Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm still not clear on a) what the specific action of bringing in 30,000 more troops will bring, and b) what the ultimate goal is (and there's also the question of c) what we're willing to live with if b) cannot be met for political, strategic, or practical purposes.)
|
I watched the Senate Hearings on CSPAN over the weekend with Gates and the Four Star Marine. I have to say, I support the administration, and what they said made sense to me but I couldn't believe how accommodating the Senators were. The freshman senator from Virginia was almost obsequious to the two of them. I was expecting some real fireworks, but I guess next time I need to watch the foreign affairs committee to see some real debate.
Anyway, the argument seemed to be that the Iraqi government was not ready to take charge of Baghdad, but that they would be ready in like six to nine months. In order to give them a fighting chance when they took over, it would be a lot better if Baghdad was more pacified when we turned it over. According to these guys, we could do that if they had those troops. They said they didn't want to pull the troops out of other parts of Iraq because they wanted to keep those places at the status quo, and that status quo was OK for when those places were turned over to the government, but Baghdad needed to be more pacified before we turned it over.
Both these guys said that they (and they also spoke for Patreus) could get the job done in Baghdad with those troops.
Did I miss anything?
Threaded Mode