# Bush to announce new Iraq policy Wednesday **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2007, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190 "2007-01-08T19:11:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/61 "2007-01-11T15:09:33Z")
From the speech: > [@](#): > > America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. Wikipedia says [the Iraqi Army has 10 divisions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Iraqi_Army), so we’re going to partner 10 coalition brigades with Iraqi divisions. Are they going to be combat brigades, or are they going to be engineering or support or what? You’d think they’d need to be combat brigades to do any good, but [we only have a limited supply of them](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6777757): > [@](#): > > ``` > * There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About half of them are part of brigade combat teams which are made up, largely, of what you might think of as "trigger pullers" or infantry soldiers. > * Each brigade combat team consists of about 3,500 soldiers. > * When the Pentagon talks about a troop increase, it thinks in terms of brigade combat teams — not in terms of individual troops. > * There are 15 brigade combat teams in Iraq right now and one Marine expeditionary unit. For simplicity's sake, a Marine expeditionary unit can be thought of as roughly equivalent in size to an Army brigade combat team. > * Currently, the entire U.S. Army has 39 brigade combat teams, though the numbers fluctuate. There are 15 combat teams in Iraq now, and three in Afghanistan, which leaves 21 elsewhere. President Bush would increase the long-term size of the U.S. force in Iraq by four or five combat teams. That means under his so-called "surge" plan, there would be as many as 20 combat teams in Iraq. > > ``` That would leave roughly 10 combat brigades to act independently. That may or may not be good, but we’re running into basic force limitations here. Ideally, you’d like each combat brigade to have two years out of country for every one year in the combat zone. Right now it’s running at one to one, and if we wind up with _most_ of our combat brigades in either Iraq or Afghanistan at any given time, they’re going to have to reduce even that one year back home for each year in combat. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/62 "2007-01-11T15:17:18Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Ideally, you’d like each combat brigade to have two years out of country for every one year in the combat zone. [/QUOTE] Why? I mean, are those figures basic military doctrine, or something? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/63 "2007-01-11T15:26:58Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Why? I mean, are those figures basic military doctrine, or something? [/QUOTE] As I understand it (from stuff I’ve read along the way but don’t have a cite for now), it’s because combat is stressful on both men and machines, and apparently a year for troops to just plain recover (and permanent casualties replaced) and equipment to be replaced, and then another year for the refitted unit with new troops in it to train together before returning to combat, is the ideal. Just from anecdotal evidence, it appears as if the more the cycle is speeded up, the more soldiers you have that just plain snap in one way or another. That’s what I got. Not much, I know. ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/64 "2007-01-11T15:53:01Z")
Baghdad can never be stable as long as there are people like al-Sadr with his own armed followers. He’s every bit as crazy anyone else, and has no interest in working with the Sunni population. There should be an investigation into his part in the killings by the Shia death squads and a trial if warranted, which I believe to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/65 "2007-01-11T15:58:29Z")
My favorite part was how he said a victory won’t be like our fathers’, with treaties signed on battleships. No, we’ll just have a premature ejaculation on an aircraft carrier. And FOX’s military consultant finally said the words I’ve been waiting to hear: “The region sits on 65% of the oil supply. We must secured the area.” Finally someone states the military objection clearly. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/66 "2007-01-11T16:39:10Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] My favorite part was how he said a victory won’t be like our fathers’, with treaties signed on battleships. No, we’ll just have a premature ejaculation on an aircraft carrier. [/quote] An amazing bit of unintentional irony on Bush’s part. > [@](#): > > And FOX’s military consultant finally said the words I’ve been waiting to hear: “The region sits on 65% of the oil supply. We must secured the area.” Finally someone states the military objection clearly. I think you meant ‘object **ive** ’, but yeah. And after the way everyone made fun of the “no blood for oil” crowd four years ago! > [@Burton](#): > > Baghdad can never be stable as long as there are people like al-Sadr with his own armed followers. He’s every bit as crazy anyone else, and has no interest in working with the Sunni population. There should be an investigation into his part in the killings by the Shia death squads and a trial if warranted, which I believe to be the case. And there should be a chicken in every pot, a Mercedes-Benz in every garage, and yada yada yada. The problem is, who is there to deal with in non-Kurd Iraq? The Sunnis are, by and large, supportive of the insurgency. On the Shi’ite side, the two big players are al-Sadr and Hakim, and both of them are ruthless, dangerous men with sizable militias and millions of supporters. Any Iraqi government pretty much has to have either al-Sadr or Hakim in charge, either directly or as power behind the throne. Currently, al-Sadr’s the guy pulling Maliki’s strings. It’s a lousy situation, but what’s the brilliant alternative? ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/67 "2007-01-11T16:48:36Z")
The alternative is something we don’t have the balls for. A real occupation, no real Iraqi government and ruthless supression of anyone who opposes our interests. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/68 "2007-01-11T16:50:30Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] An amazing bit of unintentional irony on Bush’s part. [/QUOTE] Or one of the great Freudian slips in political history. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/69 "2007-01-11T19:28:04Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] An amazing bit of unintentional irony on Bush’s part. [/quote] But isn’t everything prepared by writers who should know better? I know what they were trying to do–say that there’s no clear definition of victory, and wars these days are messier. Which bring up the oft-repeated “How will we know when we won?” [QUOTE=RTFirefly] I think you meant ‘object **ive** ’, but yeah. [/quote] :smack: Yep. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/70 "2007-01-11T19:58:35Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] And after the way everyone made fun of the “no blood for oil” crowd four years ago! [/QUOTE] Or **fifteen** years ago . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/71 "2007-01-11T19:59:46Z")
[QUOTE=Burton] The alternative is something we don’t have the balls for. A real occupation, no real Iraqi government and ruthless supression of anyone who opposes our interests. [/QUOTE] Object lesson: Balls are overrated. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/72 "2007-01-11T20:05:12Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] But isn’t everything prepared by writers who should know better? [/QUOTE] The speech-giver goes over everything. Bush himself, to his ever-lasting detriment, coined “axis of evil” after deciding that David Frum’s version, “axis of hatred,” wasn’t strong enough. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/73 "2007-01-11T21:08:51Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] No, “bipartisanship” means the Pubs are going to reach **around**. . . [/quote] …to wipe their arse, where they find Joe Lieberman? Works for me. As for Bush’s “new” plan: :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/74 "2007-01-11T21:42:48Z")
[QUOTE=Burton] The alternative is something we don’t have the balls for. A real occupation, no real Iraqi government and ruthless supression of anyone who opposes our interests. [/QUOTE] So exactly why are we in Iraq, then? If we want to be ruthless to the Iraqi people, we’ve already accomplished that; they’re killing each other in droves. Does your desired ruthlessness have a particular objective, or can we leave now? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/75 "2007-01-11T21:44:33Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Or **fifteen** years ago . . . [/QUOTE] Never _could_ figure out why people were shouting “no blood for oil!” outside a Tsongas rally that year! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/76 "2007-01-11T22:53:34Z")
[QUOTE=Burton] The alternative is something we don’t have the balls for. A real occupation, no real Iraqi government and ruthless supression of anyone who opposes our interests. [/QUOTE] That’s an invasion. I thought we were occupied in a “liberation”. Is that no longer the case? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/77 "2007-01-11T22:56:58Z")
:smack: Invasion has already happened. Replace “invasion” above with “subjugation”. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/78 "2007-01-11T23:49:08Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] So exactly why are we in Iraq, then? We’re in Iraq as everyone knows because of oil interests. We shouldn’t be but we are. If we want to be ruthless to the Iraqi people, we’ve already accomplished that; they’re killing each other in droves. Does your desired ruthlessness have a particular objective, or can we leave now? [/QUOTE] We should leave now. However, the objective is to stop internecine warfare. That’s why people like Sadr need to be put down. The present govenment if you want to call it that is ineffective at best not worth propping up. Sadr city should be bulldozed. Any area that harbors bad guys either delivers them up or is raized. They can’t have a civil war if they’re disarmed and beaten down. We can give the reigns back a little at time. Maybe I’m nuts but I can’t see having more of the same being effective. More kids will die, Iraq will continue on its way to civil war and we’ll eventually leave as most people think we should right now. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/79 "2007-01-12T00:06:56Z")
[QUOTE=Burton] Sadr city should be bulldozed. Any area that harbors bad guys either delivers them up or is raized. [/quote] The Iraqi government is never going to start bulldozing parts of Baghdad, and what you’re proposing would make the civil war situation worse. That would involve the government attacking both Shi’ite militias and Sunni areas. It sounds more like fuel on the fire than anything else. > [@](#): > > They can’t have a civil war if they’re disarmed and beaten down. The whole point is that you can’t disarm and beat them down. Every Iraqi you kill is going to be replaced by another, if not a greater number, because they don’t want the soldiers to be there in the first place. > [@](#): > > We can give the reigns back a little at time. That would require us to take the reigns back in the first place - which won’t happen. > [@](#): > > Maybe I’m nuts but I can’t see having more of the same being effective. I think that’s the one thing everybody agrees on. Except the President, that is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/80 "2007-01-12T00:13:57Z")
[QUOTE=Burton] …Sadr city should be bulldozed. Any area that harbors bad guys either delivers them up or is raized… [/QUOTE] Bad idea. As in very. If Sadr City is populated by Shia civilians who are more or less held hostage to Shia militia, they cannot be held accountable, they certainly cannot be fairly expected to “deliver them up”. Even if, as seems as likely as not, Sadr City is populated by civilians in complete and unanimous sympathy with the Shia militias, they are nonetheless _civilians_. Reprisal on a population is a repulsive proposition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190.md?page=5)