If yes or no, why? Do you agree with the President on this? Or do you agree with his top General on this? His top general is asamantly opposed to the increase as are all but 38% of active aremd forces (per Military Times poll).
2007-01-03 01:40:19 · 18 answers · asked by toff 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Per BBC and with some confirmation from White House and Pentagon sources (BBC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN....) these troops will be establishing stability in Bagdad and NOT training Iraqui troops.
2007-01-03 01:49:25 · update #1
I appreciate that you asked the question in a neutral manner, without the usual bias in one direction or another. Yes, they should send the additional troops if they have a mission that leads to quickly taking an even greater number out, perhaps leaving a ready force in Kuwait. If they have something serious in mind, it should be tried, not just a random experiment.
I'm more concerned with the part of the general's opinion that says we don't have that number available, although I think the urgency of maintaining troops in Germany and places like that forever is illusory.
Even if the president is leaning that way, I find it hard to believe that after all we've heard he will actually propose it when he reveals his plan.
2007-01-03 01:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by Benji 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, everyone keeps saying this is still a war in Iraq and I disagree. I think the day we captured Saddam, was the day that war ended and reconstruction began. As for sending troops to Iraq, I think it is a great idea. I would up that we can get similar commitments from our allies, but they too would rather stick to their guns over pride, instead of bringing a rapid end to the turmoil over there. I do not think 20,000 troops would be enough though. I think the US and their allies have to show a much more formiddable force.
As for saying that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds cannot live side by side is ridiculous. They do so in other countries, why not Iraq. The US has to look at our own recent pass and remember the turmoils of the Civil Rights movement, when we thought whites and blacks could not live side by side. The Iraqi government just needs to adopt similiar laws: Ones that reflect the will of the majority without infringing on the rights of the minority.
I think that now Saddam is dead that the turmoil will subside somewhat. Not anytime in the near future, but in the distant future, I think the people will realize there is no turning back time and the situation is what it is.
2007-01-03 10:26:20 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Mojo Risin 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No -- additional troops will not help nor will they solve the problem. This is already the "Vietnam of this generation" and if you think that is some catch phrase you should have been around in the '60s. We weren't told the truth then either -- and isn't it strange (and sad) how Rumsfeld was a key player then as well? I do not agree with the president's handling of the war. The troops we have there now are not adequately equipped to protect themselves - so why send over more soldiers when it will further stretch the already scarce resources? I believe we should bring our brave men and women home -- as we cannot afford to lose any more Americans in a losing proposition.
2007-01-03 10:01:44 · answer #3 · answered by chequamegon 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As long as there are three separate groups, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis who want nothing less than to kill each other, confined to 1 country, Iraq, it won't matter how many troops we commit. And democracy is the worst solution for this kind of conflict. Either Iraq needs to be divided into three separate and distinct countries or it needs a secular dictator, like Saddam, to control, i.e., murder, the opposition.
Most ppl don't realize that the present day country known as Iraq with its borders didn't exist until after WWI . Those border lines were drawn in a map room in Britain following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
2007-01-03 10:06:23 · answer #4 · answered by mikey 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It'll make things much worse. Just more people to get killed.
However, things in Iraq would quickly and significantly improve if the additional 20, 000 troops were British. They're better at the required role, as proven in Northern Ireland.
2007-01-03 12:23:55 · answer #5 · answered by ukdan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will make not one bit of difference to rapidly failing Iraq, American policy is all centred around oil and big business interests in Iraq!..The evidence of this is beyong dispute!..What was the first building seized when American forces entered Baghdad?..The OIL MINISTRY!!..They didn't try to seize the things that really mattered militarily, like electricity or gas or water sources..No!.They were ordered straight to the oil!.Americans were not told this, but the first troops into Baghdad were in fact Australian special forces, who couldn't believe what the Americans went for when they arrived some 11 hours later!..No amount of American troop increases will ever help the people of Iraq because of the politics and big business dealings there, who don't have the welfare of the country at heart at all, only the petrodollars!..All at the cost of American casualty's as they try to guard these things!..What a waste of life!..
2007-01-03 10:12:19 · answer #6 · answered by paranthropus2001 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Were troops do there most good is bringing new blood lines to an out of control society. That is the reason America and Russia kept troops in Germany for so long
2007-01-03 09:57:19 · answer #7 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Because all we're doing now is prolonging the war in Iraq and with who? Stupid insurgents who the Iraqi military themselves with limited help from limited numbers of U.S. or U.N. peace forces should be fighting to get rid of not our entire military. We need to pull out and get the Iraqi gov. going and get on with our lives and country. We do however need to take on Iran and N. Korea and tell them what's what with their blatant refusal to disarm and cease their nuclear weapons programs. But to answer your question NO more troops will not help. Yes to a point I do support Bush but I don't totally agree with everything he says or does. But at least he's doing not just sitting there getting his (blank) sucked like some stupid democrats of the past did.
2007-01-03 09:51:25 · answer #8 · answered by dave_83501 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The increase is for MiTT's, and yes they need them to train everyone at a higher rate. Think about it like this, if you are a professor and lecture a class of 350, you will expend more time to get everyone of them up to a passing level. But if you divide that class into small groups of 10 with their own instructor then they will learn what they need to know much faster. I think they need to inflate that number as well, to provide for a security force for the MiTT's. Those guys have one of the most dangerous jobs going, and deserve the protection of their fellow countryman.
2007-01-03 09:49:04 · answer #9 · answered by Shawn M 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Adding 20,000 more troops will increase our military occupation of Iraq. This is what "insurgents" are fighting against. Putting more fuel on a fire does not put the fire out.
The ill-advised invasion of Iraq will not be saved by adding more troops.
We should admit that it was a mistake to invade, apologize to the Iraqi people and let them sort out their own affairs.
2007-01-03 09:46:20 · answer #10 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋