There is only one rational reason I would have thought and that is to hasten the day when the Iraqis can take responsibility for their own security and defence. The allies made a mistake when they thought the Iraqis could be trained quickly in the matters of defence. Having had armed forces of several hundreds of thousands strong the way in which the Iraqis collapsed in a few days during the campaigns when the allies ousted Sadam was an indicator of the major task in hand.
There is a possibility that the troops will need to be in position to deter the possibility of Iran extending its support for the insurgents.
Either way the move is prudent and anyone who understands about international strategy would know why such measures are required.
2007-01-13 01:14:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by frank S 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
To try and secure Bagdad. In the past, US troops have managed to clear areas of insurgents, but when the troops move on the insurgents creep back, so the idea is to rid an area of insurgents but keep US troops there so that the insurgents can't return. I don't think there's any hidden agenda on behalf of Pres. Bush. Originally his reasons for invading Iraq were hazy, but now I think the Administration genuinely just want to win the war and get their troops out.
2007-01-12 22:48:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
What we have been told is that the troops will be used to help sanitize Baghdad and Iraq in general. I don't see how we could have so many Soldiers in one place, without further plans to use the Soldiers for possible invasions on neighboring countries. I hope and pray that we clean up Baghdad in a timely fashion and settle things with Iran diplomatically, but things do not look so great.
2007-01-12 22:09:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jeremy S 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
appropriate on oil for his family members! guy i'm so happy that we've been given all that oil over there. I take baths interior the stuff! and that i'm so happy that I would desire to spend $200.00 or some thing like that to place gas in my backyard mower. And that's all simply by fact of President Bush. I hate the certainty that we placed down a loopy dictator. i be responsive to Bush is a dictator to, yet all those pink states won't be able to be incorrect. besides I hate that Saddam or how ever you spell it heavily isn't waiting to kill,rape and scare thousands of hundreds of his very own human beings any further. No WMDs exchange right into a bummer. Does every physique be responsive to any sturdy oil corporation inventory?
2016-10-19 22:18:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
To rescue the fair maiden, kill the bad guys and save the world, same old story, what else? ha ha
Have fun For real now because he wants to stay in office and if he escalates this war Congress can declare he stays because of National Security so it is imperative for the Republican party. I say we test them all and bring them home now and see what happens after the election? Then we can boot his butt out.
2007-01-12 22:31:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The troops are for the next stage of the petrowars(iran)dont doubt
it.
2007-01-12 23:46:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush is sending the 20,000 troops because he can't send 50,000 - 100,000. Bush knows the newly elected democrat Congress and the American people would never allow him as many troops as he would like.
2007-01-12 22:29:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by chris 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
It makes Bush look like a good guy... because those troops will miraculously "find" Bin Laden even though we already have him in custody... and Bush will say "See what I did?!"... media blitz
2007-01-12 22:05:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by jon 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
They need time to complete their pockets and they don´t care if more people has to die, this is not a war is personal madness and Oil.
2007-01-13 01:09:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sudamérica Puede 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because there's one Mr. George Bush who's lately getting lovely dreams where he sees himself in the middle of lovely oilfields (my precioussss...) and bags and bags of money.
2007-01-12 23:55:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by debergeracvat 2
·
2⤊
0⤋