English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20,000 is a UNDERESTIMATE of additional troops according to this article
Quote

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.

The day after President Bush announced his plan for a deeper U.S. military commitment in Iraq, The Pentagon also announced it is proposing to Congress that the size of the Army be increased by 65,000, to 547,000 and that the Marine Corps, the smallest of the services, grow by 27,000, to 202,000, over the next five years. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16436371.htm

2007-01-14 01:38:38 · 17 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government Military

17 answers

you sid it all in your opening remarks, "failed strategy". It was in vain with a loss in money, and more importantly the loss of the lives of those soldiers killed and those maimed for life.

2007-01-14 06:05:02 · answer #1 · answered by WC 7 · 1 0

OK now. Failed strategy?

Saddam removed from power
Terrorism focused in Iraq and not on the streets of the US
The leadership of Alqaeda Iraq killed as fast as they take office
Iraqi elections
Iraqi government growing
Iraqi courts on the move
Saddam executed
millions of lives saved.
women allowed to go to school
women allowed to vote (remember the purple fingers)
and the list can go on

I do not see a failed plan. I see a plan that is working but has had 256 hurdles to overcome. being the democrats in the house.

The increases in th military is so they will have the forces to go into Iran and Syria. Do not let the Pentagon fool you there are enough troops to go around.

The really funny part is that 3 weeks ago the Dem's were calling for troop increases to get the war over with quickly. Now that Bush has implemented the Dem plan it is bad and evil. I think that the Dem's have a policy of hating Bush and nothing else. It is sad that American troops will be killed because the Dem's are more interested in politics than protecting the nation.

2007-01-14 11:05:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It has been the refusal to have a real strategy that has been the biggest problem. Mr. Bush continues to reject the opinions that don't agree with whatever he has in his mind already to do. Remember that he came to the presidency with no military experience, just party-time training in the "Champagne Squadron"

There is a quote that applies to Bush and his business buddies, "...all sciences are vain and full of errors that are not born of experience, mother of all certainty."
- Leonardo da Vinci-

Add to that the fact that in order to increase profiteering opportunities between now and the 2008 elections, the fiasco has to escalate. There is the plan. Democracy in Iraq, opposition to terrorists, none of that is in the calculations.

2007-01-14 12:53:17 · answer #3 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 3 0

I wonder if you think we need to give our troops over there less support than more support? No president in the last 40 years have experience freeing a country like this. We have defeated their military but it is a lawless country and we would be irresponsible to walk away from it at this time. I wouldn't want our military to be in the budget cutting position it was under the previous president. Let them do their job and welcome them home when they do.

2007-01-14 09:44:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

I do not agree with the premise of your question. It is not a "failed" strategy. Increasing the size of the military is the responsibility of the President and the Department of Defense, if they feel it necessary for national defense.
The articles you cite have nothing to do with your claim of a failed strategy.

2007-01-14 09:44:01 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 1

First off what makes a "failed" strategy? Is it because we're still there? If thats all you base it on then we have failed other places also. We must have failed miserably in Germany, Korea, Japan, and the Balkans. Just to name a few because we are still in all of those locations.

2007-01-14 10:27:12 · answer #6 · answered by That Guy 2 · 0 1

as u said, it's a fail mission. What he needs to do is split up the nation so there is a unify portion of the people. With the wealth of that region going to those who deserve it.

2007-01-14 09:53:01 · answer #7 · answered by MICHAEL K 2 · 0 0

I think it failed.......figured it was a fiasco since the time I saw George standing there on the USS Abraham Lincoln with the "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him.

2007-01-14 09:44:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 6 · 0 0

The failure is due to the press, just as in Vietnam. We were holding repelling training from helocopters in a secure area in Vietnam. My wife wrote me that she saw me repelling out of a helo while a big firefight was going on. No news-the press invent.

2007-01-14 11:01:05 · answer #9 · answered by canbarra 2 2 · 0 1

Washington is getting desperate for soilders. I honestly think there will be a draft. Bush is just looking for a fight

2007-01-14 09:45:36 · answer #10 · answered by Jessica P 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers