Serous question. The old plan was we'd train Iraqis and then leave when they are strong enough to clean up the mess. Now the new plan is... the same, right?
Someone detail the differences please.
2007-01-13 09:16:14 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I'm delighted we're sending troupes. That'll make the whole thing more entertaining... (;?)
2007-01-13 09:49:10 · update #1
The plan is virtually the same as before. Any changes that were made were cosmetic as many suspected they would be. President Bush's new plan is basically to do exactly what we've been doing but to look like we're trying by sending 21,500 more troops. His escalation isn't even really an escalation at all since we've had up to 160,000 troops in Iraq at one time and this plan will call for 153,000 troops to be in Iraq. The Generals on the ground (who Bush has always said he listens to and makes decisions on their recommendations) have been replaced after recently saying a troop surge would be ineffective.
2007-01-13 09:28:29 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This isn't quite true. Although the basic description is the same, the strategy for accomplishing it has changed slightly. Before, our troops were stationed outside the urban areas, and the Iraqi's were responsible for most of the security in the cities. Now, in addition to increasing the number of troops currently there, US troops will move into the more populated areas, especially Baghdad, and work directly with the Iraqi forces in an attempt to reduce the violence happening in the larger cities. The new plan also claims to require more commitment from the current Iraq government.
Will this work? Probably not. We're relying on the support of people who are ambivalent about the US being in their country, and trusting that the current government has the same goals we do. That's a naive assumption. Will it result in greater US casualties? Of course. Not only are we increasing the number of people there, we're putting them into the areas of greatest violence. Finally, will it move up the time when Iraqi forces are able to take over, and we're able to leave? Unlikely, since under the new plan we are actually taking away their authority. The theory is that we will go in with a great show of force and wipe out the insurgents, then turn over the country to the Iraqi government. The reality is that fighting will continue after we leave, whether it's in six months or six years. Without a strong Iraqi government in place, with a trained military to back it up, nothing we do will make a difference. And WE cannot create a strong Iraqi government and military - they need to do it themselves.
2007-01-13 17:38:47 · answer #2 · answered by swbiblio 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.... Pay attention. For one thing the increased troupe strength in Baghdad will allow the forces to keep clean a neighborhood that has been cleared. They won't have to keep coming back to re-clear the same places over and over. Also the political protection of the terrorist has been removed.
2007-01-13 17:41:13 · answer #3 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference is that we are running out of troops and bush wants to destroy some more lives so lets send some more over there with the facade that we are helping the iraqis rebuild their nation. i think they want us out of there just as bad as we want out too.
2007-01-13 17:24:06 · answer #4 · answered by heathyingram2 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference is this time we actually might attack Iran. That is the reason we are there now.
2007-01-13 17:59:56 · answer #5 · answered by periacs 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since we haven't been briefed on the specifics yet, it is difficult to answer your question objectively.
2007-01-13 17:21:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
As far as I can see. Just a slight of tongue once again.
2007-01-13 17:25:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋