Originally Posted by Iguy
Wow, been away for a bit...its encouraging to see that this thread is still alive. Few personal flames in it , but hey....both sides have strong opinions, thus the emotion I guess.
Ok, ok,........Ganeil and ski360.........in your best opinion.......how many more troops do we send? How much more dollars do we pour in? Time line wise, how long do you think it will take to control all the terrorist activity in the region?
I don't think the Americans want to be there for another 15+ years. So do we invade Syria? Do we invade Iran?
Be really nice to get a British fella coming in here
I think a lot of what you are looking for depends on the Iraqis. At the end of the day they are going to be the ones who have to secure their country. How long we have to remain there in a combat role depends to a great extent on how long it takes the Iraqis to make the political compromises and agreements that will be necessary if Iraq is to remain a unified state. We have to give them the training, equipment, and time
to accomplish that.
I think the current plan has the overall numbers about right for Baghdad but I think al Anbar could probably use one or even two brigades more than currently planned. Within those overall numbers are the Iraqi units and if they prove incapable of performing to the level we anticipate, we may have to send in additional forces to make up the difference.
I would not think that an invasion of Iran or Syria is likely. What may, and I hope would, happen is we would not feel constrained by the border if we believe material support, training, or equipment was flowing across the border. Limited incursions by ground and/or air forces to destroy those sites regardless of which side of the line they are on would be entirely appropriate.