Rummy: increasing US troops in Iraq, would embolden the extremists

[sabra]

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2006/12/11/donald_rumfeld_w_cal_thomas_transcript

<snip>

{Rummy}

People who argue for more troops are often thinking World War II and theWeinberger Doctrine, which is valid in a conflict between armies, navies andair forces. The problem with it, in the context of a struggle againstextremists, is that the greater your presence, the more it plays intoextremist lies that you're there to take their oil, to occupy their nation,stay and not leave; that you're against Islam, as opposed to being againstviolent extremists.

People who argue for more, more, more, as I would in a conventionalconflict, fail to recognize that it can have exactly the opposite effect. Itcan increase recruiting for extremists. It can increase financing forextremists. It can make more persuasive the lies of the extremists that weare there for the oil and water and want to take over their country. Thereis no guidebook, no map that says to Gen. Abizaid or Gen. Casey what theyshould recommend to the secretary of defense or the president as to numbers.It is a fact, whether or not it flies in the face of the popular media, thatthe level of forces we have had going into Iraq, and every month thereafter,are the number of troops the commanding generals have recommended. I havenot increased them or decreased them over the objections of any general whois in a position of authority with respect to that decision.

Is it the right number? I don't know. Do I have a heckuva lot of confidencein those two folks? Yes. Do I think it's probably right? You bet, or I wouldhave overruled it, or made a different recommendation to the president. Butthey have to walk that line; they have to find that balance.

There are two centers of gravity. One is in Iraq and the region; the otheris here. The more troops you have, the greater the risk that you will beseen as an occupier and that you will feed an insurgency. The more troopsyou have - particularly American troops, who are so darn good at what theydo, the more they will do things and the more dependent the Iraqis willbecome and the less independent they will become. If there's a ditch to bedug, an American does not want to sit down and teach an Iraqi how to dig theditch. He'll go dig the dad burn ditch. But that is not what the task is.The task is to get the Iraqis to dig the ditches.

:crazy:

[applegrove]

1. By that logic... USA should leave with all their troops overnight and

Iraq will wake up to peace.

[BOSSHOG]

2. So removing all our troops would make them downright docile!!

Carrying rumsfeld's logic to that end of the spectrum I would tend to agree with him. The only thing our kids are doing in Iraq is getting wounded or killed while our Army Equipment is being slowly filed away in the Iraq sand. Its like rubbing sand paper continuously. But what the fuck, just as long as no "conservative" has to get their hands dirty.

[Javaman]

7. I can see the headlines now!!

Troops leave, Iraq takes massive nap!

So lets see, we add troops they get pissed, we remove troops they get pissed. So I guess moron*, rumspuke and the other room full of dopes were right when then sent in "just the right amount of troops" to do the job.

Hey rummy, it's a bit past that six month mark you told us about.

I'm so glad that pig is out, now on to the war crimes trials!!

[Reterr]

3. Isn't that the opposite of what he has always said

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. No, it's the Rumsfeld Plan.

He's been for controlling Iraq with a small number of US troops. Our troops are so technologically advanced that it's bound to work any day now.

[phantom power]

5. What you need to understand is, that we have *exactly* the right number now!

If we add or remove any troops, it will Ruin The Plan!

[Reterr]

6. snicker....

adding or removing will add known unknowns or unknown knowns or whatever