Why do you need to send 21,000 soldier more in IRAK?

Question

In your opinion, from the moment that the war is finish since 2004?

Answer 1

It is not More Soldiers, it is Fresh Soldiers, there is a difference.
Those with low morale will be gradually pulled out.
New ones will be sent with a new role to arrange pull out for the older lot.
I do not see any other reason to send more troops when the existing forces are fed up and awaiting pullout orders.
(It is Iraq not Irak.)

Answer 2

To the person that said they need to stop the massacre...there is no massacre going on. The soldiers are constantly finding the bad guys, finding weapons, finding bombs, they are doing a GREAT job. There have been casualties along the way but that is expected with any war.

The increase in troops will help support those that are already there. It is only fair to them to get as much support as they can get and I think it is a really smart idea of President Bush to send more troops into Iraq.

They were getting stretched too thin and I am thankful that Bush decided to go this way.

My husband is in Iraq and he is doing a great job and I know that they can use all the support they can get.

Answer 3

Lots of opinion here but militarily there is a need for more troops because:

Former/retired/released or what have you troops need to be replaced. This happens because troops will serve their time and then retire or, unfortunately, (a minority but a heartfelt loss) die or get picked up (hired) by a private corporation or run away. There is not a huge amount but a percentage is always getting lost one way or another that will always need to be replaced.

There is more infustructure that will need to be protected and this and that. If we have too few soldiers then they WILL die at a higher rate and we WILL experience MORE setbacks.

This kind of thing takes a-lot of time. I know there are those that say so-and-so are doing this or doing that but the reallity of it is that if they are needed it would be a HUGE mistake to not allow it (notice that the House Speaker {I think it was House but not sure} did not object to it but, instead will make a political issue over it but both parties will will approve it because soldiers are needed). Our brothers and sisters over there will die without enough support!

This is definitely a hot button issue and easy to make personal but if they are needed then they are needed. It may make us angry but it doesn't change the fact. This one is probably no-one's fault but those "insergents" or whatever that make things difficult over there. These kind of things are immpossible to plan for and 20k is a drop in the bucket and in my opinion, hopefully not too few.

Answer 4

The country we're talking about here is Iraq, not Irak. The 21,000 or so plus soldiers being sent are most likely going to bring a stronger presence of peacekeeping in the land and will be utilized in many different ways. I know this all sounds bland, but realistically this will heighten morale and will also prove to Iraqis that the U.S. presence depends on their commitment to independence, that which they haven't done so well in improving themselves sadly enough, because they're confused as all hell out there trying to find out who the hell they really even are. The citizens of that country existed under a dictator who assumed total power and control over their lives for the past 30 years and brought them fear of death and peril on the contrary. So if you think about it, not such a raw deal that troops are being sent when & where most appropriate so that Iraqis can continue to rebuild their own security stronger than ever for their own citizens .

Answer 5

Its IRAQ learn 2 spell

and no idea why America is sending more troops i guess because its gone totally wrong and there's no easy way 2 fix it now sending more troops maybe a temporary fix. Really it will achieve nothing other than causing more deaths and dragging the war out longer!

Answer 6

They call it a stabilization force yet the terrorist are getting the better of the American coalition. I think its time the coalition forces stopped this madness and massacre of their own soldiers and let the Iraqis solve their own problems. Differences in ideologies will still be a major factor and the Iraqis are first Muslims before being Iraqis and they will always listen to their Muslim brothers rather than any coalition. You don't need to send the 21000+ soldiers there. Sorry

Answer 7

Because Bush likes to keep the population of the United States to a minimun. it's his way of making sure we run out of people paying into social security, and taxes. he is bound and determined to bank rupt the United States. that's why he let all the jobs go elsewhere.

Answer 8

Only bush knows the real reason, if he even REALLY knows.
He can't even say "nuclear" properly so who knows the real agenda.

I'd be worried about a confrontation with Iran, as he mentioned in his speech he authorized sending a carrier group to that region, a carrier group consists of an aircraft carrier or carriers, with at least 10 support/battleships.

Answer 9

They are there, because Bush wants them there, and twisted a few arms to be able to get them there.

Answer 10

For securing oil resources for Iraqis (Total oil control for US) and stability in middle east(Have a pro US goverment who do not mind stealing their Oil)