War in Iraq - The Coming Escalation

[Cruentus]

No. The 100 Billion dollars to fight the war in Iraq is definately not included in the defense budget. This money is requested under a 'Supplemental' - which by definition is outside the normal budget process.

It has been one of my major arguments for the past four years is that this entire war is being fought outside the budget process. The defense department gets their budget on the military appropriations bill - but they never request money to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan in those budgets.

The Bush Administration treats this war as 'Emergency Funding' - ala Katrina or Tsunami.

This article is rather outdated - but the premise remains - and the author is credible, even while I disagree with just about everything he stands for.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200407201413.asp

Yes, you are correct.

My point, which I did not properly articulate, is that the new plan of sending 20 thousand troops and putting pressure on the Maliki government to do their job is not going to cost an additional 100 billion added to what was already benchmarked for the war prior to his speech Wednesday evening. The new plan is an estimated additional 5.6 + 1.2 (or 6.8) billion to what has already been benchmarked.

I just don't want people to be mislead about the new plan, and how much it will cost.

I agree with you that the cost of the war, to put it simply, sucks ***. The cost of the war (all money that could all have gone to health care, education, environmental aid, economic growth, and so on, but is now basically gone forever) has been my problem with the way Iraq has been handled from the beginning. I knew before we went in when approval ratings were much higher for an Iraq occupation that the price tag for this thing was going to be huge. But as usualy, no one ****ing listens to me. Ah well...

Since we don't have that time machine, I am not sure what we can do now that we are there, and now that we are in this mix up that we in part are responsible for, other then try to end this thing with Iraq as secure as we can make it.

Sure, that means more money in the toilet and more dead, but I am thinking that the consequences of not engaging this new plan and pulling out too early could be worse in the long run.

One critique I have about the new plan is that we aren't able to deploy more forces on the ground then 20,000 of our own. We could use a hell of a lot more, even if they were UN or allied forces at this point. But that, as we all know is not a possibility.

I know one thing is for sure; I'd rather send 20,000 to at least help those already there then pull out troops gradually, leaving the troops that remain with less help on the ground while the number of insurgence and terrorists pile up. We can't pull out troops gradually until the Iraqi government can police their own; that I do know for sure...

That would cost us more deaths then if we boost troop levels, I would think.

 

[michaeledward]

One critique I have about the new plan is that we aren't able to deploy more forces on the ground then 20,000 of our own. We could use a hell of a lot more, even if they were UN or allied forces at this point. But that, as we all know is not a possibility.

I get scolded by some here when I suggest our military has been "broken" by this war. But, if we can't field more than the population of a small town, what would you call it.

I know one thing is for sure; I'd rather send 20,000 to at least help those already there then pull out troops gradually, leaving the troops that remain with less help on the ground while the number of insurgence and terrorists pile up. We can't pull out troops gradually until the Iraqi government can police their own; that I do know for sure...

This assumes there is such a thing as an 'Iraqi government'. I don't believe there is. If you remove the US Military, any semblence of a government in Iraq will disintegrate. Today, only Sadr's seats in the Parliment provide the majority required for Maliki to rule. Without the US Military counterbalancing Sadr, the Mahdi Army would be the strength in the country, but they may not choose to participate in the government.

We lost any chance for success in this mis-adventure when we refused to understand the power of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. When we were unwilling or unable to work with him - because Pearl, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz thought Chalabi (Government in Exile) was a better idea - we blocked allowing the 'Iraqi's to govern themselves'. Recall that before the invasion, the President never made any statements about what Iraq would look like after Saddam was gone - because, he said, the Iraqi's could govern themselves.

I believe it comes down to this:

If - POOF - the US Military was gone from Iraq, chaos would follow, leading to an eventual strongman leading the region. Iraq would splinter into two, or three smaller countryettes.

If - POOF - 20,000 more troops are placed into Iraq (165,000 total), we are just delaying the transition to chaos. Eventually, those troops are going to have to come out, (or be deployed in Iran), when they do, the splintering will take place. All we get from the investment, is more debt and more dead.

Sistani has removed himself from the political arena.
And Sadr has not shown a willingness to be political.
We are not going to be able to put in a new 'puppet' regime.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think its a sound military strategy. I think that its weaknesses are the timing; should have been done from the "get go" and the number of troops. We should have signifigantly increased the size of our military over the past few years and sent a lot more than 20k troops.

 

[Flying Crane]

Michael, much of this, I too, believe to be axiomatic.

The down side to this truth, is that when we leave, the fighting is not going to stop. It is going to continue while the region attempts to find an equalibrium between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds in the Nation formerly known as Iraq. The possible horror, is that the Shi'ite exact genocide upon the Sunni. Can we just sit by, and watch that happen? That is not a question anyone is making, nor an argument anyone is putting forward.

This is exactly where the problem lies. Our being there makes it worse. Our leaving will leave a void and opportunity for other atrocities to take place. No matter how we look at it, it looks like an unwinable situation. We really really screwed up terribly on this one, and hundreds of thousands of people have paid, and will continue to pay the price for our arrogance and foolishness.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is exactly where the problem lies. Our being there makes it worse. Our leaving will leave a void and opportunity for other atrocities to take place. No matter how we look at it, it looks like an unwinable situation. We really really screwed up terribly on this one, and hundreds of thousands of people have paid, and will continue to pay the price for our arrogance and foolishness.

Hmmm... SSDD just gave me a negative rep over this comment. Not sure who that is.

To SSDD: If you have a problem with this comment, why not elaborate a bit and join the conversation? At least aire your position. Personally, I think it's childish to give negative rep, esp. in the Study, as the very nature of the discussions are such that there is a lot of disagreement. If we gave negative rep to everyone who disagreed with us in the Study, it would never end.

 

[rutherford]

I like your comment.

SSDD stands for "same ****, different day."

 

[Flying Crane]

SSDD stands for "same ****, different day."

A-ha. I was trying to figure out what that might be. Didn't quite put that one together.