:21:30 PM  
In all honesty,smitty, this could have been attained far sooner had Bush listened to Generals, and not civilians. Boobies is spot on. MAny generals were sacked or ignored in regards to required troop size for maintaining the peace. Too little, hopefully not too late
 
Petrograd
2006-08-23 6:21:52 PM  
Too bad it is, oh THREE DAMM YEARS LATE .

I was against the war, but thought it could have worked if we had listened to Shinsheki and others saying we'd need over a quarter million troops. All of this is window dressing on staving off the decision Bush's successor will have to make: not if, but when we get the hell out of there.
 
SoupGuru [TotalFark]
2006-08-23 6:22:29 PM  
and if an extra 5,000 troops are necessary to drop violence to a "more acceptable" level in parts of Baghdad, how many more would be need to pacify the whole country? More than we can spare? Probably.
 
Girl_in_Vegas
2006-08-23 6:22:41 PM  
Cool! So all we have to do now is keep lots and lots of American troops there forever.

good plan.
 
AnRk1st
2006-08-23 6:23:25 PM  
Yep, smitty, you got us there. All we need is another 200,000 troops to accomplish the mission and pacify the country. Problem solved, yes siree.

Too bad the President is too chicken to do anything like that, though.
 
thatguyfred
2006-08-23 6:23:25 PM  
Girl_in_Vegas: Cool! So all we have to do now is keep lots and lots of American troops there forever.

good plan.

Exactly!
 
Deltoid P. Hamsterlicker
2006-08-23 6:23:42 PM  
This headline is blatantly ripped off from James Taranto's Best of the Web blog from the Wall Street Journal.

Every afternoon at this time some loser posts several of his links pretty much verbatim.

About half way down...
 
Koalaesq
2006-08-23 6:23:44 PM  
Agreed, Petrograd and Adeptus

Bravadogt

Anyone automatically using "talking points" from the party line without ANY extra original thought has no credibility. Think on it.
 
The Fett
2006-08-23 6:23:46 PM  
What exactly is a 'fresh ground troop'?

Are you talking about soldiers that have never deployed to the region? What makes that wise?
 
Dear Jerk
2006-08-23 6:23:59 PM  
I don't believe anything I hear about Iraq anymore. My hunch, however, is that it's going poorly.
 
skinink [OhFark]
2006-08-23 6:24:18 PM  
Congratulations, Baghdad Bob, your first link on Fark has been approved !
 
jjorsett
2006-08-23 6:24:24 PM  
I think it's time we increase troop strength to 500-600K. It'll save time and money to have them already in the area when we invade Syria and then Iran.
 
nictamer
2006-08-23 6:24:30 PM  
They moved troops out of other places into Baghdad ... it's like a game of giant whack-a-mole!
 
Seshet
2006-08-23 6:24:48 PM  
BravadoGT is here, I guess the Bushbots have arrived (and have the same old talking points by the looks of it).
 
char_boy
2006-08-23 6:25:32 PM  
So 20 people were dying a day, reduced by about 20%. Wow, only 16 people dying a day in violence in Baghdad. That's super!
 
LocalCynic
2006-08-23 6:25:44 PM  
elchip: We find out frequently that Iraqi troops are waaaay below target levels of training... we really need to make an honest and hardcore effort to make sure they're damn capable before we leave.

What happened to personal responsibility? Why are we giving these people a hand-out? We already taught them how to fish...

/insert more conservative cliches
 
Koalaesq
2006-08-23 6:25:52 PM  
TheFett What exactly is a 'fresh ground troop'?

I had some fresh ground troop mixed with spicy chili and peppers in my taco yesterday... mmmm....

/wait, what?
 
nogames2k4
2006-08-23 6:26:27 PM  
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 15 - July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, reinforcing criticism that the Baghdad security plan started in June by the new Iraqi government has failed.

I guess brown people deaths aren't considered violence.
 
The Fett
2006-08-23 6:26:37 PM  
I had some fresh ground troop mixed with spicy chili and peppers in my taco yesterday... mmmm....


Soylent Troops?
 
char_boy
2006-08-23 6:27:02 PM  
sinkink scores an early round knockdown with that one.
 
chechcal
2006-08-23 6:27:41 PM  
why don't we just send in veterans from the Detroit Police Department?
 
skookum
2006-08-23 6:27:59 PM  
We're not pulling troops out of anywhere. If anything, we should increase their number and build more fortifications. It's time we show the insurgency we've had enough. If we're not going to get on the stick and deploy nuclear weapons, then at least a few daisy-cutters should be on hand if needed.
 
Freakman
2006-08-23 6:28:12 PM  
"And how was it accomplished? By diverting forces from elsewhere in Iraq. And what will happen when we rebalance the forces?"

Actually the Iraqi Army took over those portions of Iraq with no increase in violence. Good job opining about something you clearly know nothing about. Makes you look great.
 
JabronieRamone
2006-08-23 6:28:16 PM  
Obey Propaganda
 
BlindMan
2006-08-23 6:28:37 PM  
Hey, submitter we've decided that the war is unpopular and therefore it must be an unmitigated disaster that gets worse and worse in every possible aspect and never advantageous in any way.

Requiring most people to keep BOTH the good and bad sides of a complicated issue in their heads simultaneously is simply making unreasonable demands on their intelligence.
 
Koalaesq
2006-08-23 6:28:52 PM  
nogames2k4 I guess brown people deaths aren't considered violence.

To be fair, America does like CERTAIN brown people. Indians = good; Pakistanis = not good (if our weapons gifting is any indication). I think it's more ARAB deaths that aren't violence.
 
RandomRandom
2006-08-23 6:29:39 PM  
Wack-A-Mole Apply directly to Iraq
Wack-A-Mole Apply directly to Iraq
Wack-A-Mole Apply directly to Iraq
 
SchlingFo
2006-08-23 6:30:23 PM  
TheFett,

Are you talking about soldiers that have never deployed to the region? What makes that wise?

Deployment is EXTREMELY stressful on a soldier. Physically, and, more importantly, mentally. While it would be nice to be able to keep soldiers deployed three years straight, their combat effectiveness goes to shiat.

You're much better off bringing in fresh troops, conducting train-up for a few months (administered by people who have been there recently) and having them replace the outgoing units with a good month to two month overlap.

Optimally, soldiers should only be in a combat zone for one year out of three.
 
theaton
2006-08-23 6:30:57 PM  
Where did all the people come from all of a sudden that don't get jokes in the headlines or the threads?
 
BravadoGT
2006-08-23 6:31:03 PM  
Have I become that famous?

And since when is "friendship circles" and the "sharing of feelings" Bush talking points?

If they are, then I demand a writing credit! Oh, and a bigger cut of that all that oil money we are getting from Iraq...
 
Displayed 50 of 327 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

The next best thing to UltraFark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.