Why do we have 150,000 troops in Iraq?

Question

US force in Iraq swells to 150,000: Pentagon.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - With the US death toll in Iraq passing 103 this month and mid-term elections just days away, the Pentagon said the US force in Iraq has grown to 150,000 troops, the biggest it has been since January o6.


A Pentagon spokesman attributed the growth to overlapping unit rotations, but it came amid surging violence that so far this month has claimed the lives of 103 US troops and many more Iraqis.

"Several units are transitioning out as several are transitioning in," said Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros, who said that as of Monday the number of US troops in Iraq was 150,000.

A Pentagon official, who asked not to be named, said American forces were supposed to be around 40,000 by the end of 2003 but it is now 3 years later and we have 150,000 troops in Iraq. He ask "Where did we go wrong"?.

Information from CNN, ABC, NBC.

Answer 1

Once again, lies and fabrications by erudite. Thanks DiamondDave for pointing them out and staying on it. It's a very sick person that has to lie and create stories to try to promote their cause. One day, erudite will be stopped. Hopefully, before he does any more, he'll seek professional help for his hatred of our troops. Jealousy of real men is never a good thing. Obviously, he couldn't cut it, so he has to make our military and our government look as bad as possible. Thankfully, there's people that will do everything they can to stop it.

By the way, 150,000 troops are in Iraq to now help rebuild a country and keep terrorists from attacking on US soil again. If it wasn't for them, your very freedoms that you love to abuse would be in jeopardy.

Answer 2

Information FABRICATED by erudite....

Let us see the main fabrication
"said American forces were supposed to be around 40,000 by the end of 2003 but it is now 3 years later and we have 150,000 troops in Iraq. He ask "Where did we go wrong"?."

The ACTUAL part ofthe article (which I have the REAL article linked in my sources section) is "A Pentagon official, who asked not to be named, said the US Army's 4th Infantry Division was near the end of its year-long rotation."

Once again making up FALSE quotes that were NEVER stated in an attempt to try and alter the article to support erudite's own little propaganda agenda

By the way... this article by Jim Mannion is NOT covered or picked up by ABC, CNN, and NBC, as erudite claims. Yet another lie in his long list of lies.

Answer 3

I often consider Tolaran and Mr. smart. We had no corporation going into Iraq interior the 1st place, and by skill of doing so, we no longer basically destablized the area, yet extra desirable terrorist recruiting and activity, and deprived our efforts in Afghanistan of the troops and kit mandatory to get the activity finished. basically an fool willingly starts off wars on diverse fronts. a minimum of Obama is attempting to lessen our concentration on Iraq, and allow the recent close by police and defense force forces do their activity. this might enable us to deliver our troops the place they're incredibly mandatory in Afghanistan, and get lower back to genuine war on terror. that may no longer a war on Islam. it relatively is all approximately getting rid of al-Queada, shooting Bin weighted down, and helping Afghanistan build a central authority that a minimum of isn't so terrorist-friendly because of the fact the Taliban replaced into. while waging war, there is no such element as "too many troops." Even because of the fact that historic circumstances, the attitude of overwhelming your enemy with uncooked numbers has consistently been a valid one. If we had finished this lower back in 2001 after 9/11, I assure you the war with Afghanistan might have been over an prolonged time in the past - and with plenty fewer US casualties. inspect sunlight Tzu's 'historic paintings Of war'. It describes the justifications and ideas for waging war - including overwhelming your enemy by skill of tension of numbers, no longer splitting your forces among diverse fighters, and that winning over the hearts and minds of the persons is a much extra useful thank you to end victory than ham-fisted brute tension. This replaced into written over 2000 years in the past, and remains required examining for our defense force officers on the instant. Too undesirable Bush of course by no skill study it.

Answer 4

Why do the police send 25 to 30 officers to a building where some jerk is holding a hostage with a gun? Why are there 10 to 20 firemen sent to a building that's on fire? Why do 5 to 10 police cars chase a nut driving a car irradically on the freeway?

If that doesn't answer your question I don't know what will.

Answer 5

Because enforcing 150,000 + troops on another nation is america's way of bringing democracy

Answer 6

We didnt do the job right, we had bad information. We ignored military strategy successes and failures of the past... theres really not much else to say about that.

Answer 7

Simple. Because we don't have 250,000 more to send.
If you think about it, if we're going to do it (which we said we would) then wouldn't it be much quicker if they couldn't move without bumping into 5 U.S. marines?

Answer 8

Haven't we answered this question a million times? (And frankly, I think it should be more than quadruple that many.)

Answer 9

Thanks diamond dave. I'm glad you looked that stuff up - keep up the good work!!