It's "escalation", not troop increases. Let's start using the right

[chelsea0011]

word. Only a few crackpots want to escalate the war, including the pretender-in-chief so that's what we're getting. This isn't a few troops in a selected area for a few months. This is an escalation of the war and one positive result that they can concoct will mean more troops for many more months.

[bananas]

1. He's the escalator

[neoblues]

2. These people (* & co) are clueless...

They couldn't "win" this thing (where "win" is generously defined as merely achieving some kind of political stability that doesn't reject us utterly) if they escalated our committment to 28 million (that's more than one serviceman for ever person in the country and a million or more extra) U.S. troops (we don't have a small fraction of that; and probably couldn't hope to--even with a draft). With that kind of presence, we might be able to suppress the violence better--but it'd have to be a permanent deployment AND would cost untold Trillions we don't have and couldn't borrow. It was just a facetious idea anyway (but I shouldn't even write such things--don't want the idiot in charge to get any ideas; no doubt he's desperate).

[Bobbie Jo]

3. Exactly right....n/t

[chelsea0011]

4. And Snow today called it an increase of "troop strength" Don't

let them get away with the terminology. The media just follows them with the words.

[zulchzulu]

5. Heightening, intensifying, magnifying, multiplying, snowballing...

It's a goddamn disaster feeding on itself and duplicating...