Democrats, tell me why this won't work in Iraq: SPECIFICALLY?

Question

Increasing the number of Iraqi soldiers, and U.S. backup inside the cities where the insurgents are hiding, to protect the community.

Arresting anyone, no matter of political affiliation, for violent attacks, or outbreaks, while enforcing civility in those cities.


Tell me how this won't allow the people in the cities to develope their government on local and national levels.

And don't give me any of those answers you are programed to say, like, "its a civil war...",, tell me SPECIFICALLY why it won't work in your eyes.

Answer 1

It might end up denying them power in 2008.

Answer 2

has anyone ever noticed how nosy america is? I'm not demorcratic or republican but I'm not for war at all. I think it's necessary, but I'd rather it not happen at all. I think most people would support the war if they knew why america is in it in the first place. All the other countries that are helping us are starting to pull back and we're increasing our numbers. It just seems like america is using all this money to fund something that may not turn out to benefit us. I try to look to the good side of things so I really do hope this plan works, or a lot people will have died in vain.

Answer 3

You don't seem to understand. It's not like there are a few random groups of rebellions. It is a deeply rooted issue, dating back centuries. They are also rebelling against American presence, to a government supported by Americans seen as a puppet government controlled by foreign nations (here to steel their resources and enforce Christianity). Now I don't believe that is TRUE, but it is how we are perceived (Not only by Iraq, but by most of the nations around the world). We are the modern day Imperial Power. We are what Britain was a hundred years ago, and people recent and DO NOT TRUST US. We are not seen as this SAVING GRACE most Americans think we are. Even though I think the majority of people in America have good intentions, they are not being carried out in a manor the majority of people believe they are. Our presence is only making the situation more difficult for the Iraq government to take control. The increase of troops will only show that the government is weak and NEEDS America (and will be criticized by the world and the Iraqi People). The PM of Iraq has asked for fewer troops, Leading generals have asked for less troops....when will it stop? We've set them up with the tools, now it is Iraq's turn to follow through, but they can't when Bush is going against their wishes! We should focus more on issues our OWN country is having. Medical insurance, our GREATLY under funded school systems, homeless/poverty...

It’s not as simple as just going out and arresting people. They have no idea who they are supposed to be arresting. There is no way to tell who is in and not in the country. Instead, they need to let the government restructure their own local governments. have have to stop being the world police, only aiding when it's in our best interst. instead, we need to focus on our own prolbems, and give aid when the UN agrees with it! that way we won't e shunned and distrusted.

Answer 4

First of all, Iraq is an artificially created country, whose borders were set up by the British during World War 1. Before that, the land was cohabited by a loose mixture of Kurds, Shites, and other Arab tribes. When the British finally left Iraq, these assorted groups were largely held together by strong men like Saddam Hussein, who ruled with an iron fist. Unless we wish to become a permanent occupying force in this land, Iraq will fall apart and become the feuding tribal region it had always been before the British occupied it. Therefore, you cannot dismiss the civil war aspect to this conflict.

Answer 5

Very simple. Have you ever seen the game "whack-a-mole" they have a carnivals? Well, Iraq is one giant "whack-a-mole" game. The instant you whack one mole over here, another one pops up over there - and sending more US troops to Iraq only inspires more Iraqis to join the moles, thus giving us even more moles to whack continuing the upward spiral of troops and violence.

I mean, why is this point so impossible for you people to understand? I'll bet that if the US was invaded tomorrow there are some people in this country (myself included) who would die before they allowed the occupiers even a moment's peace. The resistance movement in this country would not rest until every single occupying soldier either left or was killed. And sending more troops here would only embolden more people to join the resistance. Why is it that you cannot get it that the Iraqis are doing precisely what any of us would do in the same situation?

Answer 6

We've already tried it. The troop levels were above Bush's newly proposed numbers two years ago (165,000 Americans, 8,000 British, and assorted drones from the rest of the Coalition of the Willing)

We should pull back to the borders to keep others from entering Iraq and provide safe passage out for those that want to leave. Then let the Shea and Sunnies finish what they want to do. As long as we keep the Turks out, the Kurds will be OK and they can have Iraq when the smoke clears.

Whineboy,
The whack-a-mole analogy is brilliant.

Answer 7

I think it is going to work this time,because the time has come to destroy all the insurgents and they will do it.Now that all the 16 bases are ready so after this operation they will bring most of the troops home after declaring the victory and keep the rest in the Lily pad bases to control the whole area.I THINK IF MUKTADA AL SADR AND NOURI MALIKI HAVE ANY INTELLIGENCE THEY BETTER RUN BEFORE "THE SHIIT HITS THE FAAN"
because there is no way the Neighboring Arab States will be happy with Shite running Iraq and United States will have to go according to their wishes.

Answer 8

160,000 troops, even including the 20,000 Bush wants, still isn't enough to subdue a city as large as Baghdad.

We've already tried this strategy in 2005. We increased the troop number just before the elctions. The violence went down for just afew days. Then it got even worse.

Besides, millions of Iraqis who hate Americans, want the U.S. to leave. Iraqis do not consider U.S. troops to be 'saving' them.

Iraqis hate us for occupying their country. They are having a civil war. We are insane to send American troops into a failed war. The war is lost -- you need to accept that.

By the way, nobody programs us --unlike the wing nuts, we think for ourselves. And our reason leads us to object to Bush's IDIOCY.

Answer 9

As a Democrat....I'd say you just made some excellent points and suggestions. I don't disagree with your plan at all, in fact....it amazes me why anyone backing Bush don't have capacity to see that sending more troops over would only lead to more dissent and bloodshed. I say you're right....increase the Iraq army, apply the draft for 18yr old males of every town and city and have them gaurd the territory for a while now. Sure we can assist them as the rest of our allies can...but in much shorter numbers and only to troubleshoot in specific areas. Way to go.

Answer 10

Are you going to kill all the "insurgents". Do you realize that less than 10% of the "insurgents" are from outside of Iraq. Ninety percent of them are just Iraqi citizens that oppose the occupation of their country.

A troop reduction would have been better. It would show them that it is their country and it is time for them to step up and deal with it.

Answer 11

Do your history research on the middle east. It plainly shows...no other nation can control or liberate those countries. Many have tried and always failed.

We could win the battle...but we will never win the war.