Is 21,000 troops really alot? How would you have handled Iraq better than Bush?

Question

During WW1 Pre.Wilson nacted two drafts and generated 23 million able men. Out of which he wanted 5 MILLION to use.
If anything Pres. Bush didnt ask for enough. If you say we shouldnt have been over there anyway. Then you have to explain why its ok to sit and watch and wait for the terrible things he was doing to the people of Iraq. i.e His sons raping a bride on her wedding day. FOR THREE DAYS! Senseless killing of the thousands of kurds. The waste on gold toilets for the palace, while the people expire in poverty. What an outrage!!
He ignored 23 UN sanctions. And had he had WMDs he surly wouldnt have hesitated using them. If you dont agree with Pres. Bush, I would just like to know what you think we should have done? I THINK PRESIDENT COULD HAVE DONE THINGS DIFF. MYSELF. I WOULD HAVE HAD ALOT MORE TROOPS OVER THERE AND THIS WOULD HAVE ENDED FASTER AND EASIER FOR EVERYONE. ( I THINK )

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct but two major issues prevented this:

1) Under President Willy, the military was reduces by over 300,000 personnel. This is one way that he reduced government spending. With only about 500,000 personnel we simply did not have enough forces. I think that we have had up to 165,000 over there but now we have 130,000 (I could be wrong about the exact number).

2) It only took about 10 days to win the war and we never thought that we would get into another police action. We are not in a war as a war is declared against a sovereign nation, not a group of thugs; the US has never done well against people that will hide behind their women and children as these Islamic Militants are doing. This is where the screw up occurred.

Answer 2

World War I was a legitimate war. It was a major undertaking and there was a legitimate threat. Hence it being a WORLD WAR.

Okay. You want to tak about senseless killings? Rapes? Gold toilets? Let's talk about our rich, our perverts, and our murderers back here in the states. Moreover, let's talk about a nation who was too weak to have its own revolution.

Countries have undergone revolutions for thousands of years. The weak overthrow the government and make their own. If that's the only reason we're in Iraq, it's pathetic. We're America, we're not the flipping World Police!!!!!! Let them take care of their own problems.

I wouldn't mind helping if they were the ones primarily dealing with the issue. But 3,000 soldiers?? People like my husband (not deployed, this is just an example), my friends, dying over there for a group of people who won't stand up for themselves? I don't think so. Those deaths aren't numbers, and neither are those troops. They are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.

Moreover, it's a war we can't win. It's become a civil war between two religions, and we can't win that. They need to figure out their own damn future.

Answer 3

I agree that sending enough troops in the beginning, that is, enough to keep the peace, would have been better. I also understand that we couldn't know how many ahead of time. I think sending 20 thousand troops, if all used for policing in Baghdad, might help. Not really enough to do a good job, though.

What I would have done differently, is to not GIVE people food and water and medical care. It would be available, but they'd have to earn it. They'd earn it by doing day care or building schools. Children would earn their food, which they would eat at school, by attending school. At school, they would learn computer skills, practical life skills, and the three Rs, and most importantly, they would learn American ways. That is, they would learn about work; about hygiene, health, and keeping the environment clean; about free enterprise; about what constitutes graft, corruption, and nepotism, and why they are bad.

At no time would their faith be criticized. American and British muslims might have been recruited to teach. Older children would be encouraged to earn more things for their families by working for them. There would be respect and the same privileges and expectations for both genders. Nobody would be forced to go to school, but no food or clean water or medical care would be given outside of school.

If we had done that, by now there would be thousands of young adults already with an idea of what living in a western way is about, and those following would know even better whom to support at the poles. When they took over, things would run much more smoothly.

Three of my sons have served in the mideast, in Saudi, Afghanistan, and in Iraq. They have spent time in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. They all three tell me that work is looked down on, and is avoided. When people work, they do as little as possible, cheat, take shortcuts, and of course take no pride in working, invent excuses for not doing the work, not following instructions, not getting enough money to do it right, not getting enough in wages. Regardless of what they are getting. It is embarrassing to work. Corruption and graft and giving jobs to relatives is normal and expected. And anything we give them is sold. Uniforms, equipment... all sold. Attitudes have to change before reforms will work, and usually, only children, and motivated children at that, are teachable and changeable.

Answer 4

create one party government for 5 years made up of all the Iraqis. Its the only way to have Peaceful Iraq at end.
History example is the occupation of the south by the republican party after the civil war.

Answer 5

well i would have not gone in, i was in history hon in 10th grade and i was one of 6 who opposed the war, saying it would turn into nam again. which WOAH it did, imangine that.
at least i would have absolved all possible diplomatic options, not just say i did and go in half-******.

also i would have listened to the generals and given them more control.

since you mentioned WWI i should imput this, we (US GB and the other european poweres) should not have messed around with all of the middle eastern countries.. all it did was set the stage for over 100 years of chaos, putting european controlled countries where there were none, setting groups of people that hated each other was a terrible idea

Answer 6

I concur, sorta... more maybe... but not a ton, there's a point where protection becomes bullying... but then in some senses it would have been nice to have just gotten it over with... Bush may have taken the middle ground... trying to keep everybody happy... or at least keeping everyone equally pissed.

Answer 7

well... I think there is the Afghanistan solution... which worked well... which was just the opposite... send in a few troops... mainly for training... and let them work it out on their own...

if a civil war happens... it happens... we probably aren't going to stop it anyway... just delay it until we leave...

Answer 8

i think we should have just gone after whoever knocked down the world trade center -- that wasn't saddam hussein.