<p>That’s interesting, but not a definitive poll, unfortunately:</p>
<p>the poll is of
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also read this (did we read the same article?):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole.”</p>
<p>Yup. They said more likely to be older, more experienced, and more likely to be officers.</p>
<p>"Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. "</p>
<p>Yup. And the actual poll numbers are 38%. But doesn’t matter. MORE than HALF think we do NOT need more troops in Iraq.</p>
<p>Yup. They said more likely to be older, more experienced, and more likely to be officers SUBSCRIBERS TO THE MILITARY TIMES.</p>
<p>Yup. And the actual poll numbers are 39% who think that we need more troops in AFGHANISTAN.</p>
<p>Gotta love Joe Biden. Obama is “bright and clean?” As opposed to what?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.observer.com/20070205/20070205_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.html[/url]”>http://www.observer.com/20070205/20070205_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually of those who expressed an opinion 49% said that they needed more troops and only 17% agree with the mini/allmusic/Murtha/Pelosi view of complete withdrawal.</p>
<p>but what do they know?</p>
<p>Here is more support for the idea that the Democrats are now against more troops in Iraq for political purposes. John Kerry, of course, was “for” the surge before he was against it. <a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm</a>
How can anyone take these guys seriously?</p>
<p>VoxDei: “You never made any point when you cited the article - just that it was interesting. Then, when I responded, you commented that I missed your point completely when you never made any point to begin with.”</p>
<p>Oh, stupid me. I assumed that the point was made by the article itself. I didn’t realize I needed to provide an explanation to go along with it.</p>
<p>SJ, many of the generals, and others in the administration, called for more troops at the beginning of the invasion, before there was an insurgency or civil war. More troops then might have made a huge difference. </p>
<p>Now…we’re just throwing a handful of water on a wildfire.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html</a></p>
<p>FAILURE TO PUT ENOUGH TROOPS ON THE GROUND</p>
<p>Secretary of State Colin Powell: I Wanted More Troops Before the Invasion. Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell advised President Bush before the Iraq war to send more troops to the country but the administration did not follow his recommendation, Powell said. “I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops,” Powell said. “The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered…A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate.” [cbsnews.com, 4/30/06]</p>
<p>General John Abizaid: More American Troops May Be Needed. “I think we will need more troops than we currently have to secure the election’s process in Iraq that will probably take place in the end of January, but it is our belief that those troops will be Iraqi troops, and they may be additional international troops that arrive to help out as well as part of the United Nations’ mission, and so I don’t foresee a need for more American troops, but we can’t discount it.” [CNN, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” 9/23/04]</p>
<p>April 2004: Abizaid Requested More Troops. “U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid has requested more forces for Iraq and was discussing plans Friday with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a senior defense official confirmed. Abizaid told reporters in Iraq he wanted several thousand more troops, and indicated they may come from the 3rd Infantry Division, which only returned from its last Iraq deployment six months ago.” [Washington Times, 4/10/04]</p>
<p>June 2004: CentCom Asked For 25,000 More Troops. The Baltimore Sun reported, “The U.S. Central Command has informally asked Army planners for up to five more brigades - about 25,000 troops - to augment the American force of 138,000 soldiers and Marines now in Iraq, military officers and Pentagon officials said.” [Baltimore Sun, 6/23/04]</p>
<p>Pengaton Official: Rumsfeld Not Interested In Any Requests For More Troops From Abizaid. “The Pentagon official said Abizaid, who is regarded as more independent than his predecessor, Gen. Tommy Franks, has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers because President Bush has publicly pledged to bring 25,000 troops home from Iraq before the November elections. ‘Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn’t interested in getting any requests for more troops,’ the Pentagon official said.” Rumsfeld repeatedly said he thought no increase in end-strength was needed. [Seattle Times, 4/13/04; Weekly Standard, 1/17/05]</p>
<p>General Eric Shinkseki: More Troops Needed; Rumsfeld And Wolfowitz Scoffed At Estimate. Both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz took exception with an estimate for postwar troop requirements from Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army’s chief of staff. Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” could be necessary. Rumsfeld, speaking to reporters yesterday at the Pentagon, said he believed Shinseki’s estimate “will prove to be high,” but declined to say by how much. Wolfowitz was far more blunt in testimony Thursday before the House Budget Committee when asked to comment on Shinseki’s estimate. “Way off the mark,” he said. [Washington Post, 3/1/03]</p>
<p>General Anthony Zinni Called For A Military Plan That Would Have Provided More Troops In Iraq. Former Head of U.S. Central Command and Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni identified ten things that went wrong in Iraq. “The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground. There were a lot more troops in my military plan for operations in Iraq. Those extra divisions we had in there were not to defeat the Republican Guard, they were in there to freeze the security situation because we knew the chaos that would result once we uprooted an authoritarian regime like Saddam’s.” [Zinni, Virginian-Pilot, 5/23/04]</p>
<p>Shinkseki’s estimate is remarkably similar to that of Petreaus, except that Petreaus believes there is a need for 250,000 in Baghdad alone, so his estimate of need is probabky larger.</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>sjmom:</p>
<p>See the graph at the top of page 20 of this week’s Brookings Institute Iraq Index report to understand how events on the ground have accelerated past any assessements made in June 2006:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.brookings.org/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf[/url]”>http://www.brookings.org/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf</a></p>
<p>"MIGRATION INDICATORS
May/June 2006
New Passports Issued Since August 2005 More than 2 million
Letters Issued by Ministry of Education to Release
Academic Records to Other Countries
39,554
Percent of professional class that has left since 2003 40%
November 2006
Iraqi Refugees living abroad 1.8 million
Iraqi Refugees in Syria 600,000 – 1 million
Iraqi Refugees in Jordan 700,000 – 750,000
Iraqi Refugees in Egypt, Lebanon, Iran 175,000 – 200,000
Refugees Seeking Asylum in Europe (first half of 2006) 8,100</p>
<p>“Stay the course.”</p>
<p>What are you talking about? They’ve never been “stay the course.” Didn’t you hear W say so?</p>
<p>Let’s just imagine: an aggressive hostile invader who doesn’t speak our language and knows absolutely nothing about our culture comes and occupies the United States. In four years, 25 million people become refugees elsewhere, including 40% of all professionals - doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, business leaders. Then a government is “elected” that is supposed to function with 40% of its best and brightest gone, infrastructure in shambles, and Washington, DC a daily war zone - and then when it doesn’t go well, the invader blames THEM!</p>
<p>“Let’s just imagine: an aggressive hostile invader who doesn’t speak our language”</p>
<p>Seriously. Imagine Arab guys in turbans patrolling suburban streets in Kansas. We would NEVER accept their authority. It wouldn’t matter how heinous an American government they’d overthrown. It wouldn’t matter whether they were ostensibly there to help us. We’d be suicide-bombing them inside of a week if we thought it would get rid of them faster. And we’d be killing each other right and left if we suspected we had collaborators in our midst.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure about that? Even Jerry Falwell and his “fundie” government?</p>
<p>Doo</p>
<p>I don’t agree with much that you’ve said but if you say that “you’re stupid” well OK…</p>
<p>Oh, Vox. Such a wag you are. What makes me “stupid” is that I keep engaging in this inane argument over nothing with you. Alas.</p>
<p>“Are you sure about that? Even Jerry Falwell and his “fundie” government?”</p>
<p>Heck yeah! Suppose Nancy Pelosi were president and her clones filled every major federal seat. Are you telling me you’d welcome the alternative of Arabic-speaking Muslim men with guns patrolling your street?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, our august legislators want to impose “benchmarks” on a sovereign, independent government without their consent, without it being debated in their legislative bodies, without any contractual or treaty obligations of our own. More of the “Iraqi government” charade.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong - I’m FOR benchmarks - for the U.S. military. Begin leaving on Monday, with a phased withdrawal, to end on Friday.</p>
<p>I think I am on the same page as InterestedDad. I’m fascinated by the constitutional battle going on between Bush and the Congress, a battle that the media has responded to with a resounding “ho-hum.” It’s my guess that Bush-Cheney meant to initiate this confrontation to restore what they believed to be a decline in presidential power. In the Republican Congress, the Senators and Representatives simply went along towing the party line. Now with Democrat control, Republican war horses have pulled out their dusty and dog-eared copies of the U.S. Consitution and feel empowered to openly question the President’s Iraq policies (something they should have done long ago). Bush has finally annoyed the Republican War horses in Congress so much that he cannot expect their support any longer. The exception of course is McCain, for obvious reasons.</p>