It is what McCain has been saying for quite some time. Will Bush increase the troops but keep the same course, or change the course? What are your thoughts on this?
I am respectfully asking for straight forward opinions on this, not rhetoric from political party attack dogs. Thank you!
2006-12-18 08:29:20 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's long overdue.
At this point it needs to be done to bring as much stability to the country as possible (esp. Baghdad) while we not just train the Iraqi Army (of which we've been doing too little) but let that same army, under the control of their political masters (such as they are), start conducting their own operations using their own intelligence. At present, al-Maliki can't order a single soldier to move from one point to another without the approval of the US.
At the same time, the Iraqis need to know that:
1 - Our efforts in Iraq have peaked in terms of having especially beneficial effects (like they don't already know!),
2 - Bringing the Sunnis on-board is their responsibility (i.e., the Shia & Kurds),
3 - The American people want us out of there as soon as is practical and we'll be leaving at the first realistic opportunity,
4 - It's time to de-politicize the police forces, and
5 - Real soon now we'll be saying "Good-bye and good luck!" to each other.
Long-term reality check: if the army isn't an army of the whole country but, instead, is controlled by one sect or another or by some combination of gawd-knows-what, they could just slide back into a different version of the Saddam era.
No gettin' around it - we opened up one VERY large can of worms when we went into that country!
2006-12-18 08:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember that neither Bush or Chaney or Rice have any real military experience at all. Most of his other advisers serve at the pleasure of the President and want to keep their jobs.
Under those circumstances that looks like there will be no changes made in the direction of the Iraq situation that the President is already stated that he is opposed to such as meeting with Syria or Iran.
Working with the countries surrounding Iraq is a sensible approach. I guess that is why it is out of favor.
2006-12-18 10:45:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we need more troops there But yesterday Colin Powell put it in a very good way " Yes; but not without a plan"
I have stated on this forum for months to get out of Baghdad and to send more troops. I support a permanent base in Basra. With a deep water port. and long runways for heavy C5's And a rapid deployment force ready to stop any and all armed conflict.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-18 09:22:48 · answer #3 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look, as an American first, democrat second.. I want our boys home as quickly and as safely as possible.. if Bush would have listened from the start we would have had more troops over there... I'm not sure that it's not too late for that strategy to work anymore.. but I'm also not the paid expert.... if the experts that Bush should have listened to in the first place say it will work and get our boys home safer faster then I say go for it.. it's got to be better than the half assed job we are doing right now leaving them undermanned.. at the same time I want an exit strategy planned out telling me how they are going to get our troops home as quickly and safely as possible.
2006-12-18 08:36:17 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're going to get it anyway. It's foolish, stupid and verging on criminal. Let's send more targets, that should help matters. The democrats were elected to change the course in Iraq, not to be agreeing with whatever the President wants to do there. They have already been cornered into saying they will not cut funding, I hope they have the balls to stand up to him if he even hints at sending more troops. Our young people are dying for no good reason. We toppled Saddam, we should have gotten out immediately afterward and let Iraq handle their internal affairs.
2006-12-18 08:36:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
you've been lied to. we are stretched yet we are nevertheless managable. The nationwide safeguard and Reserves have meet and handed their recruiting aims. there have been VER FEW cases of detention center time over deployment. i am going to't imagine of a unmarried social gathering contained in the KYARNG. We do serve distinctive deployments yet it is area of the project. i'm on my 2d deployment in spite of the undeniable fact that it truly is taken me 2 many years to finally get deployed. we've sufficient infantrymen with no draft as long as some thing else doesn't bend or destroy. If it does, human beings favor to step up and serve their usa, besides.
2016-11-27 02:41:53 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Three of the seventy odd recommendations of the Baker Commission have to do with protecting American oil interests from nationalization of Iraqi oil reserves. Whether we increase or decrease the troops, stay the course, or follow any other recommendations of this commission or any other group, this is the bottom line single most important goal of this administration and this war.
2006-12-18 08:42:44 · answer #7 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
who ever knows what he will do ? I just pray that no more troops need to go there , this is a civil war now and we will never win in that country.
And on top of that Bush started this war all by himself and the young people have paid dearly for that I still think he should be impeached for going to war with out the consent of both houses
2006-12-18 08:41:27 · answer #8 · answered by sandyjean 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Does anyone really know what "changing the course" would look like?
Right now "the course" seems to be
Provide security for the Iraqi people
Train Iraqi police and army to defend itself
Phase out of the country and allow the newly trained security force to fill the power vacuum.
All strategies seem to either speed up, slow down, or magnify this same strategy. Does anyone have anything drastically different that they think would be better?
2006-12-18 08:33:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
He will increase the troops. The administration still needs to find a way to say G.W. succeeded before he goes on to build his library. Either that or find a way to blame his failure on the Dems. All presidents are worried how history will see them.
2006-12-18 10:19:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋