Why did the Bush administration deny for years that more troops?

Question

Were needed in Iraq, and now all of a sudden Bush and his party are all for a troop surge? For the past 3 years of this war they have denied that more troops were needed, they laughed at the idea when it was presented to them. Now out of the blue they think its a good idea.
How on earth can we win a war with Flip Flopping leadership in charge?

We needed more troops from the start. From the beginning of the war. Its too late to add any now. 40,000 more? Maybe about 200,000 more could get the job done. 40,000 more wont make any difference. Just more targets for the insurgents to take out.
Had they started this war with around 500,000 troops and mantained that level more than likely no insurgency would have ever taken place. If it took 500,000 troops to kick Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, how on earth did they expect to take control of Iraq and hold onto it with less than 150,000 soldiers?

Turboweegie, i have been paying attention. IVE BEEN THERE, have you?

Answer 1

Bush dosen't want to win a war he wants troops in the Middle East. What does winning in Iraq mean? It was meant to be a dibocle in the first place. The longer we stay the more profits his buddies make. The only reason they are sending more troops now is to make it look like they are trying. 20,000 more will not secure Baghdad never mind the rest of the country. 400,000 troops are necessary to secure the country and quell the violence. That is the only way to win.

Answer 2

Most of the people that bash Bush lack logic. When you are the president involve in a war you listen to the military in the pentagon the Generals the Joint Chiefs etc, they will not all agree a 100% but you follow the best advice, so those that ask why Bush didn't send more troops don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Now he is getting advice from the military to send more troops of course not all the military will agree a 100% people give it a rest with your armchair quarterbacking. The president don't just wake up one morning and say I think I will bomb this country today it does not work that way.

Answer 3

LOL these question crack me up.
Lets see. Last MAJOR conflict to last more than 3 years. Vietnam.

1-Jan-1969

440,000 total troops

67,000 Combat trps

372,000 support troops

I can see your points on the build up. And more death. The real issue is. All modern Presidents since Nixon. Have relied to much on their washington staffs. Instead of letting the War Front Generals fight.

You cant expect to know all the details from 6000 miles away. The reason WW2 and before succedded was because our Presidents did not micro-manage the war efforts abroad.

These petty wars will continue to be fought though to keep a WW2 from happening again.

See the link below for troop strengths and such in Vietnam.
Pay close attention to the influx of troops in '68 and the death toll.

We need to finish this war YES. And troops on the ground will do that.
______

According to your flip-flop theory. And looking throughout America history every War time President was a sham. Troop strengths always reflect the next big push. As in Vietnam '68 the TET Offensive occurred. So, the troops had to be brought back up to and exceed previous levels. To set up Operation Linebacker, etc etc.

But this build-up I am talking about occured over serveral years.

So, as in Iraq, the build up has been planned for months or years. They just needed to hash it all out.

Answer 4

The situation is different, and you haven't been paying attention.

First, unlike his predecessor or his last presidential competitor, Bush does not consider himself a military genius. He relies upon the recommendations of the JCS, the Pentagon, his commanders in the field, and other advisors. There probably had been quite a number of differences of opinion, from less troops to more troops, to keeping it the same. One of these opinions was right, but nobody could really know until after the fact.

Bush had to decide between these opinions, all from people with strong military backgrounds. It does no good to bash him for not listening to some who had it correct - because the credentials of those he did listen to were just as strong. Arguing otherwise betrays a lack of comprehension and an irrational hatred.

Second, in the past 6-9 months, the situation changed. Increased retaliatory violence from the Shia towards the Sunni have caused an escalation in the violence and less confidence in the government. By reports, it was determined that the violence was mostly in areas NOT patrolled by the US forces, that it was occuring in areas after control was passed to Iraqi security forces.

Thus, in order to reduce the violence and sustain the government, it was determined that more US troops were needed in Baghdad.

This is not flip-flopping, it is a case of adapting to a changing situation to prevent a catastrophe.
--------------
Whether you've been there or not, it doesn't make your opinion any more valid. The fact is that the situation has changed recently, which means that a change in our actions is obviously necessary. It is intellectually dishonest to disassociate the change in plans with the change in situation. Quite reprehensible, actually, to do so for the sole reason of attacking Bush.

Answer 5

Because that would be admitting that they made a mistake in estimating how many troops would be needed. Now Bush as no choice but to try to salvage the situation by sending in troops. The damage has already irreversibly been done. All so George Bush could save face at the expense of our soldiers.

Answer 6

They've said a lot of things, how do you know that more troops are the answer? I hope it is, but I have my doubts. They probably held off because of the cost to deploy and maintain more troops. Think about it, if insurgents in Iraq lay low while we pay top dollar for more troops to stand around and do nothing, they'll run us into the ground financially.

Answer 7

Very exciting.... even with the certainty that, not dazzling in any respect. in addition to, I doubt that's the final we are going to be listening to approximately this style of element. If there is one element it is been made starkly sparkling by technique of this administration, that is that there is a greater plan in action.... a plan for economic branch. To Bush and his "potential base", every person under the elite status expenditures, style of, interior the comparable ballpark as livestock. subsequently, they don't look to be worth of attention or easy therapy, in human words. Neither are they entitled to a dollar of what the elite experience is "their" money, as that would propose parting with a dollar's properly worth of administration. regrettably, our squaddies will bear the worst of this, because of the fact they not purely have been used, yet are expendable in accordance to the plan. How a lot extra of this might people take, i ask your self, until now something is finished? the place are our youthful protesters? And, might they develop heavily if our troops have been allowed again domicile - extraordinarily to this style of therapy?

Answer 8

Better late than never.

Although I do wish he had done a lot of these things a year ago!

The situation changes. Hindsight is 20-20.

I disagree with Bush about many things, but it seems to me the Democrats are worse, not better, on every one of those particular issues.

Answer 9

the bush administration has recently realized that we are at some sort of stalemate in Iraq and we need to try an alternative plan. how does this have anything to do w/ flip flopping?

Answer 10

You make a very good point. In my opinion, every move that Bush has made in the past four years has done nothing to help end this debacle. In fact, as far as I'm concerned he's done everything to make sure this war never ends.