Do we need 60,000 more troops?

Question

Sept. 26, 2006 — The strain on the Army from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has become so great that top officials are now privately saying the only long-term solution may be to make the overall size of the Army bigger, adding as many as 60,000 troops, ABC News has learned.

It's not a request or a recommendation yet, but senior Army officials have discussed this for four weeks and are now in agreement that the Army could meet its worldwide obligations more easily by expanding the overall size of its force.

There are currently 501,000 troops with the level expected to reach 512,000 by the end of next year. To add an additional 60,000 is a costly proposition that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has consistently opposed.

In a sign of the strain on U.S. troops, the American military has not been able to stop the terrorist in Iraq and will not be able to in the future. All are afraid the USA will lose the war and the way it's going the USA will lose like Vietnam.

Answer 1

Once again... no link to the article that erudite has altered in content to suit his needs.....

pitiful

So I will link the REAL article below in the source section....

What erudite had added to the article, that was not there from the author....
"the American military has not been able to stop the terrorist in Iraq and will not be able to in the future. All are afraid the USA will lose the war and the way it's going the USA will lose like Vietnam."

More BLATANT PROPAGANDA from the habitual liar named erudite.....

The ACTUAL paragraph was/is
"In a sign of the strain on U.S. troops, a brigade from the Army's 1st cavalry division was ordered today to return to Iraq a month earlier than planned, while another Army unit, now fighting in the violent city of Ramadi, has been ordered to extend its year-long stay in Iraq by another six weeks."

Read the REAL article and do not take any information from this habitual liar for anything more than what it actually is... a complete fabrication intended purely for propaganda

Answer 2

It seems obvious that politicians have extended the military way beyond what it can support. Is 60,000 more soldiers in the Army the answer? What about the other services? What about equipment (both modernization and resupply?)

Finally, what about re-examining the real value some of the missions the military has been tasked with?

Rumsfeld is a very smart, hard working guy. However, he has a tough time acknowledging and benefitting from dissent. Moreover, he thinks technology can take the place of boots on the ground.

Personally, I think all we can do is wait for 2008. Our opinions do not matter until we can vote again, as the only course the current administration is comfortable with is "staying the course."

Best,
Rex

Answer 3

in vietnam we where there to police a riot and lost to the roit. In our war on terrorist is going to be a lost to if we do pull our heads out of our a** . I think that we need to pull our of troops home and work on proteking our home land better then going to them and fighting. If they want to fight us let them come to us that way we can kick their a** and prove a point that you can not mess with the USA. If we keep sending more troops over there we will leave the USA easy to terrorist and the thing that they can do. I know that we need the oil from there and if we let it go we would loose what we need as a county. The thing is we are the USA and really don't the oil but the gov. thinks that we do. Look at what we did durning WW2 with gas and oil needs we had. we save gas and other things for our troop to have what they needed and we got by. we have the land and the resouces to get by and make it. So sending over more troops is a fools dream in saving the world and the USA. Let the terrorist do their thing and when they come at us then we will kick ***. I know that they got us once and we went after them but have we got them yet to bring them to trial for what they have done. We just need to stop sending troops there or we will loose the war and the meaning of have the freedom thaat we have now..

Answer 4

This war wont be won by military presence alone. We are fighting an ideology. Much like we were unprepared for the battle in Vietnam, we have no idea what we are doing in this war. It is sad that the young men and women of our country are dying so the government can save face. Their lives are worth more than this.

Answer 5

We had more army in 1990 than we have military now. Hell Yes we need them and we allways have, the liberals cut it then bithch when we are short. Nancy Dole for Pres. A Women with the nation on her mind and a husband in her pants.

Answer 6

No, we need Impeachment and then immediate withdrawal of all overseas troops to the Homeland. We can put most of them on the southern border after two weeks R&R.

Answer 7

We are being lied to. It's not about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedom". It's really about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
Our troops are overseas in order to leave Americans defenseless after rioting and martial law are enforced by foreign troops that are already on U.S. soil who will implement THIS plan next!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/9229/FEMA_DEATHCAMPS_AND_THE_RED_AND_BLUE_LIST_UNDER_MARTIAL_LAW
Bush WANTS us to riot. The BIBLE gives us the solution. Repent, fast, and pray for our country so that God will hear from Heaven and HEAL OUR LAND!

Answer 8

But Medic, if we re-instate the draft, we will have to serve with idiots like this guy. He is the one who asked "who feels stupid about serving in Iraq"

Answer 9

If we add enough the troops, then the war on terror might prematurely end and with it the Administration's message of fear.

Answer 10

What we really need is to reinstate the draft. Just think how much we could save not having to pay those enlistment bonuses.