Why does Bush insist on sending more troops over to Iraq when we need to bring our soldiers home.?

Question

I relised during the state of union speech he was asking permisson to send in more army personel to the war over in Iraq.

Answer 1

~Because he doesn't have to actually "fight" in the war. Even the republicans are against this.~

Answer 2

It's a myth that they go home. They go back to Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc. The Iraqi soldiers and police will be fully operational in July when these new troops would also get there. Between our guys, our allies and the Iraqis, there will be about 400,000 guys ready to go in July. Once it's set up, there will be a major crackdown. That will last less than 6 months. The idea is to hit the insurgencey so hard that the Iraqis can defeat them on their own.

Answer 3

Unless you've been in Iraq being shot at and talking to the locals you shouldn't be making assumptions. They are grateful for our presence there and quick to offer what ever little food they have as a thank you. You wont see that on news but it happens everyday. We cant secure Iraq with the troops we have there now I'm going on my third rotation and it would be nice for more people to step up instead of just talking about it.

Answer 4

Who is this? Your English sounds like an Al Qaeda cretin trying to surf for English Anti-Bush comments that you can cut & paste into your newsletter.

We all want to bring the soldiers home, but if we don't finish the job we are going to have a bigger mess that we will probably have to go back and clean up later. The plan is that if we send more troops over we can finish up faster. Its either that or we give up and go home looking like losers.

Answer 5

AS commander in chief, he doesn't have to ask for permission. Of course, the democrats can cut off funding for the conflict, which they have a whole lot of experience doing. They do know how to run. Of course questions like this are interesting. I don't think anyone on here can name another nation that regulates the number of troops involved in a war on a political basis like we do. It makes no difference what the conditions on the ground are. We have shown very effectively that when our politicians get involved you might as well pack up and go home because all these armchair generals know better then anyone else how to conduct the conflict. And if they vote wrong, they just change their mind-especially when presidential elections come up. Simple-just like their brains. scary if not so troubling.

Answer 6

Sure. It's a great idea to bring the troops home and let all the world know it's OK to attack the US cause we can't take care of business.


I VERY highly doubt that 70 some odd percent of the troops are against the war.

HIGHLY DOUBT.

Answer 7

I think (hope) we all can agree that we want our loved ones home more than anything in this world. However, knowing our loved ones like we do..........they are true Americans. They have forged friendships amongst the natives. They have recognized similarities between themselves and families they have met and got to know. Our soldiers did not create this mess; They were stuck with it - we ALL -both parties agreed -put them their. How can they just walk away? I'm sure they'd love to. But at this point, Bush owes it to them to let them do what THEY feel they can. It's time for the AMERICAN people/soldiers to call the shots.

Answer 8

Because simply pulling out isn't an option. It would leave too much chaos, etc.

So he looked at the best way to secure Iraq (specifically Baghdad), so they can finish training the Iraqi security forces, and finish letting the Iraqis take control of their own future, so we can all THEN bring the troops home.

No one wants them there any longer than is needed.

Answer 9

He wants to send more, because the job isn't done yet. As much as I'd like to see the troops come home, I think it's important to make as much effort as possible to actually accomplish the mission before pulling out and leaving the region to disintegrate.

Answer 10

George W Bush has forgotten WHERE the REAL SOURCE of this recent war on terrorism is that's why he's sending them to Iraq !!

For your information, the REAL SOURCE, and "reason for George W Bush asking UK/NATO for Military help" is to deploy troops into AFGHANISTAN... NOT Iraq - which, allegedly is an illegal invasion and a complete waste of Coalition forces lives.. - particularly the lives lost due to "friendly-fire".....

Those "surge troops" SHOULD be re-deployed BACK to AFGHANISTAN...to replace the 77% of US troops that were withdrawn in 2003 to invade Iraq, leaving UK/NATO troops to clear thier mess up in AFGHANISTAN inspite of being grossly under-manned and under-resourced, and having to keep 1 eye on the trigger happy US troops and 1 eye on the terrorists !!

Do the right thing with these new deployments, and finish what you started FIRST in AFGHANISTAN... but hey-ho, it's what US are good at isn't it - invading and withdrawing leaving others to clear up the mess, and taking no responsibility for your actions !!

USA asked UK/NATO for Military help to fight this recent war on terrorism in AFGHANISTAN. Once given, they withdrew 77% and invaded Iraq....????

Please do not spout off about USA coming to UK's aid in WW2... you did NOT !!

You joined WW2 AFTER you were hit in Pearl Harbour.. NOT because you decided to help UK.. so get that fact right !

Answer 11

we don't need more troops, what we need to be doing is bombing the hell out of the place and Iran. The reason i do not support the policy of this war(but I support the principle) is that we refuse to do what is needed.