Bush said he will send about 21,000 more troops to the civil war in Iraq. Why not send a much larger number? The original strategy was deeply flawed, and clearly one of the reasons was that far too few troops were sent.
Before the war began, on U.S. general said that it would take 'hundreads of thousands' of troops to occupy Iraq and 'win the peace'.
Tonight, I heard one expert say that about 250,000 troops would be realisitic in terms of what is required to do the job.
So why not return to the 'Powell Doctrine' and use overwhelming force, which tends to result in the quickest victories with the fewest losses.
But all Bush is doing is increasing troop numbers by about 15 percent.
What will this do? Will it work? Why doesn't Bush send far more, since that would probably be the best hope for success?
2007-01-10 17:24:23 · 23 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It just amazes me how un-informed some on here are. So many repeat what someone else spouts off about not having enough troops. Where do you get that garbage info?
Currently, the U.S. has just a little over 2.5 million military personnel, both active and reserve.
I do agree that more troops should have been sent from day one ( and before the hate mongers get going, yes I've been, and I'm still serving with 26 years service so far, and I'll go again if my unit is called....again). Not all of us that supports G.W. do it blindly. He has made blunders, like not enough troops, etc.
Whether you like him or not, he is still the President of this country and will be for another 2 years and he is the Commander-in-Chief. Some say he should be removed from office, I don't believe so, I feel he should have not only our support, but our constructive input as well. All the name calling and comments "I hate Bush" does nothing but bolster the terrorists will and determination.
Do something constructive, write your Congressman, your Senator, your President, offer some fresh constructive ideas....but to date I haven't heard much from Dems or Libs other than name calling.
2007-01-10 22:49:13 · answer #1 · answered by jonn449 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what those 20,000 troops are for. There was some speculation that they are training advisors to speed up the training process of the Iraqi troops and police.
I think the big problem is the number of police that the Bush Administration wanted to train. They want to train 1 for every 200 civilians and I think they are better off training 1 per 30. That means 760,000 more police officers that need to be trained and equipt. This would put the hold in clear (done by the Iraqi military) and hold (done by the Iraqi police). It would also cut down of Iraq's unemployeed which now runs at 25%.
If those 20,000 were used to train new police officers, it would put one advisor per 38 students which could be completely trained in the basics by July or August. That's my opinion.
2007-01-10 18:31:48 · answer #2 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You find him 200,000 troops to send and maybe he would try and send them!
"So why not return to the 'Powell Doctrine' and use overwhelming force, which tends to result in the quickest victories with the fewest losses." since when does that ever work?
2007-01-10 22:29:25 · answer #3 · answered by Wonx2150 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We needed that many at first but not now. The Iraqi forces are actually coming on line and becoming, ever slowly, more competent. They will be the main force in securing Baghad. Now even if we had 200K more we'd probably be looking at the same problems when we pulled out if the Iraqis didn't step up to the plate.
2007-01-10 17:34:34 · answer #4 · answered by k3s793 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure, We could round up all the illegals and send them over there to fight and the ones that come back get instant citizenship. Think about it. It would solve a few problems. Plenty of new soldiers to go fight, the immigration problem would be solved and we might actually win this thing. And we could pay our new troops much less to do the job. Win -- Win all around.
2007-01-10 17:45:19 · answer #5 · answered by Jay 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well I agree we need more but there are some out there that want to run with their tails between their legs so they would do what ever they could in their power to stop him if he sent in an overwhelming number of troops. I also don't think we could spare that much right now though. A bigger number would help protect our men and women over there because they have more cover and don't have to exhaust themselves as much. It would also help with searching and not giving the tyrants time to run.
2007-01-10 17:33:15 · answer #6 · answered by 2007 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The war in Iraq was lost with the initial mistakes. For the Powell Doctrine to Work, you have to implement it first thing. We did the gradual thing in 'Nam, and it didn't work. It won't work in Iraq. you have to have that huge force at the start.
Another issue: Where are those troops gonna come from?
2007-01-10 17:29:38 · answer #7 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
This is a really BIG political issue. A funnding issue also, not to mention the troop readiness issues already in place plus logistics, and the executive branches of intelligence to figure out effectiveness. I'm stymied.
2007-01-10 17:31:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The entire USMC is only about 180,000. Don't ask for something you might get: The draft reinstated. The problem with overwhelming force is it only works effectively with organized forces. You can't find them, fix them in place, and destroy them if you don't know who they are. Our mistake was from the beginning. We should have destroyed his entire army, him and anyone else who got in the way and came home.
2007-01-10 17:36:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hey you all posting here... shut down the PC get you're toy guns and get going over there.. You'll see Bush Smile again.
2007-01-10 17:39:27 · answer #10 · answered by Conan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋