Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq

[CptStern]

"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."


some guesstimates (bear with me, math isnt my forte) on what 4 more years in iraq will bring:

to date there's roughly 1800 US casualties in 2 years of occupation ...so 4 years more would bring the total to 5400 dead american soldiers ...the number of wounded would be in the 10's of thousands


4 more years in iraq will bring iraqi civilian casualties to 72,000 dead with another 127,500 wounded (based on the current number of 24,865 dead and 42,500 wounded ...I rounded down the dead figure to allow for discrepancies)



america: do you know what you're getting yourself into?

 

[Kamikazie]

its really nothing new...we have troops practically everywhere that we have had a war...

and that generals name is funny...schoomaker heeheehee : peter griffin :

 

[CptStern]

there hasnt been that many casualties since vietnam ...in comparison operation desert storm there were only 148 american casualties (30-50 thousand iraqi civilans, 100,000 iraqi soldiers)

 

[Absinthe]

I am angered and unsurprised.

That said - With the current situation on Iraq, we should be planning on a worst case scenario. If we want to do this right and get it over with, the "freedom is on the march" pussyfoot idea that everything's okey-dokey in Iraq needs to be put down. Bush is not going to withdraw the troops any time soon.

 

[CptStern]

the 4 year projection is based on current numbers of US troops in iraq ..they could be there for decades

btw how goes your transition to life in the US, absinthe?

 

[SAJ]

Stern, Im puzzled.
Why are you of all people using (presumably) the 25k figure from !Iraq bodycount"? By their own admission, the numbers were never meant to represent the whole picture of civilian deaths. Their point was to make sure that someone atleast made an effort to record and tabulate the losses in some measurable form when the British and Americans famously stated "we dont do body counts".
The only authorative attempt at numbering the dead was published(and peer reviewed) in the Lancet , and their estimate was over 100k dead from start of hostilities , to october `04.
The report caught some flak, from politicians and some obedient journalists, but not from other statiticians(quite revealing in itself).

Your thoughts?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

4 more years being a worst case scenerio, I'd rather things be planned rather than have no contigency.

 

[Absinthe]

btw how goes your transition to life in the US, absinthe?

So far, so good. The wimmin' are attractive, the people are nice...

I just have a fat roommate who disagrees with homosexuality and has an alarm clock that plays the "King Of The Hill" theme.

 

[Kamikazie]

So far, so good. The wimmin' are attractive, the people are nice...

I just have a fat roommate who disagrees with homosexuality and has an alarm clock that plays the "King Of The Hill" theme.

whered he get that?

 

[CptStern]

Stern, Im puzzled.
Why are you of all people using (presumably) the 25k figure from !Iraq bodycount"? By their own admission, the numbers were never meant to represent the whole picture of civilian deaths. Their point was to make sure that someone atleast made an effort to record and tabulate the losses in some measurable form when the British and Americans famously stated "we dont do body counts".
The only authorative attempt at numbering the dead was published(and peer reviewed) in the Lancet , and their estimate was over 100k dead from start of hostilities , to october `04.
The report caught some flak, from politicians and some obedient journalists, but not from other statiticians(quite revealing in itself).

Your thoughts?

because iraqbodycount used actual figures whereas the lancet is a projection ..I'm not going to speculate in the 100's of thousands. You're more than welcome to make your own projection

 

[CptStern]

So far, so good. The wimmin' are attractive, the people are nice...

I just have a fat roommate who disagrees with homosexuality and has an alarm clock that plays the "King Of The Hill" theme.

I guess you dont/cant bring up politics much ..oh and best way to deal with your roomate is use a pillow when he's sleeping then when the deed is done stick a chicken wing down his throat ...you know, make it look accidental ...either that or just tell him you're gay

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

So far, so good. The wimmin' are attractive, the people are nice...

I just have a fat roommate who disagrees with homosexuality and has an alarm clock that plays the "King Of The Hill" theme.

That's badass I want that clock. Simply the best cartoon ever.

 

[Kamikazie]

have to love boomhower

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

have to love boomhower

Bobby: "What are they dad?"

Hank: "Son.. they're hippies"

Boomhower: "man I thought that old dang old Reagan got all them dang old hippies an' stuff." (say that so fast that you can't even understand it)

 

[CptStern]

topic guys

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Um yeah. again, like Schoomaker stated, it's a worst case plan.

 

[Kamikazie]

umm...youknowthatiraqibodycountshouldntbecounted (hehe)

 

[CptStern]

well until the coalition does a body count it's the closest we'll get to an actual figure

 

[Lemonking]

"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."


some guesstimates (bear with me, math isnt my forte) on what 4 more years in iraq will bring:

to date there's roughly 1800 US casualties in 2 years of occupation ...so 4 years more would bring the total to 5400 dead american soldiers ...the number of wounded would be in the 10's of thousands


4 more years in iraq will bring iraqi civilian casualties to 72,000 dead with another 127,500 wounded (based on the current number of 24,865 dead and 42,500 wounded ...I rounded down the dead figure to allow for discrepancies)



america: do you know what you're getting yourself into?

you dont really think leaving would solve the problems:dozey:

 

[CptStern]

no I think not being there in the first place would have solved the problem

 

[KoreBolteR]

another 4 years? i thought it would be 6 or 7...

 

[clarky003]

Ive heard rumours of a 'terrorist' attack expected in the US warned by the FBI.. coincidentally the Bushmen might use that as a springboard to invade Iran aswell , so if that does happen there commiting troops for possibly longer periods than 4 years, indefinately from my perspective.

 

[KoreBolteR]

i dont think US troops shud invade, just focus on saving thier own borders. and homeland security.

 

[clarky003]

i dont think US troops shud invade, just focus on saving thier own borders. and homeland security.

That would be the sensible thing.

but that wont let them Improve global economic strength.

Iran has essential energy resources in this oil hungry world that im sure US companies would also love to get more direct control over , They need the boom for the military industrial complex aswell to drive up the weak dollar, Its all about the economy not about the people, Terrorisim is real but it isnt anywhere near as bad as they floosey it around as, this is more like a war 'of ' terror, not on terror.

Governments have created more fear than any terrorist organisation has... the elite are quite simply playing us like fools, using the weak and scared to obtain their political, corporate and personal goals.

 

[el Chi]

america: do you know what you're getting yourself into?

Stern, you know that I respect you and usually agree with you however on this matter you're sorta off the mark.
I don't truly agree with the invasion of Iraq, nor the way it was handled, nor (entirely, at least) how the occupation has been handled. However, we're there now (yes, us fabulous Brits too <sigh> ) and it would be astoundingly irresponsible of us to simply pull out at a time of such instability and upheaval.
History shows us that it's far better to stay, braving the consequences, and help right the wrongs you made than simply pull out straight away with a goodbye wave and a cry of "Be lucky!"

So many of the countries that used to belong to our Empire are f*cked now because we simply pulled out, our only real contribution, other than their "freedom" was to use a ruler to create new countries completely disregarding tribal tensions, etc. Granted, many of the countries wanted us to f*ck off as soon as possible, and whilst I can't blame them, it would've been far more helpful if we had spent the time and money trying to restore some of that good ol' raping and pillaging we did and help them set up shop, so to speak.

Northern Europe, after WW2 got help from Allied forces in a rebuilding process and it recovered well. Afghanistan and Chile, for example; CIA gets involved in creating a violent problem and then buggers off. Had there been some kind of reign put on those regimes, maybe there wouldn't have been so many atrocities carried out - hard to say.

The point is, you can't create a problem of this magnitude and then shy away from responsibilities.
I am, of course, concerned that the US's influence on the rebuilding process involves rather a few alterior motives, but the chaos that would happen if we just pulled out would be terrible and would probably just end up in another Saddam-esque regime.
And so the world progresses.

 

[Vigilante]

I don't see why you guys keep whining about it, I know the war was a mistake, and I know almost everyone here thinks it is, but there's nothing you can f*cking do. You're not going to change the US governments mind on how they're handling it.

 

[el Chi]

That doesn't mean you can't talk about it. What's the point in being so bloody defeatist that you don't even see the need to discuss such things?

 

[Absinthe]

THe discussion of the past and present is necessary if we're to prevent such mistakes in the future. This defeatist notion that we should end such discussion because "Dude, there's nothing you can do about it" makes me cringe. That's a cop-out for any kind of travesty.

 

[clarky003]

For those who take up the stance that there isnt anything we can do, There is something we can do, there goddam democratic institutions who have sanctioned this war right? if enough of us dispute the war we should beable to stop it right?, It should go down to a vote, theres clearly increasing dispute, In a democratic society the most democratic thing is to call for public poll to decide.

 

[Lemonking]

its not like you can say "stop it now".the war sucks yeah I know but now we have finsih it.
that means staying there build up infrastructure build up a iragi security force and so on......people that think the Coalition forces should leave now are either not very smart
or you wearing a diper on your head and want the US to leave so Iraq can be Country based on wacko religious beliefs which would suck for the people in Iraq and the western world

 

[Kebean PFC]

no I think not being there in the first place would have solved the problem

Well duh. But we ARE there now. We need to figure out how to help them set up a government and keep it there before we can pull out.

Stern, I agree that we never should have gone in. But please stop posting this crap. We cannot leave and we cannot rewind time.

 

[Solaris]

You can leave,

And should.

Your troops are not trained for this, right from the bottom up.
None of the forces are actually.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

When the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we will.

 

[Kebean PFC]

How can we leave without causing more of a problem? The extreemists want us ot, the intrim govt wants us to stay.

And i agree soldiers are not policemen, it was foolish to try and make them so.

 

[clarky003]

Isnt the new Iraqi government made up from US implemented politicians.. even though the leaders are Iraqi's they are in league with the Bush administration's goal economic and political.. that way there definately not going to tell them to leave its set up that way.

 

[gh0st]

good. maybe i'll get to head over there. ill be the young 2nd lieutenant on trial for genocide.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Isnt the new Iraqi government made up from US implemented politicians.. even though the leaders are Iraqi's they are in league with the Bush administration's goal economic and political.. that way there definately not going to tell them to leave its set up that way.

It was pre selected positions before the elections. After the elections they put in their own MP's and leaders for the parliament. You know.. the thing millions of Iraqis were waving around blue dyed fingers in the air about :d

 

[CptStern]

Stern, you know that I respect you and usually agree with you however on this matter you're sorta off the mark.

you're allowed to disagree with me you know

I don't truly agree with the invasion of Iraq, nor the way it was handled, nor (entirely, at least) how the occupation has been handled. However, we're there now (yes, us fabulous Brits too <sigh> ) and it would be astoundingly irresponsible of us to simply pull out at a time of such instability and upheaval.

I never said they should pull out ...my point is that most americans didnt sign up for this long of a commitment ..***msfeld himself said it would be a cake-walk ..americans ate it up and now they're sitting there scratching their heads wondering what went wrong

History shows us that it's far better to stay, braving the consequences, and help right the wrongs you made than simply pull out straight away with a goodbye wave and a cry of "Be lucky!"

well US interventions in south centeal america sometimes took decades ...and the people/government of those countries are no better for it ..in fact one could rightfully argue that US intervention prolonged if not perpetuated the problems

So many of the countries that used to belong to our Empire are f*cked now because we simply pulled out, our only real contribution, other than their "freedom" was to use a ruler to create new countries completely disregarding tribal tensions, etc.

I see no difference in iraq

Granted, many of the countries wanted us to f*ck off as soon as possible, and whilst I can't blame them, it would've been far more helpful if we had spent the time and money trying to restore some of that good ol' raping and pillaging we did and help them set up shop, so to speak.

I'm sure there are plenty of instances but rarely if ever are military incursions beneficial in th elong or short term

Northern Europe, after WW2 got help from Allied forces in a rebuilding process and it recovered well. Afghanistan and Chile, for example; CIA gets involved in creating a violent problem and then buggers off. Had there been some kind of reign put on those regimes, maybe there wouldn't have been so many atrocities carried out - hard to say.

I agree but in many of these cases a despot far worse that the one that was upseated takes the reigns of power ...look to Niceragua, El Salvador, Haiti, the Congo, Honduras etc as examples where long term intervention caused the problems

The point is, you can't create a problem of this magnitude and then shy away from responsibilities.

I'm not asking them to. But mark my words, america has learned nothing for this little nation building excercise ..just a matter of time before the neo-cons set their next sights

I am, of course, concerned that the US's influence on the rebuilding process involves rather a few alterior motives,

with good reason ..the US is privitaizing all industry for iraq ..they've paved the way for foreign owned companies to reap the benfits from doing business with iraq even though the iraqis wont be part of it.

but the chaos that would happen if we just pulled out would be terrible and would probably just end up in another Saddam-esque regime.
And so the world progresses.

it's inevitable ..saddam was the only thing that kept them from each other's throats ...it's just a matter of time before iraq degrades into all out civil war.

 

[Kamikazie]

You can leave,

And should.

Your troops are not trained for this, right from the bottom up.
None of the forces are actually.

if you dont know what the **** your talking about then dont say anything,

our soldiers spend a shit load of their time training to go to war, its not like we pick up people from the street and send them on a plane to iraq and my friend spent more than TWO YEARS training in the army to go to iraq, so STFU

and as much as i hate to say it we cant leave because if our soldiers left then that would make room for more terrorists to come in and take back the country again which would be us back to square one...

 

[CptStern]

if you dont know what the **** your talking about then dont say anything,

our soldiers spend a shit load of their time training to go to war, its not like we pick up people from the street and send them on a plane to iraq and my friend spent more than TWO YEARS training in the army to go to iraq, so STFU

and as much as i hate to say it we cant leave because if our soldiers left then that would make room for more terrorists to come in and take back the country again which would be us back to square one...

no, there were no terrorists during saddam's reign ..ok that's not entirely true ...former US appointed prime minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi was a cia trained terrorist who carried out terrorist attacks against iraqi civilians