# Iraq: Should the troops be withdrawn or drastically increased? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165 "2007-04-08T06:22:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/101 "2007-04-09T21:03:06Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] If I had stated things with any more certitude, you would have attacked me for being so sure about things. So I couched my statements in qualifiers, and now you attack them because they’re qualified. Nice work… [/quote] Perhaps I might have, perhaps not. I have some skepticism about your ability to predict what I am going to say before I say it. Please submit a Certificate of Telepathy. > [@](#): > > …Except that by stalling it drops the Iraq war pullout debate squarely into the middle of the presidential election season… The President believes in miracles, the President sees a lump of horseshit hit the streets, and peers upward for the ponies parachuting in. He believes that just one more Friedman Unit, and it will all turn around and he will be hailed and applauded as prescient and wise. Thus, he believes that having this debate squarely in the middle of the campaign is great news, as he basks in the adoration of a grateful nation. Batshit pizza. > [@](#): > > …You can stop with the snottiness and sarcasm any time. It just makes you look childish… Thank you for your sage advice. Should I require more, you will be advised. > [@](#): > > …Seriously, please think about the difference between Petraeus’s tactics and what’s come before…It only started to go to hell again after he was re-assigned and the new commander changed tactics… My problem with his tactics is simplistic: he proposes to leave small enclaves of soldiers in vulnerable positions, positions that the enemy can mass upon, attack, and vanish into the population. I don’t think that’s wise. You are free to think otherwise. You claim the strategy is working because that isn’t happening. I suggest that the attacks aren’t happening for different reasons altogether, having nothing whatever to do with Gen Petreaus’ strategic brilliance, i.e., they simply don’t want to. > [@](#): > > …After four years of war and 500 billion dollars, I think a few more months with a radically new strategy is not out of line… No, **Sam** , that is precisely why “a few more months” is out of line. The poor judgement and incompetence of Bushco is on stark display. Now you insist that we trust that judgement yet again, because he has selected a new! improved! tactical plan. If the damn fool had rejected The Plan out of hand, I would have more confidence in it. > [@](#): > > Tell you what…Sign on to the surge plan, give him 'till late summer, and if it’s not working by then, pull the plug. No. Not another Friedman Unit, to be followed by another and another. > [@](#): > > And yes, I’m saying precisely that confirming Petraeus is an endorsement of his strategy. If a general comes before Congress and says, “I have a plan for Iraq - confirm me, and I’ll attempt to implement it.”, then yes confirming that general is a tacit sign-off of his plan. Then why didn’t they say so? Would that have been so hard, if they are in stunned awe at the brilliance of The Plan? Why is a “tacit” sign off superior to a publicly stated endorsement? > [@](#): > > …Why did the Democrats vote to confirm him? For the same reason they’re now voting to cut funding - politics… Indeed, politics, as registered in the most recent elections and the overwhelming opinion of the public at large. > [@](#): > > …Actually, when Petraeus was being confirmed, he was asked repeatedly by Republicans if he could use more soldiers than he requested. He repeatedly said no - it wasn’t about just bringing in more soldiers, it was about bringing in assets the plan called for. That’s what he wanted, and no more… You lost me. If he doesn’t want them, doesn’t need them, why are they being sent? Why unfit and wounded soldiers, if the situation isn’t desperate? Indeed, why doesn’t he firmly reject such a notion? > [@](#): > > …Again, this is a fine bit of sophistry on your part. I never once said that there were ‘undeniable and rock-solid signs of progress’… So, then, these “glimmers” are little more than an interpretive stance, then? Your fine perception can detect nuances that I cannot, because I am blindly partisan and you are cooly objective and unbiased? You object to “solid”, you object to intangible, whaddaya want? > [@](#): > > …You quit when it’s clear there’s nothing else you can do and that your presence is counter-productive… About two-three years ago. > [@](#): > > …Really, I think you are letting your attempts to be condescending and clever outweigh your judgement here. Stop trying to be a wise-ass, and debate honestly… As noted previously, if your avuncular criticism should be desired, you will be the first to know. > [@](#): > > … > Again, trying to put words in my mouth? Please show me where I said anything of the sort. Hell, please show me where I even hinted that the Malaki government’s actions were even based on compassion or toleration?.. “But it may also be that the Shiites are not exactly unified in their desire to crush the Sunnis and control the country…” > [@](#): > > Opinions in the Kurdish region have been changing recently, but only because they, like you, have begun to see the Iraq situation as becoming hopeless. I see. So this is a recent development? Liberal media poisoning their minds? > [@](#): > > …This is the first time I’ve ever heard you utter anything remotely resembling suspicion of your own sources… Then you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve said very much the same thing maybe a dozen times. Has nothing to do with “my” sources, truth is the first casualty of war. I would not, however, try to pass off an opinion writer as a reporter. I scruple. > [@](#): > > …Usually, your own cites are presented not just as the other side’s opinion, but as bald fact, any opposition to which should be treated with derision and mockery… Aw, c’mon, **Sam** , who are you kidding? You’re just as much a slut as the next girl on the street, your fresh Communion dress notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > …What, did you fall out of love with Seymour Hersh so soon? Did he not send you an Easter present or something?.. Beneath you, or ought to be. Work on that, won’t you? And yes, indeed, I admire and respect Mr Hersh, he has a long history of speaking truth to power. How he became relevent to the conversation, as if my admiration for him was a telling point, is a mystery known only to you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/102 "2007-04-09T21:14:51Z")
Here’s [another report from the battle for hearts and minds](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-prisons8apr08,0,7708410,full.story): > [@](#): > > After the Abu Ghraib scandal, the U.S. pledged to speed up processing of detainees, the vast majority of whom the International Committee of the Red Cross said had been wrongly arrested. But as U.S. troops continue to confront the insurgency, the inmate population has soared, to 18,000, from 10,000 in 2003. > > U.S. military officials acknowledge that they are battling militants for the hearts and minds of detainees, but deny accusations that they have lost control inside the prisons, or that detainees are treated harshly. They say they have instituted counterinsurgency and educational programs, and are gearing up to launch a more direct effort to confront extremists next month. > > Iraqi officials also struggle with a crowded system where prisoners can languish as long as two years before getting a trial. But they say the Americans have allowed militants to flourish in their facilities. > > “It looks like a terrorist academy now,” said Saad Sultan, the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry’s liaison to U.S. and Iraqi prisons. "There’s a huge number of these students. They study how they can kill in their camps. And we protect them, feed them, give them medical care. > > “The Americans have no solution to this problem,” he said. “This has been going on for a year or two, we have been telling them.” Does Petraeus have the authority to fix that? Probably not - Bush isn’t going to just let Petraeus open the prison doors, and he’s not going to give Petraeus the resources to try prisoners more quickly, because the resources aren’t there. That’s just one point where Petraeus is working against his Fuckup-in-Chief. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/103 "2007-04-09T22:34:53Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] You don’t have the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about. [/quote] Rather a rash statement, don’t you think? Well, let’s see: > [@](#): > > Petraeus didn’t ‘go along with the surge’. The surge was HIS plan. HE is the one who pushed for it. The surge is required to implement a nationwide strategy that HE started in Mosul 3 years ago. [Nope, even on such a simple matter as that, so easily Googled, you still don’t bother with mere fact:](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19950) > [@](#): > > In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The **so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan,** a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. And you \*still \* need to learn the difference between strategy and tactics. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/104 "2007-04-09T22:54:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] You really have to start reading what I actually wrote. I have accepted that there were no stockpiles of WMD for a long time. [/quote] From the other thread: > [@you](#): > > So the way I saw it, we would either fight then, or pull out and watch the sanctions crumble against Iraq, the no-fly zones become increasingly non-viable politically, and **eventually Saddam would have his way and build up his WMD arsenals more and eventually get nukes**. Then we’d wind up fighting him ANYWAY, possibly right around now, only this time with the stakes an order of magnitude higher. > > **And I still think that is correct**. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I also don’t think I’ve posted a message in the last six months that had anything particularly good to say about George Bush. Yet you still completely and totally accept whatever version of reality he tries to sell you, don’t you? > [@](#): > > None of this changes the fact that I believe you have to stay in Iraq and do your best to keep the situation from exploding. “Keep it from exploding” _compared to what it is right now_? What do you call the current situation? What would an explosion look like instead? Get a fucking _grip_, pal. > [@](#): > > If Petraeus comes back and says, “This war cannot be won”, I’m instantly on your side. He’s already said it can’t be won _militarily_, as you (may) know. Yet all you point to as signs of hope is \*military \* tactics and changed \*military \* leadership. How much longer do we have to wait for you to make the connection? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/105 "2007-04-09T23:16:55Z")
Thanksgiving? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/106 "2007-04-09T23:37:05Z")
Come to think of it, **Sam** , I don’t perzackly recall any particular change in the Iraq situation being offered as a source of hope, however faint, however fleeting. Unless that stuff about Sadr was all of them. Perhaps you could enumerate and specify? Not all of them, to be sure, you’ve got scads of them, no doubt, at your fingertips. Half a dozen or so of your best, there’s a good fellow. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/107 "2007-04-09T23:49:22Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Come to think of it, **Sam** , I don’t perzackly recall any particular change in the Iraq situation being offered as a source of hope, however faint, however fleeting. [/QUOTE] Come now, **luci** there’s [new glimmers every day](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq): > [@](#): > > Tens of thousands of Shiites — a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags — rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug. > > … > > Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman and aide to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, praised the peaceful demonstration and said Iraqis “could not have done this four years ago.” I hear Boylan has been charged with finding a whole herd of ponies in Iraq, so the cavalry can ride in to save the day. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2007, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/108 "2007-04-09T23:50:11Z")
[More from Kagan on his “surge” idea](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773.html) > [@](#): > > Bringing security to Baghdad – the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development – is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail. Let’s assume this particular neocon fantasy is reality based, just for yucks. What we’ve got, what we have left to send, is 20,000, and 6 months, when Petraeus’s promise of positive results comes due. > [@](#): > > Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control. Not to mention that the “Iraqi” forces, with our training and our equipment, are largely the \*performers \* of the sectarian violence. > [@](#): > > Any military strategy must of course be accompanied by a range of diplomatic, political, economic and reconciliation initiatives Which we’re going to start seeing _when_? But wait: > [@](#): > > **Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three or six months would virtually ensure defeat.** _That’s from the guy whose idea this is!_ ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/109 "2007-04-10T01:30:19Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Rather a rash statement, don’t you think? Well, let’s see: > [@](#): > > Petraeus didn’t ‘go along with the surge’. The surge was HIS plan. HE is the one who pushed for it. The surge is required to implement a nationwide strategy that HE started in Mosul 3 years ago. Nope, even on such a simple matter as that, so easily Googled, you still don’t bother with mere fact: > [@](#): > > In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. [/quote] Perhaps if you had tried actually studying the issue instead of ‘easily Googling’ for attack ammo you could throw at me, you’d find that Kagan wrote the strategy for the White House _under the advisement of Generals Jack Keane and David Barno_. It was not his ‘brainchild’. In fact, the team of authors that wrote it included several other officers and about 10 other people. But the main ‘brain trust’ of the plan were Kagan and Generals Keane and Barno. Your partisan cite failed to mention the Generals involved, huh? Instead, it played up the ‘neocon’ angle, and goes on to say that Kagan had never been in Iraq, and that his plan was opposed by Generals who were. This is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst. Ignoring the fact that two Generals helped author it in the context of trying to show that it’s a neo-con fantasy even opposed by military people is highly distorting. Oh, and who are Generals Keane and Barno? Keane is a close friend of Petraeus’s, served under him in Iraq, and was former Vice Chief of staff of the Army. Barno was the coalition commander in Afghanistan. Both are students of Petraeus, and are following the official field guide for counterinsurgency of the U.S. Armed Forces, a document written by Petraeus (and never implemented until now, thanks to Rumsfeld). So let’s rephrase that incredibly misleading paragraph: The report was written by Robert Kagan, under the advice of two Generals who are closely allied with Petraeus, have served on the ground in both current wars (and in fact, along with Patraeus are just about the only ones with a successful track record). The ‘surge’ was proposed in order to implement the counterinsurgency plan that David Patraeus _wrote_, and as your own article admits, had the support from the beginning of Patraeus. So yes, it’s his plan. His friends put it forward, but it’s based on his strategy and had his full support from the beginning. Casting reservations about the plan are two Generals who have no such record of success, and who were actually allies of Rumsfeld and supporters of his ‘smaller, faster, mobile’ approach to Iraq. But man, it sure gets that neocon-hating blood flowing to neglect all those little details, doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > And you still need to learn the difference between strategy and tactics. I understand them fine, thank you. If I get a little sloppy in how I use the terms, it’s because I’m writing quickly and the surge plan is a strategy which calls for the implementation of new tactics. You’re just being pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/110 "2007-04-10T01:51:31Z")
Don’t believe your lying eyes, **Sam** : Exhibit 2,319-A. [Iraqis Protest U.S. Presence](http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2666109n) (video link) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/111 "2007-04-10T01:57:06Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] I understand them fine, thank you. If I get a little sloppy in how I use the terms, it’s because I’m writing quickly and the surge plan is a strategy which calls for the implementation of new tactics. You’re just being pedantic. [/QUOTE] No you don’t, and the implications go far beyond mere pedantery. The military strategy in Iraq is now as it has always been; kill, capture or convert every insurgent or militiaman who takes up arms against Americans or other Iraqis. The surge is just a variation in tactics to that end. To change that strategy, we would have to stop trying to suppress all sectarian violence, and divert those resources into other, more productive strategies. Leaving comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/112 "2007-04-10T02:01:31Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] [Iraqis Protest U.S. Presence](http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2666109n) (video link) [/QUOTE] That Bitch resized my browser window! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/113 "2007-04-10T02:20:07Z")
And since **Sam** doesn’t seem o care much, if at all where his cites come from, as long as they agree with his bullheaded views, I’ll make use of said disdain and post part of one of the latests entries from my favorite, Baghdad blogger, [Riverbend](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2RNFA_enDO204DO204&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=RiverBend+%2B+Iraq&spell=1): > [@Riverbend](#): > > Humanitarian organizations are warning that three Iraqi women are to be executed next month. The women are Wassan Talib, Zainab Fadhil and Liqa Omar Muhammad. They are being accused of ‘terrorism’, i.e. having ties to the Iraqi resistance. It could mean they are relatives of people suspected of being in the resistance. Or it could mean they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. One of them gave birth in the prison. I wonder what kind of torture they’ve endured. Let no one say Iraqi women didn’t get at least SOME equality under the American occupation- we are now equally as likely to get executed. > > And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse. > > **Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost.** You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile. Bulls-eye! Hole in one even. Turn around is surely fair play, right **Sam**? _Nota bene_: It is her and not I who’s calling the warmongers, "morons."Although I must admit she gets no quarrel from me about using said (precise) wording. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/114 "2007-04-10T02:32:42Z")
Couple of points stand out. To whatever extent Mr. Kagan deserves ah, credit, for The Plan, he appears to be having second thoughts. Seems rather more significant to the matter at hand. And there’s nothing especially wrong with Rummy’s “lean, mean” force to conquer Saddam. It isn’t about the force needed to shred a paper tiger, hell, my dog could do that, and he’s drunk half the time! Its about the inadequacy of such a force to contain the situation _after_ Mission Accomplished. And, frankly, speaking strictly as an amatuer, this whole _enclave_ thing sounds rather suspect. Is the idea to offer Custer Clusters of American/Iraqi troops, to be surrounded in potentially hostile territory? I suppose that has some “hearts and minds” potential. But what happens if they get in trouble? Is the plan, God forbid, to respond with air power, which so regretably non-specific. Seems to be a plan that will work fine so long as there is no serious resistance. But if there is, then a civilian residential area becomes a free-fire zone and a lot of folks get dead. Ours, the enemy, and\* lots\* of those indigenous shrapnel absorption units. By the way, **Sam** , have you had time to get that list together? Not all of them, mind, just the top half dozen or so, the one’s that inspire the most hope. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/115 "2007-04-10T02:46:01Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Is the idea to offer Custer Clusters of American/Iraqi troops, to be surrounded in potentially hostile territory? [/QUOTE] The plan is more [Fort Apache-ish](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040369/) than Custeresque. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/116 "2007-04-10T02:55:34Z")
So Rin-Tin-Tin is going to save them if they get jammed up? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/117 "2007-04-10T03:32:17Z")
If you’d like to read a summary of the actual plan, rather than an editorial about it by someone who agrees with you, the PDF summary can be found [here](http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061219_ChoosingVictory.pdf). **elucidator** : Tell you what: You knock off the childish condescending bullshit, and I’ll give you more answers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/118 "2007-04-10T03:42:57Z")
But this is not the way of my people! How about if somebody else asks you? Shirley someone else is curious as to what these hopeful signs might be? You do have them, right, **Sam**? Right at your fingertips, yes? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/119 "2007-04-10T11:08:24Z")
He must, or he wouldn’t have called them “givens”, right? **Sam** , the “editorial”, the “partisan cite” I quoted was **by** Kagan. **By** the inventor of the surge idea. Perhaps that little detail didn’t make it through your fact filter? If you think even \*\*he \*\* agrees with us out here in the reality-based community now, what does that say for where you’ve placed your faith? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2007, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165/120 "2007-04-10T14:46:14Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] That Bitch resized my browser window! :mad: [/QUOTE] If you use Firefox like me, it happens with a few sites. Install this handy little extension [IE Tab](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419) and the problem’s gone. Right-click and open in IE Tab does the trick. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-should-the-troops-be-withdrawn-or-drastically-increased/399165.md?page=7)