In Afghanistan? Going after the group that attacked us? Getting Bin Ladin? WHY NOT?
2007-02-19 08:25:42 · 9 answers · asked by ropemancometh 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
That is what was recommended to Rumsfeld from the beginning. Rumsfeld, sec of defense, is the one behind the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many Generals were telling him he needed at least twice as many troops... Rumsfeld said NO.
2007-02-19 08:29:29 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Because each additional troop costs money every day to deploy, and Bin Laden has been prepared to hide for a long time. I think the reality is that he will never be caught.
2007-02-19 16:31:11 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think more like 200 thousand in Afghanistan and Iraq makes sense to end the conflict quickly, get rid of Bin Laden (if he is still alive ) and make a strong democracy out of Iraq. The US needs to offer much more to our young men and women to get the enlistments way up. I was thimking in the neighborhood of 75 thounsand a year for recruiets
2007-02-19 16:41:54 · answer #3 · answered by rallman@sbcglobal.net 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Democracy in Iraq? It will never happen. The country should be split up into 3 sections. The Kurdish north, the Shiites and then the Sunnis. We should then leave and let them fight it out
2007-02-19 16:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by Steven 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well to tell u the truth its just bush wnating to look a good person and basically not caring about if those soldiers have familys or u no dont want to go.he takes all the credit he thinks hes doing the good thing when the people who r over there fighting r my opinoin is if he wants to send more ppl over there he should go over there.so then he can c how it feels
2007-02-19 16:36:14 · answer #5 · answered by BabyGurl 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Unfortunately, I don't think the administration really had much interest in the Afghanistan War. I was just something they had to do before selling the war they really wanted to fight.
2007-02-19 16:29:44 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
DEMS say No, they want to tie the hands of the troops by allowing them only to serve in support of the Iraqi forces. YOu can send your letters to Democrat Murtha.
2007-02-19 16:36:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That would require:
1) Logic
2) Intelligence
3) An administration that isn't bent on world domination (and failing miserably at that too).
2007-02-19 16:28:52 · answer #8 · answered by joemammysbigguns 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
NATO is there. We have the coverage needed. When you become an expert on troop strength we will call you.
2007-02-19 16:29:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 9⤋