Bush set to announce troop surge plan during State of the Union Address?; U.S. soldiers speak out
Via AmericaBlog I see that we can add a group of U.S. troops to the growing list of those who oppose Bush's troop surge plan for Iraq. Seems Bush will be announcing the plan to increase troop levels during his January 23, 2007 "State of The Union" address.
Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, told the Associated Press that the situation has gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis, and questioned what good more troops would do:
"I don't know what could help at this point. What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
He wasn't the only one speaking out against the plan either, several other soldiers spoke out as well:
"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."
Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad.
"The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.
But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.
One Lieutenant General slammed the "troop surge" saying instead of more troops, he wants better equipment for the soldiers already on the ground:
During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.
"We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.
One soldier, who had his contract involuntarily extended (indefinitely, I'm assuming), flat out claimed the U.S. was losing the war, and that a troop surge was not a good idea:
Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.
A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."
3 comments:
Too bad the Bush White House cherry picks it's soldiers like it cherry picked the intelligence to lie us into this war...
Bush isn't "interested" in reality....it gets in the way of his plans....
Thanks for posting this....Buzz...
I can't believe this option is sitll being left on the table with the overwhelming number of people in the field, and over at the Pentagon who are coming out against this ridiculous plan.
And don't you love how the Iraq Study Group had its findings A) delayed until after the election, and then B) utterly ignored? After all the hype, after Republicans' exploitation of the very existence of the Study Group as political cover prior to said election?
WWOW?
(that's 'What Would Orwell Write...')
Post a Comment