troops in Iraq?

Question

I see at the moment we have a lot of american friends on here. What do you all think of President Bush sending another 20.000 american troops into Iraq, possibly to die like those before them. Personally I think he as gone into a war like nam where he cant win.

Answer 1

Personally, I think we need to withdraw..not be sending more. They dont need us over there and never have needed us. Sending more maybe more of a loss to us than to them.. Its not going to get better so might as well withdraw. The money used for war can be used for better things.

Answer 2

Yes, very much like Nam. Even the speech he just gave was reminiscent of LBJ's Nam speeches. The hard reality of the situation is that this war has been already lost. More troops will accomplish nothing, because there no longer is any unified nation state of Iraq in any real sense anymore, only warring factions. Our presence there coupled with the continued death of Iraqi civilians recruits more insurgents and terrorists every day. There is nothing you can do when an entire country hates you for destroying their lives. The US no longer has any credibility in the region or ability to right things. Withdrawal is the only sane option left.

The entire post-invasion operation was poorly planned, understaffed, ill equipped, driven by neocon and evangelical ideology vs an intelligent, pragmatic assessment of the realities. There's a great book called "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" that I've almost finished. A reporter who was stationed in the Green Zone for some time gives an expose of the operations. It's a fascinating read, and not at all dull (for the most part).

I know it doesn't count for very much, but not all Americans support an imperial presidency with global ambitions of pre-emptive war and open-ended threats of unlimited military force. I know we Americans are more hated around the world day by day, but the average American citizen can do little against our wealthy, powerful, ambitious, and unscrupulous leaders.

Answer 3

As said above many comparisons are being made between Vietnam and Iraq. I will concede the point that in strictly military terms they are different conflicts in different times and should not be compared. However because at best the continuation of this operation is divisive( just look at the comments here) the political leadership is falling between two stools. total peace or total war. Without clear popular outright support the politicians are going to hedge and so restrict the military. We have to decide as a nation do we pull out entirely or do we give the military free reign , either is a risk but anything in between will be a certain failure. whatever we we do must be decisive anything else will fail we must decide and then whatever see it through completely

Answer 4

I have worked in the oil industry and middle east for 19 years and I think Bush is an idiot, he isn't getting a great lot of oil out of the place anyway. Yes the country is like nam a no win situation.

He has got a very good foot hold now to start on Iran with another 20000 troops on there door step

Answer 5

We really need to stop this war, please be honest here. It is true that pulling off Irak may have some impact but as bad as sending more Americans to kill more people. We have gain nothing. The only reason to go to war died two weeks ago. The real problem is another Viertnam, a crazy single minded men who wants to keep us all inside a fear bubble so we feel protected. Our borders are not secured, our economy is going down, our education and health system are a shame. We went to war to avoid that Hussein take all the oil so the oil prices would go up like crazy, well the oilr prices went up badly, every move Bush makes is a slow move which will really affect our future in this country, when he will be long gone, who will come to help you? Bush? In other countries people go on the streets to demostrate that they are not in agreement with a creazy descision like this one, here people go to yahoo or blogs, that is all. Please, we need to impeach Bush, you have seen even high militar people as well as his own Republican friends think he is making a mistake. I saw someone in the news saying that 3,000 American soldiers are just a a few drops in the bucket that there need to be more troops sent there. I mean, come on. I saw someone else saying that the ones in Irak are not the best we got, that they need to send the very best, do you know how those guys in Irake feel about those comments? I support our troops, I do not support this crazy war, if I did, I will the one going.

Answer 6

I doubt that the additional troops will be able to improve the situation. I didn't hear any truly new strategy here. I think that maybe if there were 60,000 more troops, and the troop increase was accompanied by a series of initiatives that were non-military, maybe in the way of a half trillion dollars worth of support for (re) building a government infrastructure, then maybe things could get better.

Unfortunately, 20,000 more troops is only something like a 15 percent increase. Its just not the right change in strategy, and its just not enough.

A year from now things will not be better. They will likely be worse.

Answer 7

I wasn't shocked that Bush and his boys decided to put in more troops just amazed that they got some set of marbles to do so. He admitted all the false pretentions his administration had before going into the war and has finally admitted it has gone horribly wrong. But to say that that we need to add more troops because we need to stabalize the country so their own people can take over?! Isn't that what we've been trying to do. What was it until now? Preseason?

Admit it it's over, it's a lost cause, you had your chance! It's time to cut our loses, do what we can from a diplomatic side to help stop the violence and concentrate on protecting our homefront and try to prevent future terrorist acts. Let's tell the Iraqis we tried to help you, but we falsely predicted the outcome, offer any kind of assistance (other than supplying troops) to try and stop the sectarian violence and rebuild the country. Instead of bombing the crap out of them offer to rebuild their country through education, health care and financial assistance.

20,000 troops, like that's going to make a difference, come on! Reminds of Dr. Evil...WE NEED...20.000 MORE TROOPS! We're not trying to break of a rally here bud, This is war, a pointless one at that. SEND THE BOYS AND GIRLS HOME!!

Answer 8

Short summary: the poor guy is undertaking this relatively pointless war mostly since he needs to back-up his ego. He needs the war as an excuse for all the other things he can't handle at home (economy, security, etc.). His tactics are grossly miscalculated and Machiavellian and, as a result, many nations fear him more than they do respect him or consider his decisions wise.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only does he feel the need to back-up his ego concerning his father's legacy in the oil business and in Desert Storm against Iraq, but as a tough, consistant "real" man (especially compared to, say, the inconsistency Kerry was blamed for).

His image became the war: when American jobs went down he blamed the war, when oil prices rose he blamed the war, when the security budget went through the roof he blamed the war. Not to mention all the shady oil business innuendo and allow the Bin-Laden family to leave the country just after 9/11 (see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie for more details).

Without the war he'd likely be revealed for who he really is: a man who, though certainly not dumb, is grossly incapable of putting the right people and policies in the right places to ensure America's success.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, in short, this is a war he can not win. Even if he gains control of Iraq he will do so by killing several more thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi's (including many completely innocent ones as well)...and polls already indicate of 80% of Iraqi's resent America so strongly they would rather resort to anarchy then accept his "government monopoly".
And, even as a fully blooded, well-educated American like myself (masters degree), you can't blame them, especially when even case studies bring up flaws in his policies. Indeed, Bush has given them (the Iraqi people) plenty to hate....

Answer 9

Well, I disagree with you. I base this on personal observation, plus time in the military. VietNam was not a loss actually, if anything , it was considered a stalemate and a diplomatic victory according to many people who were there. So basing Iraq on VietNam isn't accurate. The only thing the 2 wars have in common is that the public believes they know more about the whole scenario than those whose job it is to be experts on this sort of thing. Also, the willingness of many of our news organizations to make huge efforts to affect policy is now more evident than ever before. Even more so than during the 60s and 70s.

We used bad judgment in strategy in Iraq. Plain and simple, if there aren't enough feet on the ground, the enemy goes where it wished with impunity. So, given that, more people on the ground are the answer. As he explained last night, the majority of the violence is in Baghdad, doing house to house sweeps will put this activity down And the Iraqi military WILL be told that they do not have our support unless they are willing to chip in, so there's a plus.

You don't run from something this important just because it is too hard. At least I don't.

Answer 10

I agree with the asker's question and the asker's comments. Beyond that my opinion is pointless, like everyone else's.

This Commander in Chief is not executing his duties properly. I do not care what he "said" in his speech. 1 - I never watch him. The local channel that posts the community bulletins and plays nothing but elevator music is more exciting. 2 - People can say anything in a "speech". Real motives are not always revealed. That would be something called HONESTY, something few humans practice 100% of the time and even less can be expected from politicians... especially THIS president.

Answer 11

Well personally I do not think it is a long term solution to the problem. Also, the Iraqi goverment we put in place and that holds it power by our prescence alone does not want additional American troops in Iraq.