Bush’s new plan to increase the size of active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years has fallen under great criticism from democrats and republicans alike. Bush claims he decided on this plan because it “Provides the best chance for success.” But, according to many strategists including former secretary of defense Colin Powell, “A temporary U.S. troop surge probably would not help.” So the question is, if congress chooses to fund Bush’s plan and it fails like his previous plans have then would that not lead to a far worse failure? To quote Bush’s state of the union speech, “ Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.” It seems to me that failure after adding an additional 20,000 troops would be more “grievous and far-reaching” than pulling out as soon as possible. Thoughts please!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/01/dean_responds_t_2.php
2007-01-24 06:12:48 · 10 answers · asked by loserkid 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Most experts were against this idea. I don't think it will work either. I think we need a political solution, but I rather see us do that then to just completely give up.
2007-01-24 06:17:36 · answer #1 · answered by kberto 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
First, Bush's desire to increase the size of our Military branches by 92,000 has nothing to do with the troop surge in Iraq. Get your issues straight, those are two different issues.
Could sending more troops turn into more of a failure? Well, nobody can say whether or not it would. I don't believe it will though. I believe that sending in 20,000+ more troops can only help. I also believe that sending in no extra troops and allowing the troops already in Iraq to conduct themselves like they are in a War instead of babysitting the Iraqi's could only help. Hopefully that is the stance we are about to change to inside Iraq.
If we pull out now we have failed. Give the plan a chance. Please.
2007-01-24 06:31:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well as you put it "Bushes new plan" is the recommendation that the Democrats were making about 3-6 Mos ago 20,000-30,000 more troops to Iraq. These Democrats weren't the rank and file sycophants they were big time Dem's like Polosi, Clinton, Kerry, Reed and Murtha so go back to the drawing board and get your facts straight then if you are still in the mood to bash our president then come back with some other thinly veiled insult in the form of a question and this time make it an informed question and oh yeah cogent as well would be good
2007-01-24 06:27:23 · answer #3 · answered by crawler 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what they end up doing. It's likely to be more of the same and keeping status quo. At best, they could stabilize Bagdad but at worst it would look even worse-- that is,more troops but more of the same or worse.
I haven't heard of anybody saying adding troops will help (well, except for the administration).
We need a political/diplomatic solution. Much as we'd hate to do this, they've got to engage the Al Sadr's and other power brokers there to get Iraq on better footing.
2007-01-24 06:18:33 · answer #4 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
afghanistan grow to be the place each and all of the undesirable adult males have been their traing camps weapons stashes all that no longer something of any danger to united statesa. grow to be in iraq we'd have made existence darn close to impossible for those human beings to have moved into iraq to purely take objectives of danger bombing our 2 vans right here 5 vans there if we stayed in afghanistan we wouldnt have had a lot subject wiping em out rapid and being completed
2016-11-26 23:28:48 · answer #5 · answered by shuler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
middle eastern countries have their politics and religion deeply intertwined, that's how they want to govern themselves. were trying to shove democracy down their throat when they want a theocracy, there is no way to "win". the best we can hope for is to step back and save face.
2007-01-24 06:27:32 · answer #6 · answered by Alan S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. If we send more troops, unless they all get killed in some terrible accident, it should still be better than just leaving. Unless if enemy forces just deplete our money, that could be bad too.
2007-01-24 06:17:33 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We've had surges in iraq before. It has not worked and will not work!
2007-01-24 06:18:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So to you, failure as an option is ok.
2007-01-24 06:17:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no way,,, the military forces in our country are winners all the way...
2007-01-24 06:18:13 · answer #10 · answered by RED WHITE AND BLUE 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋