If we can't leave Iraq until the Iraqis can handle their own security?

Question

then why are people opposed to using troops for training instead of for fighting? Should the objective remain combat? And if so, does that mean we are babysitting their civil war? How about using troops on the borders only? That way they can stop the insurgents from crossing over into Iraq? Is it because Bush has no idea how to seal a border?

hey strike, you huys complain when you get ideas from someone besides Bush, and complain when you don't...which is it? Oh yeah, no care for anything except partisanship...you better hope you guys get it together before '08...

Answer 1

I am not opposed to using troops for training purposes for the Iraqis. But supposedly that is what has been occurring for some time now and nothing positive has come from it. The Iraqis continue to be incompetent in managing their own country, militarily and politically. Our military is now a force of policeman and yes, babysitters for the Iraqis. The option of drawing back to the borders and letting the Iraqis fight their politics out among themselves, without us in the middle, may not be such a bad idea in theory, but it won't work realistically. Mostly because we are responsible for creating this debacle. Yes, they've been at each other's throats for decades, hell, for centuries, but who can deny we were the catalysts that set up the current situation as it now stands? It was irresponsible enough to go into Iraq without an exit stragegy or a viable plan for reconstruction of their country. Now we leave them to flounder in the mess we helped create? It just won't fly.

I would love nothing more than to get our soldiers out of that hell hole and bring them home. In fact, I keep hoping a plan emerges that will actually have that goal in mind instead of more rhetoric about why we need to send more troops. As long as George Bush is in office, we will continue to lose lives in Iraq, hand over fist. I'm tired of his claims that we are demanding the Iraqis take control when they are given no incentives to do so at all. They thumb their nose at him every time he makes one of these pronouncements, this time was no different than the last. The Decider has decided to keep the status quo, he has no idea how to do anything else, obviously. What a freaking mess...

Answer 2

Is this relatively a query or do you simply wish to state your perspectives? I have no idea in which you're getting your knowledge. First of all, the obstacle in Iraq is unwinnable. Now it's particularly an trouble of harm manage. In truth, such a lot Iraqis DON'T wish the US of their nation. This has been commonly verified in polls and determined in quite a lot of information retailers. Our invasion, as a substitute of bringing democracy, toppled their current govt and created a energy vacuum that has escalated right into a civil struggle. Over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians had been killed, and a great majority of them have been blameless persons. More terrorists are in Iraq now than there have been earlier than the invasion. Each time we bomb an Iraqi tuition or torture persons in mystery prisons, usual civilians flip in opposition to the US. Our errors are handiest serving to terrorist recruitment. If some thing, the invasion of Iraq has made the US much less secure from terrorist and the Iraqis are even additional from democracy.

Answer 3

it is because Bush would rather point fingers, than anything else.
there are many options that make sense, but he would rather keep blaming Syria, and Iran for not doing it.
if we do it, how can he point fingers at them?
its one thing to seal a border if fighters are crossing a troop at a time, it is entirely another thing when they are crossing one or two at a time.
Bush is doing the only thing he succeeds at...FAILING, and blaming it on someone else!

If Bush realy wanted to handle their own security, he wouldn't have been transporting trained Iraqie troops in school busses, making them sitting ducks for any rocket propelled grenade that came their way.
several tanks, and a few combat ready choppers wouldn't be too much to ask. afetrall, we still have hundreds of them sitting in fields from the last military buildup, just sitting there falling apart...fix some and get them rolling!

Answer 4

First of all, Bush's plan involves both combat and the training of the Iraqi military. Second of all, the insurgents aren't the only thing we are fighting. Don't forget about the sectarian violence that is killing more people than any other. So ok, let's only guard the borders and sit back and watch the sectarian violence get even worse. Then once the Sunnis get wiped off the map in Iraq, then we can blame you just like you are blaming Bush. Why don't you put some of the blame on the Iraqi Government? They are a part of this too you know. If they would have met the goals they promised to meet, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now. Like this plan in a troop surge. Results depend primarily on the Iraqi government's ability to meet benchmarks.

Answer 5

If the Iraqis can not handle their own security, why are the additional 20,000 troops President Bush is sending there going to be working alongside the Iraqi military? Is this combat or training? I, too, am confused.

Answer 6

look the Middle East will never be peaceful without ending the Israeli occupation. This is the conclusion of the UN, EU, Backer-Hamilton report, and President Carter new book. No one could NOT change his mind unless he has no mind. Occupying other people by force is losing policy in the past and now and has no future.

Answer 7

All good questions. One could only wonder in which country our troops would be in now if they hadn't got bogged down in Iraq.

Answer 8

policits is a dirty game

Answer 9

WOW YOU'RE SO FULL OF IDEAS YOU SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
THE LAST THING WE NEED IS ANOTHER ARM CHAIR PRESIDENT.