John McCain and the ranking general in Iraq have both said there needs to be many more troops sent to Iraq before the situation will improve. I'm doubtful about that...but that's not the question. Where will these thousands more troops come from? Do they think they can recruit new ones that fast? Or will they come from the bases we have in Germany, Japan and everywhere else we have troops stationed? Then why didn't they do that before? Why take reservists and National Guard before taking army and marine troops we already have?
2006-11-16 07:34:50 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
National Guard troops are supposed to guard this country. That's why we have them; that's why it was so difficult to get a handle on the situation in New Orleans after Katrina because there weren't enough National Guard troops to help. Reservists, yes; National Guard, NO.
2006-11-16 08:16:50 · update #1
And I really don't understand why I got two thumbs down for this question. Isn't it a legitimate question? If someone says we need more troops, then asking where will they come from is a bad question? That's just stupid. And so far, no one has actually answered the question...where will they come from?
2006-11-16 08:18:57 · update #2
What am I doing??? I'm a 59-year-old woman...and still no reasonable answers. This is a very frustrating experience. This site should not be called Yahoo Answers...it should be called Yahoo Anything But Answers...insults, flaming or just plain stupidity...but no answers.
2006-11-16 12:32:49 · update #3
your not going so don't worry.
2006-11-16 07:40:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Then were will we get the soldier to replace the one that we take from other bases? The military is placed in other nations for a reason. We can't just take them away from their current base without replacing them. Many of the military personnel in other nations serve as support of the troops in Iraq, such as with hospitals for our injured troops.
Also, if we give Iraq our undivided attention some other group will try to attack from the rear. This would cause another war, a greater shortage of soldiers, and possibly the institution of the draft. And, we don't need that.
2006-11-16 07:57:44 · answer #2 · answered by Sensible_5 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Most of the regular military is not over in in Iraq or any where. Alot are still here in the USA. Seriously do you think the 100,000+ trps we have in Iraq is all we have.
We have over 500,000 troops in just the Army alone.
I believe I answered soundly. Maybe a little harsh yes. My apologizes. As for my answer. I can add alittle.
The Us Military has plenty of regular Army and Marines not on deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Usually the rotation is 12 months. It can be and has been increased to 14 to 18 months. So, if we send another 20,000 trps and extend the rotations of the troops over in Iraq. By a few months, while shorting the months at home rotation. We can increase our military presence while only increasing the numbers on the ground to 120,000 through rotation of the troops to and from the battlefield. And still have approx. 300,000 Army is reserve in the states. Waiting their rotation.
2006-11-16 07:50:15 · answer #3 · answered by devilduck74 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Um...that's what the National Guard and Reservists are for. Why else do we pay them and give them benefits? They know what they are getting into when they join. Now it's time for them to do their duty.
2006-11-16 07:38:02 · answer #4 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What are you doing for the next few years ? Can you spell DRAFT ?
2006-11-16 08:49:08 · answer #5 · answered by blindogben 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They ll explooit the poor by sending them to die for their cause.
2006-11-16 07:37:42 · answer #6 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋