If 135,000 soldiers in Iraq can't win the war what does 21,500 extra troops can do?

Question

currently there are 135,000 solgiers stationed in iraq and they dieing day by day now bush wants to sent 21,500 more troops in to win the "war" and bring troops back sooner, but if the ones that are stationed there right now can't do what are 21,500 compare to 135,000 he says they suppose to lock down baghdad but why dont they take the ones thats already here and not doing to much of anything move them to baghdad and see if it works (which it wont ) we already know

Answer 1

Bring all American troops home. End this war!

Answer 2

You can add to your question that we had 165,000 troops in Iraq in 2005 when Great Britain was at 8,000. Great Britain is now standing down. The new proposed numbers are lower than 2005 levels for the coalition.

Reasonable Guy might have a valid point concerning the number of Iraqi Troops that are ready. Rumsfeld said 125,000 were ready in 2005 and then after reporting good progress in training new Iraqi troops for 1.5 years he told us that about 120,000 troops were ready in 2006.

It's hard to know what Iraqis are ready to do but I'd take any administration estimate of trained troops and divide it by 5 or 6 to get combat ready numbers.

Michael D refers to sunk costs as a reason to continue the enterprise. He must have received the same type of MBA that Dubya got. He also puts the cost at 1 trillion. My take is closer to 1/2 trillion. It's hard to know for sure because Bush has never put the war on budget. We're just rolling the cost into the Social Security short fall via the federal debt.

Speaking of sending more weapons and ordinance over to Iraq, did you see that a Congressional audit (before the Democrats took over) showed that we are loosing track of about 5% of the weapons and ordinance we deploy. I wonder who has that? Insurgents maybe? Let's send more.

The answer to your question is: This 21,500 troops and strategy have already been tried. It's "Stay the Course" called "New Direction Forward". I'm not saying it wont work. Sometimes you get different results when you do the same thing over and over and over and over again. We have no qualified leadership in the White House so all we can do is hope for luck.

Answer 3

Meat head has the right observation. We train our forces to do a myriad of jobs. Many "Soldiers" are actively assisting as teachers, engineers, doctors and a whole lot of other positions that normal civilians are not able to do because of the potential for problems. It has been that way for a long time!
What is being deployed are the Elite troops capable of taking down a Country like Iraq in a few days like we did when we used THEM to overthrow Saddam.
21,000 crack Marines and Navy Seals and Army Rangers is SCARY!
Hey, al-Sadr-time to get your fat butt outta there!(God I wish someone would catch that obese little piggy running in his dress on film!-That would be "Priceless")

Answer 4

if you crunch the numbers, that is a 16% increase over what I have there. That's one new soldier for 6 that are already there. We've been at war in Iraq for what, 3 years now? It takes 3 years to get the first 135,000 and 3 months for a 16% increase? The insurgents will be crapping themselves....

Answer 5

Officially there is no more war in Iraq now. As far as I know they already have their own government. Troops are going for maintaining peace. That it will make no difference and people will just keep dieing uselessly, that is another problem. Bush was wrong to touch Iraq in the first place, but greed is an important factor here - and I mean the monopole over Iraqi oil.
But you know, the USA started all this and it's bad enough for them. But how about other countries that had to be their allies for some reasons and which are now losing soldiers because they have to supply a peace-keeping force and help the USA? They didn't start the war, had no business there and still have to go.

Answer 6

The key factor is not that there are 21K more troops (they aren't new) on the ground. That in itself will make no difference.

What is important is the way that they are to be used. The 1) co-location of US and Iraqi forces, 2) more Iraqis in leadership postions, 3) no more "no-go" zones, and 4) US troops living in the district to which they have been assigned, is what has been missing and what will resolve the issue.

Answer 7

21,500 more troops, will increase the percentages of deaths, and run up the cost's of a war already approaching 1 trllion dollars. We already crossed the point of no turning back in a war, where I believe will end up with no one clear winner. What a shame for a war that was supposed to won in one year. I think Mr Bush has opened one hell of a can of worms!

Answer 8

It is the location and type of troops that matter. That is why the increase. It will not compromise the current operations of our troops. These 21,000 will assist to clean up Baghdad.

Answer 9

TROOPS IN A WAR USUALLY DIE "DAY BY DAY." BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL FIGHTERS CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WINNING AND LOSING BATTLES. EVER HEARD THE TERM "REINFORCEMENTS?" THE NUMBERS INVOLVED CAN TURN A BATTLE AND POTENTIALLY THE WAR. THEY MAY BE SMALL IN NUMBER, BUT MANY TIMES ARE NEEDED IN THE HEAT OF COMBAT THAT MAY TURN A FIERCE ENGAGEMENT INTO A TOTAL AND OVERWHELMING VICTORY. NUMBERS DO COUNT-ESPECIALLY IN A FIGHT. BEEN THERE. DONE THAT. BOUGHT THE T-SHIRT.

Answer 10

We can and probably will win the war either way. Political forces are forcing the President's hand.

Answer 11

In my opinion, 21,500 is not enough. The number should be
between 60,000 and 100,000.