Why is Bush talking about sending 40,000 more troops when the US is fighting a battle it can't win?

Question

If he's looking to weed out terrorism it will never happen.As long as people are on Earth there will always be an "axis of evil".He said early on there was no tie between Bin laden and Iraq.Then he said the terrorists were in Afganistan and he sent troops over there.What exactly is this President doing?Oh well thank God the democrats took over a day or two ago.Maybe now they'll cut off his funding for the war.

Answer 1

I love the answers that bash you....(sarcastic)......those people aren't the ones being sent over there!...those aren't the people getting the phone calls in the middle of the night that their 21yr old has just been blown to bits by some nut job car bomber....those aren't the people enlisting to serve in the military.....It is real easy to say sure, send in more troops....for WHAT????.....we have no buisness being over there!.....To spy on them, sure, but to "fight this war"......pa-lease, that is a friggen joke!...."axis of evil", my a**.....

Answer 2

The U.S. has already accomplished most of it's goals in Iraq. The remaining missions are:
To complete the remaining 15% of the infrastructure projects that were set out to do.

To train the Iraqi police and troops: The Iraqi president says that should be accomplished in June 2007.

To hand all the providences over to Iraq. I heard all the providences should be handed over by the end of the first quarter or the begining of the second quarter of 2008.

I see no more goals in Iraq after that. I don't know why Bush has problems communicating the goals for Iraq. Bush does have trouble with goals in general, but so did Carter, Ford and Clinton.

As far as the soldiers go, I hear it's less than 9,000 that he wants to send and those are probably there to quicken the training of the Iraqis.

As far Afganistan goes, that is a major reconstruction project and might take a couple of generations like the story of King Arthur taming England. That was planned anyhow although people tended to side step that issue for decades. The terrorists are now in Pakistan, while the bandits (some trying to strike fear by calling themselves Taliban) are in Afganistan.

Answer 3

A very good question and one that does not have a good answer. Those for and those against have some valid points. The argument for is basically to try through policing and force to stabilize the area. The argument against is that the area cannot be stabilized. It is a quandary that only the future will solve.
Apparently what is needed is a Saddam-type strongman to control the various fractions jokeying around for power. The US is that strongman now. Left on their own devices the Iraqis will probably have an all out civil war and the strongman who will survive will rule. Most likely we are not going to like him either any more than we liked Saddam, hence we stay.

Answer 4

Iraq and Afghanistan are two different fronts on the war against terror. You would know this if you had paid attention since Oct. of 2001. Fighting a battle it cannot win is a defeatist attitude that drives the liberal political machine. Not only are we winning , but, we must be allowed to finish the job. The United States will lose lore respect if it is noted in history that we went into a country and disposed of its leader and freed its people , only to leave before they had a chance to get back on their feet. The shame is that the United nations does not help us out to stabilize this country.

Answer 5

There are 2 ordinary flaws on your premise. a million) the supply for Congress to declare warfare is for the purpose of beginning a warfare the place none exists. If "the different guy" starts off one, no such announcement is mandatory nor appropriate. as an occasion, if Canada invades, wager what? we are at warfare with Canada and Congress elect not legislate to make certain if this certainty in certainty exists. it incredibly is appropriate to the present day because of the fact SADDAM began a warfare in 1991 that became in no way concluded until the 2003 invasion. (there is been a stability And help Operation for the reason that then). 2) Congress DID declare warfare against Iraq. (redundantly, for the reason that as in keeping with #a million above, we already have been at warfare.) there is not something interior the form nor US Code that spells out particular language such announcement might desire to utter. the certainty that no determination became exceeded with the words, "we declare warfare" or regardless of you think of it has to declare, would not regulate the inescapable certainty they DID expressly vote to apply militia rigidity against Iraq, particularly authorizing the invasion, in certainty. you may declare it incredibly isn't a announcement of warfare in case you like yet no truthful man or woman will connect you.

Answer 6

Good news on this. That plan appears to be blasted. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress. Check out the news clip.

Answer 7

He's trying to finish a war his father started years ago. And trying to keep from looking for Bin Laden. Bush in a way helped kill our people and Iraqis. He let Bin Laden's family leave the U.S after 9/11 and quickly reinforced the his father's grudges with Iraq and Saddam Hussein to keep from revealing that he allowed Bin Laden to attack America. Sad!


Krazy Libra

Answer 8

I dont understand where u come up with that number hes just replacing the troops. We can win where the most powerful country on earth. Where just making sure the iraq are able to defend thereselves. The troops that are there now are coming home new troops new strategy.

Answer 9

May be coz he's being deliberately Foolish and stubborn. he is not strong enough to declare his failure on all levels to the whole world like an honest man, and he selfishly wants to protect his face even if this means jeopardizing the lives of more Americans, and gaining more world hostility!!!

Answer 10

Okay, fact is, we can win really easy. The problem is that jellyfish spined folk like you would have a stroke if we did what was needed.