Pentagon Will Present Plan to Send Thousands More Troops to Middle East,

[h=1]Pentagon Will Present Plan to Send Thousands More Troops to Middle East,[/h]
[url]http://time.com/5594086/pentagon-troops-middle-east-iran/

[/URL](WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon on Thursday will present plans to the White House to send up to 10,000 more troops to the Middle East, in a move to beef up defenses against potential Iranian threats, U.S. officials said.


The officials said no final decision has been made yet, and it’s not clear if the White House would approve sending all or just some of the requested forces. Officials said the move is not in response to any new threat from Iran, but is aimed at reinforcing security in the region. They said the troops would be defensive forces, and the discussions include additional Patriot missile batteries, more ships and increased efforts to monitor Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(mine)

It looks like this is the doings of John Bolton, OR, it could be Trump's method of deflecting the attention of the people in the US away from investigations into his crimes. Is a war with Iran worth it to Trump? Sure, it is.

Ten thousand troops will be there to protect our bases or missiles or whatever, but if the US sends more than 10,000 troops, it's going to be a lot more than merely protecting our missile bases or whatever.

Oh good, more military spending in search of a fight to spend it on.

It is high time for the US military to either get out of the ME or to get busy implementing a battle plan that will end the "war on terror" quickly. Iran and its many proxy forces are far more worthy of our military's attention than those in Afghanistan are and we have had our military piddling around in that mess for 17 years primarily because we are not even "officially" at war with Afghanistan, the Taliban or any "tribal leaders" - we are basically playing policeman and nation builder there.

Here we go! We know how this song goes. Let me just say that a hell of a lot of us said this would happen.

You make John Bolton the National Security Adviser under an impulsive and desperate president who is a weak leader and is renowned for being semi-literate, chronically unprepared, historically and geographically ignorant and you don't expect to go to war in the Middle East, again?

Get out your wallet and yellow ribbons.

Another promise broken. Trump told everyone he was all about ending wars in the ME - then picks Bolton and here we go.

Buckle up, buttercup.

ttwtt78640 said:

It is high time for the US military to either get out of the ME or to get busy implementing a battle plan that will end the "war on terror" quickly. Iran and its many proxy forces are far more worthy of our military's attention than those in Afghanistan are and we have had our military piddling around in that mess for 17 years primarily because we are not even "officially" at war with Afghanistan, the Taliban or any "tribal leaders" - we are basically playing policeman and nation builder there.

Click to expand...

Well you better hope the plan is to just get out of the ME because there is no end to the "War on Terror". You can't win a war against a "tactic". Might was well call it the "War on War" while we're naming stupid things.

Obscurity said:

Another promise broken. Trump told everyone he was all about ending wars in the ME - then picks Bolton and here we go.

Buckle up, buttercup.

Click to expand...

Trump: How do I divert the rest of the country from looking at my mistakes and incompetence?

Bolton: I can help you Mr. president, Let's start a war with Iran.

Praxas said:

Trump: How do I divert the rest of the country from looking at my mistakes and incompetence?

Bolton: I can help you Mr. president, Let's start a war with Iran.

Click to expand...

lmao, totally true, as well.

The guy is a total failure as POTUS.

Praxas said:

Well you better hope the plan is to just get out of the ME because there is no end to the "War on Terror". You can't win a war against a "tactic". Might was well call it the "War on War" while we're naming stupid things.

Click to expand...

Exactly, you can't kill an idea (belief?) if you have no way of identifying those holding/supporting that idea (belief?). The enemy combatants are apt to appear to be non-combatants (innocent civilians?) 23 hours/day even on those days which they choose to fight "the infidels".

ttwtt78640 said:

It is high time for the US military to either get out of the ME or to get busy implementing a battle plan that will end the "war on terror" quickly. Iran and its many proxy forces are far more worthy of our military's attention than those in Afghanistan are and we have had our military piddling around in that mess for 17 years primarily because we are not even "officially" at war with Afghanistan, the Taliban or any "tribal leaders" - we are basically playing policeman and nation builder there.

Click to expand...

It is a fantasy to think that the United States can disengage from the Middle East without consequence. The U.S. intelligence has warned that a complete pullout from Afghanistan could lead to major terrorist attacks on the American homeland within two years. There are also concerns that US retreat from Afghanistan would open the door for hostile actors like Iran and Russia to exert dominant influence in a region that still matters. Heavy U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past two decades has been painful and ugly, but as the saying goes, 'it is the devil we know.' U.S. policymakers have grown accustomed to the costs associated with it. Pulling back would be 'the devil we don’t know', and this is why everyone instinctively resists this position.

Obscurity said:

Another promise broken. Trump told everyone he was all about ending wars in the ME - then picks Bolton and here we go.

Buckle up, buttercup.

Click to expand...

The Iranian military forces consist of a mere (roughly) 900,000 personnel.

It's obvious that this 10,000 "force augmentation" is a massive overkill on the amount of military personnel required to totally crush the Iranians.

Well - isn't it?

HumblePi said:

It is a fantasy to think that the United States can disengage from the Middle East without consequence. The U.S. intelligence has warned that a complete pullout from Afghanistan could lead to major terrorist attacks on the American homeland within two years. There are also concerns that US retreat from Afghanistan would open the door for hostile actors like Iran and Russia to exert dominant influence in a region that still matters. Heavy U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past two decades has been painful and ugly, but as the saying goes, 'it is the devil we know.' U.S. policymakers have grown accustomed to the costs associated with it. Pulling back would be 'the devil we don’t know', and this is why everyone instinctively resists this position.

Click to expand...

Yep, the dominos fell when we finally left Vietnam so we were doomed.

TU Curmudgeon said:

The Iranian military forces consist of a mere (roughly) 900,000 personnel.

It's obvious that this 10,000 "force augmentation" is a massive overkill on the amount of military personnel required to totally crush the Iranians.

Well - isn't it?

Click to expand...

I am against foreign intervention. Until every american is cared for, no more wars, no more troop emplacements, no more support to foreign actors.

ttwtt78640 said:

Exactly, you can't kill an idea (belief?) if you have no way of identifying those holding/supporting that idea (belief?). The enemy combatants are apt to appear to be non-combatants (innocent civilians?) 23 hours/day even on those days which they choose to fight "the infidels".

Click to expand...

The US once had an (unofficial) policy that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian.".

The implementation of an (unofficial) policy that "The only good Iranian is a dead Iranian." isn't much of a stretch.

Well - is it?

TU Curmudgeon said:

The US once had an (unofficial) policy that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian.".

The implementation of an (unofficial) policy that "The only good Iranian is a dead Iranian." isn't much of a stretch.

Well - is it?

Click to expand...

How many Japanese were killed with two huge bombs (dropped three days apart) to end WWII with Japan's unconditional surrender? Does Japan hate us for that and thus still pose a threat or did they shape up and move on?

ttwtt78640 said:

How many Japanese were killed with two huge bombs (dropped three days apart) to end WWII with Japan's unconditional surrender? Does Japan hate us for that and thus still pose a threat or did they shape up and move on?

Click to expand...

The number of Japanese killed by those "two huge bombs" was smaller than the number of Japanese killed in the fire raids on Tokyo, and those didn't cause the Japanese to surrender.

The number of Japanese killed by those "two huge bombs" was smaller than the number of Japanese who were projected to be killed if the US adopted the plan favoured by the US Army and invaded the Home Islands.

The number of Japanese killed by those "two huge bombs" was at least an order of magnitude smaller than the number of Japanese who were projected to be killed if the US adopted the plan favoured by the USN and instituted a total blockade of the Home Islands.

The Japanese had one absolutely nonnegotiable condition for surrendering and that was that the US had to agree that the Emperor should remain as the Head of State for Japan. The US granted that condition and the Japanese surrendered.

If you take a look at who the ACTUAL people who were running Japan AFTER WWII, during WWII, and before WWII then you will see that those groups were almost identical.

PS - The Japanese never had any real belief that they could win the Pacific War IF the US didn't buckle after the first strikes. It was pretty obvious to the Japanese (and in very short order) that the US was not going to buckle. That means that the REAL "war aim" of the Japanese (once the fact that the US was not going to buckle was obvious) was "to get out of the war with as much of Japan intact as possible". The insistence of the US government on "unconditional surrender" sort of got in the way of that. Once that was out of the way, the Japanese played Gen. MacArthur like a trout.

PPS - There is still a large segment of Japanese society that has not "forgiven" the US for "humiliating Japan" - they just know that being obvious about that fact is not good for business.

PPPS - Large portions of the Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis are still not overly kindly disposed towards the US.