2007-01-10 14:32:53 · 15 answers · asked by sandrachapin1979 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The RAND Corporation and the US Army believe a ratio of one U.S. soldier per 50 insurgents would be needed to achieve anything that could be deemed a tactical success.
Even 30,000 troops would have nothing but an extremely limited and temporary effect, depending on how exactly they would be deployed.
It is a dismal idea with no possible long-term benefits.
2007-01-10 14:48:41 · answer #1 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he tried that last year by sending additional American forces to squish the violence in Baghdad, Iraq and all it did was increase the bloodshed. He needs to transfer more responsibility to Iraq so they see that we are not going to babysit them forever. Impose a timetable for withdrawl and if Maliki and his kind don't follow the rules, impose consequences til they do.
2007-01-10 22:42:59 · answer #2 · answered by PinkBrain 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely - George Sr, went in there, did not finish up the job, so George Jr stepped in.
If he doesn't finish up the job, another president will have to go back and do it again. And then these debates will continue ad infinitum
2007-01-10 22:42:03 · answer #3 · answered by starting over 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What's the point of sending more troops there if we aren't doing anything? These troops have already been sent and they have to go back?...NO!!! That's not right!!
2007-01-10 22:41:17 · answer #4 · answered by messygirl1433 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No,
he is a "wanker" in the Aussie sense:
actually unable to ****; just send kids to die.
he is the idiot that the world sees as "America" we all should worry:
what a dork.
But Fox news and the folks that love him will run up another few thousand killed: for nothing.
2007-01-10 22:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by cruisingyeti 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't like the fact that blood is being shed by anyone, however, I understand the job we have over there and feel like until the job is done, we're going to have to do what we have to. We've got to see this through and "stay the course".
2007-01-10 22:43:16 · answer #6 · answered by bluegrass 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe we'd have been out of there long ago if the sucking liberals had kept their heads in the sand and their wimpy lips closed. The liberals did not want a victory.
2007-01-10 22:38:25 · answer #7 · answered by shirleykins 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes,but he should also untie the seven steps of engagment the soldiers half to go by so they can actually fight a war,lets be in it to win it
2007-01-10 22:40:24 · answer #8 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For me it's a wait and see situation.
2007-01-10 22:41:46 · answer #9 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can anyone agree with that? Were you alive during Vietnam? I was.
2007-01-10 22:38:18 · answer #10 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋