Will it help subdue the violence or just be additional targets?
2007-01-08 14:18:03 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No help at all. The US Army's own update on counterinsurgency published December 2006, supports a formula of "20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents." That would require 100,000 additional troops to control just Baghdad! 20,000 will just be more targets of opportunity.
2007-01-08 14:52:07 · answer #1 · answered by murphy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The country is a bunch of rocks and dust. Give em their crap and make sure their fighting stays over there. Then bomb the sh%^ out of them from the sky. Too many troops have been lost on a country that has NEVER had democracy.
The troops will be targets for the clowns btw to answer your question.
2007-01-08 14:22:18 · answer #2 · answered by bklyn2808 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only way for that place to get under control is for all the guns need taken off the militias and everyone else except the police and military.They should lock that city down and sweep it with about 500,000 military people and clean out all the" rats" in Baghdad.And don't take no prisoners!!.
2007-01-08 14:29:06 · answer #3 · answered by sasyone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Face it, Bush has tried it and it didn't work! It was a disaster!
I don't believe the Democrats will give him the money, which I would hope they would not! 25,000 dead and wounded in a war that has lasted longer that WW II, where we are in the middle of a civil war, is enough! We don't need more dead, killed by Iraqi's! We are not going to change the outcome of their civil war!
It is time to leave and let them sink or swim!With the Exception of training their corrupt troops!
Even their prime minister wants to resign before his 4 years is up!
2007-01-08 14:26:18 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Whack a mole" was W's favorite arcade game as a kid. Now he's applying his education from the game to our Iraq War strategy/tragedy. He should have paid attention to what happens when you run out of quarters/troops a long time ago.
9,000 troops are availabe--so where's the other 11,000 gonna come from? Is he going to transfer our soldiers from all over the world into Iraq to further the destabilization of our worldwide military?
2007-01-08 14:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer lies within whatever capacity they are used; support of Iraqi troops, bad; taking the lead and purging the city like they did Fallujah, good. It is a step in the right direction.
2007-01-08 15:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't understand, yet i assume in case you ask the persons who've those magnets lots of them optimum probable have a kinfolk member, a buddy, or somebody they understand serving indoors the militia. I do in spite of the undemanding fact that agree that limitless companies won't hire militia workers. they'd particularly hire some teenager off the line that would desire to in the event that they are fortunate very final a month on the interest, particularly than hiring an ex-militia guy or woman who optimum probable happen on time or in keeping with possibility early for artwork, artwork difficult, artwork better hours, and would desire to in all probability if given the possibility stay until retirement. yet optimum companies do now not elect that as a results of fact then they'd would desire to desire to pay the worker a retirement. that's why optimum militia veterans stay indoors the militia until they'd retire. They understand that the civilian companies do now not care concerning the militia workers that worked, fought, and each each now and then sacraficed existence, or limb(s) in actuality so as that grasping businessman would have his/her freedom.
2016-10-30 09:42:59 · answer #7 · answered by deliberato 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if congress has anything to do with it. Really glad the vote went the way it did in November.
My theory is that the Shiites and the Sunnis will override our forces and evolve into a civil war. I figured Sadam's execution would be the trigger, but I haven't heard a lot of news supporting that, so who knows. But I know that Bush has some competition in Congress now. He may be the commander in chief, but they hold the purse strings.
2007-01-08 14:20:39 · answer #8 · answered by Tragicfame 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
well if we weren't fighting people who are more than willing to blow themselves up, i would say it would subdue the violence, but since they are more than willing to strap bombs onthemselves and run into a group of our troops, i am thinking it wold just make bigger groups to target.
then we get left as sitting ducks for everyone else who is eyeing prime American real estate, and doesn't want to pay for it.
2007-01-08 14:34:39 · answer #9 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
About the only thing it will do is produce another 6-8 thousand coffins coming home. Bush will be delighted!
2007-01-08 14:25:09 · answer #10 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋