One serious question for the night...Can anyone give me a serious answer?

Question

George W. Bush never really served in the military. Yet, he is now Comander in Chief. His Generals have said (Not the Liberals as you folks like to keep saying) that to escalate the war in Iraq will not help the problem; that we need to get out and let the Iraqis handle their own affairs. Yet Bush keeps pushing his "more troops" agenda. WHY?
Does anyone have an answer that makes any (even conservative) sense.
I don't want jabs and slurs; I don't want smart aleck remarks. I don't want Liberals saying, "Aha!". I don't want Conservatives saying I'm stupid! I want a real answer, and I will conscientiously read and ponder each of them.

I need to provide sources for my opinion? Okay, several college degrees, two kids, five grandchildren, common sense, Catholicism, 60 yrs. of life.
Enough?

I KNOW he was "in" the military (funny how many of you DON'T know what branch, though)--What I meantwas: he didn't serve, he went AWOL!! And, I KNOW a president doesn't have to have been in the military. My point was this: If you don't know about something, like combat, why don't you listen to your own advisers, who, we hope, DO have the experience necessary???

Answer 1

I think I can help ya. The generals said more troops won't help because the military is not equipped to handle George Bush's objectives, which are not military (like capture something, destroy something or kill some people). George Bush's objectives are something outside of the military's purpose. They may be industrial (sell guns), economic (secure oil) or even symbolic (win for Jesus). But the military is just saying... if you don't want people wiped out, land taken, or something blown up, we can't help you.

Answer 2

1. Which Generals?.... the ones actually currently serving or some retired general drug out by media pundits?
2. President Bush doesn't "keep pushing" for more troupes. As a matter of fact it is only recently that he has even mentioned increasing troupe levels. To this point he has resisted calls to up the levels that are there now.
3. He has consistently said that the generals in charge over there can have what they need as far as equipment and personnel are concerned.
4. This is a complicated and new type of conflict. Mistakes have and will be made. As is true in any war. It would have been more productive for the media and the Democrats to be supportive instead of constantly inhibiting progress and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Answer 3

I'm one who walks the centerline so no jabs here for anyone. The JCOS is made up of many different people, different political views and different schools of thought in regard to the correct way to remedy a situation. Some of the Generals believe, as do I, that the best method to handle the issues in Iraq is to lock the country down tight as a drum by securing the borders and keeping close tabs on everyone until we accomplish what we desire. Some other Generals and advisers feel that the best remedy is to pull out immediately, allowing the Iraqi government to either sink or swim.

The JCOS are no different than anyone else, they may be military, may be strategists, but they are looking to different personal goals many of them. Some want to take a path in the policy setting arena while others are true dedicated military strategists.

You go with the ones who served you in the past with accuracy and good knowledge. And as far as "his agenda" is concerned, I would not put too much into that, at this point, one likely has to believe he wants this mess over with too.

Answer 4

From the get go, I was not a supporter of the war in Iraq. I didn't believe the presidential reasons reported. But that is neither here nor there now...the war is on.

I would love to see an end to this war...now. But sadly, that isn't a realistic hope. Pulling out now would make the Americans seem weak (although they did already succeed in taking out a dictator - their originally reported goal). In addition, they would leave a very important world resource (oil) in the hands of the 'enemy' - the terrorists. Sadly, the American invasion of Iraq turned out to be a much larger hornets' nest than Bush and his boys counted on. Their heads so firmly up their own butts, they didn't recognize that America is no longer the biggest and strongest. They didn't count on the numbers of insurgents - the waves of them that just keep on coming. And will continue to do so. The end of the war? I don't see how or when that will happen.

Answer 5

The Texas Air National Guard IS part of the military and George W. Bush DID serve honorably and was discharged as such with fulfilling his mititary obligation.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln accompanied the military during the first battle. After a while he is said to have remarked that he should return to Washington and leave the war to the generals.

The problem with Iraq is the same problem with Vietnam, it is being run by politicans and not the generals.

We need to give the military guidelines and the support that they need and then let them do the job that they have been trained for!

Did you know that President Lincoln was subject to the draft while he was in office during the Civil War. He PAID someone to take his place!

"John Summerfield Staples, an otherwise unremarkable young man from Stroudsburg, PA, became the President's "representative recruit". He was enlisted in the 176th Pennsylvania Volunteers, survived the war, and is buried in Stroudsburg Cemetery, under a regulation GI headstone."

Imagine if President Bush had done that while a sitting President.

Answer 6

When Bush ran against Kerry they said he was in the military but they never found the papers,so I heard no more about it!
The President and Vice President still want a troop surge and has been advised against it,however Sen. McCain is for a surge but he wants even more soldiers,much more than the president wants to send. Bush replaced some of them and put some in that agree with the surge. This is how we are left..
I think when he goes to the house they should refuse him and refuse him money therefore force him to Phase our soldiers out.
However I worry about how and what happends to the soldiers as we do phase out because they will begin to be less and less .
Since they cant protect themselvews now ,in wonder who will protect our men then!

Answer 7

Well see heres the thing. If US forces leave Iraq in the condition it's in the lack of security there would create a power vacuum. The problem with that is it will become a land without law. Militias will escalate violence there to jockey for control as well as proxies acting on behalf of certain neighboring soveriegns. This will create a training ground for terrorists and a recruitment center like never before seen.

Answer 8

N O President George W. Bush volunteered and served in the TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD and the last time
I heard, that is a US Military UNIT. The President of the USA IS the Commander In Chief and he gets all of his Info from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they will be the ones to recommend increasing the troop strength in Irag,
Afghanistan and anywhere else for that matter. All President Bush can do is suggest things and the Military and the Congress of the USA are the final deciding factors in this matter.

Answer 9

First, I'm not a Bush supporter, I didn't vote for him in 2002 or 2006, and I think we need a fast exit strategy from Iraq.

That said, let me answer your questions:

1) Bush's Military Record - Why does the President need to have been in the Military to be able to make decisions about the Military? That reasoning is not sound. We elect President's based on their vision for leadership and their decision making ability, whether it be military action, social security reform, anti-terrorism, illegal immigration, ad nauseum.

2) Which Generals are you referring to that have said that escalation won't solve the problem or win the war? I recently listened to many of the hearings going on in Congress and all the high-ranking military officials I heard were promoting the war and asking for more troops.

As for your heart question which is why is Bush pushing so hard for the war in Iraq, here's what I think.

I think after 9/11, Rumsfield and some other senior advisors who had been just begging for a reason to go back into Iraq used 9/11 as their excuse. I don't think Bush was initially thinking a war in Iraq was a good idea. After all, his own father would have counseled him against going into Iraq or if he did invade, to keep it short and sweet.

But once he was talked into it, he committed himself to it. Remember, Rumsfield only recently resigned, and he was gung ho to go to Iraq.

Cheney is another matter entirely. I really honestly think Cheney was in favor of Iraq for pure monetary gain. Whether it be Cheney's Haliburton contacts or other companies that have benefitted from a protracted war in the Middle East, Cheney seems tied to many of them.

Finally, I think it's pride. Combine bad advise from senior advisors with his own ego and lack of demonstrative decision making ability, Bush is maintaining the status quo because he thinks it's the only way he can save face.

I could go on and on, but that's it in a nutshell.

Answer 10

Look, I voted for Bush. Did it because he was the conservative choice. Don't much like the fact that we are still in Iraq, but it does make sense to me. When we decided to go in there and remove Hussein from power, we commited ourselves to a course of action. We know this much: Saddam Hussein had an iron grip on Iraq, and has had for over 25 years. He had his people in every corner of that land. Powerful people. People that were there to insure that he kept his iron grip on that country. No easy feat, but one that he succeeded in doing. Do you have any idea how many people he had to have had to do that? THESE people had his money, his weapons, and his power at their disposal. To use for his benefit as they saw fit. These are the people that we battle in the streets of Iraq now. The BEST thing to do since we are already there doing what we are doing IS to send enough troops to do the job as quickly and thoroughly as possible, without the political correctness that we have exercised in the past. These factions need to be wiped out. Exterminated. Without thought or pity. Finish the job that we went over there to do, and hand the Iraqis back a country that they can control. To pull out our troops before that objective is achieved would be foolish. Every American that has died there will have died for nothing if we pursue that change in our course of action. We already had Vietnam. We need to come out of Iraq victorious in our goals, and victorious in helping the Iraqis to live as free people. As people that are not under the rule of a madman that uses terror and chemical weapons against his own citizens to maintain control of his land. Freedom. WE had help when we fought England for freedom. Now these people need us to finish what has been started so that they too can be free.