What Is Bush's Rationale About Putting More Troops In Iraq?

Question

Bush Recently Called A Plan To Put Around 20,000 More Troops To Iraq. What Purpose Does This Serve? And To The Troops That Have Fallen, What For? I Have The Full 100% Support Of Our National Army, But The Guy Behind It All Is A Complete Jackass

Side Note--Caputuring Sadaam Hussein Was Great

But That Was Not Our Main Objective. If The United States Agenda Is To Save All Countries From Killings, Poverty, Etc...

Then Why Not Go To Somalia? Hmm..Are There Any Oil Reserves In Somalia?

As Well, This War Is Essentially "Illegal" In Theory Because The UN Did NOT Approve Of It

Answer 1

His rationale is that it pulls troops out of Afghanistan and helps his buddy OBL get some breathing room.

Answer 2

What makes you think that this man is rational? He hasn't a clue about what he is doing! If he were a rational person we would not be in Iraq. This is a war we cannot win; it is now a civil war & we should never be involved in another countries civil war. What side should we take? Sunni, Shiite or Kurd? Now that the Democrats have taken control of both houses; they don't know what to do. No matter what is done, we are going to look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. But, of course, we really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us; if we decide to cut & run, we will. Just like in Korea & Vietnam. Pity the poor people we leave behind; they will pay the price for our Presidents "Bring it on" attitude. Never having service in action, how could he make that statement? He has no idea of what those words mean to a guy in the trenches. Rational? No Way!

Answer 3

I think he is putting more troops under the guise of giving Iraqi government an ultimatum to take charge and come through. He knows they cannot, that it is already too much of a mess, so when we all see that the so called surge is not working, he will blame Iraqis and then have an excuse to end the war, without looking like he gave in to his own fumbled and catastrophic policy. The troops are just a ploy, an excuse with enough rope to allow the Iraqis to "hang themselves' (oops poor choice of metaphor) If he did not use this guise he risks being accused of not having enough troops etc.

Answer 4

I don't want to put words in his mouth, like some.
What he said, I believe, was to better go after renegade militias in the neighborhoods and remove their leadership and get them disarmed
Maliki seems to be dragging his feet. Or someone is dragging his feet for him.
The proposal from Sen. Kennedy simply will cut them lose for failure to keep their responsibilities as they acquire sovereignty.
More troops will keep the situation stagnant at best.
But then, the problem with the Kennedy initiative is that Mr. Bush is bound to veto it (if he can find his veto pen) and then to override the veto, 2/3 will have to be willing to face being accused of "abandoning our troops."
Actually, the proposal only limits funding to troop levels of early January and doesn't take away bullets or anything else.
All of Bush's plan, in fact, goes in the face of popular opinion at home and abroad.

Answer 5

using fact this administration is crammed with morons and dummies. Too many excursions take a toll on infantrymen or Marines and their families. Mr, Bush has relatively screwed the final attitude that we as American could have in direction of the middle East. Saddam Hussein had the Iranians in examine so the Bush administration Invaded Irak , they could of long gone one hundred% after Bin- Laddin and Alqaeda in Afghanistan.

Answer 6

when the rumsfeld replacement went to iraq & met with members of the military (not high ranking brass - the "boots on the ground" men & women") each & every one of them told him that they needed more troops - more personnel - b/c they were spread to thin to accomplish that which is necessary to get the Iraqis to take charge of their country. They need more ppl training the Iraq Military, Police, Crowd Control, General Security, etc.
It's about time we stop playing politics with the Iraq war, b;/c in truth that is playing w/the lives of our soldiers. which cannot be tolerated. we need to finish this! they needed more personnel a long time ago....

Answer 7

Bush is the poorest excuse for a president ever.

Let's hope the Republicans never try to foist a man like him off on the nation again.

.

Answer 8

This is just another ploy, let me tell you how it works. If you stir up problems in the middle east there is a chance of a lack of production of oil from there and the price goes up and those that are invested in oil make more profit. This time there is speculation that we are building up to attack Iran. Fill your car up soon as I see the price of gas at $ 4 a gallon by mid summer.

Answer 9

Like you could do better? Are you so illiterate that you do not realize that he issues orders with the advice of others, not just what he wants? As for those fallen, they fell so others like you could sleep at night without worrying that your kids school bus will explode while they are on the way to school in the morning.

It is funny, 95% of the Troops support Bush, as do the former soldiers. It is the ones who would not serve their country or the parents that think their kids made a bad decision that make the most noise.

I praise CNN, they usually look for the bad, but they really show thanks daily for our troops and support them.

Answer 10

The Rumsfeld Army (though out his stylistic approach is still in place) Costs approximately $1Million per man. Another 20K represents vast profits for the Velcro strap and bulletproof vest contractors.

Go big Red Go

Answer 11

Bush needs to keep the war going until he's out, because he cannot admit failure, and that gives the Republicans a chance to blame Democrats for the war's conclusion.