Re: Huge Sale!!!
[QUOTE=88Mariner;527545]adding more troops inevitably means you're going to accomplish more, no? [/QUOTE]
Not inevitably, no. The change in Anbar was the result of having less US troops in the mix, and was put in motion before the surge began. Check out this passage from an article from Time in December 2006, well before the surge:
[QUOTE]It's different in Anbar province, where the presence of American troops on the streets of places like Ramadi actually prompts violence rather than heading it off. Insurgents and fighters from al-Qaeda in Iraq regularly strike U.S. forces in Anbar with small arms, massive roadside bombs and mortars that carry blasts comparable to heavy artillery. Militants come to the area from surrounding countries and elsewhere in Iraq specifically for a chance to confront U.S. troops, which is part of the reason the insurgency persists. It's a dilemma familiar to counterinsurgency strategists: much of the fighting in Ramadi and other places continues because of the American presence, not in spite of it. U.S. commanders tasked with clearing Ramadi, the latest insurgent hub in Anbar Province, aren't looking to assault the city with U.S. troops. They want local security forces instead to retake the city gradually. And in recent months a group of tribal leaders in Anbar Province has been working with U.S. forces in that effort, forming a coalition of sheiks who have sent hundreds of their followers to join the Ramadi police force as well as the Iraqi army.
The Ramadi strategy, which in essence replaces U.S. troops with Iraqis even as the fight unfolds, shows some early signs of success. Despite bursts of fighting in Ramadi almost daily, schools are opening, and Iraqi police are circulating on their own in neighborhoods that were previously no-go areas. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571784,00.html[/url]
We've thankfully seen the success in Anbar continue since that article was written. The irony, of course, is that progress in Anbar is being used to sell the success of the surge, when the reality is that the two are completely unrelated.
[QUOTE=88Mariner;527545]If our army was fully robotic, that is, no human at risk, would we be saying "build more" or "remove more"?
I"m not saying that humans have the same value as a robot, human life is always the highest value...but for the purposes of highliting the difference between dollar-value and value of manpower....[/QUOTE]
I literally haven't got the foggiest what you're talking about here. Robotic army? Sounds like you've been reading too much Bradbury. I don't get the analogy at all. ;):lol:
My point, though, has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of human life vs androids, it has to do with the fact that it is a complete snowjob. A removal of temporary troops is just that, it is not a withdrawl. If he was lying when he initially suggested that the surge troops would be on a short-term basis and he actually intended them to be there indefinitely, I suppose this would count as a drawdown.