Will a temporary surge of 30,000 troops (plus or minus) help the U.S. to achieve its objectives in Iraq?

Answer 1

A temporary surge of US troops to Iraq will not help the US achieve its objectives in Iraq for a myriad of reasons:
1) A few more American patrols won't be able to quell the "civil war" going on in Iraq. Iraqis are quite capable of fighting amongst each other as well as us.
2) Extra troops sent over there would not have much to do, if leaders continue to try to figure out what to do to win. Strategy dictates the operations and tactics, not the other way around.
3) Most US troops are cooped up in Foward Operating Bases rather than actively going out of the wire. In essense, they are besieging themselves and hardly pacifying the country.
4) For the 10% of US troops that do go outside of the wire, they are usually running convoys or patrols, which only provides tempting targets while raids and sweeps only create more enemies within the Iraqi populace.
5) More US military advisors to come and train the Iraqi military does not make it any less difficult and also fails to solve the primary problem: the lack of legitimacy of the Iraqi government. Iraqis have primary loyalties to their clan, tribe, and religious faction rather than to the state of Iraq. This makes it questionable that they will fight for the Iraqi state rather for their primary loyalties. Next, lack of equipment and little training does not help the effectiveness of the new military. Third, US military advisors would fail to teach the new Iraqi military proper counter-insurgency, as the US military themselves cannot do it right either. Fourth, the Iraqi government hardly controls the country; and most of the power and influence are wielded by different factions in the country. A military solution will not solve Iraq's woes.

The only way that more troops would have the US stabilize and bring legitimacy to the Iraqi government is via the ink blot strategy used by the Special Forces or the Combined Action Platoons used by the Marines in Vietnam. However, this would fail at this point because it requires acceptance by the Iraqi people... /especially/ in the volatile parts such as the Sunni Triangle.

Answer 2

No, because the end objective is to leave. This can only be achieved by training and equipping a competent Iraqi Security Force to take over for the U.S. Unfortunately, this immense task may take years and until then, the U.S. is more or less stuck in Iraq. A surge in troop numbers may temporarily calm Iraq, but not long enough for us to leave and let a competent Iraqi force take over peacefully.

Answer 3

His surge is a militia plan, from the generals, it is an go out plan.i'd think of that they are going to pop out regardless of how succcessful that's. The plan, as I even have examine and in no way in the politicized mainstream media, is to inflict harm on the terrorist infrastructure as much as conceivable till now exiting to offer the elected Iraqi government of project to stay to tell the tale. no count if or no longer they do or no longer is as much as them and Bush would desire to have in no way hung around after Saddam replaced into captured and tried to united states build. Screw united states development that would desire to be a UN activity, different than that the UN is valueless, toothless and corrupt. i understand you're no longer asking a query yet particularly in basic terms making a assertion yet i think of the troops are popping out of there regardless of what occurs from the surge of troops. the difficulty for my social gathering, that's Dem by the way, is that we are taking the type of place of opposing the troops and the rehashing the Vietnam conflict (which all human beings toddler boomers theory replaced into the highwater mark of our lives) that we are going to end getting blamed what occurs in Iraq whilst we go away. we are forcing Bush to go away there is not any question in the eyes of the worldwide and the balloting public right here (even regardless of the indisputable fact that we went to conflict with a Dem majority in the Congress a actuality we decide directly to forget as we did in Vietnam). The media are such lowlifes that on the same time as now they are working memories relating to the adverse squaddies the decide on then be working memories relating to the genocide, and so forth, in Iraq because of the fact we left. And interviews with terrorist leaders loving their victory no longer over the troops yet over the yankee political scene. which will take place in basic terms in time for the subsequent Presidential election. And we Dems can retreat returned into prevailing community elections and campaiging for extra constructive rubbish collections and parks in community government. i'm a lifelong Dem and in the final 30 years there has been no dumber bunch of egomaniacs in the worldwide because of the fact the national Democratic social gathering and our national applicants. so which you probably did no longer ask a query yet there is my answer.

Answer 4

The US objective to secure the Iraqi oil fields for their own imperial uses were achieved at the time of the invasion. If you mean will a few thousand extra troops stop the civil war or the insurgency against the occupiers then no, it wont. If the US were serious about that then they would have to invade Iran as well.

Answer 5

Maybe. I don't know enough about it but, unlike some people on here, I won't pretend to.

However, I know a temporary surge of 30,00 bombs will do the trick!!!

Answer 6

no , my opinion and i know this will be hard to hear but my opinion is too get all the media out and bomb fallujah , bomb baghdad and bomb the sunni triangle , i dont think this should be done especially with the terrible lose of life we already have and already inflicted but this is the only way to win

Answer 7

I don't think it will help acheive all of our objectives, but it will help stabilize the capital and center of the Iraqi government.

Answer 8

Shock and awe, that is what we need. Take our guys out of the Sunni triangle and other scumbag places, and scare the bastards into submission.

Answer 9

No. The plan is still faulty. More of something doesn't always insure success.

Answer 10

i don't think there is a real, clear objective. that's a part of the problem.