anything other than several hundred more deaths from all sides including US troops?
2007-01-01 09:07:01 · 6 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think the idea behind proposing a troop surge is simply a ploy by the Republicans. Political experts have said that a possible stradegy, given the little power Republicans now have, could be to call for a surge in troop levels in Iraq simply so that the Democrats will block the plan. Then when things continue to deteriorate in Iraq, the Republicans can claim that their plan would have been effective but the Democrats are hurting the war effort.
If we did send more troops to Iraq, absolutetly nothing would be accomplished. And there is a likely possibility that it would be used as a propaganda booster by anti-American forces to stir up more hatred for American troops by saying that the Americans are trying to gain even more control. In the end, it would probably cause an increase in attacks on American forces, and the number Iraqi Civilians being killed would at best stay the same.
2007-01-01 09:24:53 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What the plan calls for is more MiTT's, not just a surge of troops. MiTT's are the groups of guys that organize and train the military. Are you insinuating that more MiTT's are not needed? What you need to consider is how much time is needed to stand up a viable national military force, and then how long it takes to set up a civil police force. The answere is years, something that the republicans always agreed upon, but something which democrats for some reason can not fathom. Consider when a new unit is set up in the US, like the Stryker brigade. It took 3-4 four years of training before they were considered a viable force, and that is with trained, smart, professionals. So how long then would it take to train lessor troops that can't comprehend a difference between what they do for a living and what allah mandates of them? I will say, it will take another 3 years at least, and as a soldier being there several times, I have no problem if it is that long, or better yet, longer..
2007-01-01 17:47:49 · answer #2 · answered by Shawn M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
first things forst.. THE WAR IS NOT A POLITICAL MOVE!!!!!!!
buck up its war we have lost less troops in 3-4 years then we lost in a week in our outher wars. im not a military stratigist i cannot say
2007-01-01 18:09:28 · answer #3 · answered by james s 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What "plan"? When was this plan released? Do you have information that the rest of us don't have or do you just make this stuff up?
2007-01-01 19:19:40 · answer #4 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe Bush wants to stop the killing by killing both(?) sides.
2007-01-01 17:22:10 · answer #5 · answered by Wrath Warbone 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it might work maybe bush is giving them a false sense of confidence.
2007-01-01 17:11:09 · answer #6 · answered by PT 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋