American troops in Iraq?

Question

It looks as if America is considering sending an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq, good idea or bad idea?

If you are an American answering this question can you mention it in your answer. I'm really interested to know the American point of view as you guys have lost far more GIs that we have British troops.

Answer 1

I am an American.
The invasion of Iraq was one of the biggest blunders Bush could have ever undertaken. He was advised prior to invading that, although it would only take a force of 150,000 troops to topple Saddam, it would require a force of 300,000 to 400,000 troops to secure Iraqi borders and establish law and order among the civilian population. Bush ignored this advise and fired the top generals who stated so.
What is happening in Iraq today is nothing more than civil disorder, regardless of the fact religion is involved. The unrest is no different than rioting over a football game. If there are 1000 people in the street rioting, you don't sent only a handful of police to settle the unrest. It requires a large force.
Bush has admitted recently that civilian security was never in his post-Saddam Iraq plans. He had wanted to train an Iraqi force to settle the civilian population. That plan was a total failure.
30,000 more combat troops in Iraq will do little good. What is needed is about 100,000 military police. Again Bush clearly shows the world he is in need of a cranium rectum inversion.

Answer 2

I think it is a terrible idea. US troops should never have been there in the first place. Finding and helping to kill Saddam is just another ploy to make it look like they actually accomplished something good there. However, I have spoken to Iraqis and they say that killing Saddam has done nothing but create more chaos. There are many bombings and no security outside the Green Zone, so no one is really safe.

I do think the US government is responsible to fix the country that they destroyed out of their own ignorance and selfishness. I just do not know how they can do that. Sending more troops to be killed is NOT an acceptable solution. Bush and his advisors should personally go there and clean up their mess.

Answer 3

Hi,
Hmm a predicament, no less.
I am a Brit, and have many freinds in the services out there, and used to operate in the Mid-East myself, and the general consensus "on the ground" seems to be that well, put frankly, the American forces are too trigger happy when it comes to "world peace keepers". Quite the reverse seems to be true.
Oh dear - Civil war, the war of Independance against the Brits, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Mk. 1 ... the list goes on.
I feel generally that troubled countries should be assisted, but not invaded and told what & what not to do.
A more peacful New Year to all !
Bob.

Answer 4

Bad idea. There are still no solid strategies to stabilize Iraq. Sending more troops only cause more troops to die, assuming the army and the marines does not collapse first because of early call-ups and extended tours of duties.


XR

Answer 5

well seeing as they started this war they have to finish it really.. if they leave now it will be worse than if they hang in there and do what they can. i dont agree with the war in the first place, but seeing as bush thinks he has the right to determine the future of millions of iraqis.. theyre his responsibility, and if 30,000 troops are whats needed to help the iraqis, so be it. (i think its unfair on and dangerous for the troops, but then they took the risk of going to a war they might not necessarily agree with by joining the army.)
im english btw

Answer 6

The troops in Iraq are protecting u . s . a . of america. i are conscious of it sounds unusual, because of the fact the best judgment at the back of engagement is a sprint weird and wonderful to maximum individuals. Engagement isn't some thing you may liken to a house carry daily concern. Who would go and combat drug sellers to maintain their little ones secure from drugs? maximum probable no person, yet it quite is actual what Police are doing whilst they make a drug bust. they are protecting their little ones (and different little ones in the community) secure from drugs. in an identical way, by skill of having bumped off a terrorist helping government in Iraq we've secure the worldwide from available terrorism. problem being regardless of the undeniable fact that that on the comparable time we've bigger terrorism by skill of growing to be instability and offending/angering diverse human beings.

Answer 7

I am an American and I think it is a bad idea! They are so many men and women with children, grandchildren, and people they love that they will never come home to. Or see born, take their first steps, or say their final good byes. Bush doesnt care he doesnt pay for his gas and his daughters will never see Iraq.

Answer 8

I'm British but I believe as the chief instigator for this war the Americans have the care of duty to see this through to the end. As a Brit I'm more than aware of what has historically happened when you go into a country turn everything upside down then bugger off before resolving issues. It doesn't make you popular!

Answer 9

What we really need are permenant bases and a good 20-year plan for rehabilitating Iraq and Afghanistan.

30,000 is a good start. I wouldn't mind if we sent another 100,000+ (as long as we have the blessing of both the sovereign governments and the people seperately).

We always have to be careful of their authority and respect for their advice. We are not invaders, we're liberators, but that can change if we become control-happy.

Answer 10

Good for the Undertakers, morticians, coffin makers
Bad for the Familys, State of the Nation, Respect of the world and how they view us.

More Just Sent out to die.