.....A 20,000 or more troop 'surge'. 132,000 already there; (more than half oif those troops are for support and maintenance); 3,000 US troops dead; 30,000 injured since the war began.
Isn't Bush just replacing troops either deceased or unable to fight anymore? (And yes, this is a serious question. Even with this 'surge,' there will still be no more troops than at the beginning of the war, will there?) If I am wrong, correct me.
2007-01-10 05:35:10 · 8 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I am so glad for intelligent well thought out answers. I am just asking a question and I will appreciate any response that is not insulting. If I knew all of the answers, I would not ask any questions. Thank you.
2007-01-10 06:17:12 · update #1
By the way, we (the U.S.) invaded with approximately 100,000 troops; coalition forces totaled about 50,000 - 60,000. We had no where near a half a million troops. That was the figure for the Persian Gulf War.
2007-01-10 07:32:25 · update #2
omg you're right. it's so sad.
2007-01-10 05:42:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I heard that something like 14,000 of the new trops would be advisors to train the Iraqi forces, but in the end they could just be more combat soldiers.
Iraq has an unemployment rate of 25% which is what Bush should really tap into. I think the number of planned Iraqi troops is good, I think the number of planned police is very poor. The Bush administration thinks 135,000 police is good enough, and I think the number should be closer to 890,000. The difference is 1 for every 200 civilians vs 1 for every 30 civilians. The increased number would making holding territory much easier while decreasing their unemployment.
2007-01-10 14:46:58 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 'surge' is adding additional units. Each unit is made up of a mix of 'line' and 'support' troops. The exact mix of units and troops is something that will be decided by the commanders.
BTW - the '30,000' injured number is misleading. This refers to any soldier that needed medical attention for any reason. (So if a soldier went on 'sick call' because of a cold he is included in this 30,000.)
Trivia note: Even with a war in Iraq the death rate for a US soldier is less than that of a US college student.
2007-01-10 14:06:20 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are not wrong... but he is trying to make it seem like a surge. If it were a real surge, I don't know where he would get all these extra troops from. Look out if you are a postman or anyone else in uniform, he will soon be giving you a gun and calling you up. He is out of his mind now.. just doing stupid things willy nilly... just to pretend he is still in charge. Once he has killed all this lot, he should be done.
2007-01-10 13:42:20 · answer #4 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The support guys are already there Adding 20,000 there will be some support guys but most are combat troops
2007-01-10 13:44:49 · answer #5 · answered by usamedic420 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We invaded with over 300,000 troops.
The 20,000 President Bush is sending are combat troops. We don't need anymore "fobbits". We need guys on the streets. That's what is coming.
In a way, this is an admission that Rumsfeld was wrong to start with. We needed more troops up front.
2007-01-10 13:43:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Everybody is a combat troop once they get shot at. No he is not just replacing troops, but if he was...whats wrong with that? If someone is unable to do their job, yes they should bring in someone else.
2007-01-10 13:40:46 · answer #7 · answered by Curt 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are wrong, libtard.
Liberals wipe their behinds with Bible pages.
Ted Kennedy is a sloppy drunk and it's all Clintons fault.
2007-01-10 13:43:17 · answer #8 · answered by DoucheRider 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋