Before accusing people of "cut and run," The Administration could have put enough troops in to do it right?

Question

Don't you think if 300,000 men went into Iraq in the beginning, as Gen Shinseki recommended, it would be stable by now?

Answer 1

The trouble was that no body, when the planning of the invasion took place, took any notice of Middle East history. Namely, that that any western nation attempting to subjugate/conquer/modify/bring democracy to, an Muslim country always fails. This aspect of history has been evident from the days of the Crusades in the 13th Century through to the recent USSR attempts in Afghanistan.
So, it wasn't the number of troops that was the problem, it was that US planners ignored the fact that Muslims loathe foreigners occupying their countries above even their own rivalries (and why not?!). Hence, once the euphoria of Saddam's being toppled faded, and the various sectarian groups realised that the US led invasion was not producing the promised 'democratic paradise' (despite the elections), they decided to take things into their own hands and revert back to the Middle East tradition of killing one another in order to gain supremacy for their tribe - and killing as many of the occupying infidels as possible along the way.
The whole Iraq business was a disaster from the moment it started (OK, the Iraqi troops were soon swept aside - but, that was inevitable in view of their weak forces), but no body in the US Administration thought about how to handle the aftermath of the invasion. Which is why Iraq is an unmitigated mess, and one that James Baker (the highly respected former State Sec to Bush Snr), and his equally respected colleagues, are now suggesting that Iran and Syria should be approached for help in solving.
What a climb down for Bush Jnr if that occurs... the 'Great Satan' being assisted by two of his 'Axis of Evil' nations!

Answer 2

No. I don't. It would only remain stable as long as the troops were there. Without the people of Iraq being able to work out their own political and economic structure--one that brings prosperity to the majority of the people and gives them a stake in a more or less free market economy, and one which weakens the hold of the radical Islamic law on the people, there can be no lasting solution. We knew this when we went, when the U.S. was so enthusiastic about it. What a lot of people didn't seem to understand was that it could not be a quick fix.
Now that we are there it would be irresonsible to cut and run.

Troops can achieve military objectives and create enough stability for political and economic objectives to be worked out,
but the people of Iraq have to gain enough strength with the help of the 'scaffolding' to work out a viable solution. Remove the scaffolding too soon and we will just see a worse situation than when we went in to begin with.

Answer 3

History has proven again and again one could never best an insurgency force in a guerrilla war. Especially against a foe who regards death as an avenue to heaven. You cannot bomb them into submission and unlike the way, the United States did the people of the South you could never destroy their heritage, believes and heroes. For as long as there is a population, they would seek revenge. Another thing if you are old enough to remember was when the NVA started using large numbers of troops and physically over ran camps, we could seldom stop them. Westmoreland even considered using nuclear weapons. In October 1950, China entered the Korea war and kicked our butts. They dared us to drop the atomic bombs on them. They knew their population was large enough to survive a nuclear war and be intact afterwards; that for us to be able to win would have required so much atomic energy to have been expended the world, as we knew it would have ceased to exist. Well, they have even more people now; we would have a hard time using nukes on North Korea, as due to their proximity to South Koreas we would be killing an ally. By the way that has been substantiated by the Army War College, the Chinese too realizes it. That being we could not beat the Chinese or Koreans at least not without the help of other countries. God Bless You and the Southern People.

Answer 4

The same politicians who are screaming the loudest to get out , voted to reduce the size of the military by 25-30% depending on branch, canceled contracts for armoured Hummvees , body armour , aircraft , helicopters and other materials and reduced the military budget . Regular and reserves .
This was done during the Clinton era .

The main current problem is getting the Iraqi army up to speed and size to control it's own country .
and you have forgien fighters (terrorists ) who have come to fight from several countries , religious power struggles And everybody wanting to run the country to their own benefit .

Setting a pullout date would invite disaster . Every road out would become a "kill zone " of IED's and ambushes costing thousands of lives .

Currently , the various factions are busy killing each other off in a power struggle over who will rule .
This is actually a good thing as the more radical elements are killing each other .

Answer 5

Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.
--Ernest Hemingway

A sense of duty pursues us ever....If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, the duty performed or the duty violated is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. If we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us.
--Daniel Webster

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
--Mark Twain

Why don't you ask the Generals why they suggested they could keep the peace at lower levels instead of ask the Civilian President why the Generals sent them back?

War is their business- not the President's.

Answer 6

The bush administration failed many ways. It didnt have enough troops, hard to sell a war that would require a draft, and the rest of the world would not go along. Their was no occupation plan (bush didnt lie when he told the world "the US has no plans to occupy Iraq") and there was no exit strategy!

Answer 7

It would not matter how many we sent to Iraq the same situation would happen sooner or later, Saddam ruled Iraq with an Iron, hand, now you see why.

Answer 8

That and not putting Bremer in there. The guy he replaced already had a interm acceptable functioning government on the ground.

Answer 9

Maybe, but only if they had left more infrastructure intact and had an "occupation" plan in place for the end of what the gov called "major combat ops".

Answer 10

no, just 300,000 more targets to shoot at , you should have kept it in the air, the reason you/we cannot win is they dont care about life,any life, yours or mine or thier own, they were liberated from an oppressive regime, only to be put under another one, pull out ,turn off the oil, put an air sea land blockade around thier country, give them what they want, martyrdom. or we could send saddam back hes costing to many tax dollars to keep its thier country let them deal with him. lf