I have been hearing "we don't have enough troops in Iraq" a lot recently

[NNN0LHI]

Anyone else notice this talking point being used quite a bit lately?

Well the truth is we have too many troops in Iraq. One US soldier in Iraq is too many.

Don't fall for the line that if we just had enough troops in Iraq we could win this thing because those who are saying that are either lying or have themselves completely lost touch with the reality of the situation.

Don

[Renew Deal]

1. We don't have enough troops

And we have too many at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1903904&mesg_id=1903904

[NNN0LHI]

7. I was reading an interview with a returning soldier the other day

He said an Iraqi woman showed him where dozens of IEDs had been hidden on her street. He was all happy about that.

She didn't show him the one that blew him to smithereens and took off some limbs though.

He still does not know if she was aware of that one or not. He never will know.

That was all I needed to read to make an educated guess on which direction this thing is going.

Don

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Isn't it 160,000 now?

I don't think hey ever reduced it after that election thing.

[genie_weenie]

3. We have *exactly* enough to sustain

this low-mid level insurgency. Which subjects the Iraqi people to large levels of violence and Americans to the constant bleed as has been the case since Summer 2003...

Perfect for continuing to target the true Center of Gravity of the US (or prime weak point), which is the American Populace.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I predict that by Mid October

rove will be painting democrats as blood thirsty war mongers bent on staying at war forever. They should be good and desperate by then.

[bryant69]

5. It depends in what context they are saying it

And not everything is a trick, incidentally.

The truth is that there aer two aspects to the Iraq Debate. Should we have invaded? And did we invade in an intelligent manner? The answer to the first is no. The answer to the second is no as well; even if you agreed with the invasion (which few do), the truth is that the Bush administration bungled it from the beginning. And a big part of that is that Rumsfeld wanted to fight the war on the cheap, unwilling to take enough troops to ensure the safety and security of the Iraqi people in the aftermath of the war.

If we had put a stop the looting right off, and acted as a more fair broker it's possible we would be in a lot better situation today (that wouldn't justify the war, of course!).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[goodhue]

6. Enough troops for what?

That is the counter I use, which forces some thinking about why we are there.

[gratuitous]

8. That's a good answer

Another one is, "So why are you standing here telling me that we don't have enough troops? Why aren't you in Iraq right now?"

[Jacobin]

10. Um, well, er, ya know, um er, well, VICTORY

THAT's what fer!!

(apologizing for freeper response to your question)

[Avalux]

9. Someone said that to me a couple of days ago.

It was a big pharma rep.; he wondered why we don't put more troops in to kill all of the insurgents. Everything would be just fine if we did. :silly:

[underpants]

11. The one I've heard more is "The Iranian people hate their government"

Which is pure psy-ops on both them and us. This is the same line that we heard before the Iraq fustercluck