« Feelings Uber Alles | Main | Utah Stations Refuse To Run Sheehan Ad »

Army Planning For Four More Years In Iraq

This will have the political left buzzing.

WASHINGTON - The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.

Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.

About 138,000 U.S. troops, including about 25,000 Marines, are now in Iraq.

"We are now into '07-'09 in our planning," Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty.

Did you know that our military has all sorts of "contingency" plans on file at the Pentagon? Plans for, say, invading Cuba. Or defending an invasion from Mexico. Or strategically bombing Riyadh. The fact that these plans exist certainly doesn't mean that any of these things are going to happen, but only that our military is prepared in case any of them should become necessary.

Just as, with this plan for four more years in Iraq, our military is prepared in case that should become necessary.

This will be touted, of course, as evidence of Iraq having turned into the "quagmire" the political left has been calling it since rebuilding efforts there began, but that's just not so. Reality, unfortunately, won't get in the way of the self-righteous indignation we'll hear from them via the media, who are always at-the-ready to trumpet and perpetuate distortions like that.

Update:

So it begins...

By Rob Port of Say Anything.


Comments (18)

"This will have the politic... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

"This will have the political left buzzing."

Why wouldn't this have the whole country "buzzing"?

Why must the extreme right make everything we go through in this country a point of division?

This isn't about political points being scored. This is about our brave soliders ( who we will be greatly lacking in four years) to continue to fight a war that was based on concocted lies and ideology. Can you say PNAC? I'm sure you can.

Apparently you have no problem at all with spending 1 billion dollars a week for the next untold years but you blister when someone laid off excepts unemployment benifets.

Why aren't all republicans between 18 to 40 years of age enlisting in this war the so support? Do you think the current recruits in harms way will be able to continue serving for an additional 4 years and more?

May GOD guide our country through this dark period in our history.


It looks like someone forgo... (Below threshold)
Robert:

It looks like someone forgot to take their meds again.

Next time you want to criti... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Next time you want to criticize the liberals who visit this board for not having any ideas or being able to listen to the other side, read the first two posts here. You don't have to agree with judgement day cometh to see that at least he or she makes a point. Comments like Robert's are all too frequent on this and other boards.

That said, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say we have all sorts of contingency plans, like invading Cuba. I don't believe those plans actually call for a manpower buildup. From the article: "Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped." So no, it's not certain we'll be there four more years. But I really doubt he's been charged with making sure we have enough manpower for an invasion of Cuba.

"Next time you want to crit... (Below threshold)

"Next time you want to criticize the liberals who visit this board for not having any ideas or being able to listen to the other side, read the first two posts here."

Gee Chris. All Judgement Day seemed to do was spout off the left-wing talking points of the day (extra points, BTW, for invoking the chickenhawk meme).

I think it's safe to say based on previous conversations I've had and I've noticed others have had with lefties who engage in these kind of tactics that they're really not all that interested in having a real discussion of the issues.

...Or defending an invas... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

...Or defending an invasion from Mexico...

You got me to snicker there. I think we need a new contigency. The current one seems to have a few holes in it.

If you buy charts to naviga... (Below threshold)

If you buy charts to navigate a boat they are almost always US Navy charts. They show good places for troop landing ships, and give all kinds of info for attacking just about every inch of coastline in the world, including those terrorist states on both coasts. That's what the US War college and all the branches of the military do, plan for every possibility, including attacking enemies on our own soil in case that ever becomes necessary. It also helps to know the most likely places where an enemy would try to attack us or our allies. There's always some idot or group of idiots looking for anything to use against us. We need a plan to attack liberals. They've been on the attack against the US for decades. Shouldn't be too hard, first off use the embargo option (cut off the welfare checks) then start dropping chemical weapons (Dial soap and Right Guard). They'd surrender quicker than France and after we shot them all the whole world would be a better place to live. Let's start with JDC.

"There's always some idot o... (Below threshold)
judgement day cometh:

"There's always some idot or group of idiots looking for anything to use against us. We need a plan to attack liberals."

"Let's start with JDC."

Mr. bullwinkle, instead of preaching terroristic threats against fellow Americans why don't you use that displaced "yellow" anger of your's by enlisting today in a branch of our armed services?

Lord know each is under quota for enlistment and can use all the help it can get, especially from chest beating republicans who sit safelt state-side between the ages of 18 and 40.

....or is it just a matter of talking tough behind a pc screen but peeing oneself when actually faced with real danger?

If it's the later many wouldn't be surprised.

Maybe we need to think outs... (Below threshold)
spider:

Maybe we need to think outside the box on this. This past week the NCAA agreed to buy the NIT rather than deal with extensive litigation over their predatory practices. I am not passing judgment here. Both sides were a little dirty. They solved the problem and in the long run everyone will be better off.

I would like to throw out there that we buy Mexico. They have undeveloped resources including oil that we need. It would take pressure off of our position in the Middle East. Even if we spent money to bring them up to our standard of living at least we would own it when we are done. In Iraq we are rebuilding with no hope of recovering our expenses. We say they will pay us when they start producing oil again. Let's face it we will never collect it. Back to mexico. They have a highly motivated labor force that could help drive another generation of phonomenal growth for us. If we acknowledge that Mexico is like a leaking basement we will stop wasting money on trying to patch the leaks and fix the basement. That is fix Mexico and make it a solid foundation for america. It is much easier to protect water borders. We would only have a small land border to the south when we own Mexico. Mexico is also a much easier problem to solve since they use our alphabet and most of us are somewhat familiar with their language. I would rather have my kids learn Spanish than Farsi.

I don't know what a fair price would be but it would be worth it to find out.

If you asked the NCAA they will tell you that better to buy than to fight. It also works for Bill Gates. Everyone come out a winner. It will also keep us from feeling bad or thinking of those dead people in our desert. Then we can stay focused on freeing the Iraqis in that other desert

JDC said:"i... (Below threshold)
B Moe:


JDC said:

"instead of preaching terroristic threats against fellow Americans why don't you use that displaced "yellow" anger of your's by enlisting today in a branch of our armed services?

Lord know each is under quota for enlistment and can use all the help it can get, especially from chest beating republicans who sit safelt state-side between the ages of 18 and 40."

I'm too old to join the military, would it prove my courage and commitment to you if I started stomping the dog-shit out of unAmerican terrosist-sympathizers, activists and protesters? And less not let just our First Amendment rights hinge on our machismo, if you haven't served in the military or beat the shit out of a dissident you can't vote! How would that work for you?

Pinhead.


How convenient. If a libera... (Below threshold)
Chris:

How convenient. If a liberal makes a point that is consistent with the liberal agenda, and the things that other liberals are saying, then he's just spouting "liberal talking points" and not really making an argument. So unless everyone taking the liberal point of view makes an argument that is absolutely unique, and hasn't been argued elsewhare, he's not really making a point and can be insulted and not responded to. Do you really see every conservative poster on this board making a completely unique argument, or can we describe much of what we see here as "conservative talking points?" What a copout.

And for the record, I don't agree with those liberals that say anyone suppoorting the war should be willing to join the army, or send their kids to war. I think it's a cheap argument that doesn't make sense. I do, however, have a problem with right wing politicians who never served denigrating the service of those who did. It seems the right supports our men and women in uniform, unless they become Democratic politicians. Then their service suddenly doesn't count.

Chris, the next time Judgem... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Chris, the next time Judgement day cometh spouts something beyond X-Files type of conspiracy I would be pleased to respond in a civil manner taking a point by point rebuttal if necessary. However, until that time comes, for all I know he/she has probably gone off their meds, hence my original rebuttal.

Judgement day came already,... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Judgement day came already, last November 2nd. Next one's scheduled for 2006. If things aren't shaping up a little in Iraq by then, the Republicans may not get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. I'd be pissed. Plan away, but push hard now.

Tob

1994,1996,1998,2000,2002,2004...and 2006 ain't looking too good either, Chomsky.

JDC, we could meet and see.... (Below threshold)

JDC, we could meet and see. BTW, I don't consider you an American, I don't even consider you to be from part of any species that is anywhere close to being human. I consider anyone who thinks soap and deoderant a terroristic threat to be one of the lower life forms. Face it, someone peed in your gene pool. I'm 46 years old so the military won't accept me. Why haven't joined al Qaeda, are you some kind of coward? You'd make a great subhuman shield. Chickendove?

RobertJDC said "Wh... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Robert

JDC said "Why must the extreme right make everything we go through in this country a point of division?

This isn't about political points being scored. This is about our brave soliders ( who we will be greatly lacking in four years) to continue to fight a war that was based on concocted lies and ideology. Can you say PNAC? I'm sure you can."

PNAC (Project for a New American Century) is the neocon group that did more than probably any single organization to push an agenda that included invading Iraq. Now, William Kristol, one of the group's founders and a conservative I respect, has been very vocal in criticising the Bush administration for its handling of the war. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of conservatives are very vocally expressing their disenchantment with the war effort, as well as the very anti-conservative fiscal policies of the Bush administration.

I take JDC's point to be that thinking people are looking at this in terms of what it really means to America, instead of just reflexively supporting everything the President does. I'm not saying you have to agree with him; I've already said I disagree with the idea that war supporters need to enlist. But where is the "X-files conspiracy theory?" You're the one being intellectually lazy. Rather than engaging on the issues, you fall back on the whole "moonbat" meme. It looks like a cut and paste response to every liberal post. I guess that saves you the time of having to actually read posts that disgree with your point of view.

So answer me a simple question: Which part of JDC's post spouts an "X-files conspiracy theory?"

"I think it's safe to say based on previous conversations I've had and I've noticed others have had with lefties who engage in these kind of tactics that they're really not all that interested in having a real discussion of the issues."

What this really means is "My side is so correct that when I argue with someone who persists in sticking with their point of view, they must be inwilling to engage in real discussion. Otherwise I'm sure they'd agree with me."

I can't say I see a huge surplus of big thinkers on this board. Mostly it's right wingers rehashing the same old points, when they're not being total assholes like Bullwinkle and threatening people. (You're on the Internet, jerk. What a ballsy move.)

I've made several posts on this board, and I've noticed that there's a tendency of people to pick out one point I make and beat it to death, while conveniently ignoring most of what I say. I expect most of you to disagree with me. But I think I make some good points, and I'm always interested to see what counterarguments people will come up with. Instead, no one says anything. But when someone from the left posts something outrageous and easily ridiculed, then everyone jumps all over it. So who's unwilling to engage in real debate?

JDC-I'm too old to enlist, ... (Below threshold)
Lin:

JDC-I'm too old to enlist, but my Godchild is already in the navy. My nephew who will be graduating next year already has plans to enlist and my niece who graduates shortly after will likely be inlisting in one of the armed services.

Not that I buy your "If you support the war, you should enlist.", but I thought you might like to know that those Republicans have or will be enlisting. I wouldn't be surprised if the ranting and raving that liberals have done has encouraged many conservatives to enlist.

Chris How convenient. I... (Below threshold)
Lin:

Chris How convenient. If a liberal makes a point that is consistent with the liberal agenda, and the things that other liberals are saying, then he's just spouting "liberal talking points" and not really making an argument. So unless everyone taking the liberal point of view makes an argument that is absolutely unique, and hasn't been argued elsewhere, he's not really making a point and can be insulted and not responded to

This comes about because that is all that Judgement and many liberals who comment here have to say. "If you support the war, you have to enlist. Bush lied. PNAC is evil. Republicans are fascists. Bush keeps changing the reason we are at war in Iraq. First he said WMD...then he said... Why don't you guys start thinking for yourself, and stop believing everything Bush says. (i.e. if you weren't so stupid you would vote for Democrats.), etc." Those ARE the liberal (far left) talking points. Some aren't even rational, while others state an opinions as facts and no matter the evidence to the contrary it gets repeated and repeated. These kinds of assertions have been refuted and/or answered on this blog multiple times. He doesn't want a discussion. He just wants to be as obnoxious as possible and attack and blame conservatives and he thinks this blog is a handy place to do it.

I do, however, have a problem with right wing politicians who never served denigrating the service of those who did. It seems the right supports our men and women in uniform, unless they become Democratic politicians. Then their service suddenly doesn't count.

I don't quite know what you are getting at here. Just because we support the troops doesn't mean we have to agree with an individual’s political viewpoint and vote for him/her. And then with Kerry there was good reason to question his service and his anti-war activities after he left Viet Nam. The swift boat vets laid everything out and Kerry did nothing to prove that what they said was inaccurate. He could have signed the 180 and let all of the news media have access to his records. He still hasn't done this. Meanwhile Kerry had to admit that he was never in Cambodia at Christmas and admit that a couple of his other stories were not true. It goes directly to his character, and how he may act if he is the president, as does his anti-war activities.

"I take JDC's point to b... (Below threshold)
Lin:

"I take JDC's point to be that thinking people are looking at this in terms of what it really means to America, instead of just reflexively supporting everything the President does."

That is just the point. EVERYDAY I see this from liberals. The assumption is that if we didn't just reflexively support everything the President does, and think for ourselves we would side with the liberals. It's also the condescending attitude of "Conservatives are dumb. If they would just wake up, I know they would vote Democrat, because we're right and Bush is evil." It is a reoccurring theme at DKOS, DU and other liberal blogs, and they bring it over here.

NO ONE that I know of, including myself, who comments here reflexively supports everything the President does. We think for ourselves and then make decisions about what we believe. There are many things I and other conservatives don't agree with President Bush about, and sometimes we even blog or comment about it. I think really though that this is about the war. Many of us do support the war, and liberals would prefer we don't because that is their agenda. And then it's the same old, same old-If you would just smarten up you would agree with liberals, and If you don't agree with us (liberals) it must be because you are dumb or horribly misinformed, or not thinking about it and professing blind support to President Bush.

It's a condescending attitude and one of several reasons I will not vote for a Democrat. Why would I want to vote for a party whose members denigrate my intelligence?

I predict 3 years down the ... (Below threshold)

I predict 3 years down the road the number of attacks will have been reduced to at least a third of the current number due to the fact that we are significanly reducing the number of muslims (that hate and loathe the United States) that attack us. I say muslims because no one else is attacking us.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy