Amoxicllin dosage for sinus infection. Amoxicllin….

The central government doesn’t function in Anbar because the tribes run things there. It was the same under Saddam. They’re not giving it up as a lost cause, they’ve determined the tribes are now sufficiently anti-Qaeda that U.S. involvement is less necessary.

Much easier, cheaper and more efficient to just let them congregate and wipe them out then. We have more than enough people there to do that now if the RoE were sensible.

The only way that I’d agree with more people to guard the borders is more airpower with orders to shoot to kill anyone seen crossing the borders outside of official checkpoints.

Just like our own border, mere manpower isn’t going to do much good without being able to post enough to make a human daisychain around the whole thing. The best way to do it there, (as here), is to remove the incentive for them to come.

In Iraq, you do that by killing the bad guys and making their social, religious and material support system suffer enough that they no longer are willing to risk hiding and supplying the terrorists with their needs.

Just change the rules of engagement and you don’t have to increase the troop levels.

Maybe I’m suffering from too many years (in the old days) of being in Special Ops type units, but I have little faith in using mere numbers to accomplish the mission.

We aren’t fighting the Chinese Army (yet, anyway). Numbers don’t matter at this point in this particular conflict. Tactics and strategy do.

Given the current climate in Washington (and the world in general) even if they did even double the troop levels, it wouldn’t do any actual good, and probably even make things worse.

The troops already there could absolutely crush any resistance that the islamists could bring; If only they were permitted to do so by the politicians.

LegendHasIt on November 28, 2006 at 11:59 PM

Respectfully, I will somewhat disagree. I believe more troops are needed to secure the borders (which are pourous and long) and defeat the insurgents (which are many). However, your argument works brilliantly if employed at the beginning of this conflict. At this point, too many insurgents have entered the country, and too many people have had time to discover weaknesses in our defenses. Now we have them calling for troops to leave Anbar Province and move to secure Baghdad. We need (at this point in time) more troops on the ground to defend the borders and defeat the insurgents at the same time throughout the country. I will, however, agree that the rules of engagement need to be altered as well. Today presents a new battle with new challenges.

High 5 man

Isn’t there a point where ordinary constituents can employ citizen’s arrest laws? Sue for endangering our well-being?

I will always believe that the best way to secure Iraq is by giving the whole place to the Kurds.

(rhetorical question, they will NEVER realize anything even remotely connected to actually winning a conflict that requires more than words)

More troops with the current rules of engagement just means more American targets without the ability to fight properly.

The only way I would support more troops in Iraq is in preparation for going into Iran and/or Syria.

The troops already there could absolutely crush any resistance that the islamists could bring; If only they were permitted to do so by the politicians.

I guess the writing was on the wall but I fail to see what this will accomplish in the long-term:
ABC News has learned that Pentagon officials are considering a major strategic shift in Iraq, to move U.S. forces out of the dangerous Sunni-dominated al-…

Gosh, makes one wonder…

Nuke it from space. It’s the only way to be sure.

mountainmanbob

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061128/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusunrestqaeda_061128164338

7,000 Qaeda members killed or captured in two years Tue Nov 28, 11:43 AM ET

BAGHDAD (AFP) – US and Iraqi forces have killed or captured at least 7,000 Al-Qaeda fighters in the past two years, with 30 “senior leaders’ taken out of action since July.

The news comes hard on the heels of a leaked US Marine report that states US forces cannot defeat the Al-Qaeda-led insurgency in the vast western desert province of Al-Anbar.

“Since October 2004, we have now killed or captured over 7,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists,” coalition spokesman Major General William Caldwell told journalists on Tuesday.

“Coalition and Iraqi security forces have made significant progress in dismantling the terrorist network,” he said, adding that since July some 30 “senior level” Al-Qaeda have also been killed or captured.

Also, in the past two weeks, a series of raids throughout central and northern Iraq netted 11 leaders of the Al-Qaeda-allied Ansar al-Sunna insurgent group, he said.

Caldwell disputed the leaked assessment of the situation in Anbar, which was reported by the Washington Post.

“If anything, there has been a turn of events in the past few months towards the positive,” he said.

Citing a senior US intelligence official, the Post said “the fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality” described in the August report remain true in November.

“The social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that US and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in Al-Anbar”, wrote the paper.

“I was just down in Fallujah last week and that’s not what we saw at all,” said Caldwell, referring to a former insurgent stronghold in the province. “It does not sound correct to me at all.”

The general maintained that political insitutions were still functioning in cities of Al-Anbar and they remained under government control.

Panel members mostly made no comment as they left the Woodrow Wilson Center on Tuesday afternoon. But Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff to President Clinton, hinted at some struggles, telling reporters, “Trying, trying to find a … trying to find consensus. … It goes up and down.”

This eye-rolling quote however, is just nauseating. Gee, seems like they came to power in Washington without an exit strategy for the soldiers in Iraq. And I was sure they had all the ideas.

They’re thinking about it. …

The region is a Sunni stronghold and the main base of operations for al Qaeda in Iraq and has been a place of increasing frustration to U.S. commanders.

This is sad to me. It supports the argument that more soldiers could have made a huge difference. However, finally securing Baghdad would provide a base from which to move forward – eventually securing other parts of the country. If only…