should Bush blame iraq? and add troops?

Question

today on jan. the 10th. i watched the "presidential speech" the main topic of it was if its a good idea for busg to send 20,000 US american soldiers to iraq. is this good? how will america react to this? Now in the paragraph below, is a caption of todays Live News from CNN...Not mine!!



President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.


IS THIS A GOOD IDEA OR WHAT? LOL. I WATCHED IT ON CNN, I DIDNT KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LIVE SPEECH.
AND I AM GLAD I WATCHED SOMETHING LIKE THIS. so any of you on yahoo answers, please give me an idea or your opinion to this. and clarify me of whats going on! i have no idea about politics. the only reason i watched it, because i love breaking news, and i enjoy seeing the president live on national TV.

~MasterRaffi~

Answer 1

The very sad thing is that as I listened to Bush's speech, he is now only speaking of "U.S. troops". He never mentioned "coalition troops" or "our allies". It seems that the U.S. will be alone in prosecuting the war. There had been no statement from Tony Blair, and whether he will also commit additional British troops. It looks like Mr. Blair had already realized the outcome of the war and jumped off the sinking ship.

Answer 2

My opinion is that the President should have ordered more troops to Iraq at the end of July 2006. The only reason I think that is because the media was in a hoopla about Baghdad beginning the civil war in Iraq, and the 172nd Stryker Bgd. was extended another 4 months in their deployment (the first brigade to be extended in a VERY long time, it even made national news). At that point there should have been a rush to put more soldiers in Iraq.
The reasoning behind this is because we have so few troops to hold back any insurgent activity, that any soldier we loose, is a vital part in our defense there.
Now on if I think it is a good idea in the long run. Yes and no. Yes if this is just short term, for a year or two. But we cannot keep extending soldiers. The moral is getting low for some, and recruitment is down, so we won't be able to keep up the pace at which we are trying to add troops. So this cannot be another situation where our troops suffer the consiquenses. And I, for one, would hate to have a ton of people in a piss about a draft, which is exactly what would happen if we have that great amount of troops in Iraq for more than, say, 5 years. I am not against the draft, I just know that a lot of people are.
I hope that was the kind of answer you were looking for!

Answer 3

I believe that by him saying that he 'has a new strategy for Iraq' he really means 'I finally have a strategy for Iraq'. I do believe that he may have seen the light that he's going to be leaving his presidency on a very bad note and is scrambeling to make some sort of positive progress. He also said more than once to expect causualties to rise and that this is going to bring us closer to 'our' goal, which nobody is really clear about in the first place. The whole thing is chaotic to the point that the next president is going to end up spending his entire term fixing the mess instead of progressing.

Answer 4

America is in a war trap started by this President's father. The harder we struggle the worse it gets, sort of like quick sand. Our only hope is for the President to call for National prayer and fasting, which is highly unlikely. We will emerge severely bloodied and broken as a nation.

Answer 5

I think this may be a new beginning in Iraq. This war isnt lost, as some would want you to believe.

Answer 6

we're screwed, the generals even said its not gonna help, he probably wants an excuse and say were spread thin so he can draft us and send us to iran and n. korea