Surge, escalation, whatever. What's different than before? An increase in troops is NOT a change in strategy. Just proves this administration has NO idea what it's doing.
It's like touching a hot iron, complaining about how much it hurts and then doing it again.
Hot Iron - Ouch! Hot Iron - Ouch! Hot Iron - Ouch!
2007-01-31 09:19:40 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let me clarify for some of you that may not agree with my assessment. I have served for over 20 years in the Army. I have been to Iraq twice and am preparing for a third trip. So maybe that makes me a little more credible to you conservative military strategists?
2007-01-31 09:38:08 · update #1
You’re right on the money with that. I once heard it put that the definition of insanity is to try to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Well if that is definition of insanity, than Bush and his so called “strategies” are the embodiment of lunacy on an epic scale.
In the final analysis you are correct, a paltry increase in troop levels, with whatever euphemism you want to refer to it as (surge, escalation, increase, etc.) will not change our fortunes in Iraq. It’s ultimately a cosmetic solution that gives the appearance of trying to go somewhere, but in reality all we are doing is treading water. It only works to appease Bush’s more unthinking supporters who would have supported him regardless of what he did.
The only reasonable strategy that preserves American lives is to issue a phased withdrawal from Iraq and let Iraqis resolve their own disputes. True democracies that have an enduring quality have historically developed by an internal will to change and squash sectarian division from within. Democracies, by their very nature, cannot be forced.
2007-01-31 09:31:01 · answer #1 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Oh... so you're a professional military strategist? What do you know about strategy?
Increasing troop levels alone will not solve the problem, unless you have a PLAN for what to do with those troops. That is precisely the point. Top generals have expressed a need for more troops to secure Baghdad and other hot spots (and they would know better than some air-headed liberals in Washington). As skilled as our troops are, they can't be in two places at once.
Let's make this simple. If you are losing a war, and you could send more troops, why WOULDN'T you? When in history did a war-time leader say "Gee, we're losing the war. I think I'm going to MAKE SURE we lose it by running away."
That is stupidity of EPIC proportions.
And just because you're in the military doesn't mean you're right no matter what you say. A soldier can be wrong just like anyone else. But God bless you for your service whether you're right or wrong.
2007-01-31 09:30:04 · answer #2 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Why is it that every Democrat thinks they know how to deal with the war in Iraq better than the military personnel on the ground there. The commanders believe more troops will help them succeed. What military background do you have that makes you believe your opinion is more correct than theirs?
2007-01-31 09:31:31 · answer #3 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Its stay the course on steroids, I do not think it will work, but I hope it does. Anything to bring our people home. What I have suspicion of is that Bush plans an attack on Iran, he has also sent another fleet into the Gulf and has ordered the doubling of the national strategic oil reserves, all point to something is up.
2007-01-31 09:22:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, it's time to withdraw from the Iraqi battlefield. The battle being fought there now can only be won by the Iraqi people. We should protect them, however, from outside interference.
2007-01-31 09:26:13 · answer #5 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, they're trying to find the smallest amount of troop that is needed to complete the objective, but they've always underestimate the job. I think they need to think bigger, like the whole middle east and all of Muslim's land and oil.(no sarcasm here)
Do you know how many lives it take to build the Great Wall? bush's trying to do something like that, but he don't know how much men is needed to complete it, so he's doing the next best thing by haggle with the American people on how much they needed to have people in Iraq to make it work and supply the troop bit by bit.
If you used force and it didn't work, you didn't use enough force.
2007-01-31 09:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by my alias 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
OK ...you forgot some parts..do you know what they are ...now we are killing Iranians..that's new..so its not the same..yes we need more people over there to start killing more...that's how it works..who ever kills the most wins...look at any war..and you will see the biggest killer wins..with one exception the Vietnam..hippies and liberals didn't have the stones to carry on..hey the Dems started that one...did ya know that...I bet you didn't..
2007-01-31 09:26:59 · answer #7 · answered by Kingofreportedabuse 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Signs of insanity from the sociopath leader Bush.
2007-01-31 09:46:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush wants a strategic position for himself in Iraq to piss off Iran.
2007-01-31 09:22:46 · answer #9 · answered by Dfirefox 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Human nature. Ever knew that chick who complained about all her boyfriends being a$$holes?
2007-01-31 09:22:49 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋