should we send more troups?

Question

the more he send the more u.s troups die

Answer 1

They want us to send more. Bush will keep sending them until they are gone. Then they will attack the US here. Bring them home, tighten our boarders, and protect the US not the Iraq people.

Let Bush go to the front lines, with Chaney and both of their kids and grand kids. But STAND BEHIND CHANEY!!!



Yeah its still war a war we were lied to about, a war we shouldn't be in, and a war that should have been over 3 years ago

We will never be done sending troops , dont You get it, We will just be taking the next group of 17-18 year olds and sending them to their deaths..... I guess that's one way of population control

BUSH IS NOT A LEADER HE WAS A MISTAKE

If they were Important we would spell it right................ Like Lincoln.......... Washington .............

Or just call them cokehead , dumbass

Answer 2

What ever this commander in chief needs or desires, whether it is troops, troups, chocolate, slingshots, or beef jerky.....he should get it and get it quick with full support of everyone who is not stupid enough to know that Jihad is a real bad threat to our way of life in America and all free countries, it is time you people wake up and realize that when someone will strap on a bomb and walk into a croud of innocent people...or hijack a plane and crash it into the financial center of our country....hmmm...maybe we should do something about it...like kick some ***. It is unbelievable to read some of the ignorant answers and I honestly don't understand it if you are a true American how you would even not think that this is not real....of course....I am over here and believe me ....it is real and it needs total support from you and some of you do and that's great, the rest of you make me sick to call myself an American.

Answer 3

Yes,we need more troops to better contain the insurgents and put more preasure on them.
The fight at this point is for Bagdad,the seat of power.
Iran is arming,financing and training the insurgents in an effort to turn Iraq into another Lebanon.
Iran has long range plans to control the whole middle east and it's oil.
Do we really need that Iranian nutcase controling the oil supply?

Answer 4

The US has surged troops several times since Iraq began.

The violence did in fact ebb during each "surge" as we had greater footprint in the operational area (say Baghdad for the elections for example). This makes sense.

The problem is, from a troop level perspective, we cannot maintain enough forces in theater to make a real impact. One, it is expensive. Two, we have two wars going on (Afghanistan - the forgotten front). Three, we need to rotate troops from a war fatigue perspective (troops need to rest out of theater). Four, calling on Clausewitz - we need them for future actions (Iran) and for diplomatic needs (Clausewitz).

The problem stems from not having enough troops to begin with (and prolly disbanding the Iraqi Army). Rumsfeld gave Bush some of the worst advice in history when he asked for fewer troops against Gen Shinsekvi (sp?) advised 400k troops. This was Rummy trying to leave his mark on history and provide a refutation of the Powell doctrine. Sadly for all involved, Rummy's theory that a lighter faster force has proven woefully and terribly misguided.

And to say there is no correlation between troop levels and troop causalities is patently false. More troops certainly provides more targets and the causality figures follow troop levels...the R square is nearly .93. They are highly highly correlated.

My take is this.

Don't send the troops. There is division among commanders in their utility. The extra 21000 American Heroes cannot accomplish the mission of pacifying Baghdad. We have tried it before with troop rotations from outlying provinces into Baghdad. With little effect.

Sad fact is, only Iraqis can stop the violence. And they don't seem to terribly interested in doing that so lets not give them more US targets to shoot at.

Answer 5

I laugh at the people that say more troops to get the job done. if you sent a million troops the job would not get done . It will never be over we are just positioning ourselves for the next one. if this decider that we have in Bush is allowed to move forward we will not lessen the load there we will increase it. Many dont remember Nam we kept sending troops untill 52000 had died and countless young men were dead did it stop communisum NO it just killed our boys. It seems endless as long as we have intrests in the region we will be there in some milatary form or another.

Answer 6

If you are gonna tell everyone how to win the war, start by learning how to spell troop! It's troop, not troup. And the dumb chick a few messages up, it's Cheney, not Chaney.
You all want us to listen to your brillant war or anti war plans, yet cannot spell simple words.

Answer 7

Australia, united kingdom, and us of a have all been both attacked with assistance from Muslim terrorists or have intense politcal/social issues of Muslims of their very personal countries. All have a sparkling clarification why their armies should be in Iraq combating the straightforward enemy. i do not realize why united kingdom, Austrailia, India, and Israel are not in with us extra heavily.

Answer 8

We have to build up in the region if we plan to attack Iran, 10's of thousands of more troops on the ground, another fleet in the Gulf, and a doubling of the strategic oil reserves all point to this conclusion.

Answer 9

that is a tough question.. yes and no,.. yes so we can get out of there quicker and no because of the deaths, did you know ? a lot of the troops over there are getting extended... and that is helping out w/ not sending so many troops over

Answer 10

I doubt very seriously anybody here is really informed enough about what is going on to give anything more than an emotional response to that question. Sort of like your post. That's why our leaders are called leaders.