Bush said he will send about 21,000 more troops to the civil war in Iraq. Why not send a much larger number? The original strategy was deeply flawed, and clearly one of the reasons was that far too few troops were sent.
Before the war began, on U.S. general said that it would take 'hundreads of thousands' of troops to occupy Iraq and 'win the peace'.
Tonight, I heard one expert say that about 250,000 troops would be realisitic in terms of what is required to do the job.
So why not return to the 'Powell Doctrine' and use overwhelming force, which tends to result in the quickest victories with the fewest losses.
But all Bush is doing is increasing troop numbers by about 15 percent.
What will this do? Will it work? Why doesn't Bush send far more, since that would probably be the best hope for success?
2007-01-10
17:24:23
·
23 answers
·
asked by
Zezo Zeze Zadfrack
1