In an article posted in Feb. 2003, Gen Eric Shinseki stated postwar Iraq would require a military force of several hundred thousand to establish law and order in Iraq. Our troop commitment in Iraq has remained at about 130,000, not quite serveral hundred thousand.
Imagine any large American city with 1/2 its police force. Civil unrest would be impossible to control. This is what is happening in Iraq. Iraq is not Vietnam. The peace in Iraq is winable. The peace will not be won with high tech weapons. It will take more boots on the ground. It will take more of a commitment from the U.S.
Let's not stay the course. Let's win.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm
2006-12-06 03:48:50 · 4 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This entire course is wrong?
If the crime rate in New York city suddenly increased, would you hire more police to cope with the problem or abandon the city?
The situation in Iraq is not a war. The war was over years ago. We are trying to establish law and order.
2006-12-06 03:59:49 · update #1
Trouble is, the new Sec Def says the war's not winnable. New info out that US military equipment is in bad shape also.
2006-12-06 03:53:21 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
democrats have never disagreed that the CURRENT course would take more troops than are there.. we, however, feel this entire course is the wrong one. also, that WOULD make this a Vietnam.. a situation where we trickled troops in and out, never sending enough to finish a job we shouldn't have started.
The situation is still War.. our troops are at war on a daily basis.. yes, the main objective have been achieved, but that doesn't mean the war ends. we went there for the wrong reasons. also, the reason it would take so many American troops is because we are Americans.. they do not relate to us, and many don't like us.. a country such as Pakistan could take over the policing.. they wouldn't need as many troops seeing as how it's the fact that it is America there that is causing a lot (though not all) of the uprising. the Iraqi people would relate better to them and feel less threatened and stability could be brought to the region... if you only allow yourself choice A and B, you will never see choice C.
and (not trying to take a stab, honestly wanting an opinion) how can you call Iraq not a war just because they aren't wearing uniforms.. terrorists don't wear uniforms yet we still wage a war on terror? when people are blowing up convoys on a regular basis, and killing our troops because of WHO they are.. I'd say they are at war.. and those i have talked to agree.
2006-12-06 11:55:13 · answer #2 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As I have answered in another question of yours increased troop level is a major step to bring Iraq back to some sense of order. I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, it requires more than just increased men on the ground, it requires us to change the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. That endeavor entails more than more marines with M-16s. It requires a great deal of study on a people, and the sectarian animosity that could potentially tear the country asunder.
2006-12-06 18:29:36 · answer #3 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are not fighting a war in Iraq. The uniformed national army of Iraq is not our enemy. We're doing everything we can think of to help Iraq, not defeat it.
Iraq is a big fat mess, but it's not a war. The "mess" in Iraq is caused by Iraqis, and can only be solved by Iraqis. We're trying to help them while they're killing each other and destroying their own land in order for each side ( Shiites and Sunnas ) to get their mullah in as the next dictator.
2006-12-06 12:00:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋