can somebody explain the "more troops" idea?

Question

From what I see, got about 100,000 there sitting around doing almost nothing. Never hear of them really doing missions, etc. Just once in awhile. You'd think each day they'd be sniffing out the killers, sweeping towns, etc. So it seems instead of 100,000 sitting around, now gonna have 120,000 sitting around. Am I missing something?

Where can I read of the missions they do each day?

Answer 1

How do you even know what they are doing? A lot of what they do is patrol where they go up and down the streets looking for people who are trying to start trouble.

During patrol is when many of the soldiers are killed because of roadside bombs.

When they aren't on patrol, they are maintaining their weapons, their tanks, etc.

My husband is there and he doesn't do much sitting around so I would get your facts straight.

*To answer your additional question, they don't keep public records of what they do day in and day out. This is for safety purposes. Do you really think they would make that kind of information public?

Answer 2

Beyond what the woman above said, there has been a heckuva lot going on. For Pete's sake, they've pacified a whole nation that, while not completely hostile, was sure as heck populated by people who wanted us dead. Not the 'sitting around' mission you seem to have been told.

Before complaining that the US Military, which doesn't get into fights unless it can help it (due to the whining it would have to put up with and an actually peace-based military system), isn't doing anything and doesn't need more reinforcements, I'd suggest checking the actual US Army, Navy and Air Force sites instead of the civilian networks. You might be vaguely surprised at what is happening.

As for 'missions', you have to remember that this isn't WWII, the Korean War or even the Vietnam War, when there were actual military targets you could shoot at. This is a war against somebody who might be standing next to you pulling a knife without you ever knowing, against somebody who prefers blowing up civilians versus standing up to an actual military, against somebody who hides out individually or in small groups in heavily populated areas, secure in the knowledge that our soldiers are not murderers and thereby won't cut through the civilian population to root them out. The entire war is practically one big mission, a mission involving, while not always the big, flashy missions like Faluja, constant missions against individuals that, often as not, are practically identical in appearance and activity to the civilians that our soldiers are protecting.

Here, we trust that our neighbors, while not always peaceful and tolerant of us, will at least not kill us. Over there, any of the neighbors could be bearing enough C4 on his body to chew through twenty people.

So, rather than 'sitting around doing almost nothing', the soldiers are constantly rooting out terrorists, assisting the rest of the Iraqis in rebuilding their country and, most importantly, making the world a little bit better.

As for the 'more troops' thing, think about it. Which is the better way: a)pull out immediately and let the Iraqi government's forces, who are getting trained by us, deal with the problem, like leaving a child just learning to swim in the middle of the ocean, b)never pull out and never reinforce, leave our troops there forever, never ending the push to clear the country of even ninety percent of the rats therein or c)send in enough troops NOW so that we can get it done FASTER.

Remember, the military wants out of Iraq just as much as we want them out. However, they want to get done with their job before they leave. Much like a firefighter wants to put out all the flames before leaving the house or a police officer wants a known and habitual murderer to stay behind bars at the least.

It's their job to care about that. The least we can do is help them finish. Twenty thousand troops temporarily gone is better than four thousand people permanently gone.

Answer 3

Its a strategy developed to overwhelm enemy forces and to give the allied forces in the area an advantage in numbers and to occupy and police neighborhoods.

The positive force in this tactic is that in numbers there will be a better force in the occupied territory, which will have an impact on insurgents in these designated areas.

The negative effects are that mainly by increasing the US forces there will be a US presence and more than likely a negative response in transitioning power over to the Iraqi authorities. It will also send a powerful signal to the region that may inflame the area, which could lead to a larger war.

Note: The Russians and the Chinese have coordinated war games together this past summer. They have been in a border dispute for years and have historically been almost enemies, now they are preparing joint military excercises. In my estimation they are preparing for a joint effort in case of further occupation of western forces in the east.

Answer 4

It's not a solution, it's a political action.
Bush has to 'do something', and he's doing more of the same. As many troops as we can without instituting a draft.

Funny- I hear about missions and actions that our military is doing nearly every other day. They are an impressive force- but not big enough to police the civil war that's raging in the country.

Answer 5

They are not sitting around. They are participating in very dangers missions. Look at it this way. You and four of your buddies meet up with the neighborhood bully and nine of his buddies. A fight in sues. Probably the group of ten will beat the stuffings out of the group of five. There is strength in numbers.

Answer 6

Ya you missed the point that there cutting 40,000 air force, there will be less air force than when it first opened. I wonder how Bush is supposed the money. Since the both houses are in Demo control. another thing , the people stationed there only get 4 hrs a sleep a night. There really over worked.
Depends on there job title

Answer 7

Our troops are putting Iraqis out first. The interviews I read from troops in Iraq said "more troops will not help, all we can do now is watch them kill each other, we can not take sides." We now have 132,000 troops in Iraq, 5000 of them are advisers. Why do the generals get to "cut and run".. Like Casey.
Iraq is in Civil war. We are in occupation of Iraq, that is facts. Over 450,000 Iraqis went to Jordan to avoid the civil war in Iraq, draft then before even one more American dies. The Sunni want the oil money and power, the Shiites want the oil money and power, that civil war will never end.

Answer 8

It's all about creating a strategy by which the republicans can blame the democrats for the failure. "We wanted 50,000 more but knew those democrats would never approve bringing security to Iraq so we only asked for 20,000"

Hopefully the public won't buy it and all the troops will come home safely. Next election time remember to blame the people that made the mess not the people they blamed.

Answer 9

For a more distinctive set of information about what is really going on, and for daily tactical reports and to talk to the people who are actually there as well, go here and sign up:

http://www.military.com/

Answer 10

Yes.
You've missed out on something.
You are probably just a little kid.
But even so, you've probably missed out on a lot in your few years.
You must spend a lot of time in la la land.