Is the troop surge throwing good after bad?

Question

Sort of seems that way. Can you make an argument why it is not a bad idea?

Please, no name-calling.

Oilfield, what the little tirade about never having been there has to do with the question of whether the United States is the rightful police of the world is yours to explain. I asked about the troop surge, which is to ask about the advisability of an escalation in our involvement in the war, not whether there is poverty in the third world. -- That's hardly a news flash.

Answer 1

I think it's good after bad.
Not that the troops there are bad. They're not, they're doing what they've been asked to do. I love them for doing it!

Really... is the magic # of troops to be 'surged' enough? Are we almost there (ending the violence?)? If we had a trouble spot to control, yeah, send them in and end the problem. However that isn't the case, one city erupts into chaos, we move troops around and voila, the next city takes a downward spiral. We went in inadequately prepared and have been playing catch-up ever since.

My follow-up question is "how long will we be there", no I'm not saying 'time-line'. Do we think (in general), stay for 1 more year? 5? 15? 50? We were in Japan for about 30... we ready for that? We've been in Iraq longer than it took the allies to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Let's stabilize it as well as we can, make amends where we can, and get out before more of our courageous service men/women put into harms way.

Answer 2

The extra troops there, the extra troops will be reported lifeless. seems the nature of this war. That being suggested, we are going to do no longer understand if and how the surge is operating until eventually late summer season/early fall. certain, this has been a truly "threat-free" war for American troops, notwithstanding it is also been a truly unproductive one. Our defense force may be the acceptable contained in the international, yet that would not cause them to miracle workers. Stabilizing such an volatile united states of america, with each and every of the rival factions there, will be close to no longer a threat (Balkans?). We would ought to chew the bullet and split that united states of america up. in spite of everything, we is merely no longer waiting to stop combating until eventually they do, and with them merely as concentrated on one yet another as they're on us, that does no longer bode nicely for any persons.

Answer 3

You obviously have never been in that area of the world. If you had you wouldn't even consider the question. It's very easy to sway somebody to do the things some of them do, because when you don't have anything (money, a home, electricity, phone, internet. tv etc... basics that we take for granted.) and you are promised everything if you follow somebody's cause. Then it's easy for them to get volunteers. They have more homeless per capita than we ever thought of having. Thus you have a society of have's & have nots. Those that have: have everything. Those that have not: Have nothing & I mean nothing. As long as you have poverty & dispair in these areas. We are going to have the problems we have. None of this is going to change overnite. Those that think it will are just fooling themselves. If we are in it for the duration then we are going to be there for many years to come.

Answer 4

Depends on how you want to see our involvement there end. If you want to guarantee it will end as failure, don't send more troops and recall what we DO have there now.
If you want to make a last-ditch effort to have it end favorably for the long term...send MORE...I doubt the insurgency can surge their numbers more than where they already are.

Answer 5

you should not say that, the first troops were very good too.