7,000 more troops.
By on Mar 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
7,000 more troops.
Pentagon officials yesterday told a Senate committee that the President’s escalation in Iraq will require 28,500 troops, 7,000 more than Bush has requested. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated “that as many as 28,000 extra troops would be needed to support the escalation.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just where the hell are these extra people going to come from?
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 amThe lies just continue to spew out of the Bush Crime Family and not one of the MSM says a thing about it. Too bad Bill Clinton isn’t still President so the press could be examining every aspect of the war and the lies on which its based.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 amBush and Cheney will have a leadership role in Hell waiting for them. They can sit right next to Reagan and Hitler. these people make me SICK!!
Where is that jury??
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 amScooter, don’t forget Nixon
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 amWill the pusillanimous Democrats begin to finally stand up to the Bush administration or will they continue to try to pass non-binding resolutions? It is not very encouraging when one of the leading Democrats, Barack Obama , feels conpelled to apologize for stating an obvious truth, that American deaths in Iraq have indeed been wasted. As one of the representatives of Gold Star Families Speak Out had attempted to tell Obama, those deaths were unnecessary and wasted, but apparently the last thing the Democrats wish to exhibit is the courage of their convictions.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 amstop sitting around get the friigin troops in and out again and leave Iraq alone ….6 months eh …..youve had 4 months already now get the friggin war to a friggin end NOW
stop waiting for the oil contracts to be signed and just get out
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 amBush lied about number of troops because escalating the Iraq Fiasco War means sending more troops without an end > perpetual warfare.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:45 amApparently, the Dems are relunctant to cut funding for the troop surge because they are afraid Bush will “play chicken” and send the troops anyway without the needed armor, weapons and protective gear they need. If the truth be known, troops are being sent without proper training anyway and I don’t know if they ever had the gear and protective gear they needed since day one. What is the alternative; to let Bush have his way because we are afraid of what he may do? I think we should cut funding and be done with it. Never let a madman have the upper hand. We cannot argue with a sociopath, nor should we try. Cut funding, commence with impeachment and get the bastard out of the White House, for Christ’s sake. Write your Congresspeople and hastle them. Be a pain in thier respectives asses, until something is done.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 amScooter, don’t forget Nixon
Comment by Quadrajet
If I were God,I’d consider redeeming Nixon and Reagan,just to be sure there is room in Hell for Bush and Cheney/et.al..
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amBush lied….. What’s else is new?
Do we even have that many troops left? I don’t think people are still signing up to go.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 amFine. He can send as many troops as he wants as long as he can answer three questions:
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 am1. Who is the enemy these troops will be fighting? I spent 18 months in Iraq not knowing the answer to that one.
2. What is the mission, and how will more troops be able to accomplish that mission?
3. How will these troops know when victory has been achieved and it is time to come home? If we don’t know who the enemy is, or what the mission is, and we don’t have a definition of a military victory, then how will sending more troops help?
…and we don’t have a definition of a military victory, then how will sending more troops help?
Comment by Chris
DUH;You got me there.
GWB..
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:04 amChris > the invasion and occupation of Iraq has always been to secure and control the oil fields in that country. The so-called mission is to guard the oil infrastructure till every drop of oil is sucked out of the ground, so 20 to 30 years of more death and destruction. US soldiers should be told they are dying so Big Oil companies like Chevron can get more profits.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 amI’m surprised that everyone is rejecting the surge so handily. Combined with a new battle plan sending additional troops will help to accomplish the mission. No definition of military victory? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the mission is to facilitate the provision of relative security for a period of time (say a year) so that Iraqis feel more confident in their government, Iraqi security forces are better trained to fill in for redeployed US troops, and so a political settlement between Shia and Sunni can be attempted.
Sure, bitch at Bush all you want, fine and dandy but try and read between the lines on some of this stuff. We’re there now (due to Bush’s idiocy) and we have a mission to carry out. Stop complaining about Bush and the right and start supporting a plan for relative success. Hint: It’s not “cut funding” or “whine until we’re blue in the face.”
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 amComment by Dissident — March 2, 2007 @ 11:17 am
The surge is nothing new. We have tried the same thing 3 times before, and it backfired on us every time. Every General has said that more troops means more violence, not less. We have proven it. I was there for Operation Desert Scorpion Fallujah in ‘04. We have done the same thing two more times since then. As for a political settlement between the Shia and Sunni … good luck, we’ll be there for generations waiting for that.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 amThese numbers have been all over the place. At one point, I read the actual troop ’surge’ was 48,000. Where is the truth?
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 amComment by Chris — March 2, 2007 @ 11:24 am
I agree with you that we have tried sending more troops before and it failed, but perhaps as someone that was there for 18 months you can shed some light on whether the new, more British tactics of expanding FOBs outward to better integrate with the population will help the mission. While I agree that a Shia-Sunni overall accord or memo of understanding won’t be possible from a religious perspective I guess I’m looking for the once-relatively secular Iraqi people to go back to that mindset. If they no longer have to choose a side because things are better secured, I think that there would be significant domestic pressure for an end to hostilities between the groups. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking at this juncture, but I can’t seem to think of another alternative that wouldn’t have us back there in about five years anyway.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 ammore British tactics of expanding FOBs outward to better integrate with the population will help the mission.
17.
Comment by Dissident — March 2, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Bad idea. I was at FOB Italy near Dogwood, just outside of Baghdad. For one, American troops can’t stand the Iraqis. Any of them. We never know who the enemy is from one week to the next, and frequently get shot at by our “allies”. Any integration with the population will be a bad thing.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 amWHAT? This administration intentionally understating the risks, resources, and time required to achieve its objectives in Iraq? They couldn’t possibly be so irresponsible, deceitful or incompetent. Could they?
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 amhttp://www.vcnv.org/ project/ the-occupation-project
The Occupation Project
THE OCCUPATION PROJECT is a new effort initiated by UFPJ member organization Voices for Creative Nonviolence. The plan is to unfold a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign begins with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.
Several UFPJ member groups, including CodePink, Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, After Downing Street, and a host of local groups from North Carolina to Alaska are all involved in this effort. United for Peace and Justice, as a national coalition, has also endorsed The Occupation Project.
Your group can find out more about this initiative, including how you can get involved, by visiting their website. Or you can contact the organizers via phone at 773-878-3815 or via email, occupationproject at vcnv.org
—————————————————————–
And if you haven’t already:
Click here and sign Peace Action’s “No War with Iran!†petition today!
http://www.peace-action.org/Iranpetition.html
This petition to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice rejects any U.S. military action against Iran and demands direct negotiations. Copies will go to Chairs of the Senate
——————————————————————–
http://www.vcnv.org/ project/ the-occupation-project
The Occupation Project
THE OCCUPATION PROJECT is a new effort initiated by UFPJ member organization Voices for Creative Nonviolence. The plan is to unfold a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign begins with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding.
Several UFPJ member groups, including CodePink, Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, After Downing Street, and a host of local groups from North Carolina to Alaska are all involved in this effort. United for Peace and Justice, as a national coalition, has also endorsed The Occupation Project.
Your group can find out more about this initiative, including how you can get involved, by visiting their website. Or you can contact the organizers via phone at 773-878-3815 or via email, occupationproject at vcnv.org
—————————————————————–
And if you haven’t already:
Click here and sign Peace Action’s “No War with Iran!†petition today!
http://www.peace-action.org/Iranpetition.html
This petition to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice rejects any U.S. military action against Iran and demands direct negotiations. Copies will go to Chairs of the Senate
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pmhttp://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3456
————————————————————–
War Resisters — Support the Troops Who Refuse to Fight
The Army has re-filed charges against Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, following mistrial. Find out the latest developments in his case and how you can help.
It takes courage to say that you will not fight — especially if you are a soldier. As more members of the U.S. military step forward for peace, the peace movement must step forward to support them.
Large numbers are now refusing to serve: The Department of Defense estimates that there are about 8,000 AWOL service members. The GI Rights Hotline http://www.girights.objector.org/
(800-394-9544) is currently receiving about 3,000 calls a month.
Most importantly, a growing number of soldiers are speaking out, against the illegality and immorality of the Iraq war and the orders they are being told to carry out. These brave men and women are risking jail time and their futures to stand up against the war. Click here http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3456 to find out how you can support them.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm—————————————————————–
Quadrajet,
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pmYou’re right, I forgot Nixon. Sorry
And by this time next year, the number will be 280,000 troops and the Bushites will be spinning it as, well, you missed the number of zeroes we needed./..
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 pmRachel
Very well said. It has been a mystery to me why Think Progress, supposedely a liberal web site, refuses to acknowledge the existence of Lt. Ehren Watada, one of the most vociferous critics of the war/occupation in Iraq. Lt. Watada has been one of the most courageous voices to speak out against U.S. policy in Iraq but yet Think Progress, to the best of my knowledge, has not devoted one post in support of what the lieutenant has done. The best way to stop an illegal war is to have it happen from within [as demonstrated in the 2006 documentary Sir! No Sir!, which focused on the GI resistance during the Vietnam War] and the lieutenant is doing his best to make this a reality. But there is a better chance of this happening if the liberal blogs will [finally] lend their support to the cause that he has undertaken.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pmPoor soldiers, they’re going be sent to the front time and time again because of Bushland Uber Allies’ STUPIDITY, GREED, MALICIOUSNESS, UNCARING SOCIOPATHIC MINDSET, LACK OF COMPASSION, and PURE EVIL! DEATH TO Bushland Uber Allies!!!!!
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmgovernment grants for woman starting a business
Hello. I just dropped by. I’ve gotta say, you have I like your information. Come check out my government grants for home owner webpage.
April 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm