Given the current status in the middle east, do you think the u.s can continually weather this storm?

Question

I am asking this because with our current situation overseas. Do you think our armed forces are stretched to thin to handle both at once?

Answer 1

Close to the entire army and Marine Corp is involved in the yearly cycling of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not even too sure where they dig up the extra troops they did manage to find after I left the Army a couple of years ago except by screwing troops out of much need rest from duty in Iraq. In other words, the situation can't be maintained indefinitely.

Even if we did have our military up to a point where it could continue indefinite combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have the money to do what we're doing for an extended period, especially with the lack of accountability for the funds that have been given to Iraq.

Answer 2

It seems that newspapers are using stringers, basically enemy agents to report the news. Weird things like over 600,000 dead (try 130,000 dead from all causes including old age), no WMD found (500 were found according to the U.S. Congress), 6 Sunnis burned alive in fron of the Iraqi military(never happened), four mosques were destroyed in one city (only one was slightly burned) ect. Also a weird thing is that a police captain is often quoted as a source, but he has the the same name as a terrorist organization. I doubt the police captain exists.

This news reporting is just as bad as when Walter Cronkiet said that the U.S. was losing the war in Vietnam starting with the Tet Offensive. The U.S. actually won those battles killing over 56,000 North Vietnamese and causing them to flee back to North Vietnam. The picture of the Americans fleeing with the South Vietnamese surrounding them happened at least a year before South Vietnam fell. All those people were evacuated and not left to die. Also the U.S. never lost in Vietnam. It pulled out a year before it fell and Congress refuse to aid South Vietnam so basically the South Vietnamese ran out of ammo. The press would rather say the U.S. lost in Vietnam. So I guess the press wants the world to believe U.S. lost the war in Sudan too and maybe even against Alexander the Great even though the U.S. military wasn't there went things went down either.

I was reading this story in a magazine that comes with my newspaper and the story went that the U.S. soldier was in Pakistan on IED watch. There are no U.S. soldiers stationed in Pakistan. The press doesn't even try to get it right.

If you know something really well and then read something in the press, you will probably see the story all screwed up. I often do. The press is not a good place to get the news or to learn about stuff. That's even true when you read a conservative newspaper and a liberal newspaper one right after the other.

So basically don't bother with the press telling of the problems in the Middle East, because the stories are filled with unchecked inaccuracies. In truth, the U.S. will have achieved about 2/3 of its goals by the end of this year in Iraq. In Afganistan, the enemy is much smaller than what the news has one believe. NATO forces would blanket a hundred square mile area and just find 35 guys. That's hardly a major force. The U.S. isn't fighting the Taliban. The Taliban fled into Pakistan and aren't coming back till the allied forced leave or the Taliban are killed or captured in Pakistan. The U.S. is fighting Pakistani or foriegn guys that were offered new clothes, a few dollars, a gun and a chance to go to Heaven. Afganistan already has 35,000 or so trained troops and the problems are the same problems now that are facing Mexico (drugs, poverty and corruption).

Answer 3

The Iraqis had no thank you to oppose Saddam Hussein. They have been an unarmed inhabitants and tightly controlled via concern, rape, torture, and mass murders. Had the COALITION of 50 two international locations now not invaded Iraq, the Saddam controlling equipment would nevertheless be in place. i do now not be conscious of the place all the lefties get the thought that united statesa. unilaterally (which capacity via ourselves and by myself so Libbies can comprehend the which capacity) desperate to invade Iraq. Bush labored to construct a coalition based upon a U.N. determination #1441 to apply stress against Saddam, and went beforehand Congress to get approval to accomplish the U.N. determination via the coalition forces. He have been given the approval. We did what we've been asked to do via the United international locations risk-free practices Council via our coalition forces. Now, the left can attempt to rewrite the information however the information proceed to be, that Bush did a hell of plenty extra to get the approval of Congress and our human beings than Obama did or has performed and he did now not fly off on holiday the day the bombing began.

Answer 4

It's my opinion that something's got to give.

There are certain units or members of units who've been deployed FIVE TIMES since 2003.

This is more than it is reasonable or fair to ask of anyone, no matter what their training or abilities might be.

I think at this point the troops could safely mutiny en masse without anyone batting an eye.

Answer 5

Yes.

Answer 6

No. The government will have to come up with a plan soon.

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!