If Bush recommends a surge in troops.. what will that accomplish?

Question

Can training really go much faster than it already is and still maintain it's effectiveness...is it even effective to begin with?

Or is he just going to try and secure Baghdad.......well...half-way secure it...b/c I personally don't believe that is possible....and call that a victory (of sorts)?

Answer 1

nothing, except a larger waste of money, and more brave young American men and women coming home in body bags.

Answer 2

Given the US government has been 'trying to secure' baghdad' since the war was declared 'over' and a 'victory' by Mr Bush 3 years ago it seems likely the only outcome will be an increase in dead and wounded US troops (sending in new troops into a war zone is always a messy business), more dead iraqis and an even more massive debt that your children are going to have to pay off eventually (currently estimated at 1.5 - 2 trillion USD).

Keep in mind Baghdad is only one city in a huge country. What are you going to do about securing the rest of the country as well?

Answer 3

It's not a matter of training its a matter of moving the thousands and thousands of troops stationed around the world to better locations. We have thousands of troops in Europe that we could move to Kuwait or Iraq as well as thousands more in Asia and in various peace keeping missions around the world with the U.N. I personally recommend pulling all U.S. troops out of all U.N. peace keeping missions until we can fully secure Iraq and Afghanistan. Let the oh so reluctant European Union put more boots on the ground for those missions. (They won't because they think their blood is too valuable to be spilled actually protecting innocents from being slaughtered. Example: Sudan.)

Answer 4

If this "surge in troops" are going to be used to replace the 77% US troops that he withdrew from AFGHANISTAN after obtaining the help of UK/NATO troops (although the majority of NATO troops are NOT in a "war fighting role" presumably because thier countries are politically sensitive and fear terrorist reprisals... so grudgingly allow thier troops to be there in a purely admin role only !) to aid US troops in AFGHANISTAN ONLY - to deal with the alleged terrorists allegedly trained and in hiding in AFGHANISTAN
... the alleged source of the aftermath of the 9/11 attrocities..

Well, as Ii said, IF that is the reason for the "surge in troops" to replace those 77% of US troops back into AFGHANISTAN.. that will be a good "accomplishment" (for want of a better adjective!)

The media are drowning in us the hype about Iraq, and minds need to be re-focused back on the ball ASAP that the REAL reason for UK/NATO troops being dragged into this conflict was because terrorists are being trained and are in hiding in the caves, bunkers of AFGHANISTAN... NOT in Iraq !

Answer 5

My son is in Iraq and sending in more troops is the smartest thing that man has said in a long time. If he won't take us out all together then send in enough to do something.

Answer 6

a short term overpowering of intergents..bu after a while more insergents will come along and you will end up with the same situation b4 the surge of troops.

Answer 7

What it accomplishes is that he surrounds himself with a bunch of yes you're right people, and not wise counsel. And that is a sure sign that he thinks he's right about everything he decides. It is also the sure sign of a fool.

Answer 8

The only thing it will accomplish is preventing Bush from admitting defeat for a while. That, plus killing lots of people.

Answer 9

It appears that there wasn't enough initial strategizing if more troops are needed.

Answer 10

Who knows, maybe his plan is to secure Tehran or Damascus!