Should we increase troops in Iraq (McCain) or decrease the number of troops (the commission)?

Answer 1

In the short term, we need to dramatically increase our troop strength in order to maintain some semblance of order.

We got ourselves into this mess in large part by using too few troops. Rumsfeld's wrong assumption was that once Saddam was overthrown, the Iraqi's would quickly organize a new, democratic government. He did not plan for an insurgency or later for sectarian civil war.

Since we never put in enough troops to occupy the country (300,000 to 400,000 by conventional estimates), our troops would have to flush insurgents out of one town at a time. As soon as they would leave a town, the insurgents would return. Unfortunately, we have had to fight and lose soldiers in the same town many times.

It has been a pretty easy game of "cat and mouse" for the insurgents. They just skip town when the Americans come and return when our troops leave.

Another problem with our lack of troop strength is that we have not secured the borders with Iran and Syria (or our own borders as home, for that matter). This has allowed an influx of foreign fighters and arms, mostly from Iran, as well as the ability for insurgents to seek refuge in Syria.

Now, it is more difficult to secure the country than before. As time has elapsed, the various religious groups have taken advantage of chaos to launch their own attacks at each other. So, now we have three separate battles going on -- a loosely organized insurgency of old Saddam supporters, a religious civil war between the Shias and Sunnis, and an inflow of foreign terrorists.

So far, every elected Iraqi leader since the invasion has wanted U.S. troops to stay. Prime Minister Malaki recently estimated two more years for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Longer term, we must require the Iraqi's to take care of their own security. Although they have so far been unwilling and/or unable to do this, we also have yet to hand over to them a secure country.

My suggestion: Send in 200,000+ more trips immediately to fully secure the country during the next year. Then, transfer control one region at a time to Iraqi security forces with the stipulation that if they fail to secure these areas, they will lose our protection entirely.


However, in fairness to them, we

Answer 2

I think we should start decreasing the number of troops and force the Iraq army and police force to take control of the situation. Hopefully this won't endanger the lives of our troops.

Answer 3

I say let's WIN! Give the military the OK to do what the military does and get this one over with. Don't let the Democrats retreat; that's like spitting on the flag. Keep the politicians out of it; remember Japan and their so called politics while bombs were dropping on Pearl Harbor?

Answer 4

Iraq is heading to civil war as it is. We would need to double our troops there (at least!) to possibly change that outcome--which would require conscription. So pull them out . There's no reason one more American life should be squandered over this.

Answer 5

we have made such a big mess over there already, we need to pull out the troops and just quit interfering with a country that wants nothing to do with us!

Answer 6

Increase the troop levels to 500,000 and bring in the
big bombers.

Answer 7

I think we need to get out. Why stay? There are other countries that can cause us harm. Like Iran and N Korea. Or just not go to war at all. >.<

Answer 8

We should ask the Iraqi government what they want.

Answer 9

Clear them all out and let the Sunnis and Shites fight it out.

Answer 10

we should pull out, we're not making a difference as it is.