Why don't we send 500,000 troops to Iraq?

Question

And get this war done with? If Bush doesn't do this, and the incoming president does, and it works, will Bush go down as the worst president ever, one who needlessly put our sldiers at risk, without the tools to get the job done? I guess that would be a good democrat platform...win the war

hey LEO! Answer the question or go somewhere else! I guess that is what you guys do when faced with real solutions...

Answer 1

Technically the war is already over. There's just a lot of violence in the new Iraqi government. AND Bush would need approval from the Congress or something, and we already lost enough troops. My opinion: let the UN take care of it.

Answer 2

It's hard to say that adding that many troops would solve the problem. We've told the Iraqis that we trying to get them prepared to provide their own security, so that we can leave. Suddenly adding that many American troops would be a huge signal that we have no confidence in Iraqi soldiers - I'm not sure that would necessarily have a good outcome. As long as we're making headway, keeping troop levels as they are, or increasing the number a little (and slowly) if needed would seem like the best course. We should have had a 400-500K level at the beginning, but the opportunity for that kind of presence has passed.

Answer 3

First, and very importantly, he has sent the number of troops the commanders in the area have asked for.

We sometimes think that putting a cop on every block is a solution for crime. Sometimes it is, but it also gives an oppressive feeling when seemingly everywhere you look there is a cop looking back at you--even when you aren't doing anything wrong.

We sometimes think that complex solutions can be solved quickly and completely. We are dealing with criminally-impulsive people who simply wait for an opportunity to satisfy their impulse.

We are also dealing with cross-purposes at play. One of which Iraqis say, "Americans will have no peace until the Americans leave." Conversely, Americans (under current leadership) are wanting to stay until there is peace, but not stay a minute more. So, once there is peace, we are gone. The issue is does peace come before or after the Americans leave?

Another Iraqi purpose says, "We want to fight our opposing Iraqis so the Americans won't leave--as long as the Americans are here the other Iraqis will be unhappy, and we want them unhappy because we are unhappy."

Bringing more troops in causes one problem while seemingly curing another. Too many cops on the block, especially foreign cops, is oppressive and that defeats part of what we are trying to do. We want Iraqis to see the beligerents among themselves as their problem. We don't want them to see us as the problem, because when we leave the beligerents among them will then surface and we won't be there to protect the people from them.

Answer 4

That would be a good Democratic platform...if the Democrats could agree on anything.

Yes, there is an immediate need to send additional troops to suppress the insurgency and stop the downward spiral. But we also have to deal with Iran and Syria who are encouraging and possibly equipping the insurgents. So, do we declare all-out war in the region and do the full job, or do we work it out with what we have? Tough choice. Either way, Bush loses, whether he wins or not. What we need to do is get some NFL cheerleaders or some Hooters girls and as much Billy Beer as is left in America and have a huge tailgate party in Tehran. Who can fight while having a nice, cold Billy Beer?

Answer 5

Because vauge purposes lend themselves to vague actions. Ending the war would mean Bush would have to find some other way to massage his ego. That's not likely to happen until it's politically convenient, or his term in office is over, whichever comes first.

Realize that war isn't about winning or losing. It's about gaining political control of a country. Until Bush has that in Iraq the war will continue.

Answer 6

What for. The war was over when Saddam was defeated--the largest army in that region.
Now America is just doing the policing work to stop Iraq becoming Afghanistan ruled by Taliban---as long as they could.
Eventually they would divide the country into 3 pieces, as per Iraqi people wishes. They can not live amicably together.
America cannot and does not have enough manpower and resources to fight rogue countries all over the world. They should focus on their economy and their security inside.
Get out of Iraq and let them have fight with their hearts content.

Answer 7

we don't need 500 000 troops in Iraq. we already got more than enough soldiers on the ground. bush is a brilliant war strategist .... it's the army chief that's screwing it up ........ instead of wasting taxpayer money just to pop in and out of Iraq for a few hours ........ why don't he have his office over there and direct the war from there. with such a brilliant commander in chief , we would have won the war in a week.

Answer 8

I am for the go home troops and leave Iraq with our tanks guns and weapons and let them defend there own country .

Answer 9

We don't need 500,000 troops in Iraq, because the
Iraqi Army is coming along nicely, Thank you.

Answer 10

Sounds like good idea but I don't think that we have that many troops available to send to Iraq.