Should we "go home", "go big", or "go long"? These are the three options now being pondered on by the pentagon. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts
Go home - begin withdrawls
Go big - increase troop #s
Go long - decrease troop numbers but stay longer
2006-11-20 04:32:18 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only way to accomplish anything is to increase the number of troops. As it is, every time we take over a space, that space is taken right back as soon as we leave to go somewhere else. We need more troops to contain the areas that we've already taken over. As much as I hate to say it, the other options won't work. If we begin withdrawals, we will leave that country in a worse state than we found it. It's pretty much anarchy at the moment with the Sunnis, Shiites, and terrorist cells all fighting for power and the Iraqi police too scared to do anything. If we decrease troops and stay longer, it will turn into another Vietnam. That's even worse.
2006-11-20 04:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by robtheman 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
When I think of America the words "Go home" never comes to mind.
Our foreign war policy has almost always been "Go big if possible, go long if necessary," and so it remains now.
We most likely can't go big due to low military recruitment numbers and the toll the Afghan and Iraq wars have taken on our already activated troops, and as recently proved thanks to a foolhardy Democrat, the American people won't stand for a military draft.
So we will most likely (though not surely) go long which is the most practical way to go, and to use a philosophy term in politics, most closely follows Occam's razor.
2006-11-20 19:02:08 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go big and then go home.....we can't' just leave....things will be much worse that when we started....we can't decrease numbers...we are having a hard enough time of keeping what little areas of control we have(if any).....we need to get the armed forces the numbers they really need to get the job done and then get them home....
2006-11-20 13:36:46 · answer #3 · answered by yetti 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if the liberal agenda would let them do their job we would go big but not "increase troop numbers" we would pull our ground forces out and bomb the heck out of them. they are creating more terrorists as fast as we can kill them. but we have to be "fair" and "compassionate" these people are already willing to die for their beliefs. Putting our men and women there to "keep the piece" cant work with them having this mind set.
2006-11-20 13:04:47 · answer #4 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Increase the troop levels and leave only after the situation is stabilized. (And that might not happen so long as Iran is supplying a steady stream of jihadists.)
2006-11-20 12:39:19 · answer #5 · answered by C = JD 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Withdraw the troops and station them to annex and protect the oilfields and pipelines. Let the Iraqis kill themselves off; they don't belong in the modern world and have no right to modern resources. We don't let 8-year-olds drive cars; why should the civilized world let this Arab rabble participate in the 21st Century?
2006-11-20 13:26:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Go home-begin withdrawls.
2006-11-20 19:43:45 · answer #7 · answered by j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those questions should be addressed to Bush administration before the war started.
2006-11-20 13:22:08 · answer #8 · answered by nunjogomez17 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we've learned anything from this abomination in Iraq, we've learned that there clearly is no viable military solution. We need to get the hell out of there and work on a solution that doesn't include military intervention.
2006-11-20 12:42:55 · answer #9 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Go big. Shorten the war. Help rebuild the country.
2006-11-20 12:37:37 · answer #10 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋